Can you tinfoilers explain what exactly is GAINED by the shrine bombing?

[ButterflyBlood]

Look, I was against the invasion as much as anyone else and don't trust these folks at all, but the idea being spread here that the bombing of the Shiite shrine was a CIA black op is more than a little ridiculous. If you're going to invade and occupy a country for oil reserves and strategic positions, logic dictates that it's better NOT TO provoke the place into extreme instability making it far more difficult to exploit, or to turn the American public more and more against the war and send Bush's dropping approval ratings sinking even further doesn't seem like a logical course of action.

And the claim that Iraqis would never bomb one of their own mosques is rather naive if you look at the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Radical ones of each denomination consider the other ones to be heretics and even worse than non-Muslim "infidels" often. It's the main reason why Iran and the Taliban were not at all friendly despite their similarities in governing. One could also say that Christian fundamentalist wackos would never bomb or burn a church. But the KKK had no problem burning black churches, and sectarian groups in Northern Ireland had no problem bombing churches of the other denomination.

Sorry, I ain't buying the tinfoil here.

[pauldp]

1. Untill the production sharing agreements are signed in Iraq...

it benefits the Oil companies to operate in an atmosphere of instability because ultimately it gives
them more leverage in the deal with the Iraqi govt. "we will only upgrade your production infrastructure if you give us a straitjacket deal because it is too risky"
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=31153



edit:clarity

[ButterflyBlood]

2. But out and out civil war is not going to gain them anything

Especially if they're finally forced to bring the troops home once public outcry gets too big. Then the whole thing was just one giant waste for them.

[pauldp]

4. Believe me the Oil companies are HAPPY about what is happening in Iraq.

So is Halliburton. Have you seen their profits lately?
Remember Murtha's position was that we should withdraw to a perimeter and monitor in case we needed
to go back in. Well if things get worse we certainly will NEVER go to the perimeter.

Believe me, I've been waiting for that public outcry to get so big. I'm not sure it'll happen as long as they
can use coercion as a tactic.

[ButterflyBlood]

6. It seems a stable pro-western regime in Iraq would make them more happy

Than and out and out civil war that would complicate things more than a little.

[pauldp]

7. Not if they can work both sides.

Then there's LOTS of money to be made. Oil and weapons.

[TomInTib]

3. No tinfoil here. You just gotta keep your clay from drying....

when the situation is settling in and it doesn't look so good (Iraqi elections).

You've seen the pics. Who drove those truck-laden charges into the mosque?

That was a 1500-2500lb HE airdrop.

This was no church bombing KKK-style.

This was big time.

[ButterflyBlood]

5. Were all IRA car bombings British black ops?

How about similar Tamil Tigers attacks in Sri Lanka?

Vehicle bombings are hardly uncommon and not all that difficult to do.

[TomInTib]

9. Did you see the pics? Did they drive the cars into the mosque?

No, they didn't.

The shock wave was so great and far-reaching that there was no way that charge was carried in.

The dome was completely obliterated (lifted off and blown away)and there was no great crater in the floor of the mosque.

The outer walls (fence) were flattened while the walls of the mosque were blown out in segments, not in whole sections.

With a fast-moving, non-shaped concussive wave like this, there are not many choices.

Air-launched 1500-2500lb HE bomb.

[Solo_in_MD]

27. An untamped surface explosion is more likely given the

lack of a crater. Basing analysis on the structural damage is also less than accurate because of the age of the structure. There will be trace evidence, which will have been gathered for analysis. Whether it gets released and we can trust it is another story.

I can't see how this helps the US directly, and can see how it would help Iran and those interested in sectarian violence. Occam's Razor says it most likely it was not the US.

[Emit]

8. If you google

Strategy of Tension, there's a great deal of info about the concept. How this explains this current situation, I'm sorry I can't answer your question specifically. I'm still scratching my head on this one, looking at it from all angles. The closest I can get is that stability in Iraq may seem like a logical goal to you and me, but it might not be their goal. They have plans broader than Iraq, maybe? And, as others have pointed out, they're not losing any money from war profits in the meantime ~ and since when did they care about public opinion about the war?


