THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Friday, February 08, 2008


One of the most difficult of false flag attacks that can be perpetrated is that of the suicide bomber attack. The difficulty, of course, is in finding volunteers who are willing to blow themselves to bits in order to create the illusion for their side that some other group, the enemy, had carried out the attack. Needless to say, no one with any normal intelligence would volunteer no matter how fanatical the person was for their cause. However, it does seem that the US/Israel have actually found a way of perpetrating false flag suicide attacks – and in a way that works doubly well in their favour.

A few days there were two suicide attacks in Iraq where it was alleged people with intellectual disabilities had been used to carry the explosives. People with Downs syndrome are generally characterised as being incredibly friendly and very obliging people and because of this they are extremely vulnerable to abuse. Two such people have, it would seem, had their friendly and obliging nature abused when they were used as explosives carriers and then murdered by their abusers.

In Iraq there are never any shortages of fighters willing to die for their cause. Iraqi fighters and other fighters supporting them do not need to resort to employing people with intellectual disabilities to act as suicide bombers. It would be as much a crime against their faith as it would be for any other religion or culture.

The bombings are highly suspicious for a number of reasons. First, the authorities were too quick after the bombings to point out that they were indeed people with intellectual disabilities. Second, the targets were both useless and pointless and succeeded only in killing a lot of innocent people, many of them quite young. There would be no reason for fighters to kill in this way because they would only succeed in alienating their cause from the rest of the people (which was, of course, the intentions of those false flaggers that organised the massacre). Third, inter-factional and inter-religious/ethnic differences are not dealt with in this manner of bombing; usually there would be a positive target despite innocent people getting killed, but rarely would fighters utilise a suicide bomber to specifically slaughter ordinary civilians regardless of the religion or ethnicity crowds.

These ‘suicide bombings’ have all the hallmarks of being a false flag operation perpetrated in order to perpetuate the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ in Iraq; to demonise them as people so evil that they would kill innocent children and to use intellectually disabled people to commit these crimes; to justify the continued presence of US and allied forces in Iraq to ‘protect’ the Iraqi people from these evil ‘al Qaeda’ animals; to demonise ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ generally as part of the allies ‘us’ and ‘them’ propaganda and rhetoric, and to lessen the impact of the way the US forces behave relative to the way it seems ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’ behave.

By perpetrating these kinds of crimes the US and their allies have proved to the rest of the world that it is only they that are the true animals and that it is they have sunk to the depths that they accuse others of having sunk to.


Anonymous said...

While I certainly wouldn't put it past the US (or Israel) to indulge in 'false flag' suicide bombings, I think we need a lot more proof before we jump to conclusions.

"rarely would fighters utilise a suicide bomber to specifically slaughter ordinary civilians regardless of the religion or ethnicity crowds."

Have you been following post-invasion Iraq at all? Attacks - using car bombs and/or suicide bombers on soft civilian targets such as markets have been very common.

Damian Lataan said...

First off,; who is jumping to conclusions? Do we need more proof to say that the US/Israelis were responsible than we do to say that 'al Qaeda' did it? Knowing that Israel are more than capable of committing this type of false flag crime (remember the Lavon affair) makes assuming that 'al Qaeda' are responsible look more than just a little presumptuous.

Secondly, of course I have been following post-invasion Iraq, it's part and parcel of what I'm researching. I might remind you that the car bomb was nigh on invented by Israeli terrorists during their war against the British. They are the masters of attacking 'soft civilian targets', particularly markets.

There is no more evidence to suggest that 'al Qadeda' committed these atrocities than there is to suggest that the US/Israelis did it. However, one needs to ask; who gains by this kind of crime because it certainly isn't 'al Qaeda'.

Anonymous said...

