Sudan Official

Dies In Car Crash

A close political adviser to Sudan's president has died in a car accident.

Adviser Majzoub al-Khalifa and his brother were killed in the accident in northern Sudan, and several other people were injured.

Khalifa headed the government negotiating team in talks which led to last year's signing of a peace deal with rebels in the Darfur region.

The agreement has failed to halt the four-year Darfur conflict which has made some 2m people homeless.

Chadian President Idriss Deby has cancelled his scheduled visit to Sudan following the announcement of the deaths.

A statement from the president's office read on state television described Khalifa as a "distinguished figure in Sudan".

He served as a minister of agriculture and information under President Omar al-Bashir.

The burial is due to take place on Wednesday.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/6244884.stm
Published: 2007/06/27

Note:

The above news item was e-mailed to me today with this remark: Murdered by M16 and CIA because he (Majzoub al-Khalifa) had evidence that the conflict in Darfur was done by M16 and CIA. But, through the world media, M16 and CIA managed to blamed the killings in Darfur on Sudanese government. – Ruhanie Ahmad

US Needs To Be
‘Less Arrogant’

By David Ignatius

WASHINGTON: When foreign policy gurus Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft all start saying the same thing, it’s time to pay attention. That happened this month in a joint appearance broadcast on “The Charlie Rose Show,” and their comments ought to be required reading for presidential candidates in both parties - not to mention the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Their collective message was this: in a radically changing world, America needs to be less arrogant about its use of power and more willing to talk to other nations. That may sound obvious, but the United States has spent much of the past six years doing the opposite. The three former top officials argued for more dialogue not just to improve America’s image but so that we can understand the new rules and opportunities in the game of nations.

“The international system is in a period of change like we haven’t seen for several hundred years” because of the declining power of nation-states, said Kissinger, who was secretary of state under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. “We are used to dealing with problems that have a solution,” but Americans have to realise that “we’re at the beginning of a long period of adjustment”.

Brzezinski described the changes taking place as a global political awakening: “The world is much more restless. It’s stirring. It has aspirations which are not easily satisfied. And if America is to lead, it has to relate itself somehow to these new, lively, intense political aspirations, which make our age so different from even the recent past.” Brzezinski served as national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter.

In this new, “very different world,” explained Scowcroft, “the traditional measures of strength don’t really apply so much. . . . It’s a world where most of the big problems spill over national boundaries, and there are new kinds of actors and we’re feeling our way as to how to deal with them.” Scowcroft was national security adviser for Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush.

Now, you could argue that these prominent establishment figures are three peas in a pod who would inevitably agree on foreign policy. They’re all counsellors at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, which brought them together for the June 14 discussion.

But on the dominant issue of Iraq, they have taken radically different courses. Brzezinski was the earliest and sharpest critic of the war among former officials; Scowcroft argued against the invasion and has criticised neoconservatives within the administration, but he remains a Bush family insider; Kissinger has supported the war and talks regularly with President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to give them advice.

So it’s noteworthy that the three offer similar prescriptions for what to do, post-Iraq. They all argue that this is a time when America needs to be out in the world - talking, yes, but even more, listening. And their advice to the next president is almost identical.

Scowcroft urged America’s next leader to declare: “I think that we are a part of the world that we want to cooperate with the world. We are not the dominant power in the world that everyone falls in behind us.” Brzezinski offered a similar formulation: “The next president should say to the world that the United States wants to be part of the solution to its problems” and that it will be “engaged in the quest to get people in the world the dignities that they seek today”. Even the sometimes brusque Kissinger agreed that the next president should express his willingness “to listen to a lot of other countries about what they think should be done. He should not pretend that he has all the answers”.

All three want to see America talking not just with friends but also with potential adversaries. With Iran, where Kissinger said “we should at least attempt to have a quiet negotiation with a high-level Iranian to determine where we’re trying to go”. With Russia, where Brzezinski advised “we shouldn’t overdramatise the current disagreements”. With the Chinese, who, Scowcroft insisted, “need a stable world,” too.

