© the eyeranian

Pedram Jan

Wouldn't the Neo Cons (republicans)jeopardize their position for reelection with a longer stay in Iraq??? I think that will definitly weaken their position, as an extended stay in Iraq will mean higher soldier fatlity and higher apparent monetary cost. The Halliburtons will be paid even if a new Iraqi government is put in place and the troops are withdrawn. The new government won't be anything but a pupet show as we all know.

I doubt this to be an Israeli set up as well... They are way sneakier.

I agree with the possibilities Pedram has mentioned and I agree with the reasons he mentions as why thosed three players would benefit. But I also have to add that the additional benefit to the NeoCons is that the continuation of this violence against the Shias from Iraqi Sonnis who are already hustile to the US, as well as Al--Qaeda Sonnis, can also push the Shias to become partners with the US forces against those Sonnis. So, it is beneficial for the NeoCons to create the image that tells the Shias that the US is an ally, the enemy is "the Sonnis".

Well I would have to agree with Pedram on blaming both al-qaeda and the Israelis but I seriously doubt the involvement of the neo cons. I dont think these bombings would benefit their position. But as for al-qaeda, these bastards will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, which Im having a hard time understanding. The way I look at it, years from now they will have killed more muslims themselves then their supposed enemies. The Israelis on the other hand are very very conniving bastards and are constantly pulling my homeland and others into conflict. They are not the US's allies why government does not see this I will never know or maybe they do. Perhaps their lobby is as strong as said-bastards!

Pedram, you forgot the part about the phone company conspiring with the Lee Harvey Oswald, and the secret shadow government that protects the Space Alien agenda on earth. Maybe Fox Mulder is behind the violence in Iraq because he wants to use it as a bargaining chip with the illumintati.

Ignoring A.H.'s attempt at logic (is there anyone left here who still reads his stuff?) and to Jerod:

Remember, Al-Qaeda does not consider Shi'ites to be Moslems and even called them infidels in their email that denied their involvement:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1078311871013&call_pageid=968256289824&col=968705899037

Thank you Pedram, for confirming the stereotype that all of us Iranians are anti-semitic conspiracy-theorists who understand little about how the world works and believe everything that happens in the world is decided by several Jews and Americans who make decisions in a smoky room.

But unlike you, I will present facts to prove you wrong, as opposed to floating unfounded theories. First and foremost, we have every reason to believe Al Qaeda would do something like this, mostly because Al Qaeda itself has said repeatedly that it is going to do attacks like this. The rest of the world, including the Iraqi governing council, the Saudis and the EU believe so, and so does John Kerry btw. But I guess unlike you, they dont know about the Jewish men in a dark room that run the world.

As for the Neo (as in Jewish) Conservatives, more violence in Iraq actually proves them wrong. They were the intellectual authors of this war, and their most controversial and hotly debated belief was the idea that the Mid East could be stabilized by war, that Iraq could be turned into a Democracy, and that there would be a domino effect. An attack like this only makes it harder for the Iraqi's to have faith in the coalition. It also makes it harder to set up a democracy with protection of individual rights, and INCREASES the odds of the Shiites refusing to go along with the current setup, and INCREASES the odds of civil war and a theocratic Shiite state. Such an outcome would only prove all of the Neo-Cons dead wrong. Tell me again why they would sponsor an attack like this?

Oh right, to make money. Over 500 American troops have been lost in this struggle, as have thousands of Iraqis, with another 150 yesterday. When you say that the Neo-Cond did all of this, that is a HELL OF A THING for anyone to say. You are saying they volountarily spilled the blood of thousands to make money. Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? Anythinig at all other than the fact that the current VP ran Hal for a while? What about the fact that Bill Clinton also used Hal as a major contractor in nation building in places like Kosovo and Bosnia. By your logic, Clinton was also out to make money.

As for the Israelis, another Islamic state in the region, or Iraqi civil war which would have a high chance of drawing Iran into the fold is the last thing they want. Israel's biggest concern is not Palestinian terrorists, it is the many dictatorial countries sorrounding it that have the distruction of Israel as official policy. A Democratic Iraq would not have any such policy (democracies don't define themselves by wantint to blow up other countries), so a Democratic Iraq would be great again for Israeli foreign policy. Do you have any hard facts as to why Israel would do like this, other than the fact that a)Its made of Jews and b)You are a stereotypical paranoid Iranian who believes the Jews really do run the world.

