Why the UN is a target - BBC

[NNN0LHI]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3164675.stm

The attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad, in which the Special Representative Sergio Vieira de Mello died, might have been carried out not only because the Iraqi resistance objects to all occupiers.

There could have been a specific reason as well, tied to a vote in the Security Council last week.

On 14 August the Council gave its approval to the recently formed Iraqi Governing Council and it also approved the establishment of a United National Assistance Mission in Iraq (Unami).

The UN might therefore have been seen by the Iraqi resistance as an instrument of the United States and Britain in their occupation of the country. snip

By approving the Governing Council of Iraqis appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the Security Council put its weight behind the move towards an eventual democratic Iraq. more

But if the resistance is now targeting the UN itself, then those countries will be reluctant to help even with a mandate.

more

[librechik]

1. this makes more sense than anything I've read so far

and the UN did little to stop the invasion in the first place.

[0007]

46. Yes!

.......and the spooks may have galvanized or provided provisions to help.

[kentuck]

2. This makes more sense than anything I have heard yet....

"On 14 August the Council gave its approval to the recently formed Iraqi Governing Council and it also approved the establishment of a United National Assistance Mission in Iraq (Unami)."

[Code_Name_D]

3. There by legitmizing the invasion and ocupation.

Yes, it dose make sence. And is yet more evdince that the UN dances to the US tune, and not its own.

However, if their was an orgnized resistance, why would the bomb the UN center? What posible advantage would they see? Making me wonder if this wasn't:

1) A target of opertunity.
2) Not marked as a UN building. (US Senitors were sapose to meet there later that day. I may have looked and smelled like a US facility. And was UN in name only.)
Or 3) a random target. Made by a poorly orgnized operation who was only attacking a soft target.

[KoKo]

4. In all the CNN pictures the UN Blue Flag was waving. So, it must have

been planned.......although one of the "talking head" generals said on MSNBC...that any site which looks like an easy target will be hit when you are dealing with guerilla warfare. It doesn't matter.....as long as it has weak security.

Although the bomb was so huge (or the amount of explosives if it wasn't a single bomb) says the target was something important, to me. And, planned... :shrug:

[Code_Name_D]

9. Tin foil hat.

Flags can be raised after the fact quite easly. :tinfoilhat: But I will admit, that seems unikly.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Its the same building that the UN weapons inspectors used until 1998

The inspectors used it last year too. There were UN guards posted outside the joint. It was a UN building and everyone in Iraq knew it.

Don

[Paschall]

18. French media also reported the building had been used by the UN...

...for the last 12 years (not counting the 1998-2002 hiatus).

[mjb4]

10. BBK Newsnight -- bomber went through 2 US security

checks!!!!damned!

[stickdog]

14. And who was providing the "weak security" for this site, pray tell? (NT)

[stickdog]

13. Or maybe the voices in their heads made them do it.

Or aliens.

[KoKo]

5. Reading the article, it seems whoever was responsible wants to cut US/GB

off from getting any more aid in......then. If this action spooks off other UN member countries from helping out GB and US then we are easy targets for more attacks. We don't have enough troops.....so it's an interesting strategy.

Cut us off from the UN and we are very vulnerable. These folks aren't stupid. Bush is for getting us in there....and underestimating what we were up against. Bush/Cheney/PNAC overestimate our military power and underestimate the intelligence of the people we are supposed to be creating a new Democracy for.

This is an interesting article, thanks.

[QuietStorm]

6. no in the last week or so they have proven themselves to be

executing some very specific tact and strategic targeting. There has been major infrastructure damage to the infrastructure damage, and from the read on this article it seems the UN hit was a hell of lot more than just symbolic. Who is financing the resistance? Based on two articles I have read all out Jihad is being rallied in Iraq and if I am not mistaken there was a recent article I read suggesting a call for resistance from Saudi Arabia as well.

[QuietStorm]

7. Is this what Bush had in mind when he said Bring 'em on?

[NYC]

8. Does anyone have to be financing this?

Isn't it possible they have all the "supplies" necessary already in Iraq? I'm just wondering.

[QuietStorm]

16. well there is strategy involved

maybe I am just getting paranoid. Based on some of the articles I have read recently I am not sure this resistance is just contained within iraq. the article suggesting there is migration from saudi arabia. This just seems bigger than just iraq. Perhaps the question is how is Saudi Arabia involved. Maybe that is the question.

[NYC]

17. That's a good question.

I wouldn't be surprised to find Saudi Arabia was involved. But who would ever tell us?

I have a lot of questions about Saudi Arabia.