Look, you won't find a harsher critic of the US and Israel than myself. However, all I am saying is that, given that various insurgent groups in Iraq do indeed have a history of attacking soft civilian targets, and that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that anyone other than one of these groups was responsible for these bombings, I'm not at all convinced that we need to come up with a 'conspiracy theory' story here. As I've said, I totally agree that both the US and Israel are cynical enough to attempt to perpetrate such attacks, but then, so are "Al Qaeda" et al. And yes, I agree with you that instantly blaming "Al Qaeda" for the bombings does smack of conclusion jumping, but that is nothing new. They have perpetrated such attacks before, they may well have done so again.

Damian Lataan said...

But which is the 'conspiracy theory'? Is it my assertion that these are false flag killings or the US military's assertion that 'al Qaeda' were responsible? In fact they are both 'conspiracy theories' inasmuch that they are both clearly theories and that whatever 'theory' is correct, a conspiracy occured since there was more than one person involved.

If my assertion is a 'conspiracy theory' then what is the US military's assertion? What makes their assertion any less a 'conspiracy theory'?

'al Qaeda' incidently is merely a euphemism, a label, which the West now use to denote those that resist the US and their aliies being in places where they are not wanted.

You say "...that various insurgent groups in Iraq do indeed have a history of attacking soft civilian targets, and that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that anyone other than one of these groups was responsible for these bombings." True, but then nor is there any evidence whatsoever to prove that they did... apart, of course, from what the Western media tell us.

Anonymous said...

So, basically what you are saying is that nobody really has any evidence about who was responsible for the bombings, and that as a result people will choose the culprit who best fits their own theories?

Daniel said...

I think the only thing that one can say with any certainty is that the bombings prove that humans, in the main, are despicable creatures!

Damian, I'm closing down my site (but opening up a new one). The new site is at:

I'll put your site up today!

Damian Lataan said...

Anonymous, you're half way there. Indeed, nobody has any direct tangible evidence to support either theory but, rather than just choose a culprit that best fits a polemic theory, one should look more objectivly at the available circumstantial evidence.

As well as a muck and bullets war going on, there is also a very one-sided propaganda war going on as well, one in which the US and their allies are intent on demonising the enemy. In some ways you've fallen for this propaganda yourself. You categorised my theory as a 'conspiracy theory', a label which these days has become somewhat derogatory, yet did not do the same to the US military's theory that the mythical 'al Qaeda' did it.

The bottom line in all of these things is; who stands to benefit? The Arab fighters that are trying to rid the Middle East and Central Asia of the US invaders certainly do not gain anything at all from perpetrating such crimes.

It's not a matter of choosing a culprit to fit ones polemics as you suggest, but a matter at looking at the available facts and and the historical record and coming to a viable conclusion - one that only time one day will verify one way or the other.

Daniel, I had noticed your new site is up and running and it looks good. I shall endeavour to leave some comment from time to time. Best of luck with it.

Friedham I. Whont said...

G'day Damian, Daniel & Anon-whoever.

Anyone can hurl epithets: 'Conspiracy theorist!'

But it doesn't help. Back when my identity was still relatively plastic, I chose "Rationalist" as a main theme, with "Facts" as the underlying basis.

Then with the utterly filthy US dragging the world ever further into the immoral morass in such an Oh-so-obvious way with their mass-murdering attack on Iraq - with the Oh-so-obvious intent of stealing Iraqi oil - also to the intended benefit and/or behest of the equally filthy Israel, I learnt things like "Cui bono" and "Means, motive and opportunity."

Also psychopathology.


I'm a great fan of William Blum and his documentation of US atrocities; here's a roughly equivalent online list. (Whether complete or not, it really is 'a lot.' Should that link not work (I like citing the apk where I originally found it), try indopedia or whatreallyhappened).

I'm assuming that the lists are fairly if not scrupulously accurate but I can't check everything. However, I've yet to see such lists challenged. My point is that the US has form, as does Israel. 60+ years long massacring the (previous) legal owners of land and water coveted by the I/J/Z-plex is the proof, obscured only by the craven, corrupt and venal MSM/Hollywood/MadisonAve-plex.

