The scenario suggested in this article is not substantiated with any real evidence - rather instead, like a lot of similar conspiracy speculation, it follows a pattern of innuendo and rhetorical questions.

But the essential premise seems to me to be extremely unlikely. It is true that the CIA has carried out car-bombings in this part of the world before including in Iraq in the 1990s. Granted it is also likely that US intelligence agencies are up to all manner of unpleasantness in Iraq that we not yet know about, but it is not very likely that the current spate of car-bombings are part of a US dirty tricks campaign.

Simply put, these bombings have been disastrous for the US, damaging even for its ruling elite - they have escalated a war in which the US has paid a severe price and now risks a major defeat and humiliation with major repercussions for US hegemony in the region.

The second paragraph makes a number of assertions in order to establish the premise that the car-bombings are an unlikely strategy for Iraqi rebels to follow, in order to make the next assertion sound more plausible - that the bombings are engineered by US military intelligence et al. to prolong the occupation. But do these statements really withstand scrutiny?

"Considering that the main enemy of the insurgency is the U.S. Occupation and its soldiers and officials, the selection of these targets is strange and counter-intuitive. If these terrorists’ goal is to end the U.S. Occupation, their actions are sure to bring about the exact opposite result."

Like may guerrilla armies, it is reasonable to assume that those in Iraq have many political goals within their country other than the removal of occupation forces. It is common for guerrilla armies to target their own populations, particularly political rivals and those deemed connected to the occupation. It also common them for to adopt military strategies that do a lot of harm to their fellow nationals.

"By attacking and destabilizing the fledgling Iraqi Police infrastructure nationwide, they are ensuring that the U.S. military occupation will continue longer. Without a native police force, even if a future Iraqi government wanted to expel the U.S. military, they would be unable to do so without creating total chaos. In fact, as goes the progress of building a native police force for Iraq, so goes Iraq’s ability to one day break free from occupation."

In fact, the Iraqi police make a reasonable choice of target, on tactical if not moral grounds, for Iraqi rebels. For one, they are a much easier target and are afforded nothing like the protection that US soldiers. The devastation of the Iraqi police force is not helpful to US plans - it prevents the Bush administration presenting the situation in Iraq as normal and closes off the exit strategies they ultimately want for the bulk of their forces.

"Responsibility for these horrific attacks has been placed squarely on Al-Queda terrorists who’ve infiltrated Iraq, led by the U.S.’s new boogeyman Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Zarqawi, who was first introduced as a character in the theatrical “War on Terror” during the run-up to the Iraq War, has been steadily built up by U.S. Officials and the media as the face of Al-Queda terrorism in Iraq."

Granted, most government claims on this subject are nonsense and Zarqawi's role, if he has one, has been grossly inflated for propaganda purposes.

"If Zarqawi does exist, which is highly doubtful, and is leading a group of foreign Islamic fanatical terrorists, their murdering of fellow Muslims and impoverished Iraqis would seem to break every tenet of Islamic Faith. In addition to prolonging the U.S. Occupation, the attacks Zarqawi is accused of have killed hundreds of Iraqis, including women and children, and nearly no Americans. What kind of a tactic is this in an Islamic Jihad?"

You are correct to challenge the official portrayal of the role of Bin Ladenist groups from outside Iraq - but surely incorrect to suggest that Bin Ladenist groups would not behave in the manner you have suggested. What about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan - didn't Islamist rebels commit massive atrocities, kill Muslims and prolong the Soviet occupation? This is precisley the sort of behaviour that marks out these groups from Algeria to Indonesia. Not being naive about US foreign policy doesn't being naive about Islamic chauvinist militancy either.

"Close examination of the Nick Berg video and the circumstances surrounding it have lead many to conclude that this was actually a CIA psy-op."

Who are the "many" people who have come to this unlikely conclusion?

After acknowledging the lack of evidence for these assertions, we have the age-old retort: 'But despite this many observations can be made simply by asking the all-important question: “Who benefits?”'

In this case, it can be answered again - the car bombings rocking Iraq are very damaging to the US occupying forces seeking to give the impression of a country returning to normality. They serve to reinforce the widely held view in the US army and CIA that the US has lost the Iraq War and will ultimately have to withdraw in circumstances not of its making.

"...one of the chief strategic aims in invading Iraq was to establish massive military bases in the country which could be used as a staging ground for invading Iraq’s neighbors. And, of course, there is the goal of controlling Iraq’s oil and oil revenues. Both of these goals require the long-term presence of the U.S. Military in Iraq."

