Possible motives for flaring up religious tensions

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Suicide bombings in Iraq (at least in part) fabricated?


The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces. "I swear to you that we have very good information," my source says, finger stabbing the air in front of him. "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.


There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car.

Robert Fisk (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12885.htm)

[Severian]

I guess you could ask snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/info/glossary.asp) to check out if they're true.

But generally urban legends are more indicative of a public state of mind - what people want to believe - than of objective reality.

[Matty_UK]

I'm not big on conspiracy theories but I think this is true.

Does anyone remember when those British soldiers got arrested by Iraqi forces driving around dressed as arabs in a car packed with explosives? Even the bourgeois media mentioned that fact, but only in one sentence and they focused more on the arrested soldiers breaking them out of the jail. That picture of the British soldier jumping out his tank on fire during the jailbreak? No doubt this is at least partially true.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:40 am
I'm not big on conspiracy theories but I think this is true.

Does anyone remember when those British soldiers got arrested by Iraqi forces driving around dressed as arabs in a car packed with explosives? Even the bourgeois media mentioned that fact, but only in one sentence and they focused more on the arrested soldiers breaking them out of the jail. That picture of the British soldier jumping out his tank on fire during the jailbreak? No doubt this is at least partially true.
You're right comrade, that did happen. Those British soldiers were from the Special Air Service regiment who specialise in that kind of covert work. They have a smiliar record in Ireland.

[Tekun]

Attacks fabricated on a large scale,...probably not just because alot risk is involved, and in addition the Iraqi ppl would have already heavily denounced and publicized such actions had they really taken place
So far, to my knowledge, they've for the most part only denounced the American presence in Iraq

However, I think that certain isolated attacks have been committed by the Americans/British and then have been blamed on Iraqis
One such action was the Al-Askari Mosque bombing which was originally attributed to suicide bombings, but many have suggested that the material and quantity used to destroy the entire mosque could not have been available to terrorist groups within Iraq


Does anyone remember when those British soldiers got arrested by Iraqi forces driving around dressed as arabs in a car packed with explosives? Even the bourgeois media mentioned that fact, but only in one sentence and they focused more on the arrested soldiers breaking them out of the jail. That picture of the British soldier jumping out his tank on fire during the jailbreak? No doubt this is at least partially true.

I don't recall, u got a link bro?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:50 am
Attacks fabricated on a large scale,...probably not just because alot risk is involved, and in addition the Iraqi ppl would have already heavily denounced and publicized such actions had they really taken place
So far, to my knowledge, they've for the most part only denounced the American presence in Iraq

However, I think that certain isolated attacks have been committed by the Americans/British and then have been blamed on Iraqis
One such action was the Al-Askari Mosque bombing which was originally attributed to suicide bombings, but many have suggested that the material and quantity used to destroy the entire mosque could not have been available to terrorist groups within Iraq


Does anyone remember when those British soldiers got arrested by Iraqi forces driving around dressed as arabs in a car packed with explosives? Even the bourgeois media mentioned that fact, but only in one sentence and they focused more on the arrested soldiers breaking them out of the jail. That picture of the British soldier jumping out his tank on fire during the jailbreak? No doubt this is at least partially true.

I don't recall, u got a link bro?
Linky-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/21/uiraqa.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/21/ixportaltop.html)


'Five Iraqi civilians killed' in SAS rescue operation
Last Updated: 12:57am BST 22/09/2005



In pics: troops under attack

Five Iraqi civilians died in clashes surrounding the controversial operation to free two British SAS men captured in Basra, it was claimed today.

Iraqi police said the latest two died in hospital today after being wounded as British troops stormed a police station jail on Monday.

"We will not cut and run, and we will not leave the job half done," he said.

Mr Jaafari also said that the incidents of the last few days would not affect British-Iraqi relations, and said such incidents were "expected to happen". He said he had ordered a full inquiry.

Confusion still surrounds whether British forces knocked down a prison wall, resulting in the escape of prisoners, in their attempt to rescue the two SAS men.

The British troops believed the two Special Forces men were being held there but later freed them from a house in Basra where they were being held by Shia militia.

As concern grew that Iraqi police had handed the men over to the militia, Iraq's government admitted that insurgents had infiltrated its security forces.

Iraq's national security adviser Dr Mouwafak al-Rubaie said: "Our Iraqi security forces in general, police in particular, in many parts of Iraq, I have to admit, have been penetrated by some of the insurgents, some of the terrorists as well.

"I can't deny this. We are putting in place a very scrupulous, very meticulous vetting procedure in the process of recruiting a new batch of police and Iraqi army, which will, if you like, clean our security forces as well as stop any penetration in future from the insurgents and terrorists."