This triad of experts helped shape foreign policy for the past 50 years. They’re old men now, but they remain intellectual rivals - still jockeying for influence and trying to outsmart each other in the Faculty Club of life. What’s striking is that they see the future in such similar terms: a new global game is underway; the very idea of power is changing; America’s future security will be more about adapting than imposing our will.

- Dawn (Pakistan)/The Washington Post News Service
http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/25/int9.htm

US Military Launches
Massive Assault In Iraq

By Bill Van Auken

Backed by armored columns and helicopter gunships, some 10,000 US troops have launched a massive assault on the provincial capital of Baquba and other areas north and east of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

The operation, dubbed Arrowhead Ripper, is one of the largest since the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It is being portrayed as an offensive aimed at clearing Al Qaeda terrorists from Diyala province, which is said to have become a new stronghold for the group.

“The end state is to destroy the Al Qaeda influences in this province and eliminate their threat against the people,” Brig. Gen. John Benarek, deputy commanding general of the 25th Infantry Division, declared in a statement.

In reality, the attack is directed at crushing opposition to the US occupation in a region where the overwhelming majority of the population opposes the American presence and is therefore a center of resistance in which Al Qaeda plays a decidedly limited role.

In one of its first communiqués, the Pentagon claimed that a “quick-strike nighttime air assault” by the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division had included an assault by attack helicopters and ground forces which had “engaged and killed 22 anti-Iraqi forces in and around Baquba.”

“Anti-Iraqi forces” is the Orwellian term used by the American military command to describe any Iraqis who resist the US occupation of their country. How many have really been killed and the breakdown between resistance fighters and civilians is by no means clear.

The offensive follows the announcement last week that the buildup of US combat forces announced by President George W. Bush last January is complete, with an additional 30,000 troops deployed in the country.

The operation is the largest since US troops laid a murderous siege to the predominantly Sunni city of Fallujah in November 2004, killing thousands, reducing most of its buildings to rubble and turning tens of thousands more into refugees.

Baquba, about 30 miles northeast of Baghdad, is roughly the same size as Fallujah - both had pre-war populations of over 300,000. Whether it will be subjected to similar devastation remains to be seen.

The siege of Baquba was joined with a series of other actions by US and allied forces in the southern suburbs of Baghdad as well as in the predominantly Shia south of the country.

In the Arab Jubour area south of the capital, an offensive began with a nighttime raid by American B-1 bombers, which dropped “precision-guided bombs” in heavily populated areas.

Meanwhile, further south in Maysan province, US and British forces launched attacks on Shia militiamen, who fought back with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The US-led forces called in air strikes, which left dozens dead. The action saw the most intense fighting between the occupation forces and the Mahdi Army since this militia loyal to Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr spearheaded a two-month uprising against the occupation in April 2004.

From each of these fronts in the US-led counteroffensive against the Iraqi resistance there emerged reports of atrocities, civilian deaths and sweeping house-to-house raids together with the roundup of many Iraqis as “security detainees.” Television broadcasts from Baquba included footage of long lines of blindfolded Iraqi males being held at gunpoint or herded into vehicles for transfer to one of the large US prison camps in the country.

According to one Iraqi press report, the US assault force brought in tanks to attack the Abudullah bin Mobark Mosque in the “teachers” area of Baquba Sunday afternoon. Eyewitnesses said the mosque had sustained heavy damage and that nearby houses were also struck, killing five civilians, including two women.

In regard to the fighting in the southern suburbs of Baghdad, the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) issued a press release denouncing the mass arrest of at least 20 people in the village of al-Ahmad al-Azzawi.

“The crime occurred when the occupation forces encircled the area and carried out a landing on rooftops; then [they were] breaking furniture and property, and killed a citizen (Hussein Mohamed Azzaoui) while [he was] sleeping in his bed,” the release said.