Granted - but a full-scale military occupation involving 140,000+ troops, dying at the rate of 15 a week does not suit US interests since it carries a massive financial and political cost (albeit one they have got away with for the time being).

"Based on the evidence cited above, I conclude that these car bombings are most likely the latest fake terrorism perpetrated by the Military-Industrial Complex."

But you didn't cite any evidence! You said - "The main obstacle to coming to any solid conclusion... is the lack of access to the physical and circumstantial evidence".

I don't see any reason to change the standard view that these car bombings are carried out by Iraqi rebels and/or Bin Ladenist volunteers from neighbouring countries.

The US and other Coalition forces are committing massive crimes in Iraq for which there is a growing body of evidence - there is no need for opponents of the war to make dubious assertions like this or to whitewash Iraqi rebels.

Excellent critique Alex, there's too many of these half baked theories floating around that haven't been thought through simply because it's convenient not to. In the long run they damage their own cause not to mention the intellectual dishonesty involved.

I was having a similar argument here....  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/303009.html

interesting that car bombs are going off in Iraq, was Mr. Allawi ever involved in such activities during the 1990's in Iraq????????????

Cheers, Andrew - a fellow member of what the Bush White House derisively calls the "reality-based community"! Followed your discussion on the link - you did pretty well there.

It is sites like Indymedia above all that should be committed to taking evidence seriously - or else the division between us and them in the corporate press starts to blur.
___________________________________________________

To Annon, asking about Allawi's role in car-bombings in the 1990s, this is an extract from a Justice not Vengeance briefing by the excellent independent peace researcher, Milan Rai (he indicates his sources):

Link:  http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing067.htm

BOMBING IRAQI CIVILIANS, 1994-1995

The last time car bombs went off in Baghdad (before the US/UK invasion) was in 1994 and 1995. These bombings, which, if they were carried out today, would be denounced by Allawi as vile terrorism, were carried out by the Iraqi exile opposition group known as the Iraqi National Accord (INA), headed then (as now) by... Iyad Allawi.

Backed by the CIA and preparing for a 1996 coup attempt, the INA bombed a cinema, a mosque, and the street outside an official newspaper, killing a total of perhaps 100 civilians. The INA role was revealed by the bomber, Abu Amneh al-Khadami, in Jan. 1996. (Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession)

The CIA role was confirmed in the New York Times by a 'former intelligence officials' who 'while confirming C.I.A. involvement in the bombing campaign, would not say how, exactly, the agency had supported it.' 'The bombing and sabotage campaign, the former senior intelligence official said, "was a test more than anything else, to demonstrate capability." ' (NYT, 9 June 2004, p. A1)

"Send a thief to catch a thief," said Kenneth Pollack, an Iran-Iraq military analyst for the CIA during the early 1990s. (NYT, 9 June, p. A1)

The first guy suggests the US is behind all the car bombs in Iraq, which is very unlikely.
His critics suggest the US is behind none of them, which is even more unlikely.
As a rule of thumb, I'd have the US as the main suspect in attacks were the effect is to divide the Sunnis and Shias, or to kill the most effective opponents of the occupation.
Probably only exceptionally blowing up their puppet police.

to start as you can see, the article is headed with a question.....its not stating as fact that the car bombings are carried out by the CIA/Mossad. But think: these bombings only benefit the US in that they get to stay in Iraq longer and impose itself in the region (look up: Hegel´s PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION) The Iraq war is not designed to be won. And for get any idea that Bush/Blair care about the troops, they are just carrying out the New World Order agenda.

If you think the US would be uncapable of carrying out such acts just read another post I put with the interview with well known lawyer Stanley Hilton who is representing hundreds of 911 families in his law suit against Bush and Co. The official 911 story is the biggest conspiracy theory there is and that HAS been proved! Before discounting things as "conspiracy theories" you need to do some research, read, and think "who benefitted from these acts?". If you're still in denial after researching 911 and reading the above mentioned interview, then look at history and you´ll see that government sponsored terrorism is very old tactic.

Lastly, too many people declare such information as "conspiracy theories" (many without even knowing its definition even) because they don´t want to accept ´the info. It goes against what they´ve been told for such a long time and what they´ve been conditioned to believe and think and its too hard to accept so they resort to discrediting the person that puts forward the info.

Nspullen,

You ask of me, 'Before discounting things as "conspiracy theories" you need to do some research, read, and think "who benefitted from these acts?".'

I haven't the time as yet to do all the necessary research but i have been looking into conspiracies and conspiracy theories for a while now, because i find them interesting and because i think what i call 'conspiracy speculation' is doing harm to the analytical abilities of many on the left.