Half of your posts are intelligent and enlightening. Most of the other half I disagree with, but are nonetheless well founded. But then every once in a while I read something like this that brings out your deeper paranoia.

Does this also mean that you believe the conspiracy theory that it was the Mosad that was responsible for 9/11? The kind of analysis conspiracy theories apply to come to that conclusion is the same exact kind as yours above.

I was thinking Al-Qaeda too, but their purported denial letter threw me off. It is not like them to deny something they have actually carried out. The content of the letter, however, was also surprising in a way. On the one hand, they talk about the Shi'a and their "infidel city" of Karbala, but on the other hand they call the victims "innocent shi'a". It is this latter phrase that puzzled me because I was under the impression that as far as Al-Qaeda is concerned, there are no "innocent" Shi'a and that the Shi'a are damned infidels that are even worse than the rest of the non-muslims.

dear omid, please get your head out of our ass and quit regurgitating what you read, watch, and hear from abcnnbcbsfox. you sound just as bad as ah, but at least he keeps his bs regurgitations short and sweet, while you prefer to ramble on. y'all are not only naive, you're highly un-original.

i think pedram is actually onto something here. the only thing he's missing is that "al-qaida," the neo-cons (a.k.a. american zionists) and israel are all just the intertwined heads of the same beast.

talk amongst yourselves.

AhmadAli, I think Pedram cleverly pointed to the same by his "take your pick" line.

As for Omid, maybe somebody will present him with the fact that "Israel" does not equate "Jewish".

I agree with N and Naser. Al-Qaeda has denied its involvement and there are reasons to believe their denial is justified. Also, the NeoCon's can win on this issue as Faramin has stated.

Omid (Hi Mr. Michael Ledeen) correctly points out that:"...Al Qaeda itself has said repeatedly that it is going to do attacks like this.". But the question is why would they make their position clear and are proud of that position (threatening to kill "infidels"), but after "doing the bombing", they deny it? Wouldn't they consider it a positive mark in their report card?

Thank you Omid.

What's today's news: "Thousands of Iraqis protested in Baghdad yesterday against the American-led coalition and expressed outrage at Tuesday's attacks in Baghdad and Karbala, which Iraqi officials said had killed 185 people." I don't buy the argument that this is good the NeoCons and Haliburton?

A question for you Pedram, if the murder of civilians INCREASES the odds of civil war and a theocratic Shiite state, who would this benefit most?

In today's New York Times 3/4/03
By Dexter Filkins & Eric Schmitt
"Fifteen Iranians were detained in Iraq on suspicion of having a connection with Tuesday's attacks, but no details explaining why were given."

In yesterday's NYT, early reports indicated four of the arrested were Farzi speakers, at the time assumed to be from Afghanistan.

Of course all of this could be disinformation from the The Jew Times as they backup the NeoCon's next project: Iran.

It is very clear to every one in Iraq and outside that Al Qaeda and friends are the criminals who did this crime in Iraq. They have been doing this in the past 20-25 years in Pakistan, and now in Iraq. The Wahabis and Al Qaeda are bent on hating and killing anyone who does not share their narrow and deviant views of Islam. As for the other 2 groups mentioned, I don't think any of them will to that length in preparing and coordinating such attack.

Theorie number 4:

It was Iran and their master Great Britain to throw Iraq into chaos, so seperate the oilreach (Great Britain as occupier!) south from the rest and the US (Advantage for Iran). Dont forget the cinema rex fire in Abadan.

Schahram

Answer for disgust; "if the murder of civilians INCREASES the odds of civil war and a theocratic Shiite state, who would this benefit most?" - Likud does.

Despite the fight on the surface, Israel and Iranian government have both benefited the most from this fake threat by outside enemies to conduct themselves in the most disgusting way.

A new "enemy" for Israel would guarantee them billions in continuing foreign aid, total protection from any outside questions (like UN resolutions) by uncle sam and free reign in building walls, restricting rights, killing stonethrowing kids, keeping occupied land, etc.

Answer is clear: Likud and similar hardline Israeli factions would benefit most.