In southern Iraq, the Iraqi paper Az-Zaman reported that over 115 Iraqis were killed or injured in the clashes, including many civilians. Witnesses reported that at least 32 corpses from the town of Amarah, a focus of the fighting, were brought to the Shiite holy city of Najaf for burial on Monday, many of them women and children.

Meanwhile, in Amarah itself, the director of the local health department, Jamel Mohammed, confirmed receiving 16 bodies and taking in 37 wounded.

The chief of the province’s security council, Latif al Tamini, described the operation a “catastrophe,” declaring that occupation troops had fired indiscriminately.

“Many innocents were killed because in the summer people sleep on the roofs to avoid the heat,” Hamid Nouri, a clergyman loyal to Sadar in Amarah, told the media.

The spokesman for the British military declared that the operation “was conducted under the directive of [Prime Minister] al-Maliki and the government of Iraq. Iraqi special operations forces were very much in the lead.”

In reality, what has characterized all of these operations is the relatively minor role played by the Iraqi puppet forces, with foreign troops and airpower carrying out the bulk of the offensive.

Senior US military officers have warned that the offensive cannot sustain the suppression of the Iraqi resistance without the deployment of substantial Iraqi forces prepared to continue the crackdown. Yet, after over four years of US occupation, these forces do not exist.

Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who just completed a 22-month tour in Iraq directing the training and arming of Iraqi security forces, expressed the frustration of the Pentagon over the Iraqi forces, reporting that Iraqi units were being deployed with only 75 percent of the forces they had on paper because of desertions and absences, while one in six of the Iraqi police trained by the Americans have been killed, wounded or have deserted.

Asked by the media whether he anticipated that the next Iraqi units to be rotated into Baghdad would be even weaker and less able to conduct operations than those now deployed in the capital, he responded, “I’m absolutely convinced that’s exactly what we’ll see.”

While, the Bush administration’s surge was billed as a campaign to provide security in Baghdad, the bulk of the newly deployed US troops have now been sent out of the capital. The failure to achieve security was made tragically apparent once again on Tuesday, when a massive truck bomb struck a Shia mosque, killing at least 78 people and wounding an estimated 200 more.

The attack on the Khillani mosque in Baghdad’s commercial district of Sinak came just two days after the occupation authorities lifted a four-day curfew imposed in the wake of the bombing of another Shia mosque in Samarra last week.

Press reports from the scene of the latest bombing indicated that local residents blamed the US occupation forces for the atrocity, many voicing the opinion that such attacks are allowed to take place as a means of sowing division between Iraq’s different religious and ethnic groups.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/iraq-j20.shtml

Accusations
Pave The Way
For Assault On Iran

Philip Giraldi

Sometimes it really is déjà vu all over again. Those who have hoped for a peaceful resolution of the outstanding issues between the United States and Iran must have been discouraged to watch the June 5 Republican presidential candidates' debate. With the honorable exception of Ron Paul, the Republicans lined up firmly in support of a policy to stop Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon using whatever means are necessary to do so, including the American nuclear arsenal. All except Paul derided Iran as the main source of terrorism in the world. Rudy Giuliani repeated the now familiar "you shouldn't take any options off the table" when asked about the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran and stated that he even opposes Iran's acquisition of "nuclear power." Duncan Hunter said flatly that he "would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons" against Iran. The top Republican candidates united in their view that the Democrats would be soft on the issue of Iran, a charge that lacks validity as the leading Democratic candidates for president are as bellicose as the Republicans when it comes to Tehran's ambitions.

And the media is doing its bit to help the cause, just like in the lead-up to Iraq, this time by completely ignoring the issue. The New York Times' coverage of the debate did not even mention Iran, stressing instead disagreements on immigration policy. The Washington Post also was silent, as if the general agreement by presidential candidates to use nuclear weapons to bomb a sovereign nation that has not attacked the United States is not newsworthy.

