Last 18 January 2015, Public Prosecutor Alberto Nisman (PP Nisman), Head of
the Special Unit investigating into the bloody bombing of the
Israel-Argentina Mutual Benefit Society (AMIA) on 18 June 1994, was found
dead. He was found with a bullet wound on his head, in the bathroom of his
apartment; all the doors of his house bolted from the inside.

Four days before, he had lodged a poorly drafted report lacking an
evidentiary basis and containing a string of contradictons. The report
accused, without any evidentiary backing, the country’s president,
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the Chancellor Héctor Timerman, and other
persons, of trying to conceal that Iranian officials were responsible for
the attacks. Within days, a covert coup of foreign origin was put in

PP Nisman had been assigned to lead the investigation in 2004. This was
after ten long years, when the most outrageous and irregular trial in
history was discontinued, having failed to nail those responsible for the
bombing that left 85 dead and hundreds injured. This fact appears more like
a link than a coup in the making, in which the following participate: a
section of Argentina’s judiciary, the opposition, the mass media, the CIA
(the Central Intelligence Agency by its English acronym), Mossad, the
United States and Israel.

To understand this, we need to first understand what happened in the AMAI
case and to be aware of the serious irregularities committed when, in the
nineties, the investigation was handed over to US and Israeli intelligence
services that worked with a group from SIDE: the Secretary of Intelligence
of the State of Argentina.

An Investigation under Foreign Control

The bloody bombing moved the country; the judge mandated to carry out the
investigation in July 1994 was Juan José Galeano. It was clear that his
mission commenced under much pressure.

In only 24 hours, the Israeli intelligence – that sent its men to work
from the very outset of the case – and the CIA accused, without any
evidence, the Islamic Repubic of Iran and the Hezbollah of Lebanon.

Even before the investigation began, they offered Argentine Judge Galeano,
an important witness whom Judge Galeano travelled to Venezuela to

The man’s name was Manouchehr Moatamer. He introduced himself as a former
Iranian official that had fled his country. He accused, without any
evidence, the Iranian government of being responsible for the attack. In
little time, his inconsistent statements were demolished. Else put, the CIA
and Mossad had sold to Argentine Judge a false witness.

Moatamer had left Iran with his family in 1993. It is not known how he
arrived in Venezuela in 1994 nor how he ended up as a “protected CIA
witness” in Los Angeles, US,

Galeano’s case continued navigating a sea of irregulairities. But in
1997, Gaelano went to see Moatamer again, this time in the United States.
Moatamer added nothing to his previous statement. In 2008, Moatamer finally
confessed that he had lied to obtain a US visa.

In 1998, again the CIA and Mossan offered another alleged witness, this
time based in Germany. He was Abolghasem Mesbahi, known as “witness C”.
In 1989 the Iranian intelligences had moved Mesbahi from minor assignments
because they suspected him of being a double agent. He worked on private
matters and carried out a series of scams, after which he went to Germany
where he has been based since 1996.

At this time, Mesbahi accused Iran of each of the “terrorist attacks”
that were unexplained throughout the world– what always happens with
attacks under a false flag – such as Lockerbie in Scotland et al.

“Witness C”, who acquired fame on account of the mystery surrounding
his name, saw another opportunity to accuse Iran (with the consent of the
German, US and Israeli services) of the AMIA bombing.

Without any evidence, he recounted his version in Germany before a national
judge and an Argentine judge, Juan José Galeano, who travelled to Germany
in 1998.

“In the proceedings, Mesbahi made five declarations under oath on the key
issues. He gave five different versions each contradiciting the other, that
could never be admissible as evidence. Only expressions and words, and, of
course, his conjectures and inference”, sums up the lawyer Juan Gabriel
Labaké in his book, “AMIA-Embajada, verdad o fraude?”

The lawyer Labaké (clearly no government supporter), took a trip to
Tehran, Europe and the United States, gathering information and
interviewing important sources. He finally came to the conclusion that
there was no evidence against Iran in the AMIA case, neither when Galeano
was in charge, nor when PP Nisman was in charge. Furthermore that PP
Nisman, only gathered together and rewrote his predecessor’s documents
and gave them some structure; however, he always accused Iran, as
instructed to do by Washington and Tel Aviv.

On 16 May 2010, Gerth Porter, a journalist writing for The Nation, wrote an
article indicating that when he interviewed James Cheek, the US ambassador
in Argentina at the time of the AMIA attack, the latter said:
“I know that there was no real evidence that Iran is involved. They never
proved anything.”