The capture of the SAS men came a day after British forces in Basra arrested two leading members of the outlawed Mahdi Army, which is loyal to firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and is widely believed to have heavily infiltrated police in the city.

Other groups to have infiltrated the police are believed to include the Badr Brigade, which is the armed wing of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution, and Hezbollah in Iraq.

All three groups have historical ties to neighbouring Iran.

Police in Basra said the SAS men, who were travelling in a car dressed as Arab men, shot and killed a policeman when they were stopped.

But the British said no one was killed and a spokesman for Mr Jaafari said they were arrested for behaving suspiciously.

British officers say they received intelligence that the men's lives were at risk and bulldozed their way into the jail, in the face of a mob throwing petrol bombs, to rescue them.

The action, condemned by many in Iraq, was defended as "absolutely right" by Dr Reid.

It's only mentioned in one sentence, and it misses out that the car was packed with explosives in this particular article but others mentioned it. Look how it's glossed over and more trivial things are made important discussion points. And because of this style of reporting there was absolutely no outcry or controversy. Propaganda at it's best.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Police in Basra said the SAS men, who were travelling in a car dressed as Arab men, shot and killed a policeman when they were stopped.
Is this incident connected to this one?


British tanks storm Basra jail to free undercover soldiers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1573933,00.html

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If it is true that the U.S. and U.K. are behind some key "suicide bombings" in Iraq, what would be the motive?
To reduce coalition casualties, and rather increase shia vs sunni casualties?

Would that really be enough of a motive for carrying out such risky undercover attacks?

And doesn't the war between sunni and shia make things even more difficult for the coalition forces?

Discuss.

[ComradeR]

I personally think it was originally intended to maintain enough instability to justify a continuous military occupation, though it seems to have gotten out of hand.

[Phalanx]

I find it hard to believe that the US is directly behind the bombings. Bush wants to prove to the world that he successfully 'pacified' Iraq, and with continued civil war there's no way he could make that claim. Ideally the Americans would want a strong ally controlling Iraq (it wouldn't matter how brutal he was) so they could strip Iraq of its resources without losing too much face.

[Janus]

There really doesn't seem to be any constructive motive. Even if it were to reduce US casualties for now it would still cause more casualties in the long term as such conflict would only serve to lengthen the occupation.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:35 am
There really doesn't seem to be any constructive motive. Even if it were to reduce US casualties for now it would still cause more casualties in the long term as such conflict would only serve to lengthen the occupation.
That's exactly the point of it.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by ComradeR+February 06, 2007 08:20 am--> (ComradeR @ February 06, 2007 08:20 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 07:35 am
There really doesn't seem to be any constructive motive. Even if it were to reduce US casualties for now it would still cause more casualties in the long term as such conflict would only serve to lengthen the occupation.
That's exactly the point of it. [/b]
I'm not sure how the religious sectarianism and subsequent chaos really helps the US in any way.

[Janus]

That's exactly the point of it.
Bush's plan is to withdraw as soon as quickly as possible. Delaying that is going to cause economic problems as well as social upheaval at home. I would think that the ruling class has learned from the lessons of Vietnam.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:41 pm
If it is true that the U.S. and U.K. are behind some key "suicide bombings" in Iraq, what would be the motive?
To reduce coalition casualties, and rather increase shia vs sunni casualties?

Would that really be enough of a motive for carrying out such risky undercover attacks?

And doesn't the war between sunni and shia make things even more difficult for the coalition forces?

Discuss.
It's already been proven that the British did the same thing in Ireland... they directed the Loyalists and security forces to kill civilians to cause sectarian conflict. It's really not that hard to believe, actually. Divide and conquer is a pretty old trick of the imperialists.

[PRC-UTE]

I'm really pretty shocked that anyone wouldn't believe the occupation forces would resort to these tactics. It's a standard part of counterinsurgency doctrine.

I think comrades here should read up on it- understanding the enemies theories will explain a lot.


Frank Kitson, a British military commander with extensive experience in Malaya, Borneo, Kenya, and Northern Ireland, developed many of the basic principles & methods of counter-insurgency used by Western nations today.


One method of locating guerrillas Kitson suggests is the "pseudo-gang," a fake guerrilla group comprised of mercenaries and/or agents. Pretending to be a genuine group, they discredit the movement through attacks against the civilian population, etc.

LINK (http://itwillbethundering.resist.ca/warrior_publications/insurgencyandcounterinsurgency.html)

The page I linked to also mentions incidents involving the SAS, the very same regiment that was caught preparing to carry out covert attacks on civilians in Iraq.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+February 06, 2007 09:14 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ February 06, 2007 09:14 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 01:41 pm
If it is true that the U.S. and U.K. are behind some key "suicide bombings" in Iraq, what would be the motive?
To reduce coalition casualties, and rather increase shia vs sunni casualties?

