On 9/11, the Captain of the USS Cole Said the U.S. Public Needed a 'Seminal' Terrorist Event

A new entry in the Complete 9/11 Timeline reveals that, shortly before the World Trade Center was first hit on 9/11, Kirk Lippold--who had been the commanding officer of the USS Cole--made an ominous statement. While having breakfast at the CIA's headquarters, he reportedly complained that it would take a "seminal event" to awaken the American public to the threat posed by terrorism:

(8:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Navy Commander Describes Need for 'Seminal' Terrorist Event
At the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, three senior CIA officers—John Russack, Don Kerr, and Charlie Allen—are having breakfast with Navy Commander Kirk Lippold. Lippold was the commanding officer of the USS Cole when it was attacked in Yemen the previous year (see October 12, 2000). The men's discussion is focused on terrorism. Lippold is upset that the American public still does not recognize the threat it poses, and says that it will take a "seminal event" to awaken them to the problem. Following the breakfast, Lippold heads to the Counterterrorist Center at CIA headquarters for some briefings. Just minutes later, after the WTC is hit, Charlie Allen will contact Lippold and tell him, "The seminal event just happened." [Tenet, 2007, pp. 162-163]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a830seminalevent&scale=0

Lippold's prescient comments are reminiscent of remarks made by some top U.S. government officials around the same time that morning. For example, just before the first attack occurred, CIA Director George Tenet was having breakfast at a Washington hotel with former Senator David Boren. Boren asked: "What are you worried about these days?" to which Tenet replied: "Bin Laden." According to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, Tenet told Boren he "was convinced that bin Laden was going to do something big." When Boren asked: "How could one private person without the resources of a foreign government be such a threat?" Tenet responded: "You don't understand the capabilities and the reach of what they're putting together." (Bob Woodward, Bush at War. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002, pp. 1-3.)

And during an 8:00 a.m. breakfast meeting at the Pentagon, according to his own recollection, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that "without question, in the next six to eight months, those same people who [are] concerned about the Social Security lockbox [are] going to be wishing they were on the right side of these issues involving national security, because our history is just peppered with examples of surprises. And asymmetrical events, that who knows what they'll be or where they'll be or when they'll be." ("Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with the Washington Post." U.S. Department of Defense, January 9, 2002.)

As Rumsfeld continued: "And someone came in and said a plane had gone into the Trade Center."

Actress Juliette Binoche Raises Questions About 9/11

In an article in the London Daily Telegraph, the well known French actress Juliette Binoche discusses her new movie A Few Days in September. This movie reportedly "alleges that various vested interests - including state security services around the world - knew what was about to happen on September 11, 2001." In the Telegraph article, Binoche makes clear that she has her own doubts about 9/11. The article states:

In A Few Days in September [Juliette Binoche] plays Irene, a tough-cookie French agent protecting an American colleague (Nick Nolte) from a CIA assassin (John Turturro). This, however, is the French arthouse version of an action movie. It is a fast-paced, violent, edge-of-your-seat thriller - but it also has lots of long silences and characters with bizarre quirks (Irene has a pet tortoise and Turturro's character phones his psychoanalyst between shoot-outs). It is the directorial debut of the Argentine-born screenwriter Santiago Amigorena, who also happens to be Binoche's partner. Reviews have compared it to Pulp Fiction and praised Binoche's performance as 'bad-ass but charmingly funny'.

... A Few Days in September is witty and clever, but there is a serious point behind it - with which Binoche is more than a little obsessed. She describes it as a dramatised version of the events depicted in Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. It alleges that various vested interests - including state security services around the world - knew what was about to happen on September 11, 2001.

While preparing for the role Binoche had long conversations with a secret agent, who consulted on the film and on whom she modelled her character. 'Of course he could not reveal everything to me, but he said a lot,' she says. 'Some things I forgot because it was just too much. Certain things I was very amazed by and when I told people close to me about them they just wouldn't believe it. Everything in there is true,' she adds, her eyes blazing with the fervour of a conspiracy theorist.