But, I've read enough about the strategy of tension (of which neocon Michael Ledeen was allegeed to be involved) that I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and entertain questions and theories from all directions. I made this point on another similar thread. With this (mis)administration, what one might say is logical isn't necessarily so and vice versa.

[ButterflyBlood]

10. To think that way is illogical though

You are effecitvely saying that we should assume that all terrorist attacks are CIA black ops and if it doesn't seem logical to fit in with their goals, then we have to assume they have other goals at hand we don't really understand yet, and Occam's Razor should never be considered. That reminds me of the Freepers trying to somehow pin a bunch of random murders in Arkansas on the Clintons.

[Katherine Brengle]

12. I don't think that is what the poster meant at all--but we have a duty to

consider the possibility that some of them might be.

Our government has participated in some extremely pervasive secret operations in the past--it is willfull ignorance to believe blindly that they would not do so again.

Skepticism is the duty of a patriot.

[ButterflyBlood]

18. It's one thing to keep such a skeptical view

It's another to make direct knee-jerk assumptions with no real evidence that any such attack is a black op rather than terrorist action and then stretch facts to create a motive. Especially if this is also based on a claim as silly as that no Muslim extremist would ever attack another mosque, which is like saying that the "Christian" KKK would never burn black churches, or that the Catholic Croat fascists Ustashe would never loot and vandalize Serbian Orthodox churches during WWII, or that the Serbs would never do the same thing to Catholic churches 10 years ago.

[Emit]

28. Or that our own government would ever do such a thing?

In a weird way, you can apply your own logic to this "tin foil" thing, no?

[Emit]

26. No, not all

I don't think we should assume that all terrorist attacks are CIA black ops. But, we should entertain the notion that some might be.

And, the point about the logic of their (their meaning Bush & Co.) goals, well, are their goals logical? Can you say any of their goals for war in Iraq have been logical? Have their reason(s) for invading Iraq been based on logic? Do they continue to defy reason (and the will of the majority), distort perception, etc. by advancing their agenda, whatever their agenda might be? What is their agenda? Can we assume to know?

And, thus, IMO, because they have the reputation for behaving illogically, than, yes, we must question their story. Always.

You are assuming that all terrorist attacks (and I'll limit this to Iraq for the sake of discussion) are conducted by Muslim extremists. They know full well that most people will assume that, too. That can be used to their advantage. Tin foilish? Yes. But, I wouldn't put it past these people who are managing this "war or terror."

But, like I suggested, if you check out the strategy of tension, which is very well documented, you will find an overwhelming amount of information that, in retrospect, reveals the fact that governments have used terrorism against their own people (or against groups that, in effect, are not the "logical" enemy) and have pinned it on the enemy as a means of garnering support, intimidating, creating fear, etc. to retain trust of the target group, to control the story, etc. The reasons are varied, depending on their goals.

edited for clarity

[Katherine Brengle]

11. Oil exports from Iraq have been and will continue to be sporadic due

to constant wars.

It makes some degree of sense to me that our government *might* purposely start a civil war just to give us a reason to run out on the Iraqi people when we said we wouldn't. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the UAE are all much more valuable oil producers, so we go to war with Iran now and we make tenuous peace with SA and the UAE in order to gain cheap access to their reserves.

I don't think a :tinfoilhat: is necessary...

[ButterflyBlood]

17. the problem is the logic

That would mean that in the end, nothing is gained at all from Iraq. Plus looking at current polls, it wouldn't take a civil war to convince the people that bringing the troops home NOW isn't a bad idea.

[Katherine Brengle]

23. Not exactly--

from a neocon perspective, the war in Iraq gained a lot of public support within the US for neocon policies--that's a positive gain in their eyes.

There are permanent bases being built all over the ME--this is a positive gain in their eyes that was made possible largely by our wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our foreign policy for years to come will be shaped by the events of this war--that is a positive gain for them.

