US knew of Iraqi attacks

[dArKeR]

Washington - The United States had intelligence warnings of the attacks that killed more than 140 people in Iraq, and probably prevented even greater carnage with special operations raids the night before on operatives of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the top US commander in Iraq said Wednesday.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid said US and Iraqi forces foiled a third planned attack in Basra and thwarted plans to attack several prominent Shiite personalities.

"I believe the plan was for even greater carnage, and I think that joint action between Americans and Iraqis prevented that from happening, and we had better cooperation among various groups throughout Iraq in terms of security than is widely reported," he said.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1078362721637B262&set_id=1

The same source as WMDs?

[seventhson]

1. And did they WARN anyone?

or was it Lihop again?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

11. I found this on Counterpunch.

http://counterpunch.org/fisk03022004.html

[Zhade]

20. Good find. Fisk is top-notch. I share his thoughts.

NT!

[demdave]

12. They notified Iraqi police and Iraqi Civil Defence Corps units

"We had some intelligence that indicated attacks would take place," he said. "We passed that intelligence to Iraqi police and Iraqi Civil Defence Corps units and to the local authorities."

"We also know they were trying to go after several prominent Shi'a personalities," he said.

"And the night before, American special operations units raided some of the Zarqawi network operatives and probably prevented even greater carnage by being successful in one of those raids," he said.

Abizaid said security inside Karbala had been left to the police, civil defence and local authorities since the early days of the US occupation because of sensitivities about the presence of US troops near the holy sites.

[bvar22]

2. This is SOP for GOP NEO CONS

This is the way to spin a dismal FAILURE into a success:

"Boy, think how BAD it would have been if we weren't so good and smart. Iraq and the world should grovel in gratitude that this wasn't sooooo much worse."

I think the Iraqis are right on this issue. It wouldn't have happened at all if the USA hadn't militarily interfered in the political affairs of a sovereign nation.

[kentuck]

14. So true....just think how bad it would have been after 9/11 if.....

Dubya hadn't been in charge..???????????????/

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. Sure. And I'l take that nice bridge in aisle #3.

[pinniped]

4. Look at in on the bright side...

"I believe the plan was for even greater carnage, and I think that joint action between Americans and Iraqis prevented that from happening,"

There's good news to be found in all Iraqi bombings.:eyes:

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Abizaid is a stupid ass

The retarded SOB makes a claim like that. What proof did he offer????

They get away with shit like this, justified as simply wartime propaganda.

[dbt]

6. Click!

So the US had "intelligence warnings of the attacks." And the first thought of the Regime was "how can we profit from this?"

Another LIHOP. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

:freak:
dbt

[Disturbed]

7. Oh that's good news.

Right. Who are these people trying to fool? Certainly the Iraqis are not as dense as most Americans and most Americans couldn't care less about Iraqi deaths.

[hang a left]

8. This is complete unadulterated bullshit!

al-Zarqawi has already denied involvement and.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Liar's poker

Zarqawi's denial is no more credible than the Bushies' attribution of the act to him.

Having said that, I am very skeptical of the Bushies' claim and tend to believe that there was no al Qaida involvement in this.

[Aidoneus]

16. That's not true

Zarqawi's organization has said nothing; the Abu Hafs al-Misri Brigades were those that denied all involvement.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. I'm trying to sort out what to think

First of all, the claims that the attacks were the work of al Qaida come from the same people who, a year ago, were telling us all about the threat that Saddam's biochemical arsenal posed. The Bushies will say anything to justify their colonialism in Iraq and their endless war against terror. Their credibility isn't merely worn -- it's nonexistent. As an American, I'm almost ashamed to admit that my first reaction to the news that "the US" (i.e., the Bush junta) is blaming al Qaida was not one of outrage over yet another atrocity from Osama bin Laden's thugs, but to ask what the Bushies hope to gain by making this claim and do they really have any basis to make it.

Osama is attempting to build a worldwide pan-Islamic movement. Up to now, he has not made any distinction among Muslims based on the specific sect of Islam each follows. The act of mass murdering Shias observing the martyrdom of Imam Hussein hardly seems conducive to this end. That this is the first time in decades that Iraqi Shias have been able to observe their holy days makes it even less likely that Osama or his aides would even think of such an act.

That Osama and al Qaida are capable of mass murder has been demonstrated often enough. However, this act doesn't seem to bear their fingerprints. I'm skeptical of the junta's claims of al Qaida's involvement.

In addition, we have now claims from the US military in Iraq that they knew about the attacks beforehand. As many have pointed out on this thread, that begs the question why the US did nothing to prevent the attacks or to warn those who would be harmed. This claim does no credit to the Bushies' administration of their colony.

We should note that in Iraq, many are blaming Sunni extremists. This is getting scant mention in the western press, but it is the Sunnis who are big losers in Saddam's downfall. No matter what transpires in Iraq during the coming months, the Sunnis will never again enjoy the kind of power and privilege they did under Saddam. The motivation of Sunni extremists, intent on frustrating the rise of any arrangement in Iraq where they would have to share power with Shias and Kurds, seems much more straightforward than the motivation of al Qaida.

This seems like a thesis worth further examination.

[Barrett808]

13. I'd add Shia and Sunni have largely united in the wake of the attacks

(See Riverbend, http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com.) And a great deal of Iraqi public opinion places the blame squarely on the US. Both of these developments work in the insurgency's favor, presenting a larger nationalist base from which to launch further attacks (military and political) against the occupation.

[Aidoneus]

15. sort of a response to this, and in general..

Of what is usually mistakenly referred to as "al-Qai'dah", there appear to be 2 distinct tendencies in Iraq--the Abu Hafs al-Misri Brigades (detachments formed for use in Somalia originally, named after the Egyptian al-Jihad commander of the same name), and, though stretched to incredible lengths by pro-regime propagandists, Zarqawi's group, sometimes called al-Tawhid. The former has denied any part in this, though they have not hesitated the claim responsibility for operations in the past; the latter have given no comment and, despite all of the regime's ridiculously overblown propaganda, are perhaps a candidate. Practically the whole of the W regime's propaganda about al-Zarqawi is ridiculously overblown and worthy only of dismissive contempt, but it is taken and raped from a body of some things about them that are real (for starters, really more small-time than the regime's propaganda would suggest, and, if even the regime's propaganda is to be believed, exists almost entirely independent of what is referred to as "al-Qai'dah").

With respect to the claims of "al-Qai'dah" as being behind it, there are several problems to the claim and some periphery tendencies that would give credibility to it. I cannot see any motive for them to profit from such an act in this context. While certain ideological currents within "al-Qai'dah" and its satellite movements hold the Shia as kafir and open for attacks, there is not the benefit to be gained from it within this context. Allied movements of the tendency that are often mistakenly referred to as "al-Qai'dah" in Afghanistan and Pakistan have a record for such atrocities against Shia there, but such tendencies are not rooted in the same sense in Iraq as they are there.

Ussamah himself does not directly speak against the Shia in the communication of his ideas (directing attentions outward, rather than inward except in the sense of what he considers, sometimes rightly, to be puppet agents of foreign enemies of the Muslims), but some of those who are allied to his movement in general do. In the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan era, Iran was referred to as the "Heretics' Republic", with the Shia Hazaras as an enemy that was attacked. In Pakistan, there are the groups Sipah e-Sahhaba and Lashkar e-Jhangvi, loosely in some senses (and not-so-loosely in others) affiliated with the tendency associated with Ussamah, and they are extremely anti-Shia and routinely carry out massacres against them. These movements were formed under the US military dictator of the 80s as an extension of state policy, both as a physical club to wield against enemies, and as an ideological club to wield against the possibility of America's "Shah" of Pakistan ending up like his neighbor. These groups now act mostly independent of the state that fostered them, and, indeed, are one of the biggest thorns in its side from time to time. The Quetta massacre was very likely their baby.

The main Ulama organization representing the 'Sunni' madhabs in Iraq have immediately come out against the Ashura massacres. Large solidarity displays in Azamiyah, a Baghdad 'Sunni' neighborhood traditionally rivalling Kazimiyah, have since taken place, and mosque imans in al-Fallujah (the centre of the Islamic resistance to the occupation) have organized drives for donating blood to the victims of the Ashura massacres.

Whoever did this and for whatever motives, there are several results. Iraqis in general are becoming more united, this despite the vigorous imperialist attempts to inflate and flare up the largely artificial "Sunni"/"Shia" divides as much as they can manage. A second result is that this mainstream solidarity expresses itself in consistantly stronger anti-occupation sentiments, and this in itself expressed in increasingly militant forms. Demonstrators in the funeral processions of the Ashura martyrs denounced American/Zionist/terrorist forces. Most recently and across this year, resistance attacks in Karbala and al-Basrah against occupation forces have increased, and that is a tendency that will be maintained.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Questions, Aidoneous

That is a very informative post. You are to be commended for it.

There is an oft-made remark, half made in jest, that a terrorist is whoever pisses off your favorite Frat Boy and mine. Are you saying that the junta is calling anybody who might engage in terrorism in Iraq "al Qaida"?

Another point you seem to make is that while Osama desires to build a pan-Islamic movement and would be willing to include even those Muslims who do not share each and every one of his tenants, not all around him share this end. So, you do not entirely discount involvement by al Qaida operatives. Do I read that correctly?

Of course, we don't really know who is responsible for this atrocity. Could you, for our benefit, tell us who are the usual suspects?

[JCMach1]

18. Utter BS... I saw the BBC report from Karbala the day before

the explosions which talked of 'fear' of possible attacks. The only security in site was Shiite militia!!!

[Sugarbleus]

19. Well, hell. Why don't we just pull out or back and let the Iraqi

people figure out their own needs? Don't we think they are capable of doing that? Are they too stupid/backward to get their country together? I don't think so. Many of them have wanted us OUT of there all along. So, lets give them some of that financial help and then stand down.

Oops, I forgot..........there's oil in them thar sand dunes.

What a clusterfu*k