If you want to dig down to the facticity that is verifiable (whether or not you are in Iraq), that should read: LM reports on LBO Talk that ABC News claims that AP claims alleged Iraqi bombers claim they were deceived. Since you provided the link, we could eliminate the 'LM reports...' part. About the bombers' claim---well they might now that they face EXECUTION.
If the actual facts of the story are real and not simply another 'why we fight (in order to rule like gods over the rubble we made)' anti-insurgency propaganda piece (the stuff is churned out by all the major news peddlers, much of it written or approved at CentCom or at Occupation HQ), the attack seems well-targetted: a restaurant packed with quislings. It's funny how most of these are suicide bombers but they can conveniently drag out guys who survive the worst attacks and who actually turn out to be perpetrators (but then no one really asks for consistency of propaganda other than that it serve the cause for which it is written, which is to discredit resistance and add credibility to an abomination--which is the normal state of Redmond's joystick 'world system' apparently).
It's actually not hard to account for who supplied the Resistance. Gyrations and aerial bombardments of the cities near Syria notwithstanding, much of it is stuff the US and Iran bankrolled in the decade prior to the actual invasion of Iraq. This would account for a lot of the lethality of Kurd-on-Kurd and Shia-on-Shia violence, which is also the hardest part of the 'insurgency' to interpret--that is, when a wave of violence occurs, is it really anti-Occupation Resistance or Occupation-sponsored violence that serves other ends (such as would-be US client rulers killing Iraqis who don't want them to rule, in which case it could be anti-Resistance operations, if these are receiving active support and approval from the US or the Occupation government). The extent of current US-sponsored black ops is unverifiable, but there is no reason to doubt it. But the point is, with as much money and arms that were pumped into both the north and the south of the country before the invasion (plus what some in the Saddam regime stockpiled, admittedly, though this would have been the stuff most heavily targetted), there should be no suprise at the level of literal EXPLOSIVENESS and LETHALITY in post-Saddam, Occupied Iraq.
Apparently the decidedly anti-US al-Sadr was able to mobilise armed support fairly quickly because of earlier support he had received from pro-Iran and quite possibly pro-US factions. That doesn't change the current situation where he has now joined the forces of Resistance, both in attacking (and defending himself against) other Shia forces and in directly attacking and killing US and UK troops. His main problem in forming a government post-Occupation (provided that the US can be convinced to leave) would be how to deal with the Shia factions that are in deep alliance with the US (mostly secular, but claiming to represent the 'Shia' majority, with very little empirical data to back that up). He would have support of the Sunni clerics for a united popular anti-US front, and he would quite likely get it from the key Shia clerics of Iran (since the ruling core of them want Sistani to stay the hell out of Iran and would not mind if his entire movement were put down in Iraq first). Al-Sadr's main problem now, though, is how to ratchet up the pressure on the Occupation--while winning more Shia support--without getting another Shia city destroyed or himself assassinated (and the Occupation would say it was al Zaraqawi or hold-out Baathists, no doubt). His ability to talk with the key Sunnah Islamist groups is actually a positive sign that there could be a group of people who could rule Iraq in a provisional period of truce during which the US withdrew. You probably won't read that In These Times or Nation anytime soon, though.
F
-- _______________________________________________ NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once. http://datingsearch.lycos.com