What isn't a positive gain is a long embroilment inside Iraq, which makes this not only plausible, but logical from a neocon point of view.

It might not be logical to us, but it is perfectly logical for the cons.

[ButterflyBlood]

24. I think current polls show otherwise

if the war in Iraq gained support for noecon policies you'd see Idiot Son with high approvals nad the war in Iraq with high support. Hardly the case.

[Katherine Brengle]

37. He's lost support due to a lot of other bad choices--the was was

originally a big boon to this administration. Hell, after 9/11 his approval rating was in the 80s.

The war won support early on, now that it is no longer a productive political tool, it's time to end it so they can try to recuperate before the 2008 election.

[rman]

33. what is gained is military presence

- as in, military bases - in the most oil rich part of the world.

the chaos of (civil) war provides perfect cover for all sorts of actions that would otherwise be hard to pull off.

[Oilwellian]

13. Perhaps it's chaos

This administration has created chaos since day one and this is just the spark they needed to cut and run. I wouldn't be surprised if we see our troops pulled into the permanent bases they've built in Iraq and wait out the impending slaughter between Shiite and Sunni radicals. We'll just guard their oil facilities while they're busy killing each other.

I believe their hopes are the majority Shia will kill off the Sunni insurgency. Not only will it protect our troops from being picked off, it may, in their delusional minds, kill off the enemy attacking our troops. The kicker is, I doubt the Shia fundies in power are going to be our friends.

[MADem]

25. Succinctly put

Also, who remembers those Brits in Arab dress, that were caught by local police down in Basra with a car loaded with explosives a while back? Turns out they were special ops types, and the Brits ran a tank into the jail and got them out of there (and freed a bunch of other criminals in the process). The police chief was bullshit, there was a small furor, and then the story slipped away and was overtaken by other events.

It's not like the concept is unthinkable...but I do think the explosion took place as the eyewitnesses indicated--some guys (who they were, well, who knows?) ran in there, dressed as cops, took the joint over, planted explosives, and blew the joint.

The advantage to neutralizing the Sunni in Iraq is that they are "Friends of Saddam." You aren't going to find a load of shi'a in that crowd...it's a two birds with one stone approach.

[azurnoir]

14. The last thing this

administration wants is to leave Iraq, but not leaving will cost them politically, so they need a reason to stay that will wash with the general public, like a civil war that would certainly result in a Sunni bloodbath. Then we're there for humanitarian reasons, not cause we want to but, 'cause we have to.


I mean Muslims were burning embassies and killing people over cartoons a couple weeks ago. No telling what they'll do in an sectarian war.:sarcasm:



Also there is a minuscule chance that if things went bad for the Sh ia, Iran would intervene and well that would be *'s wet dream




edited for content

[Rex]

15. Not hard to imagine at all.

The CIA does all kind of dirty things around the world at all times of the day and night. They are the creepy crawly, denial of service, specters who work for Bush and his daddy. Thinking of the organization as a benign, overtly good place is being foolhardy and idealistic. That being said, I don't think the CIA did this attack, it is a result of a soon to be bigger regional war.

Temples are holy and sacred only as long as it is the right sect who worship there, I guess Allah (like God) is really picky. I think the whole thing is madness.

[ButterflyBlood]

16. I wasn't implying at all that the CIA is squeaky clean

But that obviously doesn't mean they're behind every single attack that happens now like some people claim, especially ones with no clear gains and based on ridiculous assumptions like "No Muslim would ever bomb that shrine" which is like saying even someone like Ian Paisley would never bomb the Vatican.

[Rex]

21. People go with the flow

Average people believe what they see on TV and in the news. This attack benefits the people who want it the most; corporate war profiteers, insane religious demagogues, military contractors from all corners of the world. War by proxy, with construction and energy contracts just waiting to be stolen. Like I said, I'm not saying the CIA had a hand in the bombings, but you can be guaranteed someone is fanning the flames for civil war. It has happen in other countries, so why not in Iraq?