It is arguable that the candidates are just polishing up their pro-Israel credentials and are not to be taken seriously when they speak about Iran, a subject on which they appear to know little or nothing. But is also possible that momentum is building that will lead to a war willy-nilly, whether or not it is in the national interest and whether or not anyone genuinely wants it. Iran's alleged support of terrorism refers to its links to Hamas and Hezbollah, groups operating against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and parts of Lebanon and not against the United States, a refinement that appears to exceed the grasp of America's political elite. Sam Brownback specifically insisted that "we have to stand with our allies like Israel," revealing that he considers Israel's security paramount.

Several candidates referred to the Iranians killing American soldiers, an allegation that has been around for some months and is clearly becoming the focal point for efforts to create a consensus that Iran must be stopped, no matter the costs or consequences. The rhetoric is particularly significant in that it parallels recent developments in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, where hope springs eternal that Iran will be nuked before the sun sets on the Bush administration. Cheney is reportedly very interested in obtaining definitive evidence confirming that Iran is arming the Taliban against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and it appears that he has been sending his staffers to get the goods by attending the weekly Afghanistan Interagency Operating Group.

On one level, if the Iranians were assisting the Iraqi Shi'ite militias with which they have had long-standing relations, it should not come as a great surprise. The United States armed militias against the Russians in Afghanistan and against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, setting the precedent for such activity. Iran is confronted by 160,000 U.S. soldiers across the border in Iraq and two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. It has been hearing mostly threats from Democrats, Republicans, and the White House. Nonetheless, the case that Iran is arming insurgents with sophisticated weapons able to destroy any of the armored vehicles in the U.S. arsenal is tenuous at best.

The evidence for the existence of so-called enhanced improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq consists of reports that go back more than two years. The first reports stated that there was a new type of sophisticated IED being used in Iraq. By one account, the new IEDs appeared to be the product of a weapons factory because they were all machined in the same way, while in another version the IEDs had some parts of Iranian origin, though how that was determined is unclear. It was further claimed that some of these weapons were intercepted on the border between Iraq and Iran. Variations on the story indicated either that Iranian "experts" were helping the Iraqis build IEDs that were more effective or that Iran was training Shi'ite militiamen in their use. More recently, it has been alleged that Iran is even supplying the highly effective ordnance to its traditional enemies, including Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda.

One thing that all the stories about Iranian involvement have in common is their lack of substantiating detail. There are no names, dates, places, or corroborating information, and most rely on anonymous government sources or bald assertions that are presented as fact. Photos of alleged captured ordnance have been unconvincing. Further, the presence of the weapons, even if true, cannot be traced back to any official Iranian government body or policy through documentary or other evidence. In March 2006, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that there was no evidence to back up the claims of direct Iranian involvement in the development of the more effective IEDs, referred to as explosively formed projectiles (EFPs). The United Kingdom media has reported that the EFP is, in fact, a British design that was inadvertently given to the IRA in a sting operation that went horribly wrong in Northern Ireland in the early 1990s. It is not an Iranian innovation or something that is unique to Tehran's arsenal.

A widely advertised Pentagon briefing in Baghdad in February 2007 was supposed to provide stacks of documents and examples of hardware that would make the case for Iranian involvement. The press conference turned out to be a bust, with little more than fragments of ordnance actually on display. When questioned, a senior Defense Department analyst admitted that there was no "smoking gun." Other sources familiar with the weapons themselves and with Asian weapons markets in general have noted that Iraqis hardly need instruction or assistance in constructing the IEDs and EFPs, as they have become the real experts in their design and deployment. The Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein had many specialists in ordnance design working in its armories, most of whom have been unemployed since 2003. The sources also note that Iraq is well supplied with all the artillery shells and bombs it could possibly need to construct huge and highly sophisticated roadside weapons, all accomplished without any need for Iranian assistance. One British Defense Ministry source estimates that the Iraqis have enough high explosives on hand to continue IED attacks at the current level for the next 274 years. When Iranian-origin weapons do show up, many can be traced to illegal and quasi-legal arms markets that exist throughout central Asia.