Add a few more ingredients: Perkins' "Economic hit man" (new follow-up Hiatt's "A game as old as empire"), Pape's "Dying to win" - and Kennan's statement, say: "The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

Opinion: all the 'facts' relayed via the MSM, however cloaked in spin, are consistent with a toadally® criminal (ruling/controlling class within) US with equally criminal side-kick Israel, the only real argument being which of the two is 'pulling the strings' at any one time.

Surmise: everyone tries to do their best, qualified by their abilities, world view/morality and desires.

Finally, it only needs to be posited[1]:

a) known criminals can and will do anything within their power to achieve their criminal goals,

b) threatened people can and will do anything within their power to try to mitigate the threat,

- and then ask: exactly who would benefit from programming handicapped people to commit such (seemingly) random acts of violence?

Long story short (and no surprise): I agree with Damian.

Recalling rationalism/facts, it's (bloody) hard to get facts out'a Iraq, what with the terminally crooked state of the MSM and bombs going off, not to mention the US grunts 'playing.' There were some rumours of the US forces planting bombs in/on unsuspecting Iraqi vehicles, then there was the Basra incident with the suspected 'special forces' pair being caught red-handed with some sort'a clandestine arms/bomb capability, their subsequent incarceration by Iraqis then the Poms breaking them out'a their prison. Who knows? But really, daaarlings, would you really expect the criminal US elements to 'play fair?'


[1] posit v. (-t-) assume as a fact, postulate. [Latin: related to *position]

Damian Lataan said...

G'day Phil

Good to hear from you. The first two links you provided says it all.

A quick read through the chronological lists puts America's hypocrisy into proper perspective and demonstrates how far they are willing to go in order to reach their goals and at the same time decieve their own people and the peoples of the world..

Anonymous said...

Right up your alley...

Anonymous said...

Damian, are you going here?

Damian Lataan said...

I'd would have liked to, but unfortunately I have got other committments for that period. I look forward to reading the conference papers once published.

Anonymous said...

What makes you think there were any downs syndrome suicide bombers?
Theres also this little known fact:

''But a police official told McClatchy Newspapers that authorities were still investigating whether the explosion at the second market might have come from a bomb hidden in a cage or a box of eggs.'


Damian Lataan said...

Brian, I didn't actually say they were Downs Syndrome people. The title of my piece merely asks the question. Further into the piece you will note that I used the word 'alleged'.

I'm not at all convinced that they were duped Downs Syndrome people. I simply suggest that only allied propagandists would benefit by using Downs Syndrome peope in this way if, indeed, it were a false flag attack. Iraqi fighters would not have benefitted at all from such an attack.

Again, we will probably never know what did happen but we can summise, just by using a little common sense, what didn't happen. And, in this case, we can reasonably summise that it didn't happen the way the Americans said it happened.

Anonymous said...


I'll never forget two years ago discussing on Webdiary the necessity of invading Iraq. While others offered up various rebuttals to my points, you said it was inevitable that the jihadis will detonate a WMD in an American city, killing millions, and we should accept it.

An unbelievably depraved statement. You are an anti-American through and through and should be ashamed of yourself.


Anonymous said...

Al Queda, are terrorists, the ends justify the means, they are quite willing to kill people like all torrorists, plus they know that the useful idiots in the West will blame Israel and the U.S.

Damian Lataan said...

Steve Reeves, the only useful idiot here, sunshine, is you! Anyone who still believes in the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ these days is just plain dumb and gullible. All ‘al Qaeda’ is today is a tool for the neocon propagandists to keep dumb and gullible people like you full of fear and loathing. Provide evidence that ‘al Qaeda’ is responsible for anything. And when I say evidence I mean full-on bona-fide prima-facie evidence, not some wishy washy crap story out of the Western mainstream press that you are dumb and gullible enough to accept as gospel.

