Provocateur State: Who's Really Behind the Insurgency?

Originally posted by Moretti

Is there any proof Syria or Saddam loyalists are behind the mosque bombings ?

No.

Is there any motive for Syria or Saddam loyalists to bomb mosques ?

No.



[edit on 27-5-2005 by Moretti]

Well if they have no apparent motive then they should stop doing it.

By making the statements you have above denying motive, you have simulatneously also removed cause and justification, both of which the terror groups you attempt to support have spent inordinate amounts of time and money to build for their actions. I'm sure they appreciate your efforts on their behalf.

Originally posted by Moretti
Is there any proof Syria or Saddam loyalists are behind the mosque bombings ?

No.

I imagine that there is. certainly the suicide car bomber pattern is similar Not being privy to the details of the investigation, I can’t tell you for sure what proof exists or does not exist. At the same time, it is not possible to for you to summarily claim that no proof exists when you clearly do not know this for a fact.

Is there any motive for Syria or Saddam loyalists to bomb mosques ?

No.

Again, you are claiming a fact for something that you do not know for sure. Are you a part of the Syria/Saddam loyalist group? If not, how can you speak for their motives? In any event, the common Iraqi knows full well what the motives are.

”For the past year Shiites have been attacked at mosques, weddings, funerals and crowded marketplaces. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most ruthless insurgent leader, has urged still more killing, calling Shiites "apostates" and usurpers of the Sunni Arab primacy in Iraq that ended with the overthrow of Mr. Hussein. On Wednesday his group boasted of killing Shiites in the northern city of Tal Afar.”

www.theledger.com.../20050527/ZNYT03/505270416

Is there any motive for the CIA and Mossad to bomb mosques ?

Yes, their obvious divide&conquer strategy.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by Moretti]

That is the stupidest thing that I have heard yet. If Iraq descends into a bloody sectarian civil war, (as it appears to be doing) then no one benefits, least of all the U.S.

hmmm....the idea of some US gov't factions having an interest in having "boogey men" to fight so they can increse defensive spending budgets, and justify having troops in Iraq is sadly reasonable, but just to look at the flip side, wouldn't they have more to gain by a peaceful, democratic Iraq with its on sovereign gov't in control of their own security ? It would make everyone forget about the WMD mess, and justify going after Iran and Syria, which W and rummy would want more than anything, right ????

Is there any motive for the CIA and Mossad to bomb mosques ?

Yes, their obvious divide&conquer strategy.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by Moretti]

That is the stupidest thing that I have heard yet. If Iraq descends into a bloody sectarian civil war, (as it appears to be doing) then no one benefits, least of all the U.S.

Could you refrain from insults in the future, thank you. Civil War in Iraq is the best-case outcome of the Iraq enterprise for the administration crooks. Why? As long as iraqis arent united, the us can continue to dictate iraqi policy, and steal iraqi oil. Alone in year following the invasion, 8.8 bn worth in iraqi assets went missing without trace. I wonder what the total theft volume is. Or why has the us tried to kill clerics advocating muslim unity against the us occupation, like Muqtada al-Sadr ?


[edit on 27-5-2005 by Moretti]

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
but just to look at the flip side, wouldn't they have more to gain by a peaceful, democratic Iraq with its on sovereign gov't in control of their own security ? It would make everyone forget about the WMD mess, and justify going after Iran and Syria, which W and rummy would want more than anything, right ????

Well, that point is valid only if one assumes that GW & company are personally afraid of being called into account for their lies, war crimes, etc... If they are only the front men for a coalition of special-interest groups who hold pretty close to absolute power in US politics, then there is little down side for them. They know they will be rewarded for their "service." And protected from prosecution.

As far as the "upside" for them from having a "peaceful, democratic Iraq" in place, the whole notion is sheer fantasy. The notion as painted by Washington propaganda is fantasy, anyway. The last thing the Neo-Con gang and their bosses want is popular sovereignty in a country that is composed of people not subservient to their interests.

A "democratic Iraq" would be just as anti-Israeli as Saddam's regime was, and there is little doubt that it would again nationalize the petroleum industry. Those two factors alone would make it impossible for Washington to tolerate real democracy. There is also no significant percentage of Iraqis [outside Kurdish militant organizations] that favour any foreign military presence. It is absolutely against Islamic law of both Sunni and Shi'i varieties to assist non-believers to attack other Muslims.

And, as you point out, attacking Syria and Iran are two prime reasons Washinton wants military bases in Iraq.

Don't forget the Vietnam precedent. The 1954 Geneva Accords that ended the French occupation [after the Viet Minh defeated them militarily] called for the temporary division into North and South, with only the North controlled by the Viet Minh, until free elections slated for 1956 would decide the destiny of the whole country.

It was then that the USA stepped in and refused to allow free elections in 1956. President Eisenhower admitted that "no one knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs has any doubt that Ho Chi Minh would receive 80% of the vote." As we know, the Viet Minh was largely Marxist, and Cold War values had a veto over idealistic fantasies like "democracy."

As with the Latin American death squads, Washington always trains and funds terrorism to eliminate popular movements and democratic governments that don't bow to the same lords US politicians bow to.

Originally posted by Moretti

Is there any motive for the CIA and Mossad to bomb mosques ?

Yes, their obvious divide&conquer strategy.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by Moretti]

That is the stupidest thing that I have heard yet. If Iraq descends into a bloody sectarian civil war, (as it appears to be doing) then no one benefits, least of all the U.S.