[iconoclastNYC]

19. more chaos=longer the us troops stay

longer halliburton and all the other make money.

[ButterflyBlood]

22. They make plenty of money off countreis that have very few troops in them

like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Those countries have stable governments that let the US take oil. And that's what they want for Iraq, not civil war.

You also assume that the already skeptical public will want the troops to stay there with more chaos, that Bush's numbers thus wouldn't sink even further, and the GOP wouldn't be hurt big time. More chaos means more calls to pull out.

[iconoclastNYC]

30. All the rhetoric has been ... when the Iraqis stand up

We'll stand down. This means they Iraqis haven't stood up....there is no way the Iraqi army will get this under control.

[Minstrel Boy]

31. "that's what they want for Iraq, not civil war." Not true.

No, it isn't.

Read PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses from 2000. The stated objective of conflict with Iraq was to garrison the country as an aggressive base from which to project American power into the region. "We'll stand down when the Iraqis step up," said Bush a few days ago. But US strategists don't want to leave and never intended to. And so, acts of provocation are in whose interest?

From something Robert Fisk wrote nearly two years ago

"Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq":

Al-Qa'ida has never uttered a threat against Shias - even though al-Qa'ida is a Sunni-only organisation. Yet for weeks, the American occupation authorities have been warning us about civil war, have even produced a letter said to have been written by an al-Qa'ida operative, advocating a Sunni-Shia conflict. Normally sane journalists have enthusiastically taken up this theme. Civil war.

...

I think of the French OAS in Algeria in 1962, setting off bombs among France's Muslim Algerian community. I recall the desperate efforts of the French authorities to set Algerian Muslim against Algerian Muslim which led to half a million dead souls.

...

We are entering a dark and sinister period of Iraqi history. But an occupation authority which should regard civil war as the last prospect it ever wants to contemplate, keeps shouting "civil war" in our ears and I worry about that. Especially when the bombs make it real.

[rman]

34. That's because those governments cooperate

War is only needed if there is no cooperation.

[Mnemosyne]

20. self-delete

[obxhead]

29. Agreed wholeheartedly....

This is how all out civil war is beginning. Even the Bushbots would see this as a catastrophic event toward their cause... LOOT.

[Neil Lisst]

32. I think Iran was more likely behind it.

Iran benefits by these Sunni-Shiite conflicts, and civil war would help Iran keep the US and the international community busy with Iraq.

[Disturbed]

35. Anybody's guess.

Most likely al Z or Iran. That being said, the Neo Fascist Regime of America gains by a Civil War. Hoping the Sunni will be crushed because they are the impediment to US/UK domination of Iraq and oil flow. The Shi'ites and Kurds will play the US/UK game. The US will draw down it's troop force and hunker down on the permanent bases and ride out the CW if it gets full blown. The Neo Fascist Bush Regime will never entirely leave Iraq.

[paulk]

38. but, would Iran's leader's blow up one of the most important

Shiite shrines? They're fanatics, yes, but the ayatollahs are also quite devout.

Seems a stretch to me that they'd go that far.

[BuyingThyme]

36. The reason for invading Iraq was to set up a base for invading

Iraq's neighbors.

If you caught Nazi David Grange on Lou Dobbs today, you saw him blame Iraq's neighbors for infiltrating the country and causing this instability.

They need instability. They are Nazis.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Unfortunately Some On DU Can Only Default To Wild Conspiracy,

even in the complete absence of logic.

I agree with you, the concept is beyond absurd. But there have been several wild conspiracy theories here lately that boggle the mind as to how people actually buy into them. Ya know, kinda like the "I know it, cheney shot the guy in the face just to get other stuff off the news!". That was so ridiculous in its nature that I thought for certain no one would agree with it, yet lo and behold many did.

Unfortunately this bush cabal has shown they are capable of doing anything and everything, so some DU'ers have now been programmed to automatically assume the worst possible intent from the administration. I can't say I blame them for it, I just wish they'd actually use their heads a little to think certain things through before declaring it as probable.

