Quote:

Why else would the British soldiers be dressed as Arabs if not to frame them? Why have a car laden with explosives if you don't plan to use them for destructive purposes?



Perhaps they were dressed as Arabs for the same reason that policemen dress like gang members or bikers - undercover work and/or infiltration. A carload of explosives may have been a part of their mission somehow. This requires substantially fewer assuptions than a failed covert British attempt to foment religious warfare in Iraq.

Quote:


. Who really is responsible for the bloodshed and destruction? The only tangible benefit of the bombings is justification for Coalition forces maintaining the peace in Iraq. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the Iraqis – they already believe most suicide bombings are done by the United States to prompt religious war.



By now, the poll numbers across America and Europe universally feature majorities unhappy with the lack of an exit strategy for Iraq. No publically elected official benefits from keeping troops in Iraq longer than possible.

The Iraqis suffer from the same delusions that other Muslims do - that Muslims never do bad things. They believe that 9/11 was really a jewish conspiracy, that suicide bombings are the actions of Americans, etc. This is probably as much a consequence of widespread illiteracy (including functional illiteracy) as insane religious leaders. Their delusions shouldn't be taken as proof of anything, much less viewed as anything reasonable.

Here's a list of the author's other articles:

Harriet Miers: All Hail Caligula's Horse

Intolerant America: What We Can Learn from Iran

Does John Bolton Hate the United Nations?

John Roberts: Supreme Distraction

Is Karl Rove the New Benedict Arnold?

Ernst Zundel*: Modern-Day Galileo (*notorious Holocaust denier)

Booga Booga!: Who Really Benefits from Terrorist Threats?

There is a reason this story links to a Daily Kos style blog, and not a major nerws outlet. Don't take it too seriously.