What is strange is that at the time PP Nisman accuses Iran in 2006, it was
already known that both witnesses were not credible and the UK Courts also
had dimissed, a request for extradition against the former Iranian
ambassador in Argentina, Hadi Soleimanpour because there was no evidence.
The Iranian diplomat was doing a course in London when they detained him in
2003 until the request for extradition arrived. But they were forced to
release him in 2004 and to pay him compensation totally 189 000 pounds

The International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) also dismissed
the first request for red alert for lack of evidence. Ditto for the second
request in 2013, for a special request of the Cristina Fernández de
Kirchner government and the Treasurer Héctor Timerman, that to date, does
not even have the foundation of the events that the Judge Rodolfo Canicoba
Corral asked Nisman to investigate. We now know that Nisman had not
managed to gather evidence, but only mere circumstantial evidence -
inferences - that serve neither justice nor the truth.

The first AMIA proceedings had to be discontinued on account of scandals
and serious irregularities. One of these was that Judge Galeano, with the
support of Ruben Berajas, who was then president of the Delegation of
Argentine-Jewish Associations (DAIA), paid 400,000 dollars to Carlos
Telledin, a person who deals in stolen cars, to accuse Iranian diplomats
and the police in the Province of Buenos Aires.

The latter were detained for five years and had to be released for a total
lack of evidence and having no connection to the proceedings. So the
outrageous end to these proceedings.

The records of the proceedings relating to the bloody AMIA bombings was a
tangled network of falsehoods and lies, pressures and interests that forced
the proceedings to end in 2004. The then president Néstor Kirchner
(2003-2007) urged the judge to proceed, investigation further till he
reached the truth.

A Special Unit for the AMIA proceedings was then established. Pursuant to a
decision of the Attorney General’s Office, it would be led by PP Alberto
Nisman. This was surprising because Nisman had been part of the proceedings
that begun in July 1994 and closed 10 years later: a failure that had not
achieved anything.

The Nisman Affair

It was in 1997, in Morón, in the province of Buenos Aires, that Nisman
began his journey to his final position as Public Prosecutor. In his
career, one case marked his path. This was the investigation into the fate
of Iván Ruiz and José Díaz, two participants in the failed attack on the
headquarters in La Tablada in January 1989. This attack was led by a former
guerrilla leader, Enrique Gorriarán Melo, when the democratic government
of Raúl Alfonsín was in power. Both Iván Ruiz and José Díaz were
detained after a bloody clash that left several dead and injured. The last
time they were seen they were being brutally tortured and hauled away by
soldiers and police in a Ford Falcon automobile.

Until now they had “disappeared”. But both Nisman and the judge that
put him in charge of the investigation, supported the Army’s official
version that “they had died in combat” despite evidence of their forced

In July 1997, the then Attorney General Nicolás Becerra called him to join
Public Prosecutors, José Barbaccia and Eamon Mullen (both of whom had
expressly requested this), to investigate the bombing of the Jewish Mutual
Cooperation Association, AMIA.

According to the Argentine Government’s Infojus Noticias, “the team of
Nisman, Barbaccia and Mullen worked up to the oral proceedings but it did
not end well”. During this proceedings on account of a so-called “local
connection” many witnesses said that the team and Judge Juan José
Galeano had made a string of irregularities that were confirmed.

At the end of the hearings, the Oral Tribunal acquitted the criminal Carlos
Telleldín, to whom the judge handed over 400 000 dollars so that he accuse
Iranian officials and police, with the approval of Rubén Berajas, then
President of the powerful Delegation of Jewish Argentine Associations.

In the reasons of the judgement, he accused Galeano (who wound up destitute
and prosecuted), his team and the public prosecutors, Mullen and
Barbaccia, who were also prosecuted.

“In the oral phase of the proceedings it is demonstrated that they made
absolutely no investigations whatsoever” in the AMIA proceedings. So
declared the lawyer Juan Carlos García Dietze to Infojus Noticias. He
defended Ariel Nizcaner, who was acquitted of having participated in the
adulteration of the van Traffic, that was supposed to have been used in the

“It has always been a paradoxal issue: Barbaccia and Mullen were charged,
and Nisman continued in post. It is bizarre”, reflected García Dietze.

