Four Arrested Over Najaf Bombing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3193713.stm

Four arrested over Najaf bombing

Four men have been arrested in connection with Friday's car bomb blast in Najaf which killed at least 95 people.
The local governor said two of the suspects were members of the former regime from Basra, while the others were non-Iraqi Arabs subscribing to the puritannical Wahhabi Muslim faith.

The four men are said to have confessed to the bombing and to other plots intended to destabilise the country.

The arrests were announced as crowds gathered at the scene of the blast - outside one of the holiest Shia Muslim shrines - to prepare for the funerals of many of the victims.

Iraq's leading Shia Muslim politician - Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim was among the victims...>> MORE

First, it wasn't a suicide bombing...this is the MO of al-qaeda myrtrs.
Second, al-qaeda would not have blown up Muslims at prayers...Allah would not like that.
Third, the so-called captives seem to always give up so much information so readily that you just know what the US is saying can't be true.
Fourth, this bombing would not benefit al-qaeda or Saddam loyalists whose common enemy is the US...not other Muslims.

Wahhabbi radicals would kill Shias at prayer as readily as they would Jews. Shia rejectionists would kill Shia collaberators at prayer just as readily. The leading enemy of all Iraqi rejectionists, whether Ba'athist or Shia, consists in Iraqis willing to cooperate with the U.S. occupation.

"Revolution is not a tea party."

This is the same "round up the usual suspects" that Ashcroft has done so well in America.

I will remind you that the bomb was in the Ayatollah's car. I doubt that a Pakistani or Saudi would have been able to get close enough to the car to plant a bomb. "They" don't look alike!

One possibility is that it was a hit by more radical Shias opposed to any sort of accommodation with the Occupation regime.

Attack points to new alliances

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3192815.stm

By Roger Hardy
BBC Middle East analyst

The assassination of Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim in Najaf comes in the midst of a bitter struggle for power among the Iraqi Shia.
Yet many analysts - and many Shia -believe it likely the attackers came from outside the community.

Suspicion has inevitably fallen on elements loyal to the old Saddam Hussein regime, which regarded the Shia with suspicion and brutally suppressed them.

But it is also possible that a tactical alliance is emerging between Saddam Hussein loyalists and Islamic militants who have entered Iraq over the last few months.

Since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, the Shia have been split over whether to co-operate with the US-led administration.


The leading ayatollahs are critical of the Americans but ready to co-operate with them.
This is the view of two of the main Shia groups - the Daawa Party and Ayatollah Hakim's group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri).

This approach has been strongly criticised by a group led by a radical young Shia figure, Muqtada al-Sadr...>> MORE

They will certainly suffer for it, regardless.

...that the prevailing theory among the Iraqi's was that this was a US/CIA job. He was showing the busted out windows of his vehicle that happened as he was high tailing it out of the area. He also said that the US/CIA conection that was suggested was just "so silly". I personally think perception may be more important than reality in these situations. We are in for a long bumpy ride here I am afraid.

Don

Whether the belief is in error or no, it will dictate actions.

It is only the influence of senior clerics such as this man that has till now held the Si'ites relatively quiescent. With that influence broken or otherwise removed, what has occured so far will resemble a training exercise.

among the various other theories as to who did this
based on who benefits calculations, the nations of
Syria and Iran are being left out. This is a very
effective way to poke a stick in the hornets nest, getting
the Shia off the fence, so to speak, thus keeping Uncle
Sugar firmly tied down in Iraq.

One could extend this idea to any other government or
group that might wish to prevent the appearance of US
"success" in Iraq.

Aidoneus put up a piece on the Turkish "flirtation" with the
Sunni tribes as opponents of the Kurds today, also, which is
not likely to be helpful, either.

We appear to be heading towards a situation that resembles
Somalia or Afghanistan, a situation that was predicted here
numerous times in the runup to the war.

