The IPCRESS Blog

The Suicide Bomber Myth: Karbala Massacre

Posted in Katin/IPCRESS Blog, Suicide Bomber Myth by Katin on November 29, 2007

Written by Katin for IPCRESS Blog

There are no “suicide bombers.” I know this may come as a shock to many readers, for most people automatically assume there are thousands of dedicated religious fanatics training in special camps for this purpose. People will also assume the the evidence for such events is overwhelming, but it is not. This is a topic which I will be covering frequently. The entire Global War on Terror turns on this concept of Islamic fanaticism, which relies on the image of the suicide bomber as its defining feature. But, none of the high-profile bombings stand up to critical scrutiny when the details are examined and they all occur at times which are strangely beneficial to the United States. The bombings are all staged events designed to manipulate public and political opinion, and it is not necessary for me to get into the minutiae of these events (although, I will be doing this) for it is the obvious way in which these attacks work to further the cause of the Coalition/USA which is evidence enough that they are frauds.

As an example, on November 14, 2003, President Bush was scheduled to meet Italian President Carlo Ciampi in Washington. The Italians, as nearly everyone knows, are especially skeptical of the Global War on Terror, and of all the Coalition members are perhaps the most difficult population to convince. Ciampi’s meeting with Bush provided excellent fodder for opposition elements in Italy who were determined to denounce American aggression in Iraq as well as indicate that the global terrorist threat was a fraud.

On November 12, two days before this meeting took place, a strange thing happened. The Suicide Bombers decided to attack an Italian military base in Nasiriyah, Iraq, killing thirty-one people, mostly Italians. The attack involved two vehicles and was one of the bloodiest suicide assaults of that year. The result was that Bush’s critics were silenced in the Italian Press, the Bush-Ciampi meeting was pushed off the front pages as Italians focused on this event, Ciampi and other Italian politicians supporting the war were able to announce that they “would not be intimidated by Al Qaeda” and solidified their commitment to The Iraq War, and George Bush was able to play Defender of the Free World (and “free Italians,” in particular.) The terrorists have this habit of attacking coalition countries which have populations highly critical of the War on Terror. The following story describes a similar set of events, this time revolving around Bulgaria.

On Dec 24th, 2003, the Washington Post published this story:

An international team of nuclear specialists backed by armed security units swooped into a shuttered Bulgarian reactor and recovered 37 pounds of highly enriched uranium in a secretive operation intended to forestall nuclear terrorism, U.S. officials said. The elaborately planned mission, which was organized with the cooperation of Bulgarian authorities, removed nearly enough uranium to make a small nuclear bomb.

The story gives the impression that terrorists were planning on using this uranium to make a bomb and that this “International Team” saved the day by getting to the uranium before the terrorists got their evil hands on it. Actually, this story was a complete fraud. Under the Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return Program (RRR-FRP), Russia collects spent uranium from these former Soviet-bloc countries. This was a normal operation and there were no terrorists or an international team of Terror-Fighting super-heroes. The US had fabricated the entire story, describing this routine event like it was something from a Hollywood movie.

Bulgaria is an important member of the Coalition. As a partner in the Global War on Terror (GWOT,) the US is able to build military bases in Bulgaria, which is a strategic location, as Russia plans on running an important oil pipeline through this country. While the US can expect the cooperation from the governments it has paid for, there are often problems with the civilian populations. Very often, these people are not entirely sold on the GWOT and oppose alliances with the United States–especially alliances which will bring US Marines into their country. The client governments must deal with a discontent populace and try their best to sell them on the War on Terror. The story of the nuclear material which was snatched away from the terrorists by an “international team” of “armed security units” certainly sounded good. The timing was fortunate also, as the Bush Administration was dealing with Plamegate and Nigergate at the time. The Washington Post’s story painted the picture of international terrorists sneaking through these small countries trying to steal their uranium.

Immediately after the Post’s article appeared, the entire story was debunked by Emil Vapirev, the Chairman of the Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency. Shortly afterwards, his words were published in the magazine, Nuclear Fuel:

In its announcement, DOE said that the HEU fuel was loaded into four transport canisters provided by the Russian Federation, and that “IAEA safeguards inspectors and DOE technical experts monitored the process” of fuel loading into the canisters. The Washington Post, in a Dec. 24 article entitled “U.S.-Russian Team Seizes Uranium at Bulgaria Plant,” reported that “an international team of nuclear specialists backed by armed security units swooped into a shuttered Bulgarian reactor” to recover the uranium, saying the “secretive operation (was) intended to forestall nuclear terrorism.”


