Who is really responsible for the terrorist acts on Iraqis in Iraq?

[kaygore]

Bush’s hand in the Terror War

By Mike Whitney

05/02/06-- -- Robert Fisk has pulled the shroud off Bush’s Iraq policy and exposed the rotting corpse below. In his latest article "Seen through a Syrian Lens" (UK Independent 4-29-06) Fisk fingers the US as the driving force behind the present "alleged" sectarian violence in Iraq. He’s produced information from a trusted "security source" that America is "desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties." It is a charge we’ve heard before but never quite as persuasively as from a veteran journalist who his relied on for "getting it right."

"I swear to you that we have very good information," Fisk recounts, "One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up."

Americans are sending unsuspecting Iraqis in vehicles to crowded areas, detonating the explosives, and then pinning it on Zarqawi or some other racist invention.

Can we believe Fisk?

As incredible as it seems, Fisk assures us that he’s heard the same story many times from different sources.

<snip>


There’s been a great deal of speculation on whether the US is directly involved in the massive terror campaign that is sweeping through the Sunni heartland. Max Fuller has made a valuable contribution to the topic in his article "Crying Wolf: Media disinformation and Deaths squads in Occupied Iraq." Fuller has documented CIA involvement in training Iraqi death squads operating in the Interior ministry.

So far, there have been at least three separate incidents where occupation forces have been either caught or connected to bombings in Iraq.

The most famous of these was an incident in Basra where two British paramilitaries were caught disguised as Arabs with a truck-full of explosives in their vehicle. Panicky British forces destroyed the Basra jail to release the two captured SAS soldiers apparently afraid that their cover would be blown and Blair would be implicated in attacks on civilians.

The bombing of the Golden-domed mosque has also produced a number of suspicious leads which point to US involvement. The AFP reported that the bombing "was the work of specialists" and the "placing of explosives must have taken at least 12 hours."

<snip>

At 6:30 AM the American troops left, just 10 minutes before the bombs went off.

<snip>

The implications of Fisk’s article are shocking. The war on terror is the rickety scaffolding upon which the entire Bush presidency rests; there are no other accomplishments or programs. If the present allegations are true, then Bush and his cadres can be placed in the same category as Bin Laden and al Zarqawi; although those "alleged" villains could be just scratchy shreds of celluloid produced in the Pentagon basement.

There is no civil war in Iraq; it’s all been fabricated to split the country apart. The violence we see is emanating in waves from its ultimate point of origin…1600 Pennsylvania Ave; the epicenter of global terrorism. Fisk’s article just punctuates that point.

Read the whole article at
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12923.htm

[dipsydoodle]

1. Cause and effect

It follows that it's the fault of the USA.

[leftchick]

2. it certainly would not be the first time

The US has a very dirty history, especially in Central and South America.

[Richard Steele]

3. Great article. Kicked and recommended

[Rocknrule]

4. Clinton, of course

:sarcasm:

[enigma000]

5. and the Americans hid my car keys this morning

and they caused it to rain during my Sunday morning walk, and I was told my winning lottery numbers came up but some Americans changed the results.

man, those Americans are mean.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Well, that's one way to know who the 'suicide bombers' are

in a nanosecond. If true...I just don't have words to express the anger and outrage.

Fisk, Fisk, Fisk...why is his name familiar?

[NNN0LHI]

7. Here is your answer

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

‘The Salvador Option’

The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 8:59 p.m. ET Jan. 14, 2005

Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras. There is no evidence, however, that Negroponte knew anything about the Salvadoran death squads or the Iran-Contra scandal at the time. The Iraq ambassador, in a phone call to NEWSWEEK on Jan. 10, said he was not involved in military strategy in Iraq. He called the insertion of his name into this report "utterly gratuitous.")

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government—the Defense department or CIA—would take responsibility for such an operation. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has aggressively sought to build up its own intelligence-gathering and clandestine capability with an operation run by Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone. But since the Abu Ghraib interrogations scandal, some military officials are ultra-wary of any operations that could run afoul of the ethics codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That, they argue, is the reason why such covert operations have always been run by the CIA and authorized by a special presidential finding. (In "covert" activity, U.S. personnel operate under cover and the U.S. government will not confirm that it instigated or ordered them into action if they are captured or killed.)