It is true that many people who want to smear radicals or refuse to believe that their government is capable of immoral behaviour use the phrase 'conspiracy theory' as a lazy all-purpose insult of choice. But that's not what i'm trying to do.

Conspiracy theories are not a bad thing - when Woodward and Bernstein investigated the Watergate Hotel break-in trying to find out who authorised it and the ensuing cover-up, when Senator John Kerry followed up leads that the CIA was employing cocaine smugglers in Central America, when Greg Palast checked up on the methods Republican operatives used for disenfranchising Florida voters they were all forming theories of conspiracy.
And, as it happens, they were right. If anything, the first two examples tended to underestimate the extent of the criminality they were looking into.

I am actually a kind of anarchist, i don't believe the state is a benevolent institution, i'm not in denial - what would i want to deny?

My problem is with what i call conspiracy speculation - where virtually everything in a complex situation is considered to be engineered by one source of power. It could be Ian Paisley explaining virtually all political events as the result of a scheming Vatican. It could be Ann Coulter ascribing all the ills of the USA to liberals. It could be a Daily Mail editorial from the 1970s warning that Britain is being subverted by a dark alliance of Troskyists, Rastifarians and the IRA.

I expect the right to act like this - but the left should be offering accurate, honest and reliable analysis - that's how we can build up trust, by trying to get it right.

It is easy to think of plenty real US government conspiracies:

* President Ford and Henry Kissinger plotted with Indonesian dictator Suharto to arrange illegal military support for Indonesia's invasion of East Timor and to deceive the US public over what was happening
* Post WWII, US intelligence selected Nazi war criminals for new employment, exempted them from justice at Nuremberg and made use of their expertise in military technology, torture and counter-insurgency
* The Johnson administration staged a contrived military incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to gull Congress into authorising a massive escalation of the war in Vietnam
* The Truman adminsitration dropped an atom bomb on Nagasaki just to see how it worked
* CIA asset and ex-Nazi war criminal Sidney Gottlieb tried to kill the Congo's first elected Prime Minister with a poisoned handkerchief (he failed, but the US helped to kill Lumumba later on, "If at first you don't succeed...")
* The CIA employed cocaine smugglers who used the proceeds of crack sales in California to fund fascist paramilitaries in Nicaragua
* The CIA, probably with the personal authorisation of Henry Kissinger, arranged for a fascist terrorist group in Chile to kidnap and murder General Rene Schnieder who supported Chile's parliamentary constitution
* The CIA merecnary army, the Contras buried hundreds of their victims in a mass grave at a US air-base in the Honduras, whose construction and management was overseen by then ambassador John Negroponte, now ambassador to Iraq

And on and on. Some of these things seem almost too horrifying and just plain weird to be true. But the facts are in, many of the relevant files have been declassified, a lot of people have spoken on the record. The evidence is there and it is conclusive, often worse than many of us feared.

What distinguishes this stuff from the idea that the CIA is behind most of the car-bombings of police stations in Iraq or that the Bush administration planned 9/11 is the evidence. I don't disbelieve these claims because i am unfamiliar with official US mendacity, but because i do know a bit about it, how it does and doesn't work.

In my view, the idea that even if it wanted to, the Bush administration could orchestrate a massive attack on targets in the US including their own military command centre without dissent, without whistleblowers, without being caught out or exposed, without an evidence trail is just not plausible. This is just not how the ruling class in the US operates. I am surprised by Stanley Hilton's lawsuit, but am not at all convinced by it.

Even the Bush administration's efforts to mislead the public over Iraqi WMD prompted resignations from diplomatic staff, internal protest, CIA operative Joe Wilson writing an op-ed in national newspapers, leaks. Bush's cabinet barely even agreed on the Iraq War - and we are expected to believe that Bush personally ordered an attack on the Pentagon and no-one bat an eyelid!

Stanley Hilton is arguing that Bush personally ordered the attacks, that the hijackers who killed themselves were actually doing it for Bush (that was very loyal of them!), that the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were specially selected drones, while the real United Airlines flights were grounded and their passenger and crews massacred on Bush's orders (presumably the CIA - or is it Mossad? - then went and staged all those final phone calls to loved ones).

Hilton cites the usual claims that have been discredited about the attack on the Pentagon - that no aeroplane parts were found (they were), that no photographs show an actual plane hitting the building (some do), that the structural damage was not consistent with a plane crash (it is).

