Iran supreme leader says Israel, US behind attacks in Iraqi cities

Sad, sad, sad when you have a government that you can easily picture doing something like this.

They sure as hell can't back down from all their big talk about the elections happening 'on schedule'. And they sure can't afford a Shi'ite government.

Soooooo, 'uh, it could happen.'

I was thinking the same thing.

this was Negroponte up to his old El-Salvador type tricks.

I don't (yet) believe it was,but after illegally invading,& killing thousands,what's a couple of car-bombs?
It's not the most horrific thing that the Coalition has been responsible for.

:shrug: :tinfoilhat: :shrug:

Pinochet
Saddam Hussein
Shah of Iran
House of Saud
Mubarak
Musharraf
etc etc etc...

Even after the torture, rape, murder, and so on perpetrated by some of our soldiers out there, I just can't believe that they could do somethign like this.

Individuals are capable...entire units to just kill people? I just have to believe that if there were hundreds of americans in the know about being behind these attacks that at least ONE Of them would get information to the press about it being a criminal action.

Our soldiers follow orders, but they're not blind to what they're doing. Some would have to recognize doing this would be wrong, particularly if afterward they find out that it was blaned on others.

Are we saying that the U.S. has a small special forces death squad going around the country creating havoc? Or is it just as likely that the Iraqi insurgents just don't want any kind of order or progess in Iraq?

I think it seems more likely to me that it's the Insurgents.

You really have to look at how many other bombs go off and how some stupid group takes responsibility for almost every one within 48 hours. These unusual car bombings often take place under suspicious circumstances and no one takes responsibility, or a unknown group comes forward, which could be anyone.

Unless the incident can be verified then you have to assume that all parties involved could be guilty of the action. We've been caught red handed doing this kind of thing many times before.

perhaps if they told them a story about who they were attacking...aren,t they capable of misleading the troops?:tinfoilhat:

In Italy, on 3 August 1990, then-prime minister Giulio
Andreotti confirmed the existence of a secret army code-
named “Gladio” - the Latin word for “sword” - within the state.
His testimony before the Senate subcommittee
investigating terrorism in Italy sent shockwaves through
the Italian parliament and the public, as speculation arose
that the secret army had possibly manipulated Italian
politics through acts of
terrorism.

Andreotti revealed that the secret Gladio army had been
hidden within the Defense Ministry as a subsection of the
military secret service, SISMI. General Vito Miceli, a f
ormer director of the Italian military secret service, could
hardly believe that Andreotti had lifted the secret, and
protested:

"I have gone to prison because I did not want to reveal
the existence of this super secret organization. And
now Andreotti comes along and tells it to parliament!"
According to a document compiled by the Italian military
secret service in 1959, the secret armies had a two-fold
strategic purpose: firstly, to operate as a so-called “stay-
behind” group in the case of a Soviet invasion and to carry out
a guerrilla war in occupied territories; secondly, to carry
out domestic operations in case of “emergency
situations”.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GAN412A.html

that the U.S. or Israel is behind the bombings. And what would be the motive? Never mind, I know some tin foiler is going to give me some twisted explanation. How about the election workers dragged out of their car and shot in broad daylight by individuals who didn't even bother to hide their faces? I suppose
American troops or those in the employ of the Americans did that too? Isn't it enough to say that in many ways the U.S. is responsible for everything that's happening in Iraq, without defying logic and evidence and insisting that the U.S. is directly committing acts that the insurgents are committing?

Sometimes I can't tell if the U.S. is involved in the crimes or just letting them take place.

For instance, 911, inside job, convenient overlooking of the obvious events as they unfolded, or sheer ignorance and failure of the system? Is it even possible for the gov't to pull off big conspiracies, knowing about the thousands of people it would take to do so, and the huge possibility of many information leaks? Or is it just a matter of fooling most of the people, most of the time?

"Is it even possible for the gov't to pull off big conspiracies, knowing about the thousands of people it would take to do so, and the huge possibility of many information leaks?"

I'd argue that it's highly unlikely. Human nature is actually not conducive to large scale conspiracy.

9/11 strikes me as a perfect example of willful ignorance. Is that the same as complicity? Not really, but it can be condemned in it's own right.

Human nature is actually not conducive to large scale conspiracy.

Sure it is, It's called self deception.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm

From a fellow DUer!

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Actually, the above IS a DU thread w/ posts!

I have called their headquarters twice a day for the past three weeks, and not even one of them has the guts to admit that they reprogrammed the computers. They seem to be able to run a large scale conspiracy.

If you look at what happened in Abu Ghraib its clear that when all the pieces are put into place and the the right environment is created people will do exactly what you want. See it doesn't have to be a big conspiracy. Everything is just a series of small events that happen naturally. The key is that people will behave in very predictable ways.

Cui bono, always!

Why does every voter mishap benefit Bush?

Why, when votes are found-Washington Sate/King Co)
does a rep.judge hear the case
and then decide the votes shouldn't be counted?

