September 21, 2005
Leave it up to the Moonie-owned
United Press International to attempt a none-too delicate effort to
steer attention away from the fact British covert intel goons killed a
cop and bystander and were caught red-handed cruising around Basra in
car loaded with explosives and detonators. "Attacks on British forces
in southern Iraq may be directed from Iran," reports the UPI.
"The clashes and the arrest of two undercover British soldiers was
almost certainly triggered by the arrest at the weekend of Sheikh Ahmed
al-Fartusi, the leader of the Mahdi Army, a banned militia loyal to
Indeed, al-Fartusi, commander of
al-Mahdi’s militia in Basra, was arrested by the Brits in a
Gestapo-like raid, thus leading to "the spread of a great number of
members of al Sadr Militia in al Basra streets and the gathering of
many of these men near a building in the city center, which contains
the headquarters of Al Sadr movement," explains al-Mendhar News.
"Eyewitnesses said that they are still in their locations hiding their
weapons. Sheikh Mohamed Al Ka’bi, a member of Al Sadr trend in Baghdad,
confirmed, 'Our office in Al Basra ordered us to remain calm and adopt
political means to release our Sheikh and his men.’"
Editors on the Moonie payroll grabbed their story from the Times.
"Political assassination, murder, smuggling and extortion: the
activities of a 50-strong gang of Iraqi policemen in Basra [dubbed the
"al-Jameat gang"] whose members seized two British servicemen on Monday
were brought to the attention of the Iraqi government six months ago,
according to official sources in the city." claims Anthony Loyd for the
Times, not making mention of the fact the arrested "British servicemen"
were dressed up as Arabs and driving around in a car packed with
weapons and explosives. According to Loyd, this "50-strong gang" of
Iraqis, supposedly led by al-Fartusi, is "allegedly connected to a
terrorist cell responsible for recent attacks on British units in the
city," a terrorist cell of course linked to Iran. Al-Fartusi’s alleged
cell is said to be a splinter group of the Mahdi Army, whose followers
are loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric at the centre of
last year’s Shia insurgency. Now more of a populist, political figure,
al-Sadr is not believed to have been aware, or in control, of
al-Fartusi’s activities. Al-Fartusi, 32, had been sacked from a command
position in the Mahdi Army. Iran, however, was aware of his operations.
This year an influx of sophisticated shape-charge devices appeared in
southern Iraq. New methods and materiel bore the hallmarks of the
Iranian-funded Hezbollah movement.
Of course, it
all makes sense—the irresponsible and impulsive Moqtada al-Sadr, who
had the impertinence to go up against the occupation when he should
have had the common decency to throw rose petals at the invaders,
spawns a break-away gang involved in "assassination, murder, smuggling
and extortion," and these ruthless thugs are naturally linked to Iran
and Hezbollah, thus attempting to buttress the oft-demonstrated bogus
claim outsiders are running the resistance in Iraq and maybe stirring
up trouble amongst pacified Shi’ites in southern Iraq. Instead of an
explanation of why the Brits are running a pseudo-gang of phony-baloney
terrorists in wigs and headdresses—careless enough to blow their cover
and get apprehended red-handed with the goods—the British media is
diverting attention away from the exposed truth—the SAS is responsible
for at least some, probably a lot of the terrorism in Iraq—and are
brazenly attempting to shift blame in the direction of Iran and
Hezbollah, two of the usual suspects.
It should be obvious
the two Brits arrested—and subsequently released after British tanks
knocked down the building where they were held—are part of a larger
plan to destabilize Iraq and foment civil war. Is it possible the Brits
are behind a series of suicide bombings in Basra (73 people were killed
and 200 wounded, including the incineration of 17 children, on April
21, 2004, and 68 were killed on June 24, 2004, to name but two) or are
we to believe it was the work of the Shi’a-hating al-Zarqawi,
determined, as we are told in various audio and video tapes released
with curiously appropriate timing, to wipe every Shi’ite Muslim off the
face of the earth?
"British military intelligence has
concluded that Iran has been supporting a local terror group run by Abu
Mustafa al-Sheibani, who is blamed for the murder of at least 11
British soldiers. And in a secret report, military intelligence warned
commanders that attacks on British forces were being deliberately
intensified," concludes the Moonie Times, excuse me United Press
International. Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani is "working for Iran," warns Time Magazine.
"According to a U.S. military-intelligence document obtained by TIME,
al-Sheibani heads a network of insurgents created by the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps with the express purpose of committing
violence against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq…. the U.S. believes
al-Sheibani’s team consists of 280 members, divided into 17 bombmaking
teams and death squads. The U.S. believes they train in Lebanon, in
Baghdad’s predominantly Shi’ite Sadr City district and 'in another
country’ and have detonated at least 37 bombs [described as "shaped"
explosive charges] against U.S. forces this year in Baghdad alone."
Considering the track record of U.S. intelligence—from overthrowing
democratically elected governments (in Iran for example) to customizing
lies in preparation for the invasion of Iraq—we can trust the
al-Sheibani campfire story about as far as we can throw it. In other
words, it has about the same degree of veracity as the al-Zarqawi
campfire story—that is to say none, since virtually everything the U.S.
and its corporate media disinformation ministries write or report about
al-Zarqawi is undocumented fear-mongering.
As should be
obvious, the Iraqi resistance has almost completely stalled the
Anglo-American effort to pacify the country and reconstruct (or rather
deconstruct) it into an acceptable model for the neocons and their
carpet-bagging neolib co-conspirators who entertained high hopes to
"structurally adjust" the Iraqi economy and steal its natural
resources—not simply oil but also its minerals, natural gas,
phosphates, sulfur, hydropower, and other resources of commercially
exploitable importance, including cheap human labor. In lieu of the
neocon promise that Iraqis would welcome this thievery with open arms,
the Bushites and their British collaborators are working to split the
country into three distinct pieces along religious and ethnic lines
through civil war—and thus SAS goons (and their counterparts in the
Pentagon who have yet to stupidly blow their cover) are running around
with explosives and detonators, pretending to be al-Zarqawi Arabs
engaged in a mindless jihad. Of course, it will not work and the Iraqis
will eventually be victorious.
Unfortunately, here in
America, we have an installed president—not the guy from the fake
cowboy ranch in Texas, but the other guy, the chicken hawk from
Wyoming—who talks about lobbing around nukes if millions of people
(mostly Arabs and Muslims) don’t assume the position. If indeed the
Iraqis (and the Iranians) eventually eject the U.S. military from the
Middle East (as Hezbollah did in Beirut on October 23, 1983),
irradiating the entire region or at least significant portions will
become a distinct possibility with the current crew in control of the
levers of mass murder. Of course, this would only be an increase in
magnitude, since the U.S. has already nuked and poisoned Iraq (and
Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia) with depleted uranium (half-life
of 4.5 billion years), a crime that rivals anything the Nazis have done
in terms of outright viciousness since Iraqis will be getting sick and
dying from various cancers for a very long time to come.