[QuietStorm]

19. did you read the merip article

I placed it somewhere it is worth the read. it is on forum but it will be easier for me to just get the link direct.

This kind of fills in the overall strategy they had in mind breaking OPEC however I think we are going to get our asses kicked in the process because the resistance in iraq now seems to have done some significant damage this last week.

here is the article
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer227/227_alkadiri_mohamedi.html

[KoKo]

61. Quiet Storm, I slogged through that "MERIP" on Oil Resources and have to

tell you I couldn't quite get what the report was trying to communicate. My impression from the article is that the world is awash in oil resources......and that there really isn't enough "demand" for all the oil that is available. That price stability is the most important factor in managing the worlds resources, and that Saudi Arabia was now (after some difficulties in the 80's and 90's) managing OPEC very well. The tone of the article (as I slogged through trying to understand all the oil technological stuff) was that the biggest problem existing in the Oil Industry is how competing nations manage prices and distribution politically......and that Iraq is going to have problems getting back online and producing and drilling in the new fields they have underground...because US is exhibiting problems getting Iraq under control.....thereby delaying Iraqs entry back as a "player."

If this article is true, then why are the Bushies so insistent in drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge. There's plenty enough oil to go around and not enough people using it......according to this "Middle East Report" so why would there be so much panic about the world running out of oil very soon which we've had drilled into our heads by this administration and the media?

I don't know who owns "ME Report." So, I don't know what their slant is.....except for my feeling that Saudi Arabia, in the article, is a moderate, benevolent country working hard to promote democracy in their country, stabilize their economic situation to benefit their people and a "good player" in OPEC to promote price stability to benefit the world.

Granted, my view of the article, which was very interesting in informing someone like me (whose never bothered with the oil issue) may be very simplistic. But, it was a good read for anyone as uninformed as I am about countries and producers and the politics surrounding the issue.

[QuietStorm]

70. I fixated on the OPEC alliances out lined

I found it interesting myself. you make interesting comments. makes me want to reread the article again. perhaps I will. as to MERIP and its slant it. pursue thru the articles on site. they are a monthly I believe and they tend to give voice to the that aspect of the ME and the Israeli Palestinian conflict that we don't get in the states. I am familiar with some of the so called israeli "leftist" that write for merip, Like Jeff Halper, perhaps even Uri Avnery. It is a perspective we don't get here in the states.

[KoKo]

71. The article is alot to absorb in one read! That's why I said I "slogged"

through it. It tried to cover so much ground giving a history of the OPEC price wars that if one was unfamiliar with it all it's overwhelming. And, maybe my impression was wrong that the world is swimming in oil from the article.....but I had no idea there are so many countries who have oil resources under productionl. It seems to be that there's so much competition among oil producing countries and less demand for it, that, in truth, "Pricing" is more of a problem than how much oil is still available to be produced. If that's the case then we've been told some odd things. I notice here on DU someone posted that we get more of our oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the ME. That seemed odd since we've been lead to believe otherwise.

Mostly the emphasis has been on our Invading Iraq because we are desperate for control of their reserves because supply is diminishing. This article makes me wonder if we've been attacking BFEE/PNAC for the wrong reasons.

Maybe the real reasons are hidden in the article somewhere. It's probably worth a re-read for myself as well.

[stickdog]

15. They aren't stupid.

But they mounted their most destructive attack of the entire resistance effort on the peaceful, diplomatic, altruistic head of the UN delegation.

Wow! How cunning they were!

[NNN0LHI]

54. He was an occupier as much as the Americans are

I never heard any condemnation of this illegal adventure, and for the thousands of civillian deaths America caused come from that so called peaceful, diplomatic, altruistic, group known as the UN. Did you? If I noticed the absence of such condemnation, do you think the Iraqi's might have too? If your family had a MOAB dropped on their heads, would you care how nice of a fellow this guy was? Come on now.

Don

[stickdog]

58. All things are relative.

and de Mello was a relative saint.

Read about him if you don't believe it.

[NNN0LHI]

62. You are missing my point here. Of course he was a great guy

I will bet many men and women were killed yesterday were great people. I am sure the soldiers who have died over there are great men and women too, as were the civillians killed by Americas "Shock and Awe" in Iraq.

But no, I don't value one life more than another. Too me all life is a very precious gift, that should be extended as long as possible at all costs. Maybe I am off base on this?

Don

[stickdog]

65. Who would you target with your most destructive attack of this entire war?

Relative saints or relative sinners?