In 2004, Nisman, now heading the Special Unit that centralized all the
investigations related to the bombing, approaches Antonio Stiusso, alias
“Jim”. Jim was a key figure in the then Secretariat of State
Intelligence, the former SIDE. He had been removed from the AMIA
proceedings because of his role in the procedural irregularities. However
with Nisman, he reassumed a position of importance. Both worked with the
CIA and Mossad.

The Special Unit received significant sums of money to investigate. But
Nisman alone worked on sorting through Galeano’s documents. He continued
to hold the Iranians responsible even though no evidence had been obtained
over the last ten years to corroborate his charge. His first request for
red alert against the 12 Iranian diplomats and officials that were charged,
was dimissed for lack of evidence. This is exactly what happened when he
made a request to London for the extradition of Hadi Soleimanpour, the
former Iranian embassador in Argentina. The British court dismissed the
request for lack of evidence and paid compensation to the diplomat in 2004.
A shameful event for Argentine justice.

Nisman and the US Embassy

For ten long years, the documents that Nisman was investigating included
«reports based on a series of deductions» without any real evidence,
impossible to corroroborate, that the CIA and Mossad had provided as well
as their false witnesses.

In 2010, when a series of US Department of State secret cables relating to
the AMIA proceedings (revealed by Wikileaks) were published in Argentina,
there was evidence that PP Nisman forewarned them of the measures he was
going to take in relation to their Embassy’s diplomats.

These discoveries did not lead to a key measure being taken – removing
the Public Prosecutor from this case because “iudex qua parte in causa
stare non potest” (which is what happened in his relationship of
subordination to the United States and Israel).

The Iranian track did not succeed in collecting specific evidence. However
there is no doubt it favoured the geopolitical interests of both countries
that continue to try to invade Iran, connecting this situation to the
heralded imperial plan of an enlarged Middle East which meant invasions and
colonial occupations of different countries in this region in the 20th
Century. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence should ever have
participated, monitored or armed the AMIA proceedings.

In a communiqué of 22 May 2008 sent from the US diplomatic office in
Buenos Aires, it is specifically stated:
“Officials of our Legal Office have recommended to PP Alberto Nisman that
he focus on those that carried out the bombing and not on those that divert
the investigation.”

This was the same time that the then federal judge, Ariel Lijo, ordered the
detention and investigation of the former president, Carlos Menem, his
brother Munir (now dead), the then head of SIDE, Hugo Anzorreguy, and
others, such as the judge Juan José Galeano and the former Commissioner,
Jorge Palacios, for covering up the bombing.

Nisman had not informed the US Embassy of this development as he normally
used to. Other cables from WikiLeaks show that the Public Prosecutor in the
AMIA Proceedings had apologized to the US officials for not having
anticipated requests for detention. There are several cables on this issue,
published by the journalist Guillermo O’Donell.

As early as 2013, Memoria Activa and families and friends of the victims of
the July 1994 attack declared that Nisman be removed from the AMIA
proceedings. In November 2013, in an open letter to the Public Prosecutor,
the families supported the Memorandum of Understanding between Argentina
and Iran and challenged “Nisman’s lack of commitment and his inertia in
the proccedings”, considering him “functional to the interests of those
that always want to keep us away from the truth”.

The Memorandum of Understanding with Iran is an authentic document of
foreign policy that sets a precedent in unsuccessful dispute resolution, as
was the AMIA case. It was about Judges in the AMIA proceedings going to
Tehran to investigate, in the presence of a Commission made up of
recognized and neutral personalities, Iranian high officials – without
evidence of the bombing. For the first time, one could know the truth,
whatever it was.

20 years after the attack, on 19 July 2014, the victims’ families not
only made another request for clarification of the facts but also formally
requested that Nisman be taken off the case “having shown his total
inability to investigate in this Case”. So complained Diana Malamud of
Memoria Activa.

Iran has always offered to cooperate; but the CIA and Mossad have rejected
any possibility of this. No sovereign country in the world was going to
hand over a group of officials, charged on an insufficient evidentiary
basis, to the courts of a third country. Iran even made a proposal to
establish a Mixed Commission (Argentine-Iranian) to investigate the AMIA

In Iran there is no extradition. That is why the government of Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner tried to find a way, that was unfathomably rejected
by the Government of Israel.

The DAIA and the AMIA, that had supported the Memorandum in the principle
had to bow to the Israeli mandate. The Argentine opposition quickly allied
itself to this refusal and then judges rose declaring that the law was not
constitutional, which was a legal aberration.