So is she saying the film is a dramatisation of real events? 'Absolutely,' she says. 'I went to see the Iranian ambassador at the time and he said of course it's true. Things that I thought were hidden and private… they were very open about it.' So she means the CIA and other agencies knew 9/11 was going to happen? 'Of course.' So is she saying it was an inside job? Or that al-Qa'eda was responsible? 'Everybody is responsible for it. If you only knew more, it's even more depressing.' She suddenly realises this is all getting a bit implausible and explodes into laughter. 'Humour is the only way we can deal with it.'

Donald Rumsfeld's Eerie 9/11 Premonition

During a recent Congressional hearing on the "friendly fire" death of football star Pat Tillman in Afghanistan in 2004, Representative John Mica (R-Fla) gave new details about an 8 o'clock breakfast meeting held at the Pentagon the morning of 9/11 by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Mica told the hearing, which was attended by Rumsfeld:

I think on my dying day, I'll remember September 11th, when I was with Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon for breakfast that morning. He invited me and half-a-dozen members [of Congress], I think, over to the Pentagon. And the subject of the conversation Donald Rumsfeld was interested in was: the military had been downsized during the '90s since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And what we were going to do about [the] situation is we had another--the word you [i.e. Rumsfeld] used was "incident," I remember, in the conversation, sitting in the room right off of his office for coffee that morning. And he was trying to make certain that we were prepared for something that we might not expect. [1]

Mica, who in September 2001 was the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation [2], has previously commented: "Little did we know that within a few minutes of the end of our conversation and actually at the end of our breakfast, that our world would change and that incident that we talked about would be happening." [3]

Mica's remarkable account is similar to Rumsfeld's own recollection of the breakfast meeting on 9/11. He told CNN's Larry King: "I had said ... that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department that contributes to--that underpins peace and stability in our world." Soon afterwards: "[S]omeone walked in and handed [me] a note that said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center." [4]

Furthermore, this breakfast meeting is curious not just because of Rumsfeld's eerie premonition, but also because numerous key individuals attended it. Then-Secretary of the Army Thomas White, who was at this meeting, has said the "chairmen of the four oversight committees" were there. And, describing the meeting to PBS, he said: "Don Rumsfeld had a breakfast, and virtually every one of the senior officials of the Department of Defense--service chiefs, secretary, deputy, everybody, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And as that breakfast was breaking up, the first plane had hit the World Trade tower." [5]

How very curious! Right before the 9/11 attacks began, the secretary of defense just happened to be meeting with "virtually every one of the senior officials of the Department of Defense." Perhaps it could have been fortuitous that all these military leaders were together at this time, ready to leap into action and coordinate a response to the unfolding emergency. But this did not happen. As White has said, after the meeting ended: "We all went on with the day's business." (For example, White continued on to give a pre-planned talk at the nearby Army Navy Country Club.) [6]

A strange day, indeed.


SOURCES
[1] House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; Subject: The Tillman Fratricide: What the Leadership of the Defense Department Knew. 110th Cong., 1st sess., August 1, 2007.
[2] "Congressman John L. Mica: Official Biography." U.S. House of Representatives.
[3] "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's Remarks at Pentagon's Riverfront Entrance." U.S. Department of Defense, September 10, 2004.
[4] "Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Larry King, CNN." Larry King Live, CNN, December 6, 2001.
[5] "Interview: Thomas White." Frontline, PBS, August 12, 2004; "Rumsfeld's War." Frontline, PBS, October 26, 2004.
[6] "Interview: Thomas White." Frontline, PBS, August 12, 2004.

The British Establishment Revealed

In his 1998 book Who Killed Diana? Simon Regan presents a clear definition of what the British establishment is. He also describes a "Super-Establishment" -- a ruling elite that, despite being entirely unelected, retains significant power over how Britain is governed.

Simon Regan was an investigative journalist who, after having worked with various newspapers in Britain and overseas, in 1989 founded the anti-establishment magazine Scallywag. He was the editor of this magazine during its short existence in the early 1990s.