I don't why Hilton has taken the action he has, just as i don't know why New Orleans Attorney Jim Garrison chose to prosecute an innocent man for killing JFK, but i think he is leading those 9/11 victims he is representing towards a humiliating dead end.

There are two more things that worry me. First some on the left appear to be suggesting that Bin Ladenist groups are engaged in virtually no violent action of any kind. Whether it's a bomb in a synagogue in Istanbul or an attack on Shia pilgrims in Kerbala, i hear people telling me the CIA is behind it, a claim based on nothing but supposition. You go so far as to suggest that Wahabbi jihadists wouldn't do such things as a matter of principle, which will come as news to the many Muslims who have experienced the violence of these groups at first hand.

There is another thing that bothers me about some of this stuff. While many people will spend a lot of time investigating fantastic lines of inquiry - did the Royal Family murder Diana?, did the entire US military-industrial complex team up on JFK?, did Bush allow/plan 9/11?, much less time is given to less glamorous but more serious lines of inquiry.

Did the CIA know about the planned assasination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in San Salvador in 1980? Did they have a hand in the killing? What did British cabinet members know about the murderous activities of the army's Force Research Unit in Northern Ireland? Who authorised the FRU's actions? Was MI5 behind the bombing of Dublin and Monaghan County in May 1974 (they don't deny it)? Did Edward Heath authorise the use of force against demonstrators in Derry on Bloody Sunday? Did Blair's government act to block justice for the disposessed of Diego Garcia? Were the soldiers at Deepcut barracks murdered? By whom? Who knew? Who covered it up? What does the Ministry of Defence know? Did Kissinger give the order to kill Chile's General Rene Schnieder? If not him, then who? What does the government know about the risks from Depleted Uranium?

These are serious, real lines of inquiry. And if more people cared, we might get some justice and some answers.

Thanks for reading, best wishes for the new year.

firstly i have had the time to research and you really need to look at history to understand whats happening.

you commented on the "many people" that have concluded the nick berg execution was a psy-ops....if you do the research you can find out who those people are. and why do you say that conclusion is "unlikely" if you havent done the research to be able to judge if it is actually "unlikely". again i have to say that people who discount things as "conspiracy theories" without even looking into whether a conspiracy exists cant be taken too seriously.

---Granted - but a full-scale military occupation involving 140,000+ troops, dying at the rate of 15 a week does not suit US interests since it carries a massive financial and political cost (albeit one they have got away with for the time being).-----

you need to understand that bush isnt acting in the interests of the US. he doesnt care about troops or monetary costs and should kerry have won the election it wouldnt have made any difference because both are puppets, both serve NWO interests and of course israeli interests.

-----In my view, the idea that even if it wanted to, the Bush administration could orchestrate a massive attack on targets in the US including their own military command centre without dissent, without whistleblowers, without being caught out or exposed, without an evidence trail is just not plausible. This is just not how the ruling class in the US operates. I am surprised by Stanley Hilton's lawsuit, but am not at all convinced by it.-----


obviously you havent even looked into the 911 event to see if the official story holds water. the vast majority in powerful positions in the gvmnt, cia, fbi are not working in the interests of the usa. how do you explain the massive media cover-up of 911? and you are actually wrong, they have been caught out and big time, whistleblowers have been popping up all over and thats how all the truth has been coming out these last years. the evidence trail showing it was an inside job is long, very long. again, look for it. just because you dont see evidence of all this in the corporate media doesnt mean its not there. a recent zogby poll in nyc showed 50%+ think that the gvmnt "consciously failed to act" on 911 and a cnn poll has resulted with 90% thinking the gvmnt is covering the facts of 911. at least 7 of the 911 highjackers have been confirmed alive. no pentagon video shows clearly a 757 hitting the penatgon and why did the fbi confiscate all local business video footage around the pentagon then refuse to release even one video of the airliner hitting. after all we saw over and over the south tower being hit. since when does a 757 leave a 16ft hole in a wall after impact and leave zero wreckage, body parts, luggage on the lawn? how does a confirmed "useless" pilot manouvre a 757 into the pentagon in such a way that the most professional pilots would find so difficult to carry out?

have you read the declassified documents about the joint chiefs of staff plan "operation northwoods" from the early 60's and how they planned to carry out terror attacks on mainland USA amongst other possile atrocities, then blame it on cuba? (kennedy rejected the plan and this along with the fact that he wanted to smash the cia, get rid of the federal reserve and withdraw the troops from vietnam are the most probable reasons for his assasination), have you read how the fbi cooked the bomb that was used in the 1993 WTC attack? have you read about the fact that unexploded bombs were found inside the alfred t murrah building in oklahoma city? have you read about how the US govmnt knew that the japanese were going to attack and let them do it, giving themselves the excuse they needed to enter ww2? all the above has been shown through official documents and reported in mainstream media. 911 was just another example of problem, reaction, solution - the hegelian dialectic

re stanley hilton, why are you not convinced by his suit? hundreds of 911 families are and obviously those in high positions are worried about it because theyre threatening him, breaking into his offices and his information is being confirmed.