[FreedomAngel82]

40. More outrage from the Iraqi's

Chaos is their best friend.

[Bushwick Bill]

41. Stan Goff Says Civil War NOT A Goal

This article is a few months old, but awesome.

There is no dearth of schematic and conspiratorial speculation on the US left about the US desire to “divide and conquer” Iraq, corresponding to a belief that the American government wants a civil war as the pretext for continuing the occupation.

I strongly disagree.

<snip>

Partition of Iraq means that oil from Southern Iraq can get out through the port at Um Qasr. But the rich fields of Iraqi Kurdistan, east of Kirkuk, would be landlocked if the Iraqi Strategic Pipeline were severed. This has proven a fairly easy task for the resistance. The only way out for Kurdish oil, then, is through Turkey or Syria, with the Syrian pipeline stretching through Sunni guerrilla country.

If Kurdistan pushes for independence, there can be little doubt that it will be militarily attacked by Turkey, to whom a Kurdish state is anathema, and for whom an external enemy could well serve the Turkish ruling class in these times of neoliberal hardship. While Turkey’s military is formidable in the region, there is also little doubt that the Peshmerga has gained enough strength and experience to fight them to a standstill on their own terrain – creating another war of attrition in the region that would damage any enthusiasm for investment there and further disrupt tight oil markets.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/090705_iraqi_partition.shtml

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. I respect what you're trying to do.

Really, I do. But there's no point. You're asking irrational people with a nonsensical position for which there is absolutely no evidence to give an explanation for their dementia. That's the thing about tinfoil - it doesn't have to make sense. In fact, by definition it doesn't make sense.

[wiggs]

43. It's not likely that CIA did it, but neither is it

...neither is it ridiculous to think it possible:

--Britain originally used sectarian struggle in Iraq to further its goals there in an unstable environment

--What has the US done - ANYTHING - that has tended to stabilize Iraq? Telling Iraq army to go home with weapons after invasion? Not securing weapons stashes? Not rebuilding infrastructure we destroyed? Not using Iraqi contractors for projects and keeping unemployment around 70%? Not securing borders? Using Kurdish soldiers in Fallujia? Torture/humiliation of detainees that happens to be photographed? Complete and un-neccessary anhilation of Fallujia? Use of white phosporous and other weapons with high collateral damage? Not dispelling notions of permanent presence? Closing Iraqi newspapers? Installation of obvious western puppets in government like Allawi and Chalabi? There are too many misdeeds to rack it up to incompetence...a case can be made for intentional instability.

--Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Using insurgents and instigators and violence as a tool for political change has been done many times before by us and the others in the west.

--More recently, what exactly were those captured western soldiers doing in Arab disguise and with weapons?

--There were PLENTY of warnings that instability would result from invasion of Iraq...yet we went in anyway. Apparently, instability was not a major worry.

I'm not saying we did the mosque...I really have no idea. But I don't understand why some think US involvement is out of the question and that this administration doesn't perceive a benefit from instability in Iraq and throughout the middle east.

[slaveplanet]

44. does this sound like they're at each others throats?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1716754,00.html

Friday February 24, 2006
The Guardian

The shattered golden dome of Samarra is yet another milestone in George Bush's "long war" - in which a civil war in Iraq shows every sign of being a devastating feature. But what sort of civil war? I am convinced it is not the type of war that politicians in Washington and London, and much of the western media, have been anticipating.

The past few days' events have strengthened this conviction. It has not been Sunni religious symbols that hundreds of thousands of angry marchers protesting at the bombing of the shrine have targeted, but US flags. The slogan that united them on Wednesday was: "Kalla, kalla Amrica, kalla kalla lill-irhab" - no to America, no to terrorism. The Shia clerics most listened to by young militants swiftly blamed the occupation for the bombing. They included Moqtada al-Sadr; Nasrallah, leader of Hizbullah in Lebanon; Ayatollah Khalisi, leader of the Iraqi National Foundation Congress; and Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader. Along with Grand Ayatollah Sistani, they also declared it a grave "sin" to attack Sunnis - as did all the Sunni clerics about attacks on Shias. Sadr was reported by the BBC as calling for revenge on Sunnis - in fact, he said "no Sunni would do this" and called for revenge on the occupation.