Vapirev said, however, that the fuel removal operation, which took 48 hours, was monitored by “one observer from DOE, two IAEA safeguards inspectors, one person from (Sosny), and two NRA experts.” The work was conducted entirely by personnel from Kozloduy and security was provided by Bulgarian police, he said.
He rejected the image of a “Rambo-style operation” given by the Post article, saying,

This is a success, but it is not an action we have to be ashamed of” or which resembles a cloak-and-dagger team “swooping” down to pluck HEU out of hapless Bulgarian hands.
LINK

Bulgaria had just been accepted into the EU at this time, and the condition of the aging reactors at Kozloduy had become an issue for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.) Vapirev had worked hard to try and get the reactors in shape for the inspections by the IAEA. So at this point, all of Europe was watching Bulgaria’s nuclear energy program; and when Vapirev blew the whistle on the phony American rescue mission at the Kozloduy plant, things looked a little embarrassing for the Global War on Terror. In May of that year, the Bulgarian parliament approved sending 500 troops to Iraq. Now, shortly after December 24th, the skeptics were proven right: the Americans were concocting stories about terrorists running amok in Bulgaria. This could only feed into anti-American sentiment as well as opposition sentiment towards the Iraqi War and Bulgaria’s involvement.

Try and guess what happened next. On the 27th of December, just a day or two after Vapirev’s contentious rebuttal of Washington’s “rescue story,” suicide car bombers decided to target the Bulgarian military base in Karbala, Iraq. Sha-zaam! This was no ordinary suicide bomber operation, but involved four vehicles and a carefully synchronized attack strategy. To this day, the attack remains one of the most sophisticated of the suicide incidents to occur in Iraq. The coordinated blitzkrieg killed 5 Bulgarians and 14 others. From 2003 until their final withdrawal in 2006, the Bulgarians lost a total of 13 troops, making the Karbala attack the greatest single loss of Bulgarian troops during the conflict.

What came to be known as the “Karbala Massacre” could not have played out better for the progress of Rumsfeld’s “New Europe.” Vapirev’s exposure of the American hoax at the Kozloduy power plant was driven out of the newspapers and the reality of Bush’s War on Terror was confirmed to the Bulgarian public. The manner in which these suicide attacks compliment political events happening in other parts of the world is uncanny. Probably the strangest part of this attack on the Bulgarian barracks was the precise planning it required. The first bomber arrived in a truck, and had managed to drive through the initial checkpoint, which was manned–not by Bulgarians or Poles–but by elements of the 101st Airborne Division. The truck followed closely behind a convoy which was entering the compound, and once past the checkpoint, detonated outside the Mayor’s Office. The obvious question is: How did the suicide bomber know the time of the convoy’s arrival? Robert Fisk wrote:

No one in Karbala yesterday mentioned what so many Western security men in Baghdad have long suspected: that the insurgents, the rebels fighting the occupation armies and their Iraqi security men, must have their spies inside the new police force. How else did the bomber know that he had to wait for the convoy to arrive? …. The other three suicide-bombers had presumably been instructed to stage their attacks at the same moment. That is planning beyond what we have previously imagined in Iraq.
LINK

“Planning beyond what we have previously imagined…” indeed. Fisk’s explanation that “spies” inside the police force must have been necessary does not sufficiently explain the precision and successfulness of the assault. What was the “suicide truck” doing while the convoy was on its way to the base? Was this truck filled with explosives simply hanging around the military base, parked somewhere, perhaps? Seems strange that unattended American supply trucks would be hanging around with no coalition troops seeming to notice. Or perhaps is was waiting further away from the military base, in which case it was required to drive behind the convoy for a longer time. And no one realized that this truck had “attached” itself to the end of the convoy? Even the American guards at the gate passed it through. This almost sounds like a scene from some corny World War II movie. The idea that a “mystery truck” could simply drive out of an alley and then pretend to be part of a passing convoy simply doesn’t ring true. Fisk has no problem coming to the conclusion that collusion “must” have been involved, although he assumes that it’s the “New police force.” When you look at the details and try to piece together what actually happened, it seems that the bomber truck must have been part of the convoy from its very start, which raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions. We find this simple explanation of collusion over and over when looking at these attacks. Not only is there some remarkable timing, but the attacks seem to be coordinated with political events happening elsewhere in the world.

It’s rare that two stories which figured Bulgaria so prominently would appear in the news nearly simultaneously, and this appears to be a fascinating coincidence. Such startling synchronicity was missed by most Americans who pay little attention to political developments in Europe and much less, the small, former Soviet possessions. It seems reasonable to explore the possibility of some connection–or at least try to eliminate the possibility of a connection.