Now I read all the comments again, very interesting that nobody talks about Great Britain.

1. Does anybody asks, why the people of Iraq are strongly against the US, but don’t protest against british Troops? How did they came into Iraq, as tourists with a visa?
I think they have used some bombs too. But no anger.
2. Immideately after the last Iraq war hundreds of thousands of shiits gathered in the
british occupied areas around Basra, protested against the US, the official ally of british troops, and how did these English troops react? They did nothing to stop radial Islamic fundamentalists unrest and threatened violence against their US friends.
3. Does anybody wonder, why so many US-soldiers were killed, but almost no british soldier was harmed?
4. Do the pictures on TV remind us of the early days of the fatal so called Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979? Is is not that we know today that professional agitators had organized the demos of that time and before the shah went? That the British Broadcoastin Company better knew at what time a demo in Tehran was planned in those days than the Iranians themselves? That we ran like stupid animals to that places and then indeed a demo took place?
5. Was it not that Great Britain and the US pushed the shah to leave the country and supported the mullahs from the beginning?
6. Was it not the US and Grat Britain together who critisized the shah of human right abuse and than took a calm position when the revolution killed it´s children, which continues until today?
7. Was is not the british secretary of state who said ”No war against Iran” and that the Iranian foreign minister warmly thanked his master at once the next day? (Of course I am strongly against an invasion of our country too, but London wants this terror regime to survive for it´s own purposes).
8. Was it not London, Paris and Berlin who prevented Iran from being targeted further by the US because of nuclear proliferation by the end of 2003?
9. Was it not Prince Charles who visited Iran a few weeks ago?
10. Jack Straw said about the election Iran: Well it was not a free election, but we will further engage with Iran. I am asking Mr. Straw: engage to reach what????????
11. It was a few weeks ago, when in Tehran Terrororganisations from all over the world met there. Britain did not protest.
12. In 1978 the Abadan Cinema Rex was burned down, the doors were locked, 400 people did. Everybody blamed the Shah´s SAVAK, and nobody asked: Ok, let us assume it was SAVAK. But what should be the aime??
Years later, Islamic fundamentalist´sin IRAN ITSELF ADMITTED TO HAVE COMITTED THIS CRIME! To blame the SAVAK!
So it is absolut normal if Shiits kill other Shiits to reach their purpous!

Dear Iranians, can you imagine historians talking about concentration camp´s , death in the gas chambers and dead Jews in the 1940´s without to use the word´s: NAZI; GERMAN, GERMANY, HITLER…
Or talking about human right abuse in Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgary from 1945-1989 without using the words: USSR, Communist, Stalin, and so on ?

Absolut impossible to discuss these matters in that way!

Talking about Iraq without to mention Iran is nearly the same. Wake up! This is not a typical conspiracy Theory I am talking about. Conspiracy would mean that London and Tehran would declare the other one as enemy number 1 and in reality both would be best friends.This would be a conspiracy. In this case both, London and Tehran officially admit: Yes, we are engaged, we love each other, because: London (so Iran) protect us from the US and we (Iran) don’t harm british soldiers, don’t burn british flags, separate the southern part of Iraq with its oil and way to the gulf from the US and british troops can stay there, and can get the oil very cheap..

Have you ever seen Iranian or other fundamentalists burning british flags? They shold be seen as occupiers too. Or are they just, nicer and smarter, more charming than Americans??

And can anybody explain to me, why so many fundamentalist´s, who want to rise up in middle east countrie´s e.g. in Egypt to creat Islamic states, have their terrorist center´s in ……….guess.. London?

Thank you for your interest.

Schahram, Germany

Omid sez: "...Oh right, to make money. Over 500 American troops have been lost in this struggle, as have thousands of Iraqis, with another 150 yesterday. When you say that the Neo-Cond did all of this, that is a HELL OF A THING for anyone to say. You are saying they volountarily spilled the blood of thousands to make money..."

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a wiener!

If I told you in 1976 that the US Government had a hand in the murder of 15,000 people, you'd probably call me an anti-semetic concpiracy theorist. Wake up, dude. In 30 years it will be too late to do anything about what's happening NOW.