None of the mostly spontaneous protest marches were directed at Sunni mosques. Near the bombed shrine itself, local Sunnis joined the city's minority Shias to denounce the occupation and accuse it of sharing responsibility for the outrage. In Kut, a march led by Sadr's Mahdi army burned US and Israeli flags. In Baghdad's Sadr City, the anti-occupation march was massive.

There was a string of armed attacks on Sunni mosques in the wake of the bombing but none of them was carried out by the protesters. Reports suggest that they were the work of masked gunmen. Since then there has been an escalation of well-organised murders, some sectarian, some targeting mixed groups, such as yesterday's killing of 47 workers near Baquba.

But as live coverage of Wednesday's demonstrations on Iraqi and Arab satellite TV stations clearly showed, the popular mood has been anti-occupation rather than sectarian. Iraq is awash with rumours about the collusion of the occupation forces and their Iraqi clients with sectarian attacks and death squads>: the US is widely seen as fostering sectarian division to prevent the emergence of a united national resistance. Evidence of their involvement in Wednesday's anti-Sunni reprisals was picked up in the Times, which reported that after an armed attack on the al-Quds Sunni mosque in Baghdad the gunmen climbed back into six cars and were ushered from the scene by cheering soldiers of the US-controlled Iraqi National Guard.

Two years ago I argued in these pages that the US aim of installing a client pro-US regime in Baghdad risked plunging the country into civil war - but not a war of Arabs against Kurds or Sunnis against Shias, rather a war between a US-backed minority (of all sects and nationalities) against the majority of the Iraqi people. That is where Iraq is heading.


None of these exit strategies will work for the simple reason that they are based on an unrealisable ambition: to have the Iraqi cake and eat it. All the Bush and Blair strategies are based on maintaining a pro-US regime in Baghdad. Freed from this hated occupation, proud and independent Iraqis will never elect a collection of US- and British-backed proteges.

[Minstrel Boy]

45. From Riverbend yesterday:

We woke up this morning to news that men wearing Iraqi security uniforms walked in and detonated explosives, damaging the mosque almost beyond repair. It’s heart-breaking and terrifying. There has been gunfire all over Baghdad since morning. The streets near our neighborhood were eerily empty and calm but there was a tension that had us all sitting on edge. We heard about problems in areas like Baladiyat where there was some rioting and vandalism, etc. and several mosques in Baghdad were attacked. I think what has everyone most disturbed is the fact that the reaction was so swift, like it was just waiting to happen.

All morning we’ve been hearing/watching both Shia and Sunni religious figures speak out against the explosions and emphasise that this is what is wanted by the enemies of Iraq- this is what they would like to achieve- divide and conquer. Extreme Shia are blaming extreme Sunnis and Iraq seems to be falling apart at the seams under foreign occupiers and local fanatics.

No one went to work today as the streets were mostly closed. The situation isn’t good at all. I don’t think I remember things being this tense- everyone is just watching and waiting quietly. There’s so much talk of civil war and yet, with the people I know- Sunnis and Shia alike- I can hardly believe it is a possibility. Educated, sophisticated Iraqis are horrified with the idea of turning against each other, and even not-so-educated Iraqis seem very aware that this is a small part of a bigger, more ominous plan…

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#114064838240253479

[never cry wolf]

46. Total War

If there's a civil war, they have a reason to keep the troops there, as well as point out that those crazy A-Rabs need us to keep order. The Mil-Industrial complex is making money hand over fist, this is their wet dream.

"If we let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely,
and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

- Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle (One of the PNAC founders, former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board!)

Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, from his farewell address, 1961:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."