The fake civil war in Iraq

Is there a CIA campeign to break up the Iraqi State?

Breaking up the Iraqi State would be advantagous for the US war hawks in several ways. Firstly it would help the US to quell the popular-based insurgency, because if the people are divided then they won't be effective in uniting against the occupiers. This is a classic example of 'divide and conquer'. Secondly, it would ensure that Iraq doesn't actually turn into a powerfull, independent and democratic force in the region... which would be a nightmare scenario for US war planners. An independent and united Iraq would most likely align itself with Iran and with the Shia majority in Saudi Arabia, which might mean that the US ends up isolating itself all together from middle east oil.

So how do you break up the Iraqi State? How do you turn a cohesive and integrated tribal country into segragated, autonmous provinces based along sectarian lines? The answer is civil war. I think the CIA is behind the sectarian strife that was largely non-existent prior to the invasion. The CIA is behind the bombings of Shia markets and religous sites, and also behind the 'revenge' assassinations against the Sunnis. What im saying is that the 'civil war' that Alawi recently declared, is actually fake or 'simulated'.

And it is working, there are reports of 100,000 Shia's fleeing their homes... that is the first step in the breaking up of Iraq along sectarian lines. These military assinastions against the Shia have resulted in substantial civilian displacement.

The US military, the CIA and the US media will tell you that it's the insurgents who are killing eachother... but thats hard to believe... many academics (notabaly Robert Frisk... an award winning britsh reporter who has actually met bin laden several times) and Iraqi people have been saying that Iraq will never decend into civil war, because the Shia and Sunni have lived, worked together and married each other throughout Iraq's history. Would a Shia man kill his Sunni wife? No. The hope of the CIA would be that these flase flag attacks turn into an autonomous and real civil war between real iraqis... it could.

I dont think this sounds too crazy, i mean... we have some evidence... like, the 2 british SAS men found dressed as arabs with guns and explosives in their car. Look at the history of the CIA, they are more than capable. Also, one of the most powerful figures in Iraq today is Mowaffak Rubaie. He is the national security advisor to Iraq and wants what he terms ‘democratic regionalism’... which means Iraq would become a

loose federal system of four to six distinct provinces, with at least two Shiite provinces to the south and Baghdad as a separate district as well as the seat of federal government, nominally responsible for national defence...

www.globalresearch.ca...

Here's another quote from the above article:

What is possible is that both sides of the apparent sectarian violence are run as part of a huge CIA-lead intelligence operation designed to split Iraq at the seams. I tentatively suggest that the intelligence apparatus at the Interior Ministry is contriving attacks on Sunnis and that British and US special forces in conjunction with the intelligence apparatus at the Iraqi Defence Ministry are fabricating insurgent bombings of Shias...

Comments?

My first comment is more like a question - if there was civil war in Iraq, how the heck would we know?

If al-Qaeda called for an all-out war against [Shiites], whereever they are in Iraq, and these al-Qaeda in Iraq are indeed mostly Iraqis, and the Shiites in question are Iraqi - there it is.

But is it so clear as that?

To go from acts of terrorism to civil war you need 2 population groups deliberately targeting each other. As long as it is insurgents trying to kill people to dissemminate terror, and the population is angry at the terrorists, that does not constitute civil war.

Until the Sunnis, Shiites, and or Kurds really start to fully target one another in mass action - it's terror and not a civil war - at least in the very definition of it.

Other than CIA reporting that a civil war was likely after the Jan 30th elections, they have been little more than the counter voice to Bush's actions in Iraq, claiming among other things, that the chances of sucess were dim due to the unrest in the region. And what happens after? Another round of "leaks" that made them look foolish.

I don't see CIA as responsible.

You can't know that much about Iraq if you didn't know there was LOTS of sectarian strife in Iraq before the invasion. The difference was, Saddam Hussein held a sort of absolute power, and kept the country from breaking apart into civil war. If all military presence from the UN was removed from Iraq, they would naturally break into civil war; the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds in Iraq have been fighting for a LONG time, it's nothing new.

Originally posted by metallicabrainz
An independent and united Iraq would most likely align itself with Iran and with the Shia majority in Saudi Arabia, which might mean that the US ends up isolating itself all together from middle east oil.

Incorrect. Sunni is the majority in Saudi, not the Shia. Saudi has discriminated against Shia's for years. However yes, a Shia dominated Iraq would probably align itself with Iran and other Shia dominated countries, like Lebanon and Bahrain.

How do you turn a cohesive and integrated tribal country into segragated, autonmous provinces based along sectarian lines?

It was "cohesive" because of Saddam's iron fist and his Mukhbarat kept them that way. No sectarian violence? Ask the Kurds, ask the Shia, Saddam and his Sunni dominated government tried to kill them for decades. The Shia and Kurds were crapped on, murdered, discriminated against for decades They don't need any help to hate the Sunni. The Kurds don't trust the Shia either, nor Arabs in general.

this is all making sense to me now!