In Who Killed Diana? Regan writes: "Only when I launched Scallywag and really began looking into how Britain is run did I ever even envisage how manipulated we all are. And how innocent we are to that manipulation." [1] To learn about the establishment, and how government really takes place, is to learn about this manipulation of the general public.

THE PYRAMID OF POWER
To define what the "establishment" is, Regan outlines a "pyramid theory" of how British society is made up. At the base of the pyramid, forming its wide foundation, "is the proletariat--ordinary people like you and me." According to Regan: "In a democracy, ideally, the basic structure dominates the rest of the pyramid. Without us, at least, it is logical to suppose that the entire edifice would topple."

Next up the pyramid, on the middle stratum, "are the people who appear to make the country tick. The universities and academics, the church, the City and the (in particular Tory) press." Then above this is the government itself, including "top-level police officers, the judiciary [and] senior echelons of the armed forces." It is in this level of the pyramid "that the old school tie, gentlemen's clubs, and probably the Freemasons are most prevalent."

To most people, this government level of the pyramid represents the "establishment." However, there is a topmost level above it, which really controls the country. "The base of the pyramid hardly knows they exist." [2]

THE SUPER-ESTABLISHMENT AND THE ROLE OF THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
Regan writes that it is Whitehall, where most government ministries are located, "which really runs the country with a close-knit Mafia-like clique, which forms a sort of uncontrolled Super-Establishment." This "Super-Establishment" is made up of "a handful of powerful, but low-key, City brokers and financiers; definitely the top brains at the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence and the Trade Department. Key figures in the security forces--although not necessarily the top person--would be included, and so would at least one key member of the prime minister's secretariat." At least until recently, it would also have included the top courtiers who "run" the royal family.

While the police and judiciary might not be directly part of this clique, "through the Home Office they can certainly be manipulated." The Super-Establishment's power is based upon its ability to manipulate the level below it--the individuals that most people believe are governing our country. The elected government, in fact, "is almost irrelevant" to the overall power of the Super-Establishment.

The world in which the Super-Establishment exists is "a grey and murky world in which sensitive matters of state are planned and executed in gentlemen's clubs (Reform and Oxford and Cambridge preferred). It is where manipulation plots are hatched. Whether it be manipulation of a certain minister towards a certain viewpoint, or the wholesale orchestration of a Foreign Office ploy to bring down a foreign government." Regan calls this secretive form of government "twilight politics," because "it never enjoys the slightest glare of sunlight. And if it is ever in danger of doing so, manipulation normally sorts it out."

Regan continues that it is "very much within the interests" of the Super-Establishment "to protect the status quo." In fact, it is "almost the divine mission of the secret services in the UK to protect the status quo, and hitherto it has been their full intention to thwart anyone who tried to disrupt it. It is a scary combination of unofficial officialdom and a blind trust that they have got it right and everyone else has got it wrong and is in need of their 'protection.'" [3]

THE POWER OF THE SUPER-ESTABLISHMENT
Regan concludes: "[T]he actual existence of the Super-Establishment is not a flight of fancy. It really does exist. It is entirely manipulative and, even under the guise of democracy and being 'answerable' to the government," it exercises "a great deal of power behind the scenes." Even the British monarchy "is a sham power. All of the royals, but particularly [Prince] Charles, are constantly manipulated by a small clique of very powerful mandarins and courtiers who in turn work hand-in-glove with top civil servants in such ministries as the Foreign Office." [4]

It is no wonder that the world is in such a mess.


NOTES
[1] Simon Regan, Who Killed Diana? An Investigation Into the Various Conspiracy Theories Concerning the Death of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. London: Scallywag Publications, 1998, p. 110.
[2] Ibid. pp. 26-27.
[3] Ibid. pp. 27-28.
[4] Ibid. p. 31.