IRR 121904

At about 7:30am Sunday morning, Iraqi Resistance
forces attacked a white car being driven by members of
the puppet so-called “Iraqi national guard” on Hayfa Street
in Baghdad’s al-Karakh district. Four puppet policemen were killed and more than
10 others wounded. Two puppet national guards were killed
and seven others wounded.
were
killed in the attack, witnesses told Mafkarat al-
Islam.

Iraqi Resistance fighters threw hand grenades at US troops
on foot at Sahat at-Tala’i‘ Vanguards’ Square on Hayfa Street
in Baghdad’s al-Karakh district at about 3pm Sunday, killing
four American soldiers.

Resistance executes members of so-called Iraqi “election commission.”

Three members of the puppet so-called “high commission
for elections were killed on Sunday when Resistance
fighters opened fire on their cars in the Sahat at-
Tala’i‘ Vanguards’ Square – Hayfa Street area in
central Baghdad’s al-Karakh district.

Al-‘Arabiyah satellite TV reported a spokesman for the so-
called “commission,” Farid Ayyar, as saying that the
Resistance fighters in two cars attacked the commissioners
in their cars on Hayfa Street. Witnesses said the
Resistance fighters were carrying Kalashnikov assault rifles
and handguns. They blocked the street and checked out
the faces of those in the cars before opening fire and
killing them.

Bush 9:50amC today
"We're helping Iraqi people to defend themselves and move
the political process forward."

That's why we invaded.
Please

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

They have been given a blank check to do anything.

The divide and conquer has been the modus operandi of the UK and US for years, and only the US populace denies this reality. It's not tin foil hat material at all, because it's been historically documented that the US and UK operate is such a manner.

You might want to read All The Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471265179/102-2308825-3733702?v=glance

You want a motive? You think the US wants a Shi'ite driven government in the likes of Sistani, or even Sadr, which might foment growing ties with Iran. Have you read about British occupation in Iraq during the 20's? Have you read about the US and CIA involvement in Iraq during the 50's?

Here's some articles dealing with that US involvement:

http://www.bpamoco.org.uk/world/03-03-14nyt.htm

This history is known to many in the Middle East and Europe, though few Americans are acquainted with it, much less understand it. Yet these interventions help explain why United States policy is viewed with some cynicism abroad. George W. Bush is not the first American president to seek regime change in Iraq. Mr. Bush and his advisers are following a familiar pattern.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

From 1973-75, the United States, Iran, and Israel supported a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq. Documents examined by the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence "clearly show that the President, Dr. Kissinger and the hoped that our clients would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap resourcesY. This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise." Then, in 1975, the Shah and Saddam Hussein of Iraq signed an agreement giving Iran territorial concessions in return for Iran's closing its border to Kurdish guerrillas. Teheran and Washington promptly cut off their aid to the Kurds and, while Iraq massacred the rebels, the United States refused them asylum. Kissinger justified this U.S. policy in closed testimony: "covert action should not be confused with missionary work." (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976, pp. 85, 87n465, 88n471. The Pike Report attributes the last quote only to a "senior official"; William Safire, Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333, identifies the official as Kissinger.

Every time Iraq seeks a national identity, The US and UK come in to thwart such aspirations and plans. This is how the US and the CIA propped up Saddam. Where the US and UK fail is that they refuse to realize that outside of the Kurds, the Iraqis actually have a strong sense of national identity.

Yet we had a president who lied our country into an misconceived and illegal war in Iraq over WMDs that were never there. And then our citizens elected him as president.

So who has the worse credibility problem between the two?

My own personal opinion is that I do not know who is responsible for these actual car bombings. But I do know for a fact that I never heard about any car bombings in Iraq before the USA invaded and occupied that country.

Don

Hmmmm...Decisions, decisions...Who to believe?

Our leader or their leader?

Well, at least I know the one who isn't credible, so I guess I'm halfway there!

The war and continued occupation are all that is needed to stoke the resistance. If all we wanted was a secular Baath government, well, we toppled it two years ago didn't we? These attacks are home grown Resistance to an occupation, in my humble opinion.

who else benefits

notice noone claiming it.

Where's Zarqawi when you need him.

it's snowing, stupid jews! I dropped my kitty kitty, stupid Americans. If other, more 'respectable' governments accused the US of this I would at least listen to the argument. The Arab governments blame everything on Israel so it's difficult to know when to take them seriously.

"If all we wanted was a secular Baath government, well, we toppled it two years ago didn't we?"

Who on this topic posited such a theory? With all due respect, I think you miss the point. The US and UK will use all parties that will support a US/UK puppet government within Iraq, including Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds. It's called divide and conquer, and it will ensure that Allawi or another US stooge gets installed. Hey, it's freedom on the march, and the US will choose for any nation the appropriate form of democracy the US deems will serve its own best interests.

History gives us evidence of the US and UK using a divide and conquer policy throughout the world. To suggest that one should now ignore a concatenation of US, UK, and Israel policy in the ME over the past sixty years, and not even consider this involvement as a valid consideration in extending to events in Iraq today, is a rather specious and unfounded argument.

Not even the US government and CIA deny the dubious involvement they had within the ME. Neither does Israel.