[stickdog]

12. Who wants to discuss this rationally?

There are three prime suspects here:

1) Iraqi resistance
2) al-Qaeda
3) US/Chalabi mil/intel black ops

If this was the Iraqi resistance:

a) how and why the sudden huge increase in sophistication and deadly force?
b) why use your most destructive weapon in the entire war on the sensitive, peaceful, diplomatic head of UN delegation?

If this was al-Qaeda:

a) where did they come from? how are the cells operating?
b) why not direct your well-coordinated, sophisticated attack against the hated US?
c) why the hell did we get rid of Saddam again?

*****

Only one of these suspects had obvious, proven means, a clear, unquestionable motive and all of the opportunity in the world.

Can you name this suspect?

[QuietStorm]

21. yes huge increase in sophistication

I think saudi arabia is involved now i don't know if that means via alq. I am not sure this is a terrorist only thing. there is a war inside here regarding OPEC breaking OPEC. that is bound to put saudia arabia on edge. i was just struck by this one article I read recently...

i put it in my post to NYC if you haven't read it. Might shed more light. then again I am not sure perhaps it is old news. According to that article Saudi Arabia and Iran have linked to strengthen OPEC.

The huge increase in sophistication is quite noticable. I really am not an expert and I noticed it. succinct strategy at play. not so much to kill soldiers but to hit infrastructure.

The oil boys have a bit of a conflict with Saudi Arabia (royals carlyle) this is all going to back fire. With Israel involved as well (Saudi a bitter long time enemy) putting on the heat to strike Iran. This is surely going to be hell. My guess is the ME is unifying and they intend to put up a fight big.

It was that article that threw this light for me. what do you think? Read that article if you haven't.

[stickdog]

23. I think Saudi Arabia may well be responsible for the pipeline attacks.

But I don't see how or why any pro-Iraqi force would target the sensitive, diplomatic, altruistic head of the UN delegation with the most destructive attack of the entire resistance.

[QuietStorm]

24. I am discussing

Somethings I have hard feeling about I do not even have to read anymore analysis on the matter, like with Mazen Dana. Dana was assisinated. He was on a list. I am almost sure of it . Between Israel and the US Dana was a marked man. With the UN I don't know I vascilate it is conceivable to me it was 3 not 1 or 2 but 3.

But what is your speculation can you expound I am interested to hear.

[stickdog]

26. 3 is the obvious prime suspect.

Of course, the obvious prime suspect is not always the guilty party.

[QuietStorm]

22. well I was

vibing on something else in my last post.

in answer to your suspect question I go back and forth between 1 2 and 3. could be 1 and 2. the article suggests this ostracized the UN so I am not sure it would be 3. unless they really did not want peace keepers in. I can't answer this question I am still missing too much information. I am not as up to speed as I would like. mostly intuition. But the last week or so has been most troubling add to that the mass graves and the utter disregard for this culture. I don't know it could have quite just simply been 1. But saudia arabia is troubling me as well.

[havocmom]

59. It does seem that the US command does not want any witnesses

to what is really happening in Iraq. First Dana gets assinated, then the pesky UN crew gets pounded. And the timing is interesting. The shell game of Kobe, Arrrnauld, and political farce in CA weren't doing the trick of diverting Americans' attention from the economy and increasing intrest in the voting machine quagmire. The power failures are looking like another ERON run at rate payers. Shrubco needs lots of diversions for the public to worry about.

Havocmom's rule for watching news: The Big Story is only the magician's lovely assistant. Keep your eyes on what is going on up the magician's sleeves.

Edit to add: Something up the magicians sleeve: energy deregulation!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

[Classical_Liberal]

84. I would investigate Chalabi However

Saudi Arabia reports 3000 of it's male subjects are missing, and Osama also wants a clash of civlizations, just like the PNAC, therefore they don't want thet UN bailing us out even if it fucks up Bush, while saving America. That Osama hates us in general, is something I have never doubted, even though I don't think he had anything to do with Saddam. Osama doesn't want a secular government in Iraq. Anything other than a Wahhabi Sunni fundy government will get attacked by Osama.

[Sick of Bullshit]

91. Is that the same suspect

who said that he was going to start bombing Iraq whether or not UN inspectors were there so the inspectors had better get the hell out--NOW-- if they know what's good for them?

[Lexingtonian]

20. It's easier than that

Look at the least investigated crime in the State of Israel's history- the assassination of Count Bernadotte. Or the killing of Dag Hammarskjold.

The point of killing the head of a U.N. team is always the indicator that one side wants a clear shot at its real opponent, no meddling by third parties.

It was an absurd sort of fun watching Paul Bremer getting interviewed about the bombing and de Mello's death today. He was pretending to be unshocked, but it sure seemed to me that he had the dead eyes of someone realizing "They'll be sending one of these to blow my sorry ass sky high next week". He definitely got the intended messages, the most important being: Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here.