New Details About The 9/11 Mystery Plane

The morning of 9/11, CNN reported a mystery jet plane flying above Washington, DC. At 9:54 a.m., correspondent John King, who was standing near the White House, reported that about ten minutes earlier (hence, around 9:44 a.m.), there was "a white jet circling overhead." He added: "Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we can tell." [1] Shortly after, another CNN correspondent, Kate Snow, also reported having seen a plane, "circling over the Capitol" building at around the same time. She said: "Now whether that may have been an Air Force plane, it's unclear. But that seemed to be the reason, according to security guards that I talked with, towards the evacuation of the Capitol." [2]

Yet the identity of this "white jet" aircraft has been a mystery. Indeed, there has been virtually no discussion of its existence, even though it was flying above Washington at a time when America was under attack, and when the only aircraft in the area should have been fighter jets, there to protect against possible further attacks. The 9/11 Commission, which claimed that its aim had been to present "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11" appears not to have investigated the identity of this plane, and made no mention of it in its final report.

THE MYSTERY PLANE IDENTIFIED
In his recent Internet article "The 9/11 Mystery Plane," Mark H. Gaffney presented compelling evidence--including a clear photo and video footage--indicating that this "white jet" had in fact been an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) plane. These are highly modified Boeing 747s that act as flying military command posts. [3]

Important new evidence corroborates Gaffney's conclusion, and raises further questions about the role played by the E-4B planes on 9/11. This evidence appears in the 2003 book Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism, written by Dan Verton, a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Marine Corps and former senior writer for Computerworld magazine, who has written extensively on national security, the intelligence community, and national defense topics. Verton reported that, the morning of September 11, an E-4B was launched from "an airfield outside of the nation's capital." (He did not, however, state which specific base.) This plane was carrying "civilian and military officials," and was going "to conduct a previously scheduled Defense Department exercise." This exercise would involve "the use and testing of the aircraft's various advanced technology and communications equipment."

According to Verton, the E-4B launched from near Washington "had only just taken off" at the time of the Pentagon attack, which was at 9:37 a.m. This would mean it could, quite plausibly, have been circling above the White House and Capitol building at around 9:44 a.m., when CNN's John King and Kate Snow spotted a plane up above. Verton adds that, once airborne, the E-4B "was immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual national airborne operations center." [4]

GLOBAL GUARDIAN
The exercise the E-4B was participating in would have been Global Guardian, which was being conducted at the time by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom), to test its ability to fight a nuclear war. The Omaha World-Herald has reported that three National Airborne Operations Center planes were airborne the morning of 9/11 for this exercise. Following the attacks, all three remained in the air. [5] According to the World-Herald, Global Guardian was canceled after the second WTC tower was hit, at 9:03 a.m. [6] This is what we would logically expect, since it was quite obvious by that time that America was under attack, and an ongoing massive war exercise could, presumably, have led to great confusion within the military about what was real and what was just simulation. Yet, according to Verton's account, it was only around the time of the Pentagon attack that the E-4B launched near Washington was ordered to stop the exercise. This would therefore have been over half an hour after the second attack had occurred. If Verton is correct, we need to know why there was such a delay in pulling this aircraft out of the exercise.

DOOMSDAY PLANES

It is important to note that the E-4B is no ordinary aircraft. It is a militarized version of a Boeing 747-200, equipped with advanced communications equipment, and capable of carrying a crew of up to 112 people. Nicknamed "Doomsday" planes during the Cold War, E-4Bs serve the president, the secretary of defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In times of national emergency, they can act as highly-survivable command, control, and communications centers to direct forces, execute war orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities. The U.S. military possesses four of them in total. One is always kept on alert, with a full battle staff. Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska is the "Main Operating Base" for the E-4B, though there are also numerous "Forward Operating Bases" (FOB) throughout the U.S. [7]

As well as the three E-4Bs in the air the morning of September 11 due to the Global Guardian exercise, what appears to have been the fourth of these planes--presumably the one kept on alert--was apparently activated and launched simply in response to the attacks. Reportedly, minutes after the attack on the Pentagon, it took off from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio, bound for an undisclosed location. The plane returned to the base at some unspecified time later on in the day. [8] Like the E-4B launched near Washington, little attention has been paid to this aircraft and what its purpose was on 9/11. Again, no mention was made of it in the 9/11 Commission Report.

