Comments on: Because the Food Was Dreadful?

By: Andrew Brehm

Andrew Brehm — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:35:17 +0000

“Besides, if you’re an Al-Qaeda gunman, why fire on a restaurant next door to the Israeli Embassy and not the embassy itself?”

We don’t know if it was an Al-Qaeda gunman. Al-Qaeda usually claim responsibility for whatever they can, to appear powerful and capable.

By: Paco from Sefarad

Paco from Sefarad — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:46:20 +0000

'Al-Halij': Mauritania attackers targeted Israeli ambassador The gunmen that attacked the Israeli Embassy in Mauritania Friday had followed Israeli ambassador Boaz Bizmuth, but he left the embassy compound just a few minutes before the attack, the Persian Gulf-based Al-Halij newspaper reported Sunday morning.The paper also reported that the attackers left two rifles and two unexploded grenades at the scene of the attack.

By: Lee Gillette

Lee Gillette — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:04:57 +0000

No government’s word is good enough for me. And this government is walking a fine line. Of course they would prefer that the restaurant was the target and not the Israeli embassy, because when the embassy’s presence is threatened so is a hell of a lot Western aid, including American military advisors who are part of the Bush Administration’s Pan-Sahelian Initiative to keep terrorists from setting up camp in Mauritania. If the restaurant in question is the nightclub Casablanca, not only Westerners but Bidhane women who throw off their malafas to enjoy the dance floor and a little uninhibited freedom are known to frequent the place, and the fact that it happens to be next door to one of only three Israeli Embassies in Arab League countries is extremely convenient for any gunmen who wish both Westerners and Israelis would leave the country. Sure, the restaurant could’ve been the target, but that “street” — which still wasn’t paved last time I was there — is only a stone’s throw in length, and to anti-Western, anti-Israeli gunmen, whoever they were, I doubt they made much difference between the two. That is, if you’re going to fire at the restaurant and the embassy happens to be there, of course fire on the embassy too as you’re flying by. But I, too, think it’s silly to believe that firing on the embassy was an afterthought to firing on the restaurant. Al-Qaeda wants to destabilize this “democratic”, pro-Western government, and fomenting anti-Israeli Embassy sentiment, which has been going on ever since Madaleine Albright oversaw the signing ceremony that normalized relations between the two countries, is one way to cause the government a lot of problems. Besides, if you’re an Al-Qaeda gunman, why fire on a restaurant next door to the Israeli Embassy and not the embassy itself?

By: Andrew Brehm

Andrew Brehm — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 03:45:29 +0000

Actually, I think it is quote possible.

I read somewhere that there was a victim in the restaurant, and I was wondering why. Al-Qaeda will claim anything they can.

The Israeli guards would likely interfere with an attack close to the embassy when it can be understood as an attack on the embassy.

But if the Mauretanian government says that it was an attack on a restaurant and there is no evidence to the contrary, their word is good enough for me.

By: Paco from Sefarad

Paco from Sefarad — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:26:03 +0000

Al-Qaida affiliate claims attack on Israeli Embassy in Mauritania The Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera said that Al-Qaida in Islamic North Africa, an affiliate of Osama bin Laden's global terror network, issued a statement saying it had carried out the attack Friday morning as a reprisal against Israel's policies in the Gaza Strip.