"...Newly released U.S. documents obtained by Insight show that in 1976 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a key role in assuring Argentina's military rulers that their antiterrorist campaign involving the disappearance, torture and assassination of at least 15,000 people -- many of whom were not combatants -- would not be criticized by the United States on human-rights grounds..."

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002/01/28/Politics/Kissinger.Had.A.Hand.In.dirty.War-161506.shtml

I was wondering how long it would take for this blog to finally have its first official "Dear Uncle Napoleon". Looks like we've got one now; Hi Schahram!

Just for the record, I come here to reply to 'over the top' anti-Americanism that borders on bigotry. I am not however an Isreali synchophant. I am an American patriot, who critisizes Isreal without being anti-sematic.

So I believe that means I am not a Neo Con.

The Neocons and Halliburton! Check for perforations in the tinfoil on your hat. The rays from the mind control satellites must be somehow getting through to your cerebellum.

I know, the Sharon government is conspiring with the international Tin Cabal to produce defective foil so that your hat won't stop the rays anymore.

Schahram,

You do have some points that I agree with. We cannot forget about the GB, and unlike what Roya who sometimes ridiculously tries to be funny says, "Dear Uncle Napoleon" wasn't that off either. British is no better than the US, but it runs its agenda behind the scene the way that is less obvious.

You mention some (only some) valid points about the British role in these conflicts and its relations with Tehran regime. But that doesn't mean that the US is our friend, or Shah's regime wasn't a corrupt regime (I am not sure if we agree on this).

Im am a American, Texan to be exact, served in the Marines. 2 kids, happy family. I read several blogs lately for fun, this is one of them. I dont live in the same world as any of you do I? I cant even comprehend your line of thinking to be honest, and im pretty sure you would just view me as some tool of the american jews or isreal. Im pretty sure ill never see things that way, its just not reality for me. And its pretty obvious that nothing America or its allies ever does will stop you from hating us or stop you from considering us lapdogs of isreal. So why the pretense? why even bother with this silly charade? Why dont we just go ahead and take this to the next level and get it over with.

Its crazy, but it seems that you and I will never really see eye to eye. You would think that one of us would have some facts that would be consistent for both of us that we could use as a basis for a working friendship.

quote: "Shah's regime wasn't a corrupt regime (I am not sure if we agree on this)"!!!
I am not sure who posted that comment but its very representative of the views here.
Most of you guys are so brainwashed that are unknowingly still repeating Khomeinie's words. The dirty old man is watching from his grave with a big smile on his face.

Wow, are some of you serious? I'm an American and have just started reading some of these blogs from around the middle east. There's some shocking stuff on here. It's like you get your news from a conspiracy tabloid. Some of you throw around the word neocon like you know what it is. I tell you what, if you can spend the same amount of time talking to average Americans in a friendly manner that you do slandering us, we might be able to make some progress out of this political hell hole. Who out there wants to start building bridges instead of burning them? I know I do. Time to stop wallowing in bigotry and hate and start finding a way towards peace. I don't know one American personally who wouldn't make that step, so who can meet up with us? Grassroots connections, how can you argue against that?

Luke says: "Some of you throw around the word neocon like you know what it is. I tell you what, if you can spend the same amount of time talking to average Americans in a friendly manner that you do slandering us, we might be able to make some progress out of this political hell hole."

I hope he isn't suggesting all Americans are NeoCons, are you? Then how is slandering NeoCons equal to slandering "average Americans"? If you feel slandered by suggesting NeoConservatives are taking advantage of what is going on in Iraq, then you probably are one (and not an "average American").

Ding, Ding, Ding

The US ambassador to Argentina, Robert Hill, had been putting pressure on the regime to stop human rights abuses. But after Adml Guzzetti returned from Washington, Mr Hill wrote from Buenos Aires to complain that the Argentinian foreign minister had not heard the same message from Mr Kissinger.

Adml Guzzetti had told the ambassador that Mr Kissinger had merely urged Argentina to be careful, and had said that if the terrorist problem could be resolved by December or January, serious problems could be avoided in the US.

Transcript show Kissinger telling Guzetti: ''Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed,'' ... ``I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed, the better.''

This very conversation probably took place with the Shah, condemn the human rights abuses on one hand, give some leniency when fighting what was perceived as terrorists, communists, fundamentalists.