Iran had been expecting this outcome. What noone knew was that, on the
basis of false complaints, this issue would be converted into a manoeuvre
for a coup against the Government of Fernández de Kirchner, a government
that worked for the truth. This may be observed from its efforts before the
United Nations and its own Memorandum.

On 12 January 2015, in the middle of this judicial recess, and interrupting
a trip that he had taken to go to Europe to celebrate the 15th birthday of
one of his daughters, PP Nisman, Head of the investigations into the AMIA
bombings, decided to return unexpectedly to Argentina. He sent a message to
his closest friends on WhatsApp to let them know.

Just one day after reaching Buenos Aires, Nisman announced that he was
going to file a complaint against the President of the Nation, the
Chancellor and Andrés Larroque, a Member of Parliament and Leader of the
Youth Movement La Cámpora and against 2 social leaders, Luis D’Elía and
Fernando Esteche, for allegedly attempting to cover up the Iranians
accused, by a secret agreement with Iran for “trade”, an agreement that
never existed.

The Dirty War Plot

As we know, on 18 January, Nisman was found dead in his apartment. But PP
Nisman’s rigorous inquiry continues so that its final conclusions are

The Judicial Recess permitted PP Nisman to choose his judge. He chose
Ariel Lijo. She takes cases invented against government officials for
complaints based on journalistic information and without evidence. On 14
January, Nisman presented his report. It generated much scandal however he
did not substantiate his incriminations, nor did he produce any evidence of
the bombing that killed 85 persons in 1994.

Immediately, opposition leaders rose to support him, because this notice
enabled them to mount a brutal attack against the government in election

PP Nisman promised that he would publicise the telephone tappings (illegal
still today) in order to justify his charge. On 19 January he went to
present his complaint before the Committee for Criminal Legislation of the
House of Representatives, summoned by the opposition, although government
support was also going to be present, to ask that this event to be open to
the public and not held huis clos.

The phonetappings of conversations between social leaders and a person of
the Islamic community broadcast illegally by a television channel of the
Opposition could never prove anything. But on 19 January, Nisman’s death
shocked the country, attracting the attention even of those outside

In declarations made before the new public prosecutor, Nisan’s former
wife, Judge Sandra Arroyo Salgado, who was in Barcelona, Spain, with the
other daughter of her marriage, stated that Nisman called her on 12 January
from Barajas Airport, Madrid. He told her that he had to return urgently to
Buenos Aires because his mother was going to have an operation on one of
her arms; that then he was going to return to Europe to continue his

Arroyo Salgado says they had argued because she refused Nisman to return
with his daughter to Buenos Aires and they agreed that he leave her in the
airport so that her mother arrives to pick her up from Barcelona.

It is should also be noted that Nisman’s mother, Sara Garfunkel, declared
in the proceedings that her arm had already been operated on. Nisman had
lied to his family about having to return in great haste.

For this reason, the question is:

 Who called Nisman so urgently to file, only two days after his return, a
complaint against a person of no lesser stature than the President?

Viviana Fein, the Public Prosecutor now investigating Nisman’s death, by
any reckoning under intense pressure, said that the deceased had bought a
return ticket from 12 January to 31 December. This then begs another

 Why did he send a message on WhatsApp to his closest friends, that he had
to return unexpectedly? According to the press of the opposition, he sent
it before he revealed that he had already bought the ticket. Or was it a
plot that had already been woven beforehand?

The accusation was the bombshell at the beginning of the election year and
the right wing Member of Parliament Patricia Bullrich, of Unión Por
Todos-Propuesta Republicana, swiftly organized for Nisman to explain the
report to a Congressional Committee.

Bullrich, who had spoken several times with PP Nisman before his death, is
linked to several US foundations in Argentina; so is the MP Laura Alonso.
Both of them are distinguished for supporting the most fundamentalist
sectors of the United States against Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina or any
country playing a prominent role in Latin American integration.

On the afternoon of Sunday 18 January, PP Nisman’s mother found him dead.
Two guards had called her when he failed to respond. The flat was locked
from within, including the service door that has two bolts; the one at the
top, the mother was able to open but the one at the bottom had a key that
was jammed from inside and they had to call a locksmith to open it.

Nisman’s body prevented the bathroom door being opened. There was a
gunshot on his head, a pistol and a cartridge case of 22 bullet calibre
were at his side, on the floor. A horrifying image. He was 51 years old.
And the preliminary results from the autopsy carried out by acclaimed
forensics in the presence of experts ruled that «no third party had
intervened ».