Iran in particular. This fellow was not a wholly tractable sort while they hosted his exile, and since it is a long Persian desire to incorporate the south of what is now Iraq, killing this fellow, both for immediate de-stabilization, and for long-term crippling of independence minded leadership, makes a ruthless "two for one" sense. Beyond that, as you point out, the possibilities rtange widely.

It does seem to me the situation can only deteriorate, and with increasing speed. This really cannot come as a surprise to any with even a cursory knowledge of the place. One of my favorite recollections in the run up to this was some official tonmgue proclaiming there was no history of ethnic conflict in Iraq, so stability was certain once liberation was achieved.

There is something about which I'd appreciate your opinion. A few days ago, Richard Perle made some whiperings that seemed to advocate pulling out of Iraq. Did you see that?

I'll try to find the article. I'm confused about how that might fit. It must be too soon for PNAC to cry uncle, isn't it? Addled desperation seems unlikely in one so slick.

edit- Here it is. A bit different than I'd represented it, but still puzzling:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=14&u=/nm/20030827/ts_nm/iraq_usa_perle_dc

PARIS (Reuters) - Richard Perle, a leading Pentagon adviser and architect of the U.S. war to topple Saddam Hussein, said the United States had made mistakes in Iraq and that power should be handed over to the Iraqis as fast as possible.

In an interview with the Le Figaro daily newspaper to be published Thursday, Perle defended the U.S.-led war in Iraq and restated his belief that France had been wrong to lead international opposition to the conflict.

"Of course, we haven't done everything right," said Perle, according to the French text of the interview. "Mistakes have been made and there will be others.

... "Today, the answer is to hand over power to the Iraqis as soon as possible," he added.

more

discussion here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=85806

Perle's talking about handing Iraq over to his old pal Chalabi.

Hmmm...that brings another thought to my mind...it was reported yesterday that the newly formed Iraqi police would be investigating the bombing, FBI only helping if asked. These arrests were awfully quick for a new police force...unless they had help from someone...maybe Chalabi? Interesting also -- Chalabi held a press conference right after the bombing and said pretty much the same thing Perle did.

What this reptile's principal complaint is, is that no exile front was constructed before the invasion, to be put up front as "in charge" from the first days of it. His belief that such an obvious exercise of puppetry would have had a calming effect on Iraqis is no less ludicrous than his imaginings about the same time as that, that the U.S. soldiers would be met with barrages of flowers. The Iraqi exiles eager to cooperate with the United Staes had no political following whatever in Iraq, nor were they vested with any moral authority by the Iraqi populace. His idea of turning the semblance of civil power over to such, or even to the Iraqi council the U.S. has lately created, is not a formula for withdrawl, but only for getting U.S. soldiers off police patrol and sentry-go, so they may be kept concentrated in secure bases, ready for sallies out on suppression duties, but no longer subject to the daily drain of "sparrow war" casualties, which he recognizes are politically lethal, however insignifigant in purely military terms they may be.

I think it's our covert ops guys who did both this and the UN bombing.

To understand what's going on there, it is important to don the cap of the neocolonial geopolitical oil realist (NGOR). By so doing, the entire situation becomes comprehensible.

The NGOR sees that the desperate Pentagon neocons share incentives with the quasi-military oil interests who have, at the behest of the corrupt Bush regime, descended upon Iraq to claim the booty.

Their incentives are, like all colonialists, to keep the country divided. There are two worst case scenarios for the neocolonialists:

(1) The WH succumbs to pressures to give up "control" (read oil field control) in order to induce Russia, France, Germany & Japan to share the occupation burden and permit withdrawal of half or more of US GIs,

and/or

(2) Iraqi Muslims put aside old grievances and inter-sect rivalries (Sunni vs Shiite) and ally against the occupiers.

The most important goal of the neocolonialists therefore is to work against these two potential threats.

What is confusing to us mere citizens is that we actually believe the WH and Pentagon are trying to reconstruct Iraq and create a democracy there. We decidedly are not. We want to appear to be so doing. But our real goal is to control and exploit the resources, and to prevent the Iraqis from throwing us out.