Remember the role Israel had in selling arms to the Iranians during the 80's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

The Israeli government approached the United States in August 1985 with a proposal to act as an intermediary by shipping 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of the Reverend Benjamin Weir, an American hostage being held by Iranian sympathizers in Lebanon, with the understanding that the United States would then ship replacement missiles to Israel. Robert McFarlane, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, approached United States Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and arranged the details. The transfer took place over the next two months.

Israel was actually selling arms to the Iranians prior to 1985 without US permission. The fear of Israel then was Iraq, and the Israeli government did not want Iran to win the war, only to keep Iraq at bay and the region in disarray.

Incidentally, it's my understanding that the US is seeking help from former Baathists to assist in the occupation. In addition, Rumsfeld was on record during a press conference over a year ago that the US would never accept a new Iraqi government with Shi'ite influence that could extend to Iran.

Wed. Jul. 21 2004 11:31 PM ET

The UN voted 150-6 late Tuesday to approve a
resolution demanding that the structure be demolished
and reparations be paid to Palestinians harmed by
its construction.
Palestinians hailed the ruling as a major
victory.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1090404369357_79/?hub=TopStories

And this was a good vote for the US/Israel Likudniks
because they got 6 votes.

Good fences make good neighbors.

Israel must:

1) Declare it's borders
2) Open the City of Jerusalem
The only nation to have it's capital in
occupied territory
3) Divorce religion from it's gov't

or get a new empire (China?) to back them, cause the US
is about to run out of blood and treasure.

Who needs evidence? If somebody accuses the US government and Israel, it MUST be true.

Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit warned that Israel's retaliative strikes against Palestinians risked plunging the region into a war, far worse than in Afghanistan.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1204-06.htm

Mafkarat al Islam

But there have been frequent calls from western
imperialist quarters, however, for the partition of Iraq
along sectarian and ethnic lines. (See, for example Leslie
H. Gelb’s article “Three-State Solution” in The New York
Times, 25 November 2003; Peter Galbraith “How to get out
of Iraq” in the New York Review of Books, 13 May 2004, and
“Iraq: the bungled transition” in the New York Review of
Books, 23 September 2004. US ambassador to Iraq and son of John K Galbraith.
Peter Galbraith has written on the partition of Iraq in
The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Wall
Street Journal]; Jack Cannon “The Three State Solution” in
Slice magazine, 21 May 2004; and Liam Anderson and
Gareth Stansfield’s book The Future of Iraq, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.). To that end there have
been repeated attempts by the US occupation forces,
their stooge regime, and pro-American clerics to stir
up sectarian hostility, most recently in sectarian
religious propaganda used to incite members of the
Shi‘i community to join the puppet forces and serve in the
US assault on al-Fallujah.

ANKARA — Turkey's military has begun preparing for
what officials warned could result in a major invasion
of neighboring Iraq.

Officials said the Turkish General Staff has drafted plans for
an invasion by at least 20,000 troops into northern Iraq in
early 2005. They said the General Staff has urged approval
from the government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan
and discussed the proposed invasion with the United
States.

"The current phase is to show the United States that
we're serious," a Turkish government source said. "After the
Iraqi elections in January, the Turkish military will be ready
to move."


This is an extreme complication of matters in Iraq. The
action Turkey intends to take will bring Turkish forces into
direct military contact with US forces in the area, with their
target being the Peshmerga - our allies in Northern
Iraq.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1277827/posts

not that im wishing for it, but it seems there would be more attacks on our troops than the civilians. Probably are but the spin machine is only going to show us innocent Iraqis killed by their terrorist fellow countrymen.

Even underarmored, soldiers are a little harder to attack than Mr. and Mrs. Iraqi on the way to market....

If they wanted the trucks protected, they would be protected by armor...if it was wanted it would have been done before so many were killed...if it was wanted now...it would be there in days..not months from now. If they wanted to stop the bombings, this could have been done with signal blockers on the trucks..and if they wanted it to be done, it would have been done. Things are "progressing" in Iraq just as they want it to "progress"..things are going well, they tell us..in Iraq...that is correct...all is going just as they want it to..including the latest attacks on Mr. and Mrs Iraq. Keep up the "they hate us for our freedoms" propaganda....the smokescreen..that hides the real reason for occupying that oil rich country. So far it is working well...no problems.

"Even underarmored, soldiers are a little harder to attack than Mr. and Mrs. Iraqi on the way to market...."

There are far more daily attacks upon US forces inside Iraq than there are upon Iraqi civilians. Many of those Iraqi civilians killed are in proximity to Iraqi police checkpoints and offices, including coalition checkpoints and offices.

Can you offer any actual evidence to counter the historical aspects of US, UK, and Israeli actions and involvement in the ME region?

The truth is that the US, UK, Israel, and IRAN have a heavy interest in the region, and each and everyone of them will use unscrupulous means to obtain their goals.

This is no terror ground
Or place for the rage
No broken hearts
White wash lies
Just a taste for the truth
Perfect taste choice and meaning
A look into your eyes

- Peter Murphy: A Strange Kind of Love

Not that the US wouldn't undertake such a policy -- I just don't see how it could benefit the US. Now Allawi, I'd suspect. He has a history of this kind of thing.