The US did not participate in the murder of 30,000 Argentinians and the Neo-cons did not commit the atrocity in Kerbala.

This is what I think:
1) Just at this moment, Israel is sick to death of war, and the impetus is towards reaching a settlement, or at least a "suspension of hostilities." I cannot believe there is any official, or even covert official plan to increase conflict.
2) Bush is doing what he's told by the people who came to power in his father's administration. These are serious, seasoned, fairly level-headed guys, with a specific viewpoint on military involvment. I can't imagine Colin Powell sanctioning anything like this now. The current military policy makers pretty much all feel we need to maintain a presence in Iraq for quite a while, five more years at least, but there is too much public opinion against it to maintain that position. Especially with an election coming up. The consensus is pretty much that we have to leave, but may have to come back, which is not an efficient way to run things. It would be better to look like we are leaving, but not really do it. For example, if we can manage to arrange some kind of UN force to remain in place for a while, until stability is assured.
3) This is the most likely, some renegade operators out to wreak havoc according to their own agenda. Whether this is a renegade Al Quaeda cell (how much control does anyone have over these guys?), or someone else a la Oliver North, who knows? In this world, high school boys can make deadly bombs out of fertilizer and household cleaning products. The situation in Iraq is unstable, the Americans are leaving, I think we can expect more of the same.

shites=shits

Luke, I think you too get your news from a conspiracy tabloid, a conspiracy tabloid called FoxNews.
Read some books on Middle East history and follow the news both from mainstream media and from other sources. Try to find out why so many people all around the world -from Chile to Korea- hate your government's actions. (I mean find out reasons other than "they hate us because we love freedom,") Then come back for a talk. You can't sit here, watch CNN and Fox, and tell us what's happening in the part of the world that we are coming from.
You can't say we are a bunch of brainwashed Middle Easterners based on what you hear from O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. You might be wrong as much as we might be wrong. Understanding this simple rule is the first step toward a dialogue.

Also, Luke, this blog is from San Diego.

Dear Ronin & Luke
I for one don't think either of you is a 'tool of the american jews or isreal and i'm not bigoted or trying to burn bridges. But i do find that most of the claims posted to this sight are fairly level headed and made rather objectively, if not 100% right all the time. I'd explain to you why, but you haven't exactly specified what claims you feel are outlandish. So, why don't one of you take the first step?

Hey Ronin,

As a fellow Texan, and a man who has family members who have proudly served and are currently serving in the US armed forces, I can relate to what you're saying. Most Americans, like yourself, are honest, upright people who wish no ill-will towards anyone. But I think the disconnect between the way you see the world and what people (here and elsewhere) are saying is simply due to a lack of information. Abcnnbcbsfoxnews and other corporate/mainstream, newspapers, magazines, and websites are ONE point of view. In order to get a more balanced point of view, you have to search out as many alternative sources as possible, and then come to your own conclusions. That's the challenge you're confronted with.

I'd suggest reading this single report to get a few examples of how bad our media is, let alone our government: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/InformationControl.html I'd also suggest: http://www.WhatReallyHappened.com (This website is anti-war and anti-lie. The purpose of this site is to expose deceptions by governments and media used to trick the public into wars and out of their money.) And also: http://www.antiwar.com (This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents alike, AS WELL AS many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight for the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency...)

As for myself, I disagree with MOST of what I read here on eyeranian.net, but it's one of the many sites I check almost daily to (help) ensure I'm getting information from a wide range of sources, even if I disagree with them. Maybe, then I can form a more healthy, accurate opinion of what's going on in the world.

Have a great day! :)

I say Alkada or other non 12 imomies in Iraq did it. Why because no one else can come up with real good alternative. Has anybody looked at Libya!! I think Mohamar could have had something to do with this....

As far Jews and Brits, they are always behind everything.