If you adopt the NGOR vision, you will never be confused or dismayed. The entire picture becomes perfectly clear.

it would seem to me that the ONLY way to intice foreign intervention YET still maintain CONTROLL is to actually look like you are in control in the first place.

i think these attacks are very BAD for the U.S. and so i still doubt that they would be involved but then i remember who's drivin :crazy:

peace

I said the neocolonialist interests do not want "foreign intervention."

To paraphrase a famous saying:
It's the booty, stupid!

Peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html?hp

The police official, who led the initial investigation and interrogation of the captives, said the prisoners told of other plots to assassinate political and religious leaders and to damage vital installations such as power plants, water supplies and oil pipelines.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the bomb was made from the same type of materials used in the Aug. 19 bombing at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, which killed at least 23 people died, and the Jordanian Embassy attack on Aug. 7, which killed 19.

The FBI said the U.N. bomb was constructed from ordnance left over from the regime of Saddam Hussein, much of it produced in the former Soviet Union.

The Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite broadcaster, quoting the Najaf governor, said 1,550 pounds of explosives were planted in two cars.

The police official said the suspects claimed a recent wave of bombings were designed to keep Iraq in a state of chaos so that police and American forces would be unable to focus attention on the country's porous borders, where suspected foreign fighters are believed to be infiltrating.

That is simply too busy. This thing can do nothing but increase resistance to the U.S., no matter who has done it, and for the thing to have been done by U.S. directive in the idea it would help control the place is a level of foolishness it is not possible evn for me to impute to these cretins.

It is the old rule of colonialists the world over. Divide and conquer. Create as much disorder as possible, provided it does not interfere with extraction of the booty. The more internal dissention, the less likely an indigenous alliance can form to oust the interlopers, the safer the booty from reclamation by its true owners.

Try the idea on for a few weeks, my friend. I suspect it will grow on you.

Regards!

The quiesence of the Shi'ites was the one desirable feature of the situation, from the point of view of a colonial administrator: this is certain to shatter that.

Still, idiocy is unfathomable, and proof would not find me disbelieving, my friend.

"When you oppose stupidity, you oppose a vested interest with friends in every walk of life and government."

Just a few days ago, Bush was trying to pitch the occupation of Iraq as a current chapter of the never-ending war on terror. It is very much in the administration's interests to paint what is happening as the doing of international terrorism -- that is, non-Iraqi fanatics using standard terrorist methods and tactics to incite a general state of chaos.

The picture that had been emerging before these bombings -- of a national resistance waging highly focused guerrilla warfare against US troops -- was not at all what they wanted. It made too much sense. It was far too likely to gain sympathy and an appearance of legitimacy. And it undermined the administration scenario of an evil movement of evil people doing evil things just because they were evil.

These bombings put the Iraqi situation back on message, from the administration point of view. They may also have the useful side effect of keeping the Iraqi resistance confused and divided. And they fit in with the general Bush policy of using traditional disinformation/brainwashing tactics to keep Americans in a state of permanent uncertainty, where nothing adds up or makes sense and there are no firm conclusions to be drawn or obvious actions to take.

If nothing else, I'm very suspicious of the idea that just a few hours of "initial investigation and interrogation" would bring out such a flood of confessions concerning "other plots to assassinate political and religious leaders and to damage vital installations such as power plants, water supplies and oil pipelines." It sounds very much as though these confessions had been prepared beforehand for the morning news.

The overall effect of these bombings is to reinforce the belief of conservatives and fundies that they are fighting a holy war against mindless forces of destruction, while keeping liberals and progressives confused, demoralized, and helpless. They also make it more difficult for Democratic candidates to criticize Bush policy in Iraq. Granted, all these benefits exist on the level of appearance and not reality -- but what in this administration does not?

it is important to separate the question of who actually
did it from the immediate attempt to spin the result, which
is more or less a reflex for some.