There is a sharp political mind with keen understanding of the tactical and strategic military situation on the nationalist Iraqi side, now methodically destroying Bremer's/the Council's political options and achieving a slow live fire training of the guerrillas to pretty good effectiveness. Perhaps it is Hussein, though it seems doubtful. In any case, I think I can read Bremer's demeanor well enough to sense a certain amount of fear and coming debacle in him. Time is not in his favor.

[stickdog]

25. They used the biggest and most destructive attack of the entire

resistance for a warning shot?

[Lexingtonian]

27. Well,

exactly what makes you think this is the biggest, most destructive, and last such attack?

You can put money on there being plans to do unto Bremer and Chalabi similar to what was done to De Mello. I don't think the Iraqis or Al Qaeda are short on C4.

[stickdog]

28. The Iraqis OR Al Qaeda?

Who is responsible for this attack? Both?

exactly what makes you think this is the biggest, most destructive .. attack?

Because it was.

As far as the last attack goes, who knows? But, at least so far, it's been an awfully ragtag resistance for a coordinated group of security defeating magicians with hundreds of tons of C4 at their disposal, wouldn't you say?

Perhaps we should try to find out just where they're hiding this huge arsenal of undiscovered C4. Who knows? Maybe those elusive WMDs are in the same super-duper-double-secret hiding place.

[QuietStorm]

30. I waiver on this stickdog

but something tells me it was Iraqi resistance. the experts on CNN seem to suggest alq has moved into iraq, but alq is also part of the propaganda war so it is hard for me to say alq too. I tend to think it was iraqi resistance. however there were two holy war articles here yesterday. A push for holy war in Iraq and one in Saudi Arabia as well to aid Iraq. Saudi's supposedly have begun to crack down on alq in Saudi arabia so it would be safe to say they could have moved into iraq, but on one level and at one point those in resistance would all join as one for a jihad against the infidels, the occupiers, the evil empire the US and Israel as well (but Israel stills seems to only lurk in the background here --- but they presence is felt).

It seems to me at one point how is one resistance group different from the other. That is why on one level now this war on terrorism is even more so misleading. The ME resistance is going to unify more and more against the occupation. Wouldn't you think than that iraqi resistant, saudi resistant, alq will just be ME resistance. the jihad against the judeo christain crusaders. Israel has a front organization there now mossad and cia and brit intels are on the ground. In an article I read recently it stated Israel is looking for reparaton for Iraqi's of Jewish faith.

This is a holy war every day more and more the resistance will unify. it won't matter what cell or what sect.

right now I lean toward the iraqi resistance hit the UN.

[stickdog]

33. And in a world ruled by logical deduction rather than planted media noise?

Which alternative would make the most common sense in this world?

To put it another way:

Exactly what are the arguments AGAINST a US/Chalabi black ops team being responsible for this attack?

[QuietStorm]

34. like I said I waiver

for some reason here I waiver but you post below makes sense but why the whole building if they were just gunning for this one guy. why not snipe him?

[stickdog]

36. Snipe him & people will get suspicious in public. Blow up the place &

no one will dare accuse you except when they whisper in the shadows.

Remember the big lie is always easier to get away with than the small lie.

In addition, now you can't just replace one man and get on with it. The whole UN delegation will probably pull out in fear for their safety.

[Michael Daniels]

51. Because it defeats their desire to have more countries participate

Honestly, what country is going to send in forces now given that the UN can be targeted?

This doesn't play into Bush's hands because now the US and UK will have to either keep their own forces there without any rotation/relief from other countries or else start finding a way to get new recruits.

The UN basically gave the green light to the interim administration and that seems to be a reasonable reason for resisting forces to strike out at them.

[stickdog]

57. Killing Sergio Vieira de Mello doesn't play into Bush's hands?

Aug 20th -- http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Celebrity&oid=31227

After his appointment, Vieira de Mello said his top priority was to protect the interests of the Iraqi people under the US-led occupation.

“I have been sent here with a mandate to assist the Iraqi people and those responsible for the administration of this land to achieve . . . freedom, the possibility of managing their own destiny and determining their own future,” he said on arrival in Baghdad.

In Iraq, Vieira de Mello had to rely on both diplomacy and tough talk as the United Nations tried to find its place after the Iraqi War came close to rendering it obsolete.

He took pains to remind everybody that the United Nations would be in Iraq long after US forces leave and insisted that the world body -- or the US-led coalition -- should control the spending of Iraqi oil revenues.

