Well, you would think so; however, you would be incorrect. Tonight we will delve briefly into a single operation in Iraq that occurred in September 2005.
But first, a brief historical overview.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Since my specialty is post-WWII, let us begin with Operation Gladio. As told by author Frank Morales:
"A decades-long covert campaign of provocateur-style terrorism and deceit. The ostensible purpose of Gladio, officially launched as a covert NATO program in 1952, was to establish a clandestine network of "stay-behind" teams which would organize armed resistance and sabotage in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. But the network actually took a far more proactive role. Directed by US/NATO intelligence services of the West against their own populations, Operation Gladio led to possibly hundreds of innocent people being killed or maimed in "terrorist" attacks which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The most notorious such attack was the 1980 bombing of the train station at Bologna, which left 85 dead. Initially blamed on left-wing radicals, the blast was revealed upon investigation to be the work of an ultra-right network linked to Italy's Gladio team; four Italian neo-fascists were eventually convicted of the crime. The purpose was... twofold: to demonize designated enemies (the "communists") and to frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for the national security state."
Morales later refers to:
"US Army Field Manual 30-31B, titled "Stability Operations Intelligence -- Special Fields," dated March 18, 1970 and signed by Gen. William C. Westmoreland, promoted terrorist attacks (and the planting of false evidence) in public places which were then to be blamed on "communists" and "socialists." It called for the execution of terrorists attacks throughout Western urope, carried out through a network of covert US/NATO armies, in order to convince European governments of "the communist threat".... According to FM 30-31B, "there may be times when Host Country Governments show passivity or indecision in the face of communist subversion and according to the interpretation of the US secret services do not react with sufficient effectiveness. Most such situations come about when the revolutionaries temporarily renounce the use of force and thus hope to gain an advantage, as the leaders of the host country wrongly consider the situation to be secure. US army intelligence must have the same means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger."
Morales also mentions Operation Northwoods, the 1962 US plan to initiate war with Cuba, the Salvador Option currently being employed in Iraq, and the Pentagon's "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group."
"(P2OG) -- would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts... The so-called "counter-terrorist" organization... would ostensibly target "terrorist leaders," but... would in fact carry out missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among "terrorist groups," which... would subsequently expose them to "counter-attack..." In other words, the plan is to execute secret military operations (assassinations, sabotage, 'deception') which would intentionally result in terrorist attacks on innocent people, including Americans -- essentially, to "combat terrorism" by causing it!
THE OPERATION
The first report is an AP report dated September 20, 2005. Written by Abbas Fayadh, the article is titled "Version's of Briton's release conflict."
British tanks busted down the walls of an Iraqi jail in Basra to free two "undercover commandos arrested on charges of shooting two Iraqi policemen... the British said the men were released as a result of negotiations.
Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of Basra Province: "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it."
Aquil Jabbar, a tv cameraman who lives across the street, saw British commandos storm inside and rescue their comrades.
Later -- [It is always later] -- British officials acknowledged that a wall was demolished as British forces tried to 'collect' the two prisoners."
Then in the middle of the piece you get this:
"The trouble began when local authorities reported arresting the two Britons, described as special forces commandos dressed in Arab clothing, for... shooting two Iraqi policemen, one... died."
The same day, New York Times reporter Sabrina Tavernese reports on the same incident in this manner:
"The soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis."
That's IT!! Therefore, I turn to the web and the foreign press.
Rueters put out a report on Sept. 19, noting among other things that "[the soldiers] were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes... the men were wearing traditional Arab headdresses for their undercover mission."
Xinuanet -- a Chinese news site -- adds that the civilian car was "packed with explosives," and that British officials had confirmed that the two [rat fuck bastards] "were performing an official duty."
THE COVER-UP
The next day, the cover-up begins. The Washington Post puts forth a piece that refines the story.
Now the story is that the two rat-fuck SAS men were "handed over to militia elements... the men were not found [in the jail]. They were... discovered in a house elsewhere in the city."
The Times plays it this way. Now the rat-fuck Brits were "apparently disguised in local dress.... the British military accused the Basra police of turning over the soldiers to hostile Shiite militiamen... ultimately, the two... were later rescued from a home... a senior British official refused to say how the troops eventually found the home where the two soldiers were held or who... was ultimately behind their detention.... Reuters reported that video shows the men in a cell, unshaven and looking nervous as police looked over wigs, Arab headdresses, anti-tank missiles, and electronic equipment, all apparently used in their mission."
You may wonder why the Iraqi government sagged and began supporting the British lie.
Ask yourself: What government would ever want its population to know that it is not really in charge?
Had the Iraqi officials held to the truth -- these guys busted out of a jail -- they would lose any claim to legitimate control.
That's why they back the cover story. And how does the Times follow up on these sinister events?
The incident is described as an "embarrassment for Britain... the details of the raid and its origins remain murky. The [lying] Brits say the men were handed over to Shiite militias, while the Iraqi government denies that.
An Iraqi spokesman said: "The arrest and detention of the British officers, who were in Arab dress, was justified because the men had opened fire after being stopped at a checkpoint."
Reuters starts the drift away by mentioning nothing but the Iraqi statement that the men "had never left police custody, and were not handed to militants."
And that's it. The story fades from the mainstream press.
And yet we get terror alerts, pictures of "suicide bomb" victims, and the endless pictures of Muslim jihadis!
I'll bet many of you never even heard of this story. Why would you have?
That leaves the Socialist Worker and Pravda to correct the record.
The SW reports on Sept. 24 that the two SAS men were "armed with explosives and a remote control detonator... and were disguised as members of the Mahdi Army... the men opened fire on the police and passers-by."
But I'd rather Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani (a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr) tell the story:
"What our police found in their car was very disturbing -- weapons, explosives, and a remote-control detonator. These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, thanks to God they were stopped and countless lives were saved. The two men were taken to the police station to answer questions about their activities. That afternoon the British army came in tanks and armored cars demanding the two be released. The police refused as they were considered to be planning terrorist attacks, and as they were disguised as members of the Mahdi Army, the police wanted to know who their target was. Why were these men dressed as Mahdi Army? Why were they carrying explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb? Were they planning an outrage so that they could create tensions with other communities? Were they going to kill innocent people to put the blame on al-Qaeda, who do not have any support in our city?"
The questions were never answered. Instead, British troops returned that night.
Author Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey strikes the same vein of questioning in his Sept. 22 opinion piece that asks Tony Blair for an explanation.
He knows that the two British soldiers dressed as Arabs attacked security forces in Basra; that the Brits have admitted they are SAS men; that they murdered an Iraqi cop, and the car was found "packed with explosives and a C4 detonator."
He asks if the two "undercover agents dressed as Sadrists... [were] trying to stir up a war between rival anti-occupation forces to help the beleagured Iraqi security forces stay in control?," or if, "they were planning a massive bomb attack against Shia targets, to blame on the Sunni?"
And then the story disappears, as if removed by a skilled magician!
EPILOGUE
Less than one month later, Quds Press reported that "A number of Iraqis apprehended two Americans disguised in Arab dress as they tried to blow up a booby-trapped car in the middle of a residential area in western Baghdad.... the people apprehended the Americans as they left their Caprice car near a residential neighborhood... Local people found they looked suspicious so they detained the men before they could get away... they discovered that they were American and called the... police. Five minutes later... a large force of US troops showed up and surrounded the area. They put the two Americans in one of their Humvees and drove away at high speed to the astonishment of the residents."
Did you ever hear of that operation? I thought not!
Given this hidden evidence, I now firmly believe that most "terror attacks" are false-flag black operations. The most obvious example in Iraq is the subsequent bombings of the Golden Mosque at Samarra, with that event viewed as a catalyst for the raging "sectarian violence" we are incessantly told exists.
I simply ask that you consider this testimonial the next time a marketplace or mosque blast in Iraq is pinned on some non-existent "Al-CIA-Duh" suicide bomber," readers.