Points of contention:

American neocon’s committing suicide attacks. There is a problem with this, ever see what white Americans do when they wanna kill a bunch of people? Sure we blow them up, or disgruntled teenagers shoot up a school, or they use a truck and blow up a WHOLE lot of em. Strapping on a homemade XL-claymore jacket falls outside their line of thought. And aside from the aforementioned angry teenagers the entire “suicide” aspect of killing other people is a completely alien concept to the average American psyche. You can say “shoot these people” and were all for it…some with less training than others, but even the most well trained gung-ho soldier you cant just hand some grenades to and say “here! Take these grenades, run into a crowd of people that we hate, and pull the pin’s, well see ya in heaven!” The response from aforementioned soldier will be ***ck you…sir”. Were really not well known for our kamikaze’s, Oh sure in the heat of battle Americans will do some crazy stuff that borders on fanaticism, but baby that’s adrenaline. Jews aren’t too far behind this, now I wouldn’t be surprised if in Israel you could find some highly trained very devout individuals who will take one for their team at a moments notice without question, but I seriously doubt they have a number of these fellows to cover all the events that I hear mentioned.

Those whiley Jews! Ok ill give you Israel is sneaky, and no American with eyes would argue against the fact that they do messed up shit every damn day, just the same as we all know that blowing up busses is B-A-D, don’t care what race/religion the are. An example of “known” sneakiness that gets under my skin in particular is the incident back in the 3 day war (was it 5 day?) when Israel got sick of America monitoring some of the crap it was doing and didn’t want any prying eyes for a couple days, so they used one of their F18’s (that we gave them) and blew the hell outa a U.S navy patrol boat that was spying on the war and blamed it on their enemies. We found them out and they claimed it was an accident, yea right. Don’t think for a second that a lot of Americans don’t consider Israel to be like that annoying cousin that you stick up for cause your parents made you promise you always would, even though he’s pissing off EVERYBODY at school. But you know what? I know a few Jews, and by few I mean 2, one was my crazy neighbor who was constantly bugging me to help her with stuff since she was in a wheelchair, had her kid in parochial school and was so devout it would make my head spin when I fixed her computer everything was in Hebrew, annoyed the hell outa me. Another is my mother in law, last Jew in my wife’s family, she loves pork, doesn’t follow the holidays and never once had my brother in law put on a yamaka, there are no dradels in my house. Ya know what they got in common? Neither of them could care less what’s going on in Israel, they got their own day to day problems Texas is their “motherland”. I’ve heard that the Jews in Israel look down on American Jews for being so unorthodox, it wouldn’t be surprise me if it was true. But ya know what? Aside from a few heavily devout followers whose hearts and minds never leave the holy land (not many of those, specially in so called Jews Hollywood) I don’t think the majority of American Jew’s really give a flying hoot what Israel says, demands, does or loses.

Yes we know Halliburton is evil, believe me its going to bite bush in the ass come election night. No the “big reason” is not oil or money for going into Iraq, hell ashamedly FEAR is the real reason we didn’t tell bush that he couldn’t have his war (don’t think for a second he couldn’t have been stopped). Oh sure bush had his own agenda, but it was sold on fear. I hate to backtrack but that’s another bone to pick, the Jews didn’t bring down the towers, they aren’t that crazy, 9/11 pretty much made us ready to kill just about anybody, if they had found vodka bottles and rubles in the wreckage instead of box cutters and Koran’s then right now Putin would be hiding in a hole in the ground. Whatever “sneakiness” they may have is offset by my pessimism that they could ever pull something that big off, oh btw, reality check, I’m not checking the list of names but can say without much doubt “JEWS DID DIE” in the towers. As did Muslims who were at work in the towers, pretty sure we lost some of everybody.

We can’t make you happy. It’s pretty much a hopeless task for us (generalizing). No seriously, example, you have a big religious event that hasn’t been done in decades, if we move troops in as a security precaution to keep the place safe then were infringing on your space and would probably be protested, Bombs go off and we go in to help and they get rocks thrown at us cause “it musta been the coalition!” (cause a civil war is just the thing to make us look good!) so the troops leave, QUICKLY! Oh wait where they going? Dammit now the Americans wont help us! Please make up your minds.

