IDF commando unit trained to assassinate Saddam in 1992

Haaretz News Ticker ^ | 12/15/2003 | Israel Army Radio

[yonif]

IDF commando unit trained to assassinate Saddam in 1992, operation called off after 5 troops killed during training (Army Radio)

[yonif]

Ping.

[lilylangtree]

Why doesn't Israel use those units to knock off the terrorists closer to home, like yASSer araRAT, Hamas leadership, al-aqsa Brigade leadership, etc.?

[GeronL]

they are in the spotlight, if the world was ever distracted enough.....

[yonif]

It does use these units to kill terrorists. Yasser Arafat is not a target, however, due to politics.

[Kay Soze]

I wish they would whack Yassar and make it look like Osama did it.

[yonif]

More details from Israeli Army Radio website:

Translation:

"Sayaret Matcal was training to eliminate Saddam Hussein in 1992, but the operation was canceled because of the Zehalim Disaster B, that happened while the soldiers were training for the elimination," it was allowed to be published this morning.

The soldiers were supposed to land in Iraq, to intercept the Saddam convey, shoot two missiles at the cemetary in Al Oga, where the funeral for President Saddam's uncle was taking place.

But in November 5, 1992, during the time the soldiers of the Sayaret were training at Zehalim, the disaster occured. One of the soldiers accidently pressed the button to launch the missile, that was shot at the force and killed 5 soldiers. Since the disaster, foreign press reported on the operation that did not happen, but only after the capture of Saddam did the Military Censor allow the publishing of this.

[GeronL]

So it happened at almost the same time Clinton was being elected? I knew there was a connection!

[aquaculture]

Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz did what the Israeli army could not: got rid of Saddam Hussein. Was the U.S. military manipulated by these three and their fellow neocons, most of whom have very close links to Israel, to fight a war on Israel's behalf, a war that was in Israel's interest, but not in America's?

Discuss.

[yonif]

It wasn't a question of Israel not being able to get rid of Saddam. It was a question of Israel not going to get rid of Saddam, following training accident. I think the IDF, based on its past rescue and assasination hits, would have suceeded in the operation.

[aquaculture]

Well Yonif, if they couldn't simply perform a test of the operation on Israeli soil without accidentally killing five of their own soldiers, I hardly think the real deal on Iraqi soil was a slam dunk.

But you know what? Saddam fired at Israel, and so I would've supported an Israeli strike against Saddam. And I hope they would've succeeded. Saddam was a piece of crap.

But I don't support an American strike against Saddam on behalf of Israel, successfully argued for by American Jews like Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Krauthammer, Kristol, Kagan, etc., since those guys are supposed to have America's interests first, not Israel's.

No one on this list will agree with that, since the morality of using American power to further Israel's interests is simply taken as a given by you guys. But it's wrong. I know, I know -- a lot of things in this world are wrong. But this is one of them.

[yonif]

Go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1041148/posts

I just posted an article. The reason the 5 soldiers was killed, was not because they didn't know what to do, but because a real missile was launched in the midst of it instead of a dud, because of a mixup.

[yonif]

Also, Saddam sponsored terrorism which has killed Americans and has tried to kill Americans, like Bush Sr.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172638055.html

[American in Israel]

Was the U.S. military manipulated by these three and their fellow neocons, most of whom have very close links to Israel, to fight a war on Israel's behalf, a war that was in Israel's interest, but not in America's?

Discuss.

So I am suposto believe that an Israeli training accident kept them from whacking Saddam, for twelve years! HA HA HA HA! With two year tours of duty, that is six sets of replacements!
And the only reason America is in Iraq is three friends of some Jews told someone to do it! BWA HA HA HA HA, stop it your killing me...

You think 9-11 mighta coulda have had something to do with it more than, say three Jew lovers and some wishful thinking?!

Better than commanding others to discuss, try THINKING for yourself. Way too much liberal discussion without their brains engaged, makes them think that what they have to say has something to do with reality.

Try this exercise, Sit in your kitchen, and for three months tell the wall it is a door. Report back to me when a door magically appears. (Hey, you may not get a door, but it will keep you out of your neighbors backyard for three months.)

[psychoknk]

I wish they would whack Yassar and make it look like Osama did it.

Even if, hypothetically, Osama did whack Yassar, the Israelis would still be blamed. After all, many, if not most, Arabs think Israel was behind the attack on WTC.

[aquaculture]

Well, if by "killed Americans" you mean dual Israeli-U.S. citizens who live in Israel, then Saddam Hussein has done that, since he has supported terrorist activities against Israelis in Israel. But that is Israel's issue, and those people were attacked as Israelis. It is not the U.S.'s issue, and the Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli civilians, repugnant as they are, are a direct result of Israel's occupation of Arab lands (the West Bank & Gaza). Not that complicated, as more and more Israelis are figuring out for themselves. For example, when the disco in I believe Haifa was bombed a while back, most of the people killed were young Russian Jews and recent emigres, many of whom likely still carried Russian passports. But that horrific attack does not mean that Russia should attack Iraq.

Saddam Hussein has never killed a single American in an act of terrorism (excepting the dual citizen Israeli residents mentioned above; I don't think anyone should be allowed to be a dual citizen between the U.S. and any country, and don't consider a person an American if they've lived someone else for a long time, and are clearly planted there, in both body and spirit. For example, our dear friend "American in Israel," whose interests and loyalties are clear from his handle. Judging by his grammar, he's probably not speaking much English these days). Ergo, the U.S. should not have attacked Iraq; if Israel wanted to, I'd support that, even with U.S. weaponry.

[aquaculture]

Don't take my word for it, American in Israel. Tom Friedman of the New York Times said he could make a list of 25 people without whom there never would have been Operation Iraqi Freedom. Care to guess how many of those 25 would be Likudnik American Jews with very close ties to Israel?

The system got manipulated, kids. Luckily it looks like they won't get the rest of their neocon wish list (Syria, Iran, Sudan, etc.)

[yonif]

1. What about the plan to kill Bush Sr.?

2. Saddam has killed Americans, through his funding of terrorist groups, like the PLO, which was responsible for killing, for example, US diplomats:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26856

Iraq's terrorist links: http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

[aquaculture]

Now Yoni, I like you. We've got a good discussion rolling. American in Israel I don't particularly like, but you seem like a nice fellow.

1) The plot to kill Bush Sr. is not a casus belli in 2003. I didn't support Desert Storm; Iraq views Kuwait as a breakaway province, and we shouldn't be mediating centuries-old civil wars in the Middle East any more than we would in Africa or Indonesia. Hussein wanted to kill Bush because we sent 150,000 troops to attack what he saw as his country. He went after Bush because Bush went after him first. I like Bush Sr. a lot, and I'm glad the attack didn't succeed. But it's no casus belli 10 years later.

2) Nothing in the article you linked to speaks to your point. Yasser Arafat is a scumbag, and I don't have a hard time believing he had a hand in killing a few U.S. diplomats in the 1970s. But Saddam Hussein is mentioned nowhere in the piece you cite.

Again Yoni, you're a good guy, but you're scraping a barrel that's already been scraped by a bunch of people who do this for a living and have come up empty. You're starting from the position that you want the U.S. to attack Iraq, and only then looking for reasons why we should do it. It's supposed to be the other way around.

As Holmes told Watson, it's not good to form your theories before you have your facts, because then you start to twist your facts around to suit your theories, instead of vice-versa.