Would that really be enough of a motive for carrying out such risky undercover attacks?

And doesn't the war between sunni and shia make things even more difficult for the coalition forces?

Discuss.
It's already been proven that the British did the same thing in Ireland... they directed the Loyalists and security forces to kill civilians to cause sectarian conflict. It's really not that hard to believe, actually. Divide and conquer is a pretty old trick of the imperialists. [/b]
Yes, however the situation in Iraq is very different, the US government, mainly the Bush camp and the GOP want Iraq to be settled as soon as possible. The difference is that there is oil in Iraq and that oil cannot be obtained as long as the country is so unsafe. Also, US troops are dying off by the thousands and there has been a severe backlash at home, which cost the GOP the mid term election and willprobaly cost them the '08 presendential election.

The UK's reasoning for keeping civil strife alive in N. Ireland was probaly due to the close proximity of the two areas. Because of the close proximity, the IRA was able to successfully launch attacks inside England itself on a faily regular basis, the British government most likely decided to increase conflict between the two sides, because if the IRA was busy fighting the loyalist inside N. Ireland, they would be too busy to attack England, Israel has been stirring things up in Lebanon for the same reason.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

So we can all agree on that apparently Britain, or at least the high command in the British special forces, are behind attacks, and that there are reports that suggest the U.S. is behind attacks, but that it cannot be proved?

[Tekun]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 06, 2007 09:23 pm
I'm really pretty shocked that anyone wouldn't believe the occupation forces would resort to these tactics. It's a standard part of counterinsurgency doctrine.

I think comrades here should read up on it- understanding the enemies theories will explain a lot.


Frank Kitson, a British military commander with extensive experience in Malaya, Borneo, Kenya, and Northern Ireland, developed many of the basic principles & methods of counter-insurgency used by Western nations today.


One method of locating guerrillas Kitson suggests is the "pseudo-gang," a fake guerrilla group comprised of mercenaries and/or agents. Pretending to be a genuine group, they discredit the movement through attacks against the civilian population, etc.

LINK (http://itwillbethundering.resist.ca/warrior_publications/insurgencyandcounterinsurgency.html)

The page I linked to also mentions incidents involving the SAS, the very same regiment that was caught preparing to carry out covert attacks on civilians in Iraq.
Those strategies and tactics have been put into practice in Colombia by the AUC paramilitaries against the FARC
And even b4 that, throughout Central America by various paramilitary groups that were trained and funded by the Americans to fight socialist guerillas
So its obvious that the Americans/British have the knowledge and resources to conduct this type operation in Iraq
Have they? Hard to tell, but it seems probable

[Guerrilla22]

I can buy that the US and the UK have control over some of the death squads and are using them to eliminate select individuals.

[Phalanx]

But saying that the US is behind the bombings that cause a hundred deaths is stretching it. The US likes to operate under the radar when it can, and if it was ever caught planting huge bombs in crowded places it would probably lose any remaining credibility.

[Severian]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 06, 2007 03:23 pm
I'm really pretty shocked that anyone wouldn't believe the occupation forces would resort to these tactics. It's a standard part of counterinsurgency doctrine.
Really? It's a standard part of counterinsurgency to recruit hundreds of people to blow themselves up in public places? Where does Uncle Sam find all these people willing to die for him?

'Course, if you believe the urban legend, they're manipulating people into doing it unintentionally. Do you believe all those bombings could be organized this way?

Or if it's not all those bombings - just a few - what's the point? Why does the occupation need to organize a few more - when the insurgency is organizing all these others already?

No, the problem is the deep sectarian and ethnic divisions of Iraqi society, intensified by the occupation's divide-and-conquer games. Not a conspiracy.

BTW, not everything they do is well-thought-out, either. They're not James Bond Supervillains. They like to believe they're on the side of right, good, peace, and prosperity, just as everyone else does. It's just their system produces the opposite.

A non-conspiracy-oriented look at the occupation's role in intensifying all these divisions (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53830) Or you could go back even further and point out how Britian in the 1920s made the Sunni minority dominant in order to punish the Shi'a majority for their role in an anti-colonial uprising. Etc.

This might be one reason why people in Iraq are inclined to believe this urban legend/conspiracy theory. It's metaphorically true in that the U.S. is contributing greatly to the spiral of sectarian violence - intentionally or unintentionally.

Another interesting question is why the Middle East and North America are the two parts of the world where people seem most inclined to believe conspiracy theories...

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 08, 2007 02:55 am
But saying that the US is behind the bombings that cause a hundred deaths is stretching it. The US likes to operate under the radar when it can, and if it was ever caught planting huge bombs in crowded places it would probably lose any remaining credibility.

definitely. The US government's aim is stabilizing Iraq, for a number of reasons that already have been mentioned, we need not get ridiculous here.