-----Bin Ladenist volunteers from neighbouring countries.-------

bin laden?? well, did you know he was a cia asset with the cover name of "tim osman" - official documents show that - and theres little reason to doubt that hes finished serving US interests, afterall his family has been constructing US military bases in the middle east for years. he makes appearences whenever the US needs him.....look at the surprise appearence he made just before the US elections and even bush has stated that hes not worried about bin laden.


hope you had a nice new year.

firstly i have had the time to research and you really need to look at history to understand whats happening.

you commented on the "many people" that have concluded the nick berg execution was a psy-ops....if you do the research you can find out who those people are. and why do you say that conclusion is "unlikely" if you havent done the research to be able to judge if it is actually "unlikely". again i have to say that people who discount things as "conspiracy theories" without even looking into whether a conspiracy exists cant be taken too seriously.

---Granted - but a full-scale military occupation involving 140,000+ troops, dying at the rate of 15 a week does not suit US interests since it carries a massive financial and political cost (albeit one they have got away with for the time being).-----

you need to understand that bush isnt acting in the interests of the US. he doesnt care about troops or monetary costs and should kerry have won the election it wouldnt have made any difference because both are puppets, both serve NWO interests and of course israeli interests.

-----In my view, the idea that even if it wanted to, the Bush administration could orchestrate a massive attack on targets in the US including their own military command centre without dissent, without whistleblowers, without being caught out or exposed, without an evidence trail is just not plausible. This is just not how the ruling class in the US operates. I am surprised by Stanley Hilton's lawsuit, but am not at all convinced by it.-----


obviously you havent even looked into the 911 event to see if the official story holds water. the vast majority in powerful positions in the gvmnt, cia, fbi are not working in the interests of the usa. how do you explain the massive media cover-up of 911? and you are actually wrong, they have been caught out and big time, whistleblowers have been popping up all over and thats how all the truth has been coming out these last years. the evidence trail showing it was an inside job is long, very long. again, look for it. just because you dont see evidence of all this in the corporate media doesnt mean its not there. a recent zogby poll in nyc showed 50%+ think that the gvmnt "consciously failed to act" on 911 and a cnn poll has resulted with 90% thinking the gvmnt is covering the facts of 911. at least 7 of the 911 highjackers have been confirmed alive. no pentagon video shows clearly a 757 hitting the penatgon and why did the fbi confiscate all local business video footage around the pentagon then refuse to release even one video of the airliner hitting. after all we saw over and over the south tower being hit. since when does a 757 leave a 16ft hole in a wall after impact and leave zero wreckage, body parts, luggage on the lawn? how does a confirmed "useless" pilot manouvre a 757 into the pentagon in such a way that the most professional pilots would find so difficult to carry out?

have you read the declassified documents about the joint chiefs of staff plan "operation northwoods" from the early 60's and how they planned to carry out terror attacks on mainland USA amongst other possile atrocities, then blame it on cuba? (kennedy rejected the plan and this along with the fact that he wanted to smash the cia, get rid of the federal reserve and withdraw the troops from vietnam are the most probable reasons for his assasination), have you read how the fbi cooked the bomb that was used in the 1993 WTC attack? have you read about the fact that unexploded bombs were found inside the alfred t murrah building in oklahoma city? have you read about how the US govmnt knew that the japanese were going to attack and let them do it, giving themselves the excuse they needed to enter ww2? all the above has been shown through official documents and reported in mainstream media. 911 was just another example of problem, reaction, solution - the hegelian dialectic

re stanley hilton, why are you not convinced by his suit? hundreds of 911 families are and obviously those in high positions are worried about it because theyre threatening him, breaking into his offices and his information is being confirmed.

-----Bin Ladenist volunteers from neighbouring countries.-------

bin laden?? well, did you know he was a cia asset with the cover name of "tim osman" - official documents show that - and theres little reason to doubt that hes finished serving US interests, afterall his family has been constructing US military bases in the middle east for years. he makes appearences whenever the US needs him.....look at the surprise appearence he made just before the US elections and even bush has stated that hes not worried about bin laden.


hope you had a nice new year.