More recently, there are claims that Iranian-produced IEDs and EFPs are appearing in Afghanistan. The first alleged Iranian EFP, discovered this past spring by a British unit fighting as part of the NATO force in southern Afghanistan, was found among a shipment of weapons that was presumed to be going to the Taliban. The British initially were hesitant about passing the information to the United States because of serious concerns that Cheney would use the new intelligence as a pretext to start a bombing campaign against Iran.

In April 2007 Gen. Peter Pace said that other Iranian-made weapons had been captured at Taliban bases in Kandahar and along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The claim was then reiterated by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, and White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino. Defense experts in Europe who monitor weapons sales and arms smuggling dispute the claim, however, noting that the Iranians have a particular antipathy for the Taliban. The Taliban executed eight Iranian diplomats in Mazar-i-Sharif in 1997 and have declared Shi'ite Islam to be a heresy. Iran undoubtedly is working to cultivate its ties with Afghanistan's Shi'ite minority the Hazars, who live close to the border between the two countries, but there is no love lost between Tehran and the Taliban. As for the weapons themselves, Afghanistan is awash with arms that were manufactured by Iran, Russia, the United States, and China. Many of the weapons are leftovers from the years of Russian domination, while the newer equipment derives from the civil war that followed in which the Taliban fought the Northern Alliance. The Iranians provided the Northern Alliance with weapons, as did the United States and Russia. One journalist source describes the Pace allegations as a "war of words with little relationship to reality." Another diplomatic source speculated that the statements appear to be part of a coordinated effort to demonize Iran, possibly to prepare the American public and world opinion for a military strike later this year.

www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11116
AntiWar.com, 13 June, 2007

Asean System Can Be Used
To Manage Peace, Security
In Asia-Pacific: Abdullah

KUALA LUMPUR, June 5 (Bernama) -- The Asean system of managing peace and security can be used to bring stability and predictability in the wider Asia- Pacific region, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Tuesday.

He said although the Asean system of managing peace and security needs to be further developed, there was similarity between Asean and the Asia-Pacific region when it comes to managing peace and security issues.

"The Asean experience could in fact serve us equally well in the wider Asia- Pacific region," he said in his keynote address at the Asia-Pacific Roundtable entitled "The Way to Mutual Security in the Asia-Pacific" organised by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS).

Abdullah said Asean had taken the bold step by recognising that its destiny lay with member states, realising that peace was possible without hegemony and security was attainable without maintaining preponderant power.

This had resulted in a system of managing peace and security embedded within a wider framework for cooperation embodied in Asean even though the system was by no means perfect.

"There is still some lingering lack of trust. Occasionally, there are strong disagreements. Sometimes, naval vessels are deployed to keep an eye on each other in disputed waters. Some still feel the need to be reassured of their security by having linkages with outside powers.

"All things considered, however, the framework within Asean has done a remarkable job. It has helped bring stability and predictability to the region," he said, adding that this has led to full reconciliation among all member states and across political divides, with confidence having improved tremendously.

Abdullah described war as having become unimaginable, many territorial disputes were being settled through peaceful negotiations or through judicial settlements, no major military build-ups with vestigial defence arrangements remained but they were essentially for exercise and training.

"The window of opportunity to make a similar choice is open to the countries of the Asia Pacific.

"I think the countries of Asean were able to make the right choice because their judgement was sober and sound. We did not exaggerate threats and we did not overreact to exaggerated threats. We saw the rivalry among the major powers and chose to distance ourselves from the rivalry," he said.

Abdullah said Asean had opted to engage with the major powers for mutual peace and prosperity, with priority for political and economic engagement even though it included the field of security.

"When we discuss security, we make sure that it is about security cooperation that engages all, and is for all. This kind of engagement has brought enormous benefits not only to Asean but also to the entire region," he said.