Aug 19th -- http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=19231

Sergio Vieira de Mello, the secretary-general's special representative in Iraq, recently reported that he had told the US administrator, Paul Bremer, and his British counterpart, John Sawers, about his anxiety over "searches, arrests, the treatment of detainees, duration of preventive detention, access by family members and lawyers, and the establishment of a central prison database". He said he found them "receptive", and they had explained what was being done to address the problems.

Aug 16, 2003 -- http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=8090&TagID=2

Prominent Iraqis who despised Saddam Hussein will take up arms against U.S. forces if life under occupation does not quickly improve, a senior U.N. official said in outspoken criticism of Washington's postwar policy in Iraq. Ghassan Salameh, adviser to the special U.N. representative to Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello, told the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur in an interview published Wednesday that the United States had bungled its victory since toppling Saddam.

"Many influential Iraqis who initially felt liberated from a despised regime have assured me that they will take up arms if the coalition troops do not arrive at a result. Time is short," the magazine quoted Salameh as saying.

He did not spell out which prominent Iraqis had warned of an uprising against the U.S. and British-led coalition. The U.N. mission, he said, made a point of meeting senior figures and took credit for pushing the U.S. administrator to give executive powers to the appointees on Iraq's new Governing Council.

Aug 10, 2003 -- http://electroniciraq.net/news/1027.shtml

Following a meeting with Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, Sergio Vieira de Mello told a press conference that they had discussed "what Egypt can do to reinforce the role of the United Nations, which is one of Egypt's priorities, as well as assist the people of Iraq and the governing council of Iraq that manage this extremely difficult and painful transition that the Iraqi people are going through."

Emphasizing the UN's impartial stance, Mello said, "the mandate we have from the Security Council is to assert the independent role of the Untied Nations, and all Iraqis will tell you that this is exactly what we have been doing."

Relations with Washington have been "good, at the working level, from day one," the envoy replied to a question. "Security Council resolution 1483 requires the UN to cooperate with the coalition authority, and that is what we have done, with one single purpose in mind, which are the interests of the Iraqi people and the need to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end as quickly as possible and the full restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and dignity as quickly as possible."

On the political process, he noted the need to organize democratic elections sometime in 2004. "We already have an electoral team in Iraq as we speak, they will be there at the disposal of all Iraqi political parties, of all the members of the Iraqi governing council, and beyond, and very soon we will start helping the Iraqis prepare those elections," he said. "e are already playing that central role because it is out of these elections that a legitimate, democratic and internationally recognized government will emerge."

July 31 -- http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=7880&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=

As lack of security continues to cause deep concern among United Nations humanitarian agencies in Iraq, while not as yet hampering their efforts, the world body is stepping up its political assistance to the new Iraqi Governing Council in writing a new constitution and holding elections.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s Special Representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, yesterday addressed the Council for the first time since its inauguration and highlighted the areas where the UN could assist without needing a specific Security Council mandate.

These included strengthening support for the secretariat of the Governing Council, and providing guidance in the development of a new constitution or new human rights institutions based on extensive previous UN experiences in these areas.

A team from the UN Department of Political Affairs is due to arrive shortly to discuss with Mr. Vieira de Mello, the United States-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and “most importantly the Governing Council,” how they might be of assistance if the Iraqis want guidance in such matters as preparing electoral rolls and registering political, spokesman Salim Lone told a briefing in Baghdad today.

July 30th -- http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=17970&t=1

Meanwhile, the UN secretary general's special representative in Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello called for Saddam to be captured alive.

"It's as if you deny the Iraqi people the right to know what happened and feel that justice has been done," he said. "Catching him alive is important if you want to shed light on what's happened and re-affirm the principle of accountability for crimes."

[Sterling]

86. I waiver too but

Like 9-11 we will see who's advantage this turns out to be over time.

[nolabels]

39. Not only what they did it with, but the timing on visitors to Iraq

The driver would have to have been a Manchurian candidate or was being blackmailed with somebody holding his family hostage or something

[Lexingtonian]

43. Oh boy.

It makes no difference whether the perps are Al Qaeda or Iraqi nationalists, both, neither, whatever. It's Arab nationalists at some level.

I figure other bits of a C4 stockpile are in evidence in the oil pipeline and water main bombs, the mosque bomb, the Humvee boobie traps, the suicide bomber, and the like, probably. It's probably no trouble to import enough of it- a couple of mules over some mountain passes. A lot of it is probably from Hussein's pre-war stockpiles for his guerilla teams. The attacks mostly look like trial runs to me- we've had one of almost everything, almost all pretty low-risk and aimed at peripheral, uncomplicated, targets. The attack on the Jordanian embassy crowd was the trial run for their truck bomb, and it worked well enough that they (whoever 'they' is) went for the UN building within a few days. The operative concept is 'scale up'.