Not contention, simple exasperation: Know where I get my daily brainshake? I start off with some CNN.com MSNBC.com and some foxnews.com after the headache wears off I head to the conservative sites for some commandpost.com littlegreenfootballs (WOOO scary sometimes there) and maybe some allahpundit If I need a laugh. Bout this time im ready to invade another country or start a holy war so I head over to bagdadburning, Dear Raed with my main man Salam pax, Family in Baghdad, Kurd’s kurdishblog(poor bastards), and even a couple Iranian blogs from Iranians although none of them seem to actually be…in….Iran….I try not to think about that, for my last bit of rounding out I head over to arabnews.com get my other half of scary news from the other end of the spectrum. At this point ive blown my morning surfing and actually have to do some work and my heads filled with battling viewpoints of political propaganda. Do you know what? Ive listened to so much of the same hatred come out of both the Jews the neocon’s the liberals the moderate Muslims and the conservative Muslims that ive grown a callus. It’s all basically the same drivel when you get down to it. Some of you are 100% positive that Jews rule the world, and some of the other side are 100% positive that Islam’s only purpose is to take over the world and impose sharia law on all. And im pretty sure tomorrow when I check these websites its gonna say the same thing.

I’m going to bed now; I have websites to surf in the morning when I get to work after all.

We can all construct scenarios where the Americans or Israelis benefit from the bombings, but the fact that the result of a bombing campaign of this magnitude is totally unpredictable leads me to believe the culprits are of the "anything is better than the current situation" variation.

It is so sad to see that such an intelligent person like you, this time around has such a poor and sad analogy of this situation in Iraq or any country for that matter. You seem to have turned your face away from a few other facts and brush off one.

Iran definitely has a lot to gain from these act of violence. In fact in my opinion, the fascist faction in Iran will do anything in their power from stuffing these so called suicide bombers families with money and any shameless others to misrepresent and ruin American reputation. Have you not seen some of these films from those so called holly sites where they have iranian leaders pictures as they march or morn. Think about it, don't you think those idiots in iran would love to see another islamic states. It just gives them more energy and forcefulness to do their crimes easier.

You forgot to name the neighboring countries which are also benefiting from these violent incidents. Do you really think they like to see a free Iraq?. Do you really think that if Iraq succeeds, that this would be good for their own government?. Although in my opinion countries such as Iran and even Iraq not have the capacity to completely understand democracy in its core meaning. We seem to be able to preach it, but when it comes to action, "me first", "My way or no other way", etc. takes precedence to people's will. These countries will never be so called "free democratic societies". We have too many obstacles and elements preventing us from progressing as well as many uneducated, religious, and among the least liked thugs who would do anything to gain everything for themselves.

You also forgot to mention that extremist in so called islamic states have done such a great job of training such idiots as those who believe in martyrdom. Martyrdom yours and my ass, as these idiots who irrationally blame America for their own failures find refuge or so called peace by blowing themselves up (which in my opinion is great..one less idiot in this world, the better off it is..unfortunately at the expense of some other innocent people) in pieces and at the same time their religious leaders get financial help and have very good life. I like to see one of their religious leaders/ idols blows himself up for the sake of their islam or any kind of islam.

Yes, we have not found any WMD yet, but I am sure we will as if they didn't have it, they wouldn't have gassed their own people as well as Iranian in the 8 year war. But at least look at it this way, these people do not have someone like Saddam ruling them any more. I believe you have been out of Iran for too long to know how hard it is to live under a dictatorial regime. I have, I have been jailed for protesting, and I was almost killed trying to ask only for my basic rights so did my father suffered, a 70 year old man.

Countries like ours will never have democracy. One of the prerequisite of having democracy is to understand what it is and what it stands for. As long as we have a "king" or a "leader", not to mention religious believes that have been injected in our blood, can never be questioned as if they are contested, you will be condidered agaist god and other elements we will never have democracy and will never enjoy it.

I love your blog site. I will always visit it as I enjoy some of the readings and definitely take advantage of the links you have provided. I agree with some of your readings, disagree with a lot of them as I see you taking a very negative point of view/ approach toward the country who gave you this opportunity to say what you have to say...well that is what America is all about anyway, tolerate others. Stop blaming others for our problems as we are who we make ourselves. Just take a better look at the Iranian society around you....

Believe me, if you were to be in high places, you wouldn't be thinking of anything else other than your own interest either. Belive me.

My guess is Al Qaeda who I don't view as real Muslims.

LOL Haven't read Pedram's blog for awhile and I was amazed that nobody had yet claimed that the juuuz (as Zeyad put it) were behind it all. Sure enough I can trust Pedram to make it. I am not even going to discuss the merits of those accusations it is just too funny.