He said Asean retained its existing security arrangements and military alliances as they were already in place and there was no need to dismantle them but it did not seek to strengthen or widen its membership while, at the same time, it did not spend excessively on weaponry.

"We recognise that many of us lack capacity in so many areas, including defence capabilities. We do not therefore question or seek to deny to others what we think would have been proper even for ourselves," he said.

Therefore, Abdullah said, Asia-Pacific leaders could emulate the Asean spirit of enlightened rather than narrow interest as well as recognise that influence and strategic stature ensue much less from military preponderance than from economic weight, technological prowess and cultural appeal.

Abdullah also said that he does see the present situation in the region as a delicate one -- on the one hand, countries are strengthening the infrastructure for cooperation while, on the other, they seem to be allowing the preparation for confrontation to continue.

"But I would like to ask the question whether we are in fact giving sufficient attention to building peace while preparing, at the same time, for eventualities of conflict and of war.

"I am concerned whether we are inadvertently putting in place mechanisms that in fact invite the very instability and conflict that we want to prevent and manage," he said.

Therefore, Abdullah said, he believed the window of choice was still open in the Asia-Pacific region as "the concrete has not quite set to make the structure for managing regional security unalterable".

"I think we can do more, much more, to lay down a firm foundation for enduring peace, stability and prosperity in the region than we are doing now. The choice is ours," he said.

http://www.bernama.com

U.S. Government
Uses Al-Qaeda
To Attack Iran

Recent revelations illustrating the fact that the U.S. government is using a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 to carry out bombings in Iran undermines the entire war on terror as a monumental hoax that is being exploited purely to realize a geopolitical agenda.

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed.

Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."

"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported yesterday.

Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror.

The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad's government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.

The U.S. government is arming and directing a Sunni Al-Qaeda group to carry out bombings in Iran and yet Bush has the temerity to grandstand during his Rose Garden speech last week and wave the Al-Qaeda bogeyman to strike the fear of God into American citizens.

"As to al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are. That's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks. They're willing to kill the innocent to achieve their objectives, and they will fight us. And the fundamental question is, will we fight them? I have made the decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terror is to fight them," Bush said on Thursday.

Bush's definition of fighting Al-Qaeda is apparently to lend them all the funds, weapons and tactical know how they need to carry out attacks against innocent civilians in Iran, and let us not forget that America's allies the British have also been caught training insurgents in Iraq to carry out hi-tech bombings that are later blamed on Iran - just as the SAS worked with U.S. special forces to train the KLA in Kosovo , which was also an Al-Qaeda chapter having been financed directly by Bin Laden himself.

But in the world of newspeak and the lowest common denominator propaganda that cloaks the real agenda of the "war on terror", anyone who rises up against occupation, be it a kid who throws a rock in Baghdad or a car bombing on behalf of an increasingly Shiite-led insurgency, the natural enemies of the Sunni "Al-Qaeda," are terrorists and are Al-Qaeda members.

A cruel irony exists whereby anyone and everyone who opposes military occupation is smeared as an Al-Qaeda terrorist and yet the only real Al-Qaeda terrorists are being bankrolled, armed and directed by the CIA itself, with Bush's explicit approval.

Since President Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni & Shiite Muslims until two months before the invasion of Iraq and the incoming chairman of a congressional intelligence committee said Al Qaeda prominently came from the Shia branch of Islam, we can't hold out much hope for Joe Public and this is why the simplest propaganda is always the most effective.

They're the bad guys, we're the good guys - black and white with no shades of gray.

In reality, Al-Qaeda only exists within intelligence circles coordinated by the highest echelons of the U.S. government, and is being used yet again as a tool for destabilization in nations targeted for regime change by the Neo-Cons.

Jundullah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.

Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the government is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.

It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

After a bombing inside Iran in March, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_us_uses_al_qaeda_to_attack_iran.htm