Talk:2008 Dimona suicide bombing

message: According to these news report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2252970,00.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d4aifBJXqcQ&feature=dir
It was a different set of bombers than those named on this page.  Does anyone know more?Mezigue (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting reports

message: There were two bombers in Dimona. One was shot on the spot. be sure to add that. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thwarted 

message: Please don't rewrite my paraphrases unless you have checked them against the source I used (or any other one you turn up): Atran writes:
The Hamas leadership in Damascus later claimed responsibility for the Dimono attack (after Fatah’s Al-Aqs’ Martyrs Brigades had claimed it) but the politburo clearly did not order it or even known about it (Usama Hamdan, who handles external relations for Hamas in Beirut, initially said he didn’t known who was responsible; and when I asked senior Hamas leaders in the West Bank if this meant that he didn’t know about it, they said, “You can conclude that; we certainly didn’t”). Sources close to Israeli intelligence told me at the Knesset that Mahmoud Zahar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, and Ahmed Al-Ja’abri, the military commander of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, probably wanted to launch an operation across the Israel-Egypt border after Hamas breached the border wall between Gaza and Egypt but couldn’t; so al-Ja’abri called upon his clan ally in Hebron Ayoub Qawasmeh to conduct an operation. Ayoub Qawasmeh then tapped into the young men on the soccer team who had been earnestly waiting to do something for theior comrades and their cause.
:The remodulation 'it is believed' (by whom?) etc ignores that probably meaning 'they conjecture'. It is only one account, circumstantial and hypothetical. The way Atran phrases it, his Knesset sources told him planning some operation 'across the Israeli-Egypt border' which is unintelligible unless we assume Hamas wanted to send people into Egypt from Gaza, and from Egypt back into Israel, from which we are led to guess 'Dimona', but only by conjecture. The reason is not given for why 'they couldn't.' We don't know if Mahmoud Zahar is involved or that is just a guess (this because the academic lit on hamas has outlined several rifts between the political and the military arm concerning such activities in Gaza) The language further suggests by an operation that Dimona wasn't specified. Lastly the source says nothing about a 'cell'. The Hamas soccer team. To understand the point you have to have read the whole chapter where Atran writes for example:
Soccer, paintball, camping, hiking, rafting, body building, martial arts training and other forms of physically stimulating and intimate group action create a bunch of buddies (usually not less than 4 and not more than 12, with a median of 8), who become a “band of brothers” in a glorious cause. It usually suffices that a few (usually at least two) of these action buddies come to believe in the cause, truly and uncompromisingly, for the rest to follow even unto death.
and
For example, Hamas' most-sustained suicide bombing campaign in 2003-2004 involved several buddies from Hebron's Masjad (mosque) al-Jihad soccer team. Most lived in the Wad Abu Katila neighborhood and belonged to the al-Qawasmeh hamula (clan).
Two 'buddies' from this soccer team were contacted by Ayoub and the  Qawasmeh is notorious for disobeying Hamas directives (see 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers). I don't mind anyone entertaining crazy fantasies about my putative 'Hamas whitewashing POV' but that should not affect the correct interpretation of sources I bring to clarify what experts know, or what they say might be the case.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but your source doesn't actually support the specific spin you would like to put on this incident (i.e., that Qawasmeh definitely acted alone), and your objections to my summary are absurdly trivial: The lead says "It is believed," and the body explains exactly who believes this—"Israeli intelligence"! According to Dictionary.com, a cell is "a small group acting as a unit within a larger organization." Am I using the word incorrectly?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't reply if you invent things. I didn't say the Qarasmeh acted alone. You are consistently conjecturing about my putative motives, and these co njectures appear to govern how you read my edits. I edit what the best sources say, punto e basta. So please focus on the sources, not the editor.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere in the long block of text above do I see a specific suggested change to the language. What, exactly, do you propose? (All I can guess is that you want the lead as well as the body to mention "Israeli intelligence," and that you want "cell" to be replaced with some other term. But if that were really the extent of it, I can't imagine you would have taken the time to "explain" Atran to me, rather than making the edit directly. Or maybe you will only accept a blanket revert to your version?) As a general point, I do think the "Perpetrator" column should be limited to those that carried out the attack—not those that didn't. (In the same way, I don't think the "Perpetrator" of 9/11 should be listed as "non-Taliban factions, probably acting without approval from the Taliban leadership."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

text: So you made your edit without reading the source article. One can edit looking at a snippet or read it in the overall context. I try not to impose my terms on the texts I paraphrase, esp. loaded ones. Every Hamas-affiliated person or terrorist referred to in newspapers belongs to a 'cell'. The extensive literature on it makes that organization look far more complex (Atran's point is that pre-existing buddy structures are used because they encourage group solidarity, from which one sounds out potential suicide bombers, without recruiting all of the group to a 'cell'): it has divisions written all over it, infights, disputes between different regional centres; in Hebron alone it has over two or three groups. This and the source I cited show familiarity with this, and sre careful to note that just saying 'Hamas' for anything connected directly or directly to it is dangerous. In the present case, you have one specific incident, and a controversy of claims of responsibility. Where the truth lies is beyond us, the public in so far as the facts are sparse. So, if one has a good source on it, one hews as closely as copyright laws allow to what that source says. It's as simple as that. One must not presume to know the 'truth' or have recourse to simplifications that are belied in our sources. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no controversy over claims of responsibility: Hamas claimed responsibility, and praised the perpetrators.  There' a preponderance of sources that says this, quit plainly. Epson Salts (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no 'controversy' then surely All sources should state what you claim, not merely a preponderance?       ←   ZScarpia   22:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: there's indeed not a single source that says Hamas did not claim responsibility. They all say that. Epson Salts (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

text: The hypothetical preponderance of sources would refer to newspaper reports on the day the attack occurred or in the immediate aftermath. The one source that over 2 years, interviewed the relevant actors came to a different conclusion. Contemporary newspaper reports are worth little if we have scholarship which actually studies the background and details that later emerged, something a newspaper writing at the time cannot have had the time to analyse. Epson Salts. Please reread the evidence given above, rather than ignore it. There is no controversy that Hamas in Damascus made that claim. An informed scholar, who ahad access to Israel intelligence experts, denies there was substance to that claim, and Israeli intelligence thought two leaders in Gaza may be responsible. One does not write encyclopedic articles by erasing some stuff and showcasing other stuff, which is what your edit did.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The single source you cite does not claim Hamas did not take responsibility. It only claims the attack was done without foreknowledge. that is what the article says. Epson Salts (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the point. Not on editor here has denied that the Hamas executive in Damascus made a statement claiming responsibility. The issue here is why you removed the fact that this is not considered a trustworthy claim. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) I didn't remove it (b) it is not a fact  this is not considered a trustworthy claim. Even your single  source acknowledges it was an act planned and executed by the senior Hamas leadership in Gaza. Epson Salts (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: EC: Nothing has been removed. Despite your repeated suggestions to the contrary, I did read your source, and I think the following is a fair summary: "Israeli intelligence believes the attack was ordered by Izzedine al Qassam Brigades commander Ahmed Jabari with the support of Gaza-based Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar; Jabari contacted an ally in Hebron's Qawasameh clan—Ayoub Qawasmeh—who recruited the eventual perpetrators from a local Hamas soccer team. Scott Atran states that the Hamas politburo in Damascus was not informed of the attack." You've repeatedly refused to answer my direct question of how that summary should be improved.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. If the sentence reconstructing what probably occurred is prefaced by 'believe that', the rest cannot be framed in the historic tense as a set of facts. This consideration lay behind my edit. It is elementary.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Write according to the source