I am sorry for the victims of those heinous acts of terrorism though, but blaming the juuuz on everything isn't going to stop the attacks.

Al Qaeda's best chance for success in Iraq is to instigate civil war. Admitting to the Karbala bombing would actually work against that goal because that would make it obvious to Shias who the real enemy is. Recall that Al Qaeda has absolutely no problem killing "infidel Shias."

I see no evidence that the US wants an extended stay in Iraq. There is TREMENDOUS political advantage in bringing soldiers home as early as possible as long as the job gets done. They also realize that the longer they stay, the more they are viewed negatively in Iraq and the Arab world.

I see a big advantage for Israel in promoting stable moderate democracy. It easily outweighs any short-term advantage or motivation in bombing Karbala just to get a temporary distraction. And I don't think the Mossad keeps suicide bombers on their payroll.

Finally, Pedram is too easy on Iran. Keeping Iraq in chaos is their best chance of maintaining power and Sistani is already their de facto leader. Still, I'd rule them out because fomenting chaos in Iraq only delays the inevitable and they'd have to be particularly evil to kill their own kind.

Al Qaeda - by far the most reasoned choice.

Just read some of the comments. Are you guys for real? I can't make up my mind whether you are all being sarcastic and making fun of innocent readers or you actually do sit behind your computer screens wearing the proverbial tin hats.

Metalic headwear is preferable to rose-tinted eyewear.

Pedram, does Qods Force exist?
(see USA Today, 10/23/2003, U.S. worries al-Qaeda may be active in Iran, AP)

What happened in Karbala feels like Lebanon all over again. Syria, Iran, Hezabollah asserting their ability to dictate events in the region. The so-called supremacy of American military power has always been and will continue to be checked.

Suggesting that the Israeli and American business interests murdered Iraqi citizens for self-gain perpetuates myths that allow tyrannical leaders to keep their citizens enslaved.

"They'd have to be particularly evil to kill their own kind." Yes they would.

Michelle,
Pedram is not only mentioning the NeoCons and Israel. He is also mentioning Al-Qaeda as another possibility. How strong this possibility is, is a different subject, but just wanted to draw your attention to three and not two possibilities that Pedram is talking about.

Qods is not a secret organization. They are the "elite" hardliner force within the revolutionary guards (Pasdaran) who operate out of a base near Qazvin, not too far from Tehran where they are expected to be called in if there's an uprising of any type.

The only proven connection between Qods Brigade and Al-Qaeda exists only in the minds of Michael Ledeen and MKO.

Here's a funny coincidence:
From http://www.viewfromiran.blogspot.com/
"We drove on and listened to the radio. "You should hear what the Iranian government is saying," K said. "They are saying that the bombings were the work of the Mossad, the Americans, and Al Qaeda."

"Working together?"

"That's what they are saying.""

Yup. Always remember "Cui bono"? Who benefits? In a murder investigation, they always look, not only at the circumstancial evidence, but also at the possible motives of the various suspects. I don't see what makes people so upset that the suspects turn out to be the "usual suspects", after all, does a leopard change its spots? Things don't just happen randomly, they are usually the effects of causes made in the past, which in turn become the starting point for something aimed at in the future.
Never let go of "Cui bono"? It's the key to everything.

Nobbog, No offense, but I find this kind of reasoning to be overly simplistic and misleading. Afterall, aren't we all mindlessly pursuing our own petty goals without looking to the big picture? Do we always consider all the ramifications to our actions or even know what they are (in other words, can we predict the future)?

Here's an example that you might understand if you are Iranian: the US helped overthrow Mossadegh's government for reasons that included defeating communism; the unintended consequence was to set off a chain reaction of events that led to Islamic revolution in Iran and subsequent Islamic revivalism in other countries.

Thus trying to work backwards and guessing motives from consequences assumes that people are rational decision-makers who know the future, it also assumes that only one arrow leads to B (A), and no other arrows can lead to it.

IMO, it is better to look at what are the known motives of various groups and what are their known common methods and then to apply Occam's razor, and finally to continually look for counter-evidence.

In this particular case, suicide terrorism happens to be the modus operandi of only one of these three groups cited, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it was an Islamic group not affiliated with AQ.