Ron Wright, as well as being a fascist Islamophobe you are also a lying fascist Islamophobe. I would not have made any such remark and, if I had, it would have been in the context of America expecting these things to happen to them if they do it to others. You also lie by saying that I am anti-American; absolute nonsense. I, like the vast majority of Americans am anti-Bush, anti-lies and anti-war. You, Ron Wright, are a warmongering liar.

Anonymous said...

ANYONE who refers to Al Quaeda as a myth clearly has no idea what's going on in the world.
Al Quaeda is not the only terrorist group in the world, unfortunately, but it is one of the most public.

You garner no credit by insulting commenters who have a grasp of world affairs. Conspiracy theories are fine as a hobby, but please keep them out of the real world.

Idf your default position is to disbelieve USA and only believe everything else, you've no credibility whatsoever.
Explore the evidence, question it by all means, but dismissing Al Quaeda as a myth? Get real!

There's enough information out there to fill up the next 200 years on AQ alone!

Damian Lataan said...

Anonymous, everyone that raises their arms against the US and Israel are called 'terrorists' and are usually referred to as 'al Qaeda' or 'al Qaeda linked'. The label 'al Qaeda' has simply become a handy metaphor for those that fight against US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq and Israeli occupation of Palestine to the extent that 'al qaeda' has taken on mythical proportions.

You say: "There's enough information out there to fill up the next 200 years on AQ alone!" However, if you tear away the propaganda and rhetoric devoted to al Qaeda one is left with absolutely nothing. Not one skerrick of prima facie evidence.

All we have heard for years is al Qaeda did this and al Qaeda did that but not once has there been any evidence to support the allegations. There is, however, plenty of prima facie evidence to support the charge of US/Israeli false flag operations. (You can easily find this yourself on the net. Try 'Lavon affair' to start with the 'USS Liberty'.)

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, least of all the ones that the US government keeps telling those that are dumb and gullible enough to believe the garbage they put out. You, I suspect, are one of those. I bet, for example, you really believe that WTC building 7 collapsed the way it did becasue there was a bit of a fire in it! How dumb and gullible can you get?

Anonymous said...

Calling me dumb and gullible for believing something you've imputed to me is not a smart act. I have not spoken of and am not discussing the WTC issue.

Al Quaeda is not a myth. This group's manuals have been posted online, articles have been posted online, there are transcripts and translations available in libraries, as is plenty of hard fact-based info on terrorism.

You are a researcher, aren't you? Your use of the words "All we have heard for years...' gives the lie to your alleged status. researchers do not rely on gossip (most of them anyway). your statement that there is no prima facie evidence on alQuaeda is laughable. Just laughable.

You don't need to speculate on what kind of person I am, it's not relevanT. We're having a discussion, not hanging out. You have a blog in which you invite commentary. I suggest you stick to responding properly to comments here and keep personal speculations out of it.

Damian Lataan said...

You say: "your statement that there is no prima facie evidence on alQuaeda is laughable. Just laughable." However, you neglect to put up the evidence which, of course, truely is laughable.

You say: "You are a researcher, aren't you?" Then, in the very next paragraph you say: "You don't need to speculate on what kind of person I am, it's not relevant."

So, it's OK for you to speculate on what kind of person I am yet it's noy OK for me to speculate on what kind of person you are?

'Al Qaeda' was a small mob of foreign fighters that were in Afghanistan to fight against those that invaded the place. They were real. The 'al Qaeda in Iraq' and the the 'al Qaeda in Palestine' and the 'al Qaeda in wherever' are simply a convenient myth that has evolved to keep the dumb and gullible like you - yes, you! - in perpetual fear of the unseen 'enemy'.

I should remind you that the true terrorists in this world are those that use lies to start wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of people. It is the US that are in lands that do not belong to them. And it is the Israelis that are on real estate that is not theirs to be on. The peoples of those lands have every right to evict those that invade them.