How about you actually provide a shred of evidence - or even an argument - for your assertion rather than just repeatedly chanting it like a mantra?

"How about you actually provide a shred of evidence"

- Would that be evidence as in the "evidence" that we were given about WMD? Can YOU provide ANY evidence that Sunni Muslims (or indeed any Muslim) was responsible? Do you even understand the cultural, religious, local and global factors that influence the pattern of these (well-timed) bombings? If, as I suspect, your understanding of Iraqis and Muslims is based upon what you read in the Sun & the Telegraph, then why don't we make it simple for you? ASK YOURSELF - WHO GAINS FROM THESE ACTIONS?

I guess you are the type of person who believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (most dumb, brainwashed Americans still do despite this having been PROVEN to be untrue)! Perhaps you even believed that Saddam's "WMD" (where are they again?!) were within 45 minutes of you, or your interests (ie. "israel"). I bet you believe in the so-called war on "terror" and think that "president" Bush is great guy!

Since not a "shred of evidence" has been presented by ANYONE to prove or disprove who actually carried out these bombings, I don't see how you can challenge her account of what happened and blindly believe the mass media's story (fed to them by the occupying force - great source there mate!). Do you really know nothing about misinformation and propaganda used by waring countries, especially those in the hsbit of illegally invading other nations? I bet you're the kind of person that thinks that governments (even unelected ones like the cabal occupying the Whitehouse) are incapable of such acts (called "false flag operations" - look it up on Google).

So they can bomb a nation for some elusive WMDs (or regime change, or whatever the current pathetic excuse is), they can kill tens if not hundreds of thouands of people and not bother to even count the dead, they can use chemical and biological agents banned under International Law, drop cluster bombs (also ILLEGAL Mr bLIAR), murder children and torture prisoners of war - but you think that it is beyond them to fake terror attacks and blame the Iraqi resistance!? Wake up mate.

Just a shame your anger blinds you from rational thinking Angry Manc. I enjoyed that wild outpouring of 'insights' into what I supposedly believe. Sadly none of them are true but your attempt to stereotype and dismiss me as a Sun reader was amusing. And all because I asked for an argument or reasoning.

No you're quite right, there's no evidence of WMDs and accordingly I've never believed they existed. Your post seems to be bizarrely suggesting that because we have corrupt leaders who brazenly lie and distort intelligence, writers on Indymedia shouldn't have to provide any kind of argument or evidence for their assertions. Which is strange, considering it is, as you said, meant to be an alternative, rather than sinking to the same depths as politicians and most of the mainstream media.

Yes it's POSSIBLE the US were behind the bombings. The CIA have been involved in terrorism before (Chile etc) and we know they've considered that type of plan - to carry out bombings then attribute blame elsewhere for political gain - with Cuba in the past. But all the evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL and weak. There are other possibilities. It's blatantly clear that were it to be pro-US news, the standards of evidence would be far higher on here. So unless there is any noteworthy evidence based on a rational argument, then personally I see the posting as a waste of time and space. A short, crude assertion repeatedly regurgitated without evidence or detail does not qualify.

.. or in other words ..

evidence is not the same as proof.

In as far as proving or disproving the theory that the usa/israel/uk are responsible for the bombings that seek to dis-unite religious/ethnic/tribal tensions ... what standard are you looking for?

There are very few things that can be proved. But based on the preponderance of evidence, including the circumstancial, reasonable assumptions can be drawn and predictions made.

In fact, these assumptions have already been made, as have the predictions - which are remarkably in keeping with events unfolded.

Who has a track record of staging 'false flag operations'/
Who has the means of carrying them out?
Who has a complient media licking at their heals - ready to bury bad news under a sea of innaccuracy and triviality (seen much news about the several thousand dead Falujans, the hundreds of 'clearing up' operations being conducted OUTSIDE the supposed liberated city, or the dozens of serious and urgent requests for access from international aid agencies?)

WHO HAS THE MOTIVE?

WHO BENEFITS?

These are all questions that are routinely asked in a court of law - means motive method.

We can ask them too.

If we wait around for proof - there won't be any!

Who has the motive to divide the Iraq people?

Who benefits from having the anger directed inwards?

The Iraqi people are not fooled.

Neither am I, and nor should [you].

'When they came for the Falujans, I said nothing ...'

They, the americans, have been saying for yonks that there is likely to be a civil war in Iraq, various U:S government agency reports have repeatedly stated that there is a strong possibility that there will be a civil war in Iraq.
Other agencies will be working flat out to make it happen. Then they can say "as we predicted".
The already talk about the war as if it was well in the past as if Bush's unilateral declaration that the War was officially over was in some way relevant. Even though Iraqi resistance is referred to as terrorism, in the corporate media.
They'll have a civil war even if they have to ship in some neo contras to be the "official" opposition, as soon as they can create two factions (even on paper) fighting one another they've cracked it. All they have to do then is divert some of the proceeds from this years bumper opium harvest in and around Afghanistan then have their old mates the mafia ship in some top quality killing equipment and it's job done. If they can crank it up in time it should make a nice bonus next for all the crooks who will attend next summers DSEI. They can then turn to NATO and the UN and put some peacekeepers in to seperate the warring factions which by this time have contracts with UPS and DHL for all their armoury needs and then pull out most of their troops while still crowing about what a great job they have done.
With any luck they'll be able to take the show "on the road" and get all Iraqs neighbours to muck in, Israel will obviously need to defend itself in it's own unimitable style and the IDF will invade ..... sure there at it big time !!!