All this information, as well as that subsequently discovered, mentioned a
gunshot only a little more than 1 centimetre on his right temple. This
makes one think it was suicide. The death was classified as
“suspicious” until the experts concluded, some repeated that there was
no doubt.

President Fernández de Kirchner, in her first Tweet, never said that it
was a suicide. She even cast doubt on this, by putting a question mark
after the word. And in her second Tweet she gave greater articulation to
her belief that it was not a suicide. In any event, not an induced suicide,
and specifically not induced by the government, given that in actual fact,
her government is the only one that is affected in this game of foreign and
local secret services and the domestic opposition, largely dependent on
Washington and its foundations.

From Bolivia, President Evo Morales defined this situation accurately. He
said they ambushed the Argentine President, in order to undermine her

It is a terrifying oversimplification to think that a government whose
president is accused without any proof, on the basis of a report so
deficient that it does not even appear to be drafted by a public
prosecutor, could trigger the tragic death of this man.

The local political opposition, that already armed several coup scenarios
in the country, took the fact as a red flag to charge the government. The
media, especially the Group Clarin, that refuses to comply with the
Audiovisual Media Law that required ending harmful media monopolies, began
to speculate, thus confusing the population, a prisoner to this enormous
power of misinformation.

The information had an intoxicating effect on the people such that noone
knew how to distinguish the Investigating Public Prosecutor’s Report from
the “parallel reports” that were broadcast on stage on TV.

It was the government that insisted that the meeting in the Congress was
open to the public. This was so that the whole world could see what was
going to be discussed there. Curiously, this was something the opposition
rejected. The Governement legislators from the very moment that Bullrich
summoned the special audience, declared that they were meeting to
thoroughly question the Public Prosecutor to get to the the bottom of the
matter. The Public Prosecutor’s death prevented this.

Nisman’s death is being used in a peverse manner by the opposition media
network and by the entire network of global misinformation, under the reins
of hegemonic power trying to inculpate the government in one of the
fiercest campaigns we can recall.

The covert coup is being carried out by a sector of the Judiciary (a
decadent structure that never has been democratised), by mass media, the
opposition and the action of local intelligence services that were
displaced by the Executive and came from the former dictatorship and before
it. But undoubtedly, by the United States and Israel as well.

On the morning of 19 January 2015, the State of Israel published in the
United States a brief press release on the “tragic circumstances” of
the death of Nisman. A phrase that is code for “suicide”. And on the
same day, the DAIA Secretary General, Jorge Knoblovits said to the
Argentine media – as it is recorded– that “they think that it was a
suicide” and that this entity was concerned on account of fate of the
Proceedings. Why then did they change track?

Continuing with the line of action taken by the Israeli State, they
encouraged continuing with the Proceedings – as if suggesting that
someone had spoken of abandoning it. Also, of bringing to justice those
responsible for the crime and continuing with what Nisman was doing. This
means – and this cannot be lost sight of– maintaining the charge
against Iran – which means continuing in the closed circle that began in
July 1994 with false clues and false witnesses. What lies in the shadows of
this Case?

At the scene of the crime

Diego Lagomarsino was a close colleague of the late public prosecutor. He
was “an IT expert”, contracted by PP Nisman on an unusually high
salary. He went to see PP Nisman on Saturday, 17 January. Lagomarsino
presented himself spontaneously to the court to say that he had taken an
old weapon, a calibre 22 pistol, which PP Nisman subsequently used to
commint suicide.

First he said that Nisman asked him for a pistol to defend himself. But
actually, Lagomarsino went twice to the building where PP Nisman was
living, a building that was supposedly secure and highly patrolled, a
service offered to those who bought flats in this area. From the last visit
in the night, there are no records of him leaving. Fein, the investigator,
said that according to the log, Lagomarsino left on Sunday morning, that
is, the day after Nisman died.

The complete report published on 20 January is undeniably an item without
legal value on account of the way it is written, its contradictions and its
lack of evidence. The illegal phone tappings that were publicised by a
television channel controlled by the Opposition also violated all rules.
Yet they do not add anything. On the contrary, they make it look infantile.
Recognized jurists indicate that although all what is said was certain, it
does not constitute a crime because none of this took place.

A curious fact which is not acknowledged in the media: Damian Pachter, a
collaborator on the Buenos Aires Herald internet site, on the night of 18
January twittered without notifying his paper, the scoop that PP Nisman had
been found dead. He decided to leave the counry on the grounds of
“fear”. First he bought a return ticket to Uruguay; but suddenly he
appeared in Tel Aviv.

