US General Says Mosque Bombing "Inside Job"

[parky76]

I was not pleased when I read this. One, it gives much ammunition to the conspiracy theorists who say the violence in Iraq is being fueled by the Iraqi governmant and perhaps even by the USA or Brits. Two, if this is an indeed an inside job, then how do we know all the other bombings weren't also? How do we know what is real terrorism and what is government sponsored fake terror?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/13/iraq.main/index.html

[Darth Rotor]

I was not pleased when I read this. One, it gives much ammunition to the conspiracy theorists who say the violence in Iraq is being fueled by the Iraqi governmant and perhaps even by the USA or Brits.

Two, if this is an indeed an inside job, then how do we know all the other bombings weren't also? How do we know what is real terrorism and what is government sponsored fake terror?

Parky, which government are you referring to? The "Iraqi Government" is hardly a government like the French or Japanese government. It's still forming-storming-norming, and will not get to performing for a very long time. Meanwhile, factions within Iraq use the fake legitimacy of the government as cover to do what they wish to do.

If you mean the US government, then go to LCF and never come back.

Note this remark from your link:
Pentagon says violence moved after troop surge

Also on Wednesday, the Pentagon released a report saying that violence in Iraq has not decreased because of the Bush administration's increase in U.S. troops there, but violence has merely moved locations.

"Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" covers February to early May 2007, roughly from the beginning of the troop increase to the time when the last group of U.S. troops entered the country, the Pentagon said.
This is the same game I was involved with three years ago, in SASO: Whack a Mole. You smack the guys in Al Kut, the guys in Buquba go wild. Smack the guys in Tal Afar, and Samarra blows up.

Whack a mole, all day every day, and a sense of "Groundhog Day" for everyone trying to deal with it.

DR

[Spins]

Yes, the Iraqi security forces have been heavily infiltrated by Shia Militia and "Death Squads". There was a documentary on Channel 4 in the UK called "Dispatches - Iraq's Death Squads" that highlighted the problem (parts 1-5 below)...

OZBOj__fMxc

A3RP92AXN84

Viw0qWWW0Uo

lZ2439JX044

_1JTi9pD9xo

[Par]

Thanks Spins, that looks like an interesting documentary. I just wish they hadn’t chosen to accompany it with the soundtrack from the game “Return to Castle Wolfenstein”.

[Spins]

Yeah it's a very interesting documentary, the situation in Iraq at the moment is very grim.

[Swing Dangler]

I was not pleased when I read this. One, it gives much ammunition to the conspiracy theorists who say the violence in Iraq is being fueled by the Iraqi governmant and perhaps even by the USA or Brits. Two, if this is an indeed an inside job, then how do we know all the other bombings weren't also? How do we know what is real terrorism and what is government sponsored fake terror?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/13/iraq.main/index.html

This reminds me of the two British troops that were caught disguised as Arabs and loaded up with explosives and shooting at Iraqi police. This latest suggestion wouldn't surprise me at all.

Read more here (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html)....

[T.A.M.]

Swing:

if you hate the USA, Britain, etc, so much (you seem to want to blame everything on their governments) than why don't you move to Iran or Iraq, or Palestine, or Syria...I am sure they would take you with open fire...I mean open arms...lol

TAM:)

[Par]

I’m not certain I can see the connection between two undercover Special Forces agents getting arrested in Basra and the question of whether or not Iraqi security personnel aided and abetted a Samarra mosque bombing.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing:

if you hate the USA, Britain, etc, so much (you seem to want to blame everything on their governments) than why don't you move to Iran or Iraq, or Palestine, or Syria...I am sure they would take you with open fire...I mean open arms...lol

TAM:)

TAM, don't mistake hating individuals in the government for lying, stealing, killing and maiming, and practicing the fine art of hypocrisy in my country's name for hating a country.
You call me a hater of America when pointing out the ills that individuals within my government partake in. How is that anti-American? :FLAG REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF PARKY.

I love my country, don't ever mistake that. God Bless America or errr Darwin Bless America, whatever your particular stance. ;)

[parky76]

Swing- you can do without the flags. True patriots don't run around yelling "Im a patriot..look at me!!!"

[Swing Dangler]

Swing- you can do without the flags. True patriots don't run around yelling "Im a patriot..look at me!!!"

I edited the post to remove the flag. Sorry to hear the flag bothers you.

[parky76]

flags dont bother me. false patriotism does. not that you are a false patriot.

i think a true patriot values freedom, pluralism, democracy, tolerance, etc.

too many americans think being patriotic means loving your flag, army, president, etc.

[8den]

This reminds me of the two British troops that were caught disguised as Arabs and loaded up with explosives and shooting at Iraqi police. This latest suggestion wouldn't surprise me at all.

Read more here (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html)....

The troops in question were special forces. You travel two ways in Iraq, in low key disguised as Arabs, or in heavily armed highly visible convoys.

I mean Swing whats your point? You guys think there are soldiers over there thinking "Hmmmm theres not enough people shooting at me, lets bang it up a notch?" Its kind of like looking at your back yard and thinking, "I've got both wasps and fire ants, what does this need? Oh yeah, hornets!"

Incidently has this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html) being getting air time on the US networks? I'm not working in news at the moment, so I'm not as plugged in, because this looks like the last act of desperate administration.

[Spins]

This reminds me of the two British troops that were caught disguised as Arabs and loaded up with explosives and shooting at Iraqi police. This latest suggestion wouldn't surprise me at all.

Read more here (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html)....Really, did you bother reading the article at all?

The only thing I can think of is you saw the words "inside job" and your delusional hate ridden mind automatically assumed US or British involvement. If you understood anything about what is going on in Iraq at the moment then you would have known the U.S. military official was talking about infiltration of the Iraqi security forces by Shia Militia, but alas you don't.

[Darth Rotor]

Incidently has this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html) being getting air time on the US networks? I'm not working in news at the moment, so I'm not as plugged in, because this looks like the last act of desperate administration.
The fact that this Sunni/US vs Al Qaeda set up is now being reported does not mean that liaison with tribes and families among the Sunni, particularly of Al Anbar province, was not being sought with the intent of building such alliances. I was aware of efforts along these lines three years ago, when I was in that hot and nasty part of the world, though I was not directly involved in those efforts myself. (I wonder if Garrette was.)

Given the way the US handled the post "Mission Accomplished" timeline, the year between the time Baghdad fell from Saddam's control and Bremmer left Baghdad via the back door, the various leadership among the Sunni tribes, families and clans were not as motivated to work with the US as now. The continual disruption some of the Al Qaeda factions and their actions, the Shia making their power grabs, a variety of other factions doing their own power grabs, and a desire to retain some power is a core motivation for these Sunni to adapt a program of alliance, which I think will be temporary, with the US and its short term aims.

It seems that a condition of cooperation is being armed effectively, initially to "fight Al Qaeda" but I suspect in the longer term "to fight whomever."

This scenario is strikingly similar to the way Viet Namese warlords in the early 1960's, and Chiang Kai Shek in WW II, were armed by the US -- ostensibly to pursue common aims, versus Communists/Viet Cong or Japanese respectively. What happened as often as not was those arms being used, or stockpiled, for fighting rivals who were not necessarily on the USA's prime enemy list the alliance was formed to fight.

Does anyone else see this dynamic as I do?

DR