The most unrealistic explanation would be that the terrorists attacked the Bulgarian base as some sort of response to Vapirev’s comments that the terrorist threat against Bulgarian nuclear power plants was a hoax. It would be very imaginative to think that the terrorists needed to convince the Bulgarian people of their existence, and so, promptly killed five Bulgarian soldiers in Karbala with a suicide bomber. But all accounts point to the Karbala attack as having been carefully coordinated and obviously planned-out well before the Kozloduy incident three days before. And the terrorists couldn’t have predicted Vapirev’s comments without anticipating the hoaxed explanation published by the Washington Post shortly before. It’s difficult to think of any other connection involving some international political strategy by Al Qaeda without falling into wild speculation. The supposed “Media Wing” of Al Qaeda transmits crude videotapes showing a narrator reading stereotypical Islamic boilerplate in front of a simple backdrop. Most videos, as well as the speeches themselves, reveal childlike production values and make no attempt to impress their viewers with any political sophistication or technical prowess.

If there were a connection between Kozloduy and Karbala, and this connection did not involve Al Qaeda, then it must have been a plan of the Coalition, or specifically, American Intelligence. In this scenario, events in Bulgaria, Washington, and Iraq would have been planned simultaneously. It was easy to predict that Vapirev would have reacted instantly and angrily to the ridiculous story which the government had printed in The Post. The Chairman of the Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency had been keeping a close eye on this plant, especially after Bulgaria entered the EU. And the International Atomic Energy Association was watching the plant as well. The sudden news of terrorists stealing radioactive material from Bulgarian power plants would have had serious political implications for the country, so it would have been surprising if Vapirev had overlooked or ignored the Post story.

Finally, who benefited? As part of the agreement they had with the Coalition, the Bulgarians had positioned themselves in one of the most peaceful provinces, so they were hardly involved in the war effort at all. And this was an enormous suicide assault involving four vehicles. What possible strategy was involved in amassing such a major attack against a country which had only a few hundred troops in the conflict?

Or did the attack benefit the United States? Did it support their story of a Global War on Terror, in which the maniacal Al Qaeda extremists had declared Jihad on all the non-Islamic countries of the world? I’m sure that there were many people who carelessly followed the week’s events and came to the conclusion that Al Qaeda was trying to steal nuclear material from Bulgaria for the purpose of making some sort of bomb, and when they were foiled, they lashed out at Bulgarian forces in Iraq as revenge. This story served several purposes. First, in the turbulent wake of the Yellowcake Crisis, it showed that Al Qaeda was indeed trying to steal radioactive material from obscure locations around the world. Second, it showed that Al Qaeda could react with instant ruthlessness against the most minor of players in the Iraq Conflict. Third, it drew the Bulgarian people further into the EU, the Coalition, and the New World Order by focusing their anger against the common enemy. Fourth, anyone who doubted the claims of the US regarding the GWOT would be swiftly convinced of Al Qaeda’s reality. And lastly, for those who continued to maintain that the whole thing was a construction of US Intelligence, as was the entire GWOT, it was a brutal message for them to keep their mouths shut and go along with the program, lest “Al Qaeda” finds targets within their own country. In other words, this was all an object lesson for the most politically skeptical Bulgarians and Europeans: cooperate or face the consequences.

Emil Vapirev would not cooperate. Nine months later, on September 11th, 2004, Bulgarians read in the morning paper that the Chairman of the Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency had “died suddenly” and unaccountably the night before. He was 56.

Add to Technorati Favorites

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. John Jasper said, on May 5, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    Well done! It took me until 2010 to start questioning the validity of the “suicide attacks.” I read an article about a “suicide attack” on someone in Israel (if I remember correctly) and the reporter questioned the type of explosive claimed to have been used. It was unlikely to have created the size of crater and would not have bent pipes upwards.

    However, there are plenty of CCTV videos showing vehicles being driven into compounds and then exploded but no way to be sure that the driver didn’t leave the vehicle beforehand. I suspect that many bombers may have been unwittingly “volunteered” for missions or just coerced.

    Pakistanis have reported the upsurge of attacks following the arrival of Halliburton personnel to their locales. Apache Helicopter crews are happy to fire missiles into buildings on a whim and unless their are witnesses, anyone could make up a suicide story to explain the mystery explosion.

    Hopefully there are updates to this article with the missing pieces.

    • Katin said, on May 5, 2010 at 10:00 pm

      Thank you for the response. I have a post here examining the supposed suicide bombing in Dimona (VERY few “suicide bombings” in Israel.) The US military in Iraq said several years ago that “many” of the suicide bombings were not suicide attacks at all, but innocent civilians unwittingly driving vehicles which had been rigged with explosives. The US used THE SAME TACTIC during its conflicts in Central America during the ’80s:
      1) Insurgents launch a strike against American troops
      2) “Mysterious” Death Squads retaliate against civilians
      3) US forces must remain in control to keep area stabilized.

      It’s the same pattern in the Middle East. Attacks against civilians always FOLLOW legitimate insurgent activity. When the insurgents stop attacking, the “suicide bombers” disappear. The locals “get the message,” while citizens in the US and Britain are unable to distinguish between the “attacks” and the strategy goes unnoticed by the public.
      It’s a system of retaliatory killing which is the basis of our maintaining control in that area.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: