CNN: Sunni party quits Iraq government talks after mosque bombing

[seafan]

Sunni party quits Iraq government talks after mosque bombing

February 23, 2006

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called on his countrymen to extinguish the "flames of division" and President Bush denounced Wednesday's mosque attack as "an evil act." A U.S. military spokesman said the bombing clearly bears "the signature" of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Amid reports of more than 100 killings since the attack -- with many Sunnis among the dead -- the Sunni Accord Front announced it is leaving political unity talks after meeting with Talabani and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
The Accord Front received 44 seats in December's election for the 275-member Iraqi parliament and has been working with Kurds, Shiites and other Sunnis to cobble together a government. (Watch enraged Iraqis after bombing of the Golden Mosque -- 1:51)
Including Sunnis in the government is seen as key to establishing law and order and defeating Iraq's insurgency, whose supporters are largely Sunni. Shiites were largely persecuted by ruling minority Sunnis during the reign of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

snip

'Thumbprints of terrorists'

U.S. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told reporters in Baghdad Thursday that the mosque attack is under investigation, but said the military is "absolutely convinced the thumbprints of terrorists are all over this."
"It's clearly the signature of Zarqawi and terrorists and foreign fighters," Lynch said.
He praised the Iraqi government's "capable" leadership in reaction to the violence, such as enforcing curfews, calling for calm, recalling security forces on leave, and increasing security around shrines and political buildings.
He said coalition forces are deployed in reaction to the violence "but they are not in the lead."

snip

The U.S. military said Thursday that "about 95 male detainees were released" during the past several days.
The Iraq-led Combined Review and Release Board "recommended release" after reviewing the detainees' cases, the military said.
It said cases of "more than 28,500 detainees" have been reviewed and more than 14,900 have been recommended for release by the board, established in August 2004.
There was no word about female detainees held by Iraqi or U.S. authorities. Kidnappers who've been holding American journalist Jill Carroll have threatened to kill her unless U.S. and Iraqi authorities free all female detainees.
The latest deadline announced by Carroll's abductors is Sunday. The freelance reporter for the Christian Science Monitor was kidnapped on January 7.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/23/iraq.main/

[mom cat]

1. I question the "Thumbprints of the terrorists" charge since the MO also

resembles CIA tactics.

[aquart]

4. Now please explain the advantage to BushCo in doing this.

I'm sure you've figured it all out.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Permanent war can't be allowed to end. nt.

[Exiled in America]

9. That doesn't make any sense.

The ultimate goal is not permanent instability - its permanent total control of middle eastern oil. For that, you need iraq to be a stable puppet goverment, not in the deep throws of perpetual civil war. We're breaking the goverment back prosecuting this extremely, extremely costly war - its not in the strategic or money interests of any of the administration stakeholders to continue to chaos.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. "a stable puppet goverment" might have been plan A.

However as it became clear that instead we were going to get Greater Shiistan - a fundamentalist shiite theocracy aligned with Iran, plan B appears to be permanent chaos.

I personally don't buy into plan A. It didn't take a brainiac to figure out that Saddam was holding together secular Iraq by brute force and that once we eliminated Saddam the whole thing was going to disintegrate with the Shiite religious parties becoming the dominant factions. In fact this was well known in '91 with Gulf Farce I. What did they all get amnesia? It was the same set of clowns, give or take a few.

Instability in Iraq justifies our permanent military presence. Stability would result in our eviction notice.

[mom cat]

11. Actually, a number of administration stakeholders are getting filthy

rich off of this war. The oil and defense industries are making a killing.While I do not think that they want permanent chaos,the current instability keeps the Iraqi gove weak and unable to throw out the occupation forces. It also makes them unable to stand up for their rights to their own resourses.

[alfredo]

13. The Neo cons are into creating chaos, then capitalizing on

it. Look at what they have done here at home. They have forced crisis after crisis only to use that to push their "remedy." It is something like Trotsky's permanent revolution. If I read correctly, many of the old neo cons cut their political teeth on Trotskyite philosophy before flipping over to the ultra right.

[Rex]

14. The goal is perpetual warfare, be it with Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria

Iran or whoever else we set our cross-hairs on. The BFEE would love a regional war, more money to be made off sales of bombs, ammo, tanks, airplanes, JP8, etc.

[Exiled in America]

15. To all responses: I never really believed perpetual war was the goal

I tend to believe that the use of war to achieve other stable ends is more likely. There is certainly some profiteering going on during the warfare that's for sure. But they can't sustain it - because despite some people making money, its costing the Goverment billions and billions. But more importantly than that, you can't sustain public support for endless warfare.

So their goal has to be a certain kind of "regional stability" in which they can control their local puppets and start cranking out the "peacetme" profiteering. Thus, I do believe that the state of things right now is not good news or a happy thing (at least in the long term plan) for these evil bastards.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Arghh what a misreading of history.

We have been in a condition of more or less continuous although variable intensity war since 1941. 64 years and counting with no indication that we are going to run out of money or popular will. The last thing these clowns want is peace.

[Rex]

17. I don't understand why people still think pols who run our gummit

have our best interests at heart. They don't. They have their own best interest at heart, then us. Usually what they want and what is good for the People of America are two different things.

[Exiled in America]

18. It's not a misreading of history in any way.

The kind of "war" we've been in has been of a few different types:

1) "war" in which we can defer both loss of life and cost to other parties in some way -- this includes most of the time where we fund wars, or arm other groups to fight wars for our interests, etc.