I know, it's more fun to come up with some amusing selfimportant American conspiracy theory. But the U.S./its Quislings need the U.N. in Iraq now as cover for the anticipated pull back/pull out in '04. Someone doesn't want the U.S. to get that political cover, wants the U.S. to pay the price for its actions there, wants the occupation to fail.

[stickdog]

44. It ain't amusing or "selfimportant" to come up with "conspiracy theories."

US neocon culpability is simply by far the most logical, rational deduction in this one specific case.

Howard Dean wants the UN in Iraq.

The hawkish neocons have never made any bones about the fact that they don't want the UN in Iraq.

For you to come on here and suggest otherwise is simply tantamount to rewriting history by trying to use a pencil eraser on dry ink.

*****

Concerning Sergio Vieira de Mello

From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-08-19-sergio-profile_x.htm

Throughout his tenure in Baghdad, he took pains to remind everybody that the United Nations would be in the country long after U.S. forces leave and insisted that the world body — not the U.S.-led coalition — should control the spending of Iraqi oil revenues.

You really think the neocons are crying about his death?


*****

Concerning C4

Is 500 lbs what you call "a bit"?

[tedzbear]

29. The UN is dominated by the United States and Britain.

No wonder it is a target. Maybe if the UN had voted to condemn the invasion of Iraq or demanded that the coalition turn Iraq over to the UN, things might be different.
It's no accident that UN headquarters is in New York and not Paris.
:kick:

[stickdog]

31. But the UN wasn't the target. The peaceful, diplomatic, altruistic,

comparatively pro-Iraqi Brazilian human rights activist Sergio Vieira de Mello was.

The US had a clear and obvious motive to target this man and his delegation. Pro-Iraqi forces, on the other hand, did not.

The US also obviously had the means to wreak such destruction ten thousand times over. For pro-Iraqi forces, this attack would represent and huge leap in destructive capacity.

The US also clearly had ample opportunity -- free rein, in fact -- to perpetrate such an act under the cover of active hostilities. For pro-Iraqi forces, this attack would represent an uncommon success in the complete and total defeat of any and all US security measures.

[QuietStorm]

32. ah now that is an argument

that makes sense to me. however why not just snipe him. why blow up the building. I am playing devils advocate. A black operative could have just sniped him.

question did the resistance claim responsibility for the attack. not that we would even know this. At this point it is a war not terrorists attacks for the sake of attention.

[stickdog]

35. Answers

why not just snipe him

The idea was to get rid of him while scaring the holy hell out of everybody else in the UN delegation that was horning in on US/Chalabi turf, including De Mello's potential successor.

In addition, an assassination would have been harder to pawn off on the resistance without any public questioning. Remember what the Nazis taught us about the small lie vs. the big lie.

did the resistance claim responsibility for the attack?

So far no one has claimed responsibility.

[tedzbear]

37. Maybe it's the CIA behind this but I doubt it...

I would imagine most Saddam loyalists or radical Iraqi nationalists would find the UN to be an obvious target due to its obvious subservience to the US and Britain.
:kick:

[stickdog]

40. Why do you doubt it?

Means, motive, opportunity or something else?

[QuietStorm]

38. OKAY

you make sense. I need more information to make a call for myself


The whole bloody thing is a black op. from 9/11 on.

[stickdog]

41. Sadly, it often appears that way with this crew on mobsters at the helm.

It gets rather dumbfounding after awhile.

I sometimes long for the days when I believed whatever US mass media told me.

[QuietStorm]

42. I hear that

sometimes I find myself wishing I was uninformed entirely. It hasn't been the same since 9/11. I try having conversation now. I get into it. People are not there. They tell me bush said this and bush said that and gungho. I say bush? its not bush. Have you read the PNAC? No one I know has even heard of it.

[alaine]

45. You're not the only one. (n/t)

[DemonFighterLives]

52. Stand down

Could this be another security stand down ala 9/11? Who in their right mind would trust the US with their security? Especially this bunch who is out to prove that the UN is irrelevant.
It makes no sense to me for Iraqi's or Al Qaeda to do this job.
It is now open season on reporters and UN personnel.

[QuietStorm]

74. Still reading through UN bombing leaning toward Stickdog's thinking

and now I am going back over the Jordanian bombing. I find it interesting two groups took responsibility for the bombing in Jersalem yesterday, which is generally the case when a bombing is tied to an extremist or "terrorist" group. However, as far as I can ascertain thus far no one has yet to take responsibility for the UN bombing, and I am not sure anyone took responsibility for the Jordanian bombing (do you know if a group has yet?).