But what is strange is that he left for Uruguay and then went to Israel
where he claims to have sought asylum. But we know that Pachter is
Argentine-Israelí and that he travelled on an Israeli passport.

If he was an Israeli citizen and had been in the Israeli army for three
years, why did he seek asylum?

Lagomarsino also was arranging to update his passport. This is why he went
to the relevant offices on the same day that PP Nisman had published his
accustations (12 January). Immediately after PP Nisman’s death, the
authorities retained his passport and prevented him from leaving the

The suspicion surrounding Pachter grew when he gave several interviews to
European media, where he talked of journalists being persecuted in
Argentina – Argentina where the Opposition’s media publishes articles
that insult the president and other officials without any problem.

Another important fact to record. PP Nisman used a luxury car, an Audi,
from the son-in-law of one of those charged as a local accessory in the
AMIA proceedings: Hugo Anzorreguy, who was the former head of the SIDE at
the time AMIA was blown up. He was also connected to the former CIA agent
Frank Holder, of little known business in Central America, that like many
other former agents of other countries, handles local security companies.

In the United States, the most stubborn groups, like Republican Marco
Rubio, Bob Menéndez and others, accuse the President and the Government of
Argentina without any proof. This threatens and pressurizes the local
Argentine judges, just like the Argentina mass media does, that in various
ways, warns public prosecutors and judges that this case, like the AMIA
case, they have to attribute “culpability” to those that they see fit.
What is more, the calls of these lawmakers, sheds light on their connection
with the Argentine Right.

They want to remove the government in a way that appears in conformity with
due process; a bloodless coup, but with deaths. They do not want the truth.

In addition to striking Argentina at the same time that a prospect of a
coup against President Nicolás Maduro was growing in Venezuela, they try
to weaken institutions for unity and integration that are gathering
strength in Latin America.

If something was missing in ending this series, it was made known that the
former president of Uruguay, José Mujica, denied the story that a diplomat
of the Iranian Embassy in Montevideo was expelled 2 weeks before in
relation to the placement of an explostive device in the vicinities of the
Israeli embassy in this city. This verison was published in the Israeli
newspaper, Haaretzy, and picked up again by serveral media outlets around
the world.

But there still is one question that may have a quick response: what are
the experts of false flag attacks in our countries now plotting?

 “Buenos Aires bombing in 1994 allegedly instigated by former Interior Minister”, Voltaire Network, 3 July 2013.
 “Argentina’s President slams Israel Lobby”, Voltaire Network, 18 February 2013.
 « Mensaje de Cristina Fernández sobre el Memorandum entre Argentina e Iran», por Cristina Fernández de Kirchner , Red Voltaire , 8 de febrero de 2013.
 “False Flag Attacks in Argentina: 1992 and 1994”, by Adrian Salbuchi, James Fetzer, Voltaire Network, 13 October 2009.
 “Iran and the AMIA Bombing in Argentina”, by Belén Fernández, Voltaire Network, 26 July 2009.
 «El AJC acusa al Hezbollah de los atentados de Buenos Aires a pesar del fallo de la Corte Suprema argentina», Red Voltaire , 16 de agosto de 2006.
 «Fuga documentación clasificada de inteligencia sobre atentado terrorista», por José Petrosino, Oscar Abudara Bini, Red Tango, Red Voltaire , 27 de septiembre de 2006.
 «Se acusa a los musulmanes de los ataques a AMIA y la embajada de Israel sin pruebas», por Juan Gabriel Labaké, Red Voltaire , 4 de septiembre de 2006.
 «Investigando la bomba en la Asociación Mutual Israelita», por José Petrosino, Red Voltaire , 22 de julio de 2006.
 «¿Musulmanes o pista israelí?», por José Petrosino, Oscar Abudara Bini, Red Voltaire , 22 de julio de 2006.
 «Washington pretende rescribir la historia de los atentados de Buenos Aires», por Thierry Meyssan, Red Voltaire , 20 de julio de 2006.
 «Kirchner y el sistema de inteligencia argentino», por Jorge Serrano Torres, Red Voltaire , 26 de septiembre de 2004.
 «Nota del ministerio de las relaciones exteriores de Argentina, 25 de Agosto de 2003», Red Voltaire , 25 de agosto de 2003.

Anoosha Boralessa
Contralínea (Mexico)