2) "wars" which were conducted for a specific purpose, not "endless war" itself - the purpose is always and inevitably profity and hegemony.

The mistake you are making is to see our history of constant warfare as the "end" rather than the bi-product of our means to ends. It has nothing to do with clowns wanting peace. It has to do with clowns wanting more money and more power. You say we've been at war since 1941 - I understand what you mean, but you actually aren't being careful enough of a student of history. If you really want to take your point seriously, then we've basically been in some state of war for much longer than that.

However...

While in once sense it makes sense to say "our goverment stays at war" in other sense it doesn't. We haven't had large quantities of our troops deployed into war zones and getting killed perpetually. And those are the kinds of things that can't be sustained. America has never tolerated the endless slaughter of its own sons and daughters. That combined with the cost of the continuing war is why the ultimate goal is not "peace" - but something called "stability."

"Stability" just means a state in which US sons and daughters can stop getting blown up, and the American public will consider the Iraq "war" "over" but the region will be left in the firm political and military control of the United States, where profits from the countries business (i.e. Oil can begin to flow in the interests of the United States).

Anyone who assumes the US just wants to be at war for the sake of being at war, is not judging human nature effectively. The US ultimate goal is to control the middle east and thus strategically control Oil. The string of conflicts after conflicts is not the END, its a means to the ends.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. "America has never tolerated the endless slaughter "

You say "America has never tolerated the endless slaughter of its own sons and daughters". Hmm... well I suppose in a sense that is true.

The much larger slaughter rate in vietnam was sustained for only a fairly brief period of time, roughly five years. However that war came with a draft that 'spread the pain' across a broader population and in doing so mobilized antiwar sentiment. We put feet on the streets in large numbers and caused chaos and unrest here at home, and that was what convinced the ruling elites to back off. By backing off however they did not give up, even on their vietnam project, which continued hopelessly for five more years after the draft ended.

They also learned their lessons well. The army is part volunteer part mercenary. High tech equipment allows much of the killing to be done from a distance. After retooling with grenada and panama, and field testing with gulf farce I, the same damn ruling elites are back, they've got their war on again, and they think that we won't be able to stop them this time.

So you could be right, perhaps we won't tolerate low grade bloody endless warfare. Unfortunately I currently see no signs that this is true, and neither do our rulers.

[tabasco]

20. " Oil can begin to flow in the interests of the United States"

:rofl:

That's a good one.

You are confusing multinational oil companies with the United States. The intent of the Iraq invasion was more about stopping the flow of oil.

Try again.

[FloridaPat]

22. Here's the way I see it - stable Iraq tells US to get out. Iraq enjoys

freedom and decides it will sell oil to others besides US. Starts selling in Euros. Better trade if every Iraqi is dead and US is only people standing

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Every time something bad happens in Iraq, the CIA is behind it

Didn't you hear? :sarcasm:

These people behave as if there ar no other bad actors in the world. It's truly a remarkable psychological study to see the lunacy that masquerades as public discourse, on both sides of the aisle. Of course, since I am not an adherent to these theories, I am a secret promotor of the Other Side, as per the usual mania and paranoia. My "agenda is clear," I'll no doubt learn.

Kookiness is sometimes charming, and sometimes not.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Sometimes when bad shit happens in Iraq the CIA is behind it.

Please at least state our argument correctly before you knock it down with your superior logic. I have seen nobody claim that there is proof that the CIA is involved, just that this is a possibility and that there is motive. There is equally no proof of the other 'bad actors' on the scene. The MSM has done a fine job in blaming the usual suspects. All we are doing is raising a sceptical eyebrow towards the Official Story.

[mom cat]

12. A good example is "The Salvadorian Option":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek
‘The Salvador Option’

The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek

Updated: 8:59 p.m. ET Jan. 14, 2005
Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras. There is no evidence, however, that Negroponte knew anything about the Salvadoran death squads or the Iran-Contra scandal at the time. The Iraq ambassador, in a phone call to NEWSWEEK on Jan. 10, said he was not involved in military strategy in Iraq. He called the insertion of his name into this report "utterly gratuitous.")

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government—the Defense department or CIA—would take responsibility for such an operation. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has aggressively sought to build up its own intelligence-gathering and clandestine capability with an operation run by Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone. But since the Abu Ghraib interrogations scandal, some military officials are ultra-wary of any operations that could run afoul of the ethics codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That, they argue, is the reason why such covert operations have always been run by the CIA and authorized by a special presidential finding. (In "covert" activity, U.S. personnel operate under cover and the U.S. government will not confirm that it instigated or ordered them into action if they are captured or killed.)

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Its a trifecta: Zarqawi and terrorists and foreign fighters!

The whole enchilada of boogeymen excuses all in one stunning attack!

They know it was Zarqawi 'cause he left his wooden leg in the dome in his haste while running away. The foreign fighters left detailed plans in a foreign language at the scene of the crime. And as we know, it is always terrorism when somebody else blows shit up. When we blow shit up, it is collateral damage.

[Mike Daniels]

2. And that would seem to be the final nail in the coffin for Iraq

while the countries that provided the majority of the attackers and financing for 9/11 are still standing and cutting business deals with the US government.

[twaddler01]

3. Spreading the democracy!!

Iraq is going :nuke:

[Shelor]

21. Time for Dubya to come out and say, "Stay the course" again