This brings me back to 9/11 only because OBL NEVER or ALQ never took responsibility for that attack. Till this day. No group has taken responsbility for 9/11. I am one of the looney's that believe 9/11 was more than just a standdown.

Another thing that sticks in my is that Vieira de Mello was a HUMAN RIGHTS envoy. That truck it that building right under his office. I am not necessarily inclined to believe that this is coincidental. Who has the angst with the UN regarding resolution violations and human rights violations.

This seems more a big message to the UN than to the US. I am beginning to lean more along the lines that stickdog is arguing, but I am still reading through a variety of sources and materials.

[berry]

93. Also other NGO workers have been killed.

Or I should say worker--there may have been others, but I clearly remember that one Red Cross employee was shot while riding in a car or van clearly marked as Red Cross. This was out on the road somewhere, and out of the blue. But it was commented in the article that it is giving pause to NGOs about sending in their workers.

ON EDIT--I just remembered about all the Christian missionaries that were poised to descend on Iraq too (I don't think they qualify as NGOs, but don't know what category they would fall under). Did they ever actually go? That's a follow-up story I never saw--if it ever was written. But if they DID go, one would think they'd be in considerable danger too....

[cspiguy]

47. maybe it's just that the bombers are ignorant, feces-covered vermin

whose hatred is blind and aimless...

[Sushi_lover]

53. you make it sound like a social problem

and not a military problem.

So since they are ignorant, is education the solution?

Since they are feces-covered vermin, is hygiene and socialization the answer?

Oh. You've dehumanized them. So they're easier to pick out of a crowd? Or you want to lump them in with all Arabs or Muslims?

=====

OK. I've tried. But I don't get your point.

[Junkdrawer]

55. You really shouldn't talk about Mossad that way...

it's just not nice. :evilgrin:

[Sideways]

76. Holy Shit Junkdrawer That Is Spot On And Farkin Funny

And pretty sad too. I smell Mossad and CIA coming down the Arab street right into my conservatory here in Oman. And man oh man does it stink.

Oh and BTW nobody is mentioning LuLu. We know how much the USA loves him right? As Sergio was from Brazil, do we need a new sheet of tin foil?

Thanks for the chuckle but this whole mess is steaming like a dog turd on a hot August day. Looks like Bush* has just stepped into it.

[dudeness]

48. on this one I disagree with the BBC

although a logical response to this outrage, I believe this act may come from a deeper hatred of the UN..we should not forget the 1 million (unicef figures) Iraqis that have perished under the 12 year sanction regime or the blind eye the UN took to 12 years of allied bombardment..the innocent once again pay in the larger scheme of world order..

[kentuck]

49. Connect these dots.......

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030820_29.html

<snip>
The United Nations went into post-war Iraq with more trepidation than usual there was little security, the United States had waged a war without U.N. backing and relations with Washington were at an all-time low.

The strains led the U.N. Security Council to authorize a loosely defined mission which was forced to work with the U.S.-led occupation. The cooperation and a dependence on U.S. security may have compromised U.N. neutrality, many suggested.
....more

[piece sine]

50. the second shoe will drop...

look for talking heads to use this bombing as a link between Saddam and terrorist groups.

[Sagan]

56. that's ridiculous..

They were evildoers and enemies of the civilized world. Chimpy said so after he got done playing golf...

No need to look at reasons or to examine policies. They were just evildoers. End of story.

[ewagner]

60. Let's try this on for size

First, pick your favorite terrorist suspect. (Al Queda, Iraqi Resistance, Islamic Jihad...whoever)

Now remember their ultimate goal: destruction of the United States. Note that it is not simply getting the US out of the ME, they want total destruction.

What is the lesson that Osama learned in Afghanistan? He learned that a war of nasty attrition and high cost could bring one of the two Super Powers (USSR)to its knees. This lesson was learned by all Islamic groups, not just Al Queda.

So, next, what happens if the US is successful in passing off it's responsibilities to the UN in Iraq? We go home triumphant right? But what happens if the UN doesn't bail our sorry assed pres out and take over peace keeping? Then we are left holding a very violent and expensive bag of sabatoge, military deaths, hatred, maybe even Viet Nam-like escalation of bringing in even more troops.

The hope of the Islamists would be that such a long term drain on American resources would eventually bankrupt us and bring down the US as a superpower. The ultimate victory for them.

No matter what group is involved, the strategy would be the same: Cut off the United States from any help whatsoever and force the US economy to absorb the full cost of maintaining a presence in Iraq.