Could you refrain from insults in the future, thank you. Civil War in Iraq is the best-case outcome of the Iraq enterprise for the administration crooks. Why? As long as iraqis arent united, the us can continue to dictate iraqi policy, and steal iraqi oil. Alone in year following the invasion, 8.8 bn worth in iraqi assets went missing without trace. I wonder what the total theft volume is. Or why has the us tried to kill clerics advocating muslim unity against the us occupation, like Muqtada al-Sadr ?


[edit on 27-5-2005 by Moretti]

I have looked around the net concerning statistics on US spending on the War in Iraq. The general consensus is that the War has already cost the US governmetn $100B dollars, and will probably end up costing the US taxpayer $200B grand total. So, how does a mere $9B in oil factor into all of this?

And what proof do you have that the US is soley responsible for this so-called missing money/oil, anyways? And even IF the US was somehow involved, from a logistics and accounting point of view, how and where do you actually transport, hide and launder $9B dollars worth of crude oil anyways, considering there are very few places it can actually be refined in the first place?

Originally posted by astrocreep
This program might also be more disinformation to cause doubt within terrorist cells. If it were a legit operation, I doubt it would ever be public knowledge

I think it was leaked.

Even if it wasn't, you have to admit, this administration has just come out and said all kinds of things. I've never seen a more in-you-face adminstration.

Take renditions and the practice of torture (for interrogation), as an example. In the past, from Clinton back, those things did occur at times, but our government NEVER came out and discussed it the way they have since 9-11. That kind of forced this and other situations/plans out into the open. But these guys, they're as brash and unapolgetic as they come. My opposition to that boils down to the fact that it places our men and women in uniform into even more (needless) harm.

The practices I mentioned above, in certain instances, are necessary and should be EYES ONLY. In most cases, it is NOT the best course.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
wouldn't they have more to gain by a peaceful, democratic Iraq with its on sovereign gov't in control of their own security

No. If you study Mesopotamian history from today only back 150 years you will learn one thing, in particular. The people of Iraq will NOT tolerate ANYONE occupying their country. And make no mistake, they (over 80% of them) see us as occupiers.

As long as there is a security need, the US will remain there. So, sowing chaos is good business for the war cartel.

Originally posted by Pyros
So, how does a mere $9B in oil factor into all of this?

That money belongs to the people of Iraq.

And what proof do you have that the US is soley responsible for this so-called missing money/oil, anyways?

Please share with us your source(s).

And even IF the US was somehow involved, from a logistics and accounting point of view, how and where do you actually transport, hide and launder $9B

No offence, but your views on this sound very uninformed. What is your experience with the middle east. Have you ever served in the military, diplomatic corps or worked for an NGO?

Originally posted by Pyros
I have looked around the net concerning statistics on US spending on the War in Iraq. The general consensus is that the War has already cost the US governmetn $100B dollars, and will probably end up costing the US taxpayer $200B grand total. So, how does a mere $9B in oil factor into all of this?

The 9bn is just the part that went missing without any trace during the first year of US occupation. It's not the official benefits of US companies and US allied governments or companies from the iraq enterprise.

And what proof do you have that the US is soley responsible for this so-called missing money/oil, anyways?

"UN law" as some of you would say. The occupier is responsible for such things.

And even IF the US was somehow involved, from a logistics and accounting point of view, how and where do you actually transport, hide and launder $9B dollars worth of crude oil anyways, considering there are very few places it can actually be refined in the first place?

Questions for Bush and Cheney.

The mainstream media SHOULD be trying to expose where that missing money went.

We the taxpayers and the people of Iraq DESERVE an answer - and the hide of whoever is responsible.

"I have looked around the net concerning statistics on US spending on the War in Iraq. The general consensus is that the War has already cost the US governmetn $100B dollars, and will probably end up costing the US taxpayer $200B grand total. So, how does a mere $9B in oil factor into all of this?

And what proof do you have that the US is soley responsible for this so-called missing money/oil, anyways? And even IF the US was somehow involved, from a logistics and accounting point of view, how and where do you actually transport, hide and launder $9B dollars worth of crude oil anyways, considering there are very few places it can actually be refined in the first place?"


The US governments and allied Governments are a front for the Corporations who take the oil money, so there is a point here
The very large investment for the comparatively small return so far, represents the purchase of a de facto bulkhead in the particular region from which further wargames can be pursued.
Initial loss for longer-term gain



[edit on 1-6-2005 by dh]

Originally posted by dh


"I have looked around the net concerning statistics on US spending on the War in Iraq. The general consensus is that the War has already cost the US governmetn $100B dollars, and will probably end up costing the US taxpayer $200B grand total. So, how does a mere $9B in oil factor into all of this?

Mere? If we had to live under the wretched conditions today's Iraqis are living under, we'd be demanding heads on a platter for that MERE amount.

And what proof do you have that the US is soley responsible for this so-called missing money/oil, anyways? And even IF the US was somehow involved, from a logistics and accounting point of view, how and where do you actually transport, hide and launder $9B dollars worth of crude oil anyways, considering there are very few places it can actually be refined in the first place?"

The U.S. military is IN CHARGE.

Where to hide the money? EASY. Black ops. Off the books all the way. They are completely unaccountable since 9-11.






[edit on 6/1/05 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Originally posted by dh
how and where do you actually transport, hide and launder $9B dollars worth of crude oil anyways, considering there are very few places it can actually be refined in the first place?"

EASTCOASTKID: The U.S. military is IN CHARGE.

Where to hide the money? EASY. Black ops. Off the books all the way. They are completely unaccountable since 9-11.

Some of that money is also undoubtedly flowing to the other side - according to Rumsfeld's own statements on black ops. (PGO2)

[edit on 6/1/05 by EastCoastKid]