This highlights the fact that, approaching the sixth anniversary of the attacks, we still only really know a very small fraction of what was going on during the day of 9/11. As Mark Gaffney rightly concludes, there is an "urgent need for a new 9/11 investigation: It must be nonpartisan, independent, adequately funded, and empowered with the authority to subpoena witnesses." [9]


NOTES
[1] "The White House Has Been Evacuated." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001. The clip can be viewed online at: http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110929-1011.
[2] "America Under Attack: Terrorists Attacks in Both Washington, DC and New York." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001. The clip can be viewed online at: http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053.
[3] Mark H. Gaffney, "The 9/11 Mystery Plane." Rense.com, April 5, 2007.
[4] Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. New York: Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 143-144.
[5] Joe Dejka, "Inside StratCom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-life Twist." Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002.
[6] Joe Dejka, "When Bush Arrived, Offutt Sensed History in the Making." Omaha World-Herald, September 8, 2002.
[7] Stephen I. Schwartz (Editor), Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U. S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998, p. 210; "E-4B National Airborne Operations Center." Federation of American Scientists, April 23, 2000; "E-4B." U.S. Air Force, August 2007.
[8] Timothy R. Gaffney, "Wright-Pat Air Force Base Goes to Highest Alert." Dayton Daily News, September 12, 2001.
[9] Mark H. Gaffney, "The 9/11 Mystery Plane."

Before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld Was Preoccupied With Pearl Harbor and Other Military Surprises

As the following two new entries in the Complete 9/11 Timeline show, early in 2001, the new Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was regularly talking about the danger of surprise attacks, and was expressing particular interest in the attack on Pearl Harbor. According to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, Rumsfeld "routinely handed out or recommended" Roberta Wohlstetter's 1962 book, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision.

This is perhaps unsurprising, since Rumsfeld was one of the founders of the neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century. In a September 2000 report called Rebuilding America's Defenses, this group had stated that, to preserve its "military preeminence in the coming decades," America would need to undergo a "military transformation." However, the report continued, this process of transformation would be "a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." Twelve months later, what President Bush called the "Pearl Harbor of the 21st century" took place.

* * *

January 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Warns of Surprise Attack Like Pearl Harbor
At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense-designate Donald Rumsfeld warns of the danger of a surprise attack like Pearl Harbor happening again. He testifies, "We all know that history is filled with instances where people were surprised. There were plenty of signals, plenty of warnings, plenty of cautions. But they weren't taken aboard. They didn't register. They weren't sufficient to cause a person to act on those." He continues, "We know that the thing that tends to register on people is fear, and we know that that tends to happen after there's a Pearl Harbor, tends to happen after there's a crisis. And that's too late for us. We've got to be smarter than that. We've got to be wiser than that. We have to be more forward-looking." As ABC News later comments, "eight months to the day after his warning of a surprise attack, Rumsfeld's fears became reality with the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [CNN, 1/11/2001; Scarborough, 2004, pp. 165-166; ABC News 7 (Chicago), 3/25/2004] Rumsfeld will again refer to the danger of military surprises four months later, during meetings with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (see May 23-24, 2001).
Source