Translation: the fact they immediately set out to spin the
story to advantage does not mean they did it.

is if SAIRI planned on withdrawing from the puppet council and the CPA knew about it before others did.. but that's a real longshot and a much thinner limb than I like to jump out on. Not entirely groundless, in his last interview with a Spanish journalist he stated flatly that the "...occupying troops are neither qualified nor capable of resolving our problems, which are very serious and which could provoke a social explosion. In which case, they would be responsible...", not entirely groundless just quite unlikely and most irrational.

A few months ago the invaders making a shahid of him would make some sense (for then it wasn't sure if they'd tolerate the invaders or not), but it doesn't seem to be of any benefit now for the occupying forces to deliberately martyr someone as useful as Hakim has been to them by staying more or less neutral. I would assume that the neutralist relationship they've taken so far will not be maintained much if the smoke clears here.

For once that "Saddam loyalist" propaganda cliche would make sense here ("stopped clock syndrome"), Hakim and his group have been a thorn in their side for decades. Seven Iraqi Grand Ayatollahs have been killed in the last couple decades, an eighth for that crew isn't too much of a stretch.

If not them, the Wahabi/Deobandis that typically make up the "al-Qai'dah" types tend to think of Shias as heretics outside of Islam and on the "To Kill List" when the fights break out anyway.. :shrug:

It seems to me that at this early point these arrests seem to deliver more the message of "no, we're not completely impotent and powerless here.. really, we're not, so stop saying that..trust in us, we're in control! really!" than anything else yet, maybe aimed at buying some time and placating a very tense crowd.

I don't know, aside from "starting to look like trouble", not a whole lot from the few days is clear.

somehow "good" for the occupation or Shrub or the CIA or
anybody US-related. Even if he was a problem in some way,
this is not the time to poke another stick in the hornets
nest. It is a PR disaster, following as it does the UN bombing,
and can only further embolden the resistance.

I do find 'divide-and-conquer" arguments compelling at times,
but not here. To argue that this was done deliberately by US
interests at this time requires one to invoke stupidity as a
primary cause (as Mr. Magistrate says).

It was argued here before the war that Saddam kept a lid on all
these rivalries, and that without him things would degenerate into
civil war. That seems to me sufficient, given the continuing
obtuseness about manpower and resources that the administration has
shown, and the only wild card would be parties that were anxious to
surreptitiously intervene to aggravate the existing descent into
chaos.

this looks really, really bad, no matter who did it, and no good for the US/UK can come from it for it just raises the tension up another series of notches.

It bothers me that I've apparently learned more from history than the "brains" behind this failing adventure, for just a few months in this has already seen short previews of the worst scenes from Beirut, Grozny, Gaza, etc.. maybe it'll be 1920 again too and we'll be corking off chemical gas at the resistance like the British did.

on edit:--interesting link from a recent thread,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030830/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_najaf_blast_council&cid=1514&ncid=1480

wonder if SAIRI's Abdelaziz al-Hakim follows suit.

the "19 hijackers" were identified after 9/11. If they could find these 4 guys so quickly after, the same question I had re 9/11 still applies here, why didn't they stop these 4 men before the bombing?

For two principal reasons.

First, adherents to another sect, native to another country, or region of Iraq, would stick out in place like Najaf even more than would, say, a gentleman from Waco, Texas, would do in Boston. It would be no trick at all for the police to lay their hands on several such in a very short time.

Second, anyone apprehended in this circumstance will talk; will confess and identify associates, whether truthfully or otherwise. It may be safely assumed extremeties of torture were, and are being, applied.

There is, of course, no particular reason to credit any of the confessions obtained.

http://www.nationalpost.com/world/story.html?id=B7766262-BC43-4DA1-8475-3E1F447EBF41

Long list of suspects in deadly blast
Radical Shiites and Saddam loyalists both likely

Peter Goodspeed
National Post, with files from news services

Saturday, August 30, 2003