Stratfor’s conspiracy theory
The Washington Times via UPI via Stratfor:
Fred Burton, vice president of counter-terrorism with Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based outfit specializing in intelligence and counter-terrorism analysis, issued a report on June 22 describing the remotely detonated charge that killed George Hawi, the former Lebanese Communist Part chief, as “so sophisticated that few in the world could have done it.”
The counter-terrorism expert believes that the “complex nature of the Hawi attack narrows down the list of culprits to a few.” Among the countries possessing that level of expertise are the United States, Britain, France, Israel and Russia. “This type of technology is only available to government agencies,” Burton told United Press International.
Burton, who spent 15 years in U.S. counter-terrorism, told UPI that the “surgical nature of the charge” and the skill set that went into these bombings are “not available for your average terrorist organization.”
Apparently the same goes for Samir Kassir.
Categories: Lebanon, Terrorism.
I wouldn’t give this much credence. The Hariri assassination was complex, at least in terms of organisation, but Kassir and Hawi were both “soft” targets and their assassinations were much more typical of those that occur in Lebanon.
The report says the attack on Hawi was highly sophisticated but doesn’t provide any real evidence to justify that claim.
It seems to have been a very small bomb: damage to the car was relatively light, the driver was only slightly injured and, according to some reports, Hawi did not die instantly.
Thanks Brian,
I wasn’t suggesting the report was true, rather I was struck by the odd confluence of Stratfor and the Washington Times on something that, if it was printed in the Arabic press, would immediately be dismissed as yet another crazy conspiracy theory.
It would seem to be common sense to me that, in most cases, the kind of technology and knowledge necessary to carry a high-tech assassination is becoming more and more available — after all, that is the case with most technology these days. RadioShack/Dixon’s and enthusiasm probably goes a long way!
The Washington Times is pretty darn loony-Right.
stratfor is also known for making some pretty ambitious claims that don’t always turn out to be correct. further on in the article, you’ll notice the blame is also spread around to Iran and Rifaat al-Asad, and neither claim is substantiated. Instead, you get “Iran is a terror master” and “Rifaat sure wants that head job.”
While I’m surprised the UPI allowed this to go under their name, it’s somewhat refreshing to see another point of view than just “the syrians, the syrians” put out in the press. because really, the one thing the article is right on is… what do the syrians have to gain?
Well, the insurgents are apparently using shaped-charges in Terrorist Boot Camp, er, yanni, Iraq, so maybe everyone’s skills are getting better these days.
Putting 500 grams of explosives under a car and igniting it with a remote control is not at all high tech. You can find a remote control kit in any electronic shop and any person with a basic knowledge of electronic will know how to use it.
As a computer engineer, I don’t even need a kit to do this, I coud build the detonator myself for less than 20$, it’s very easy.. Not to mention that you could easily use a cellphone or a garage opener to do this.