May 23-24, 2001: Rumsfeld Warns of Inevitability of Strategic Surprise; Refers to Pearl Harbor
During a meeting with the House Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that the inevitability of surprise is a guiding principle of the Bush administration's national security strategy. To emphasize his point about the need to prepare for the unexpected, he gives panel members copies of the foreword to Roberta Wohlstetter's 1962 book, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. This foreword, written by Thomas Schelling, argues that in order to prepare for the next crisis, the US military needs to avoid thinking that the most familiar threat is also the most likely one. Rumsfeld says that, in line with this reasoning, a key element of the administration's strategy will be preparing for the unexpected. [US Department of Defense, 5/23/2001; Associated Press, 5/24/2001] The following day, he has a similar closed-door meeting with the Senate Armed Services Committee. He hands out to senators a four-page paper dealing with the inevitability of strategic surprise, and summarizing various defense surprises and incorrect predictions made during the 20th century. The paper states that the Department of Defense should "give some thought to the flexibility of a capability-based strategy, as opposed to simply a threat-based strategy." What this means, according to the Washington Post, is that the "US military needs to move away from a Cold War structure designed to counter one large, clear threat--from the Soviet Union--and to develop capabilities to respond to everything from ballistic missiles to terrorist attacks." [NPR, 5/25/2001; Washington Post, 5/25/2001] Rumsfeld had previously warned of the danger of a surprise attack, like Pearl Harbor, during his confirmation hearing in January (see January 11, 2001). Journalist Bob Woodward will later report that one of the main themes Rumsfeld referred to in the eight months prior to 9/11 was surprise, and he had "routinely handed out or recommended" Wohlstetter's book on Pearl Harbor. [Woodward, 2002, pp. 22-23] Yet when, in July, he receives a CIA briefing about the imminent danger of an al-Qaeda attack on an American target, Rumsfeld reportedly responds with "vehement dismissal," and criticizes the CIA for its "gullibility" (see July 11-17, 2001). [Cockburn, 2007, pp. 9]
Source

Who is Behind the "Suicide" Car Bombings in Iraq?

This remarkable yet little known CNN report from January 2007 raises questions about who is really responsible for the car bombings that have been taking place in Iraq. It suggests that some of the supposed "suicide" bombers may in fact be unwilling victims, who have their hands tied to their steering wheels and their cars detonated by remote control. The critical question is who is really carrying out these attacks? Is it "al Qaeda in Iraq"? Or could the real perpetrators be the British or American military?

Here's the transcript:

CNN NEWSROOM
Unwilling Bomber
Aired January 18, 2007 - 10:00 ET

ARWA DAMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT, (voice over): Forty-two-year-old Kamal (ph) al-Khaqani was happily married with four children, trying like most here to avoid the violence. To just get through each day alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, (through translator): We have nothing to do with politics or anything else.

DAMON: Then one day, like a thousand others, Kamal left to run errands and pick up breakfast for the family. "He got dressed at 7:00 and told me he would come back at 9:00," his mother says. "It was 10:00, 11:00," his wife says. "At 11:00, I started to feel nervous. They kept comforting me. At 2:00, I was pacing back and forth." At that point, Halud (ph) knew deep down that her husband of 12 years would not be coming back.

ADEL AL-KHAQANI, VICTIM'S BROTHER, (through translator): The next day someone came by and said a car similar to your brothers is in Alhadra (ph) neighborhood that it has been blown up.

DAMON: Kamal's final moment, pieced together by officers at the scene.

AL-KHAQANI: He told me, it looks like your poor brother was kidnapped.

DAMON: Kamal was released and set off in his own car. Police say he was probably told to drive toward their checkpoint. But they say he must have realized that his vehicle was rigged with explosives and that he was about to become an unwilling bomber.

It's a trend Iraqi and U.S. officials have been warning since July. They believe a number of suicide bombers are actually kidnapped civilians who's cars have been turned into bombs set off by remote control.

Some of the clues, hands tied to steering wheels. And families. Kamal's, who assist the driver was a victim, too, not an insurgent. And in Kamal's case, eyewitness evidence. He tried desperately to warn the people around him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They said he was screaming the whole time, I am booby-trapped. I am booby-trapped.

AL-KHAQANI: He didn't finish his words before the car blew up. We showed him his pictures and he said, yes, that's him.

DAMON: The explosion wounded one policeman. Kamal's shouted warnings may well have saved lives.

"Kamal is gone," his mother cries. "When my sons sit around, Kamal is not there. His absence has tortured me." "It's difficult," his wife says. "How are we going to live? Only God's mercy can keep us going. It's tough. We are four."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Every time his little son starts to cry, I break down in tears.

DAMON: Eleven-year-old Zarat (ph) can't even speak. The youngest, one year old Sashad (ph), still runs around saying, daddy, too young to realize that daddy is never coming home.

Arwa Damon, CNN, Baghdad.

Source