For domestic reasons [um, why is the "cabal" in the White House 'unelected'?], the Bush Adminstration wants to present the situation in Iraq as a success. Also, for fairly obvious reasons, they want to minimise US casualties.

Exploding bombs does not given the impression that Iraq is now a peaceful country and that the invasion hs been a success. Similarly, exploding bombs adds to the chaos and thus to increased risks of soldiers being shot [hey, perhaps that's 'false flag' too? They shoot each other].

Sorry that you took offence at my generalisations - I did not really expect you to fit the stereotype described – I was just probing to see what your motive was for questioning the original post.

If we wait for the mass media to provide the evidence of such wrong-doings then I suspect that we will be waiting forever. There are countless sites describing in detail the massacre at Fallujah, to take just one example, and yet the controlled corporate-media give it about as much time as the "cat stuck up a tree" end-piece. There is more logical thought and reasoning about world events on the internet than comes from the mouth of the cocaine snorting Dubya and his slavish media. Unfortunately most of the "intellectual prostitutes" who work for the controlled media are too busy trying to promote the agendas of the masters and their warmongering puppeteers. We are constantly fed lies and gross distortions dressed as dead-centre views and as the only possible opinions one could and should hold - all laced with with a sprinkling of questionable "facts" to convince morons that it is all true. There is no "freedom of the press".

There are many people out there who have had enough of the lies of the corporate media, of their deception and biases [you could say we have swallowed the "red pill"]. It is brain-numbing to watch the drivel presented to us as “news” when scratching below the surface reveals half-truths and gross omissions. It would be laughable were it not for the fact that while they spin their lies, children are being blow to pieces by bombs that we pay for just so that a few can get richer.

Conversely many people are controlled by Murdoch, Hollinger ie. Telegraph (Kissinger & Perle [zionist "neocons"], ex-CONrad Black [nutcase zionist extremist]) and the other media mafias. If the Sun [Murdoch] stands by Michael Howard, I suspect that he will be elected (to carry on the work of the Tory Tony). I wonder what the outcome of the meeting between Murdoch and Howard was. Who cares – they are all just puppets but they influence many people who have happily taken the “blue pill”.

We should not see it as pointless to question the explanation we are given of what by all other accounts amount to war crimes being carried out following the illegal and unsanctioned invasion of Iraq. Posts that question the official versions of events encourage people the dig deeper and provide a forum for further discussion. They can be a good place to post any relevant facts or media omissions and highlight the growing number of "co-incidences" that the corporate media label as "conspiracy theories". They can also serve as a hub from which people can further explore the history of media manipulation and government propaganda methods.

Unfortunately the mass media are happy repeating the Establishment’s version of events and cower from asking any real questions. It is left to comedians to mock the leaders and expose their inadequacies, and to internet communities to sift through the garbage to discover what the American war machine is really doing to the people of Iraq.

I'm sorry Templar but your argument is pretty absurd. There are far easier ways of generating business for the arms companies then deliberately engineering a civil war in a country which the US has long sought 'stability' - of the economic and geo-strategic type that Saddam used to so brutally offer the West. Extending government subsidies to various other allied regimes and customers would be a vastly safer way of shifting money from the taxpayer to the arms industry if that was the sole reason for the war.

In reality, even if we're to assume that the bombings WERE carried out by the US, the far more likely reason would be that it was an attempt to ensure the reasonably widespread sympathy for (discriminate) resistance (as shown in polls) did not translate into active support. By alienating and disgusting ordinary Iraqis with indiscriminate and bloody attacks supposedly by the resistance, this sympathy could be eroded. It could also prevent further co-operation between Sunni and Shias. I very much doubt an all out genuine civil war is what they want however. Though inevitably if the resistance becomes popular enough that they are unable to dismiss it as 'remnants' any more, they would frame it as a civil war rather than the coalition and stooges versus Iraqis.

So as I've said, it's POSSIBLE that the bombings were carried out by the US however the evidence is completely circumstantial and other explanations are perfectly plausible at the moment. It's sheer wilful ignorance to pretend otherwise simply because it conveniently fits your mindset.

As Patrick Cockburn (hardly a corporate puppet - he actually uncovered the story of how the CIA were funding terrorist bombings in Iraq via Allawi's Iraqi National Accord in the mid 90's) has pointed out, many Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, believe that the bombings were carried out by Salafi or Wahabi Sunnis in Iraq, extremists who consider all Shias as infidels. That has to be a possibility. Furthermore, it's not impossible that the much fabled 'foreign terrorists' were actually to blame for once. Although their role may be exaggerated, it's naive to think that al Qaeda wouldn't wish to exacerbate the situation even more for the US. A civil war would halt their plans for a stable, compliant regime that allows military bases in the region.

...The west by the very means of it's 'magical' construction (*) is anathma to inter-communal peace. (this is what 'they' really hate)

(*) see  http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/ritual_abuse/111339/latest/1

Allah Akbar

King Amdo.

Blessings and Love to his Holiness the Dalai Lama, reincarnated diety of compassion, being of love light telepathy!

Again...it is this 'high cast' type magic they they really detest...because they are demons constructed by the means of ritual racist child abuse. But so to commy's and maoists you say...ah-ha! (you've just sussed out an aspect of the 'game').

A doomed order.

Jah Love.