What do you think?

[KoKo]

63. ewagner, I totally agree with your theory. I woke up this a.m. and

this thought was first in my mind. Bring down the "superpower" by bogging it down in another Viet Nam situation right on top of a stock market collapse and an Idiot running the White House and perhaps 9/11 "softens the target" just to get us into the Middle East and now that we are there, cut us off from any UN involvement by a "strategic bombing" to take out a very popular humanitarian figure like di Mello......and you have the US "by the balls." Then the Saudi's start to pull out money from our markets.....selling stocks and bonds.....and the scenario for downfall of the US it pretty much set on it's path.

(Although I mostly believe in the "LIHOP" theory about 9/11) I think your theory and what I woke up thinking this morning is something that we need to be aware of. Either our being "enticed into" and "bogged down" in Iraq is Intentional......or it's through stupidity of the BFEE/Bush/Cheney/PNAC. Which one is it? If we were maneuvered into Iraq by playing on the Repugs obsession that "Gulf War I" wasn't finished by Poppy......then is this a vengeance that was taken advantage of by Middle East terrorists groups to lure us over there and drive us into bankruptcy?

[ewagner]

67. Can't discount that also

or it's through stupidity of the BFEE/Bush/Cheney/PNAC.

If you look at the whole PNAC agenda, it is based on "best case scenarios" without any contingency planning whatsoever.

These guys are truly mental midgets when it comes to planning. I back up my assertion witness the complete lack of contingency planning for "post-invasion" Iraq.

edited for typos

[stickdog]

64. Well, we sort of did the same thing to the USSR in Afghanistan.

However, the best theory I've heard anyone come up with so far for the Iraqi resistance's possible motivation in making this attack is that they knew the average Arab and almost every Iraqi would undoubtedly blame the United States for it -- if not directly, then at least indirectly.

[ewagner]

66. Maybe

Maybe there are multiple benefits to the opposition on this. And we also cannot discount the absolute fact that we have multiple opponents in that neighborhood (tough neighborhood at that!) with different motivations but very similar goals.

[KoKo]

68. LOL's (being ironical, not funny laughter) Many of us Americans will also

blame the US....so taken to it's conclusion then the terrorists or guerilla's are achieving their objective.

With suspicion brewing in GB and US about us "planting WMD" surely it's not a leap of faith for those who reluctantly supported the Invasion to start with wondering if it is now a possibility. (The Investigations of "Sexed Up Dossier in GB, are all the buzz in GB and for those who watch BBC here. Hutton Reports)

Creating climates of fear and suspicion may turn back and bite the Bushies in their butts! We could now start to become the "Villian" in every widening circles. Proving that those who marched against this invasion and France, Germay and Russia were correct. This was a serious error bringing us into Iraq and it could cause destabilization and reordering of loyalties the world over. Right now it seems our best ally is China. After all without their cheap imports allowing consumers to spend more and more for products we can't make here.....we would already be "down the tubes."

So, Nixon's opening up China trade with the West.....was the start of the Repuglicans waging of war on America and our citizens. So......we better hope China pours all it's investments back into our financial markets because they will be our only friend left standing. And, are they really our friends.......??

Sorry..........rambling thoughts.........about how this could all play out............:nuke: Edited: for many typos.

[ewagner]

69. Ramble away my friend!

I'll confess to wandering around talking to myself with every passing day. Events are beyond the most twisted plots of any John LeCarre' novel I've ever read.

Every time I think I'm just being paranoid, I remember Freud's famous quote :"Sometimes even paranoids have enemies".

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. I agree with your theory except that it was the US goal to bankrupt

The Soviets. That's why we aided the Afghans who later aided Al Queda. This in turn aided the Military Industrial Complex many of whom wish to do away with Democracy ala the writings of Samuel Huntington...

My point being AL QUEDA did not invent the notion of using conflict to bankrupt a powerful nation and Al QUeda did not pass the tax cuts that made it possible sooner rather than later. People who have no rights (in the minds of some) are easier to control.

[ewagner]

73. That may be true

but the result is stil the same isn't it?

We can't keep pouring our GNP down the military industrial rathole forever.

[NYC]

83. I like your theory.

It sounds quite plausible. (I'm not yet convinced of anything, though.)

I'm going to read Quiet Storm's link to the Middle East report now. (From what KoKo said, I may get lost in the maze of information, though. I'll see what I can understand.)

[Sterling]

87. This one fits better I think.

Imagine the UN helps bring about true democratic reform in Iraq and they elect a fundi gov that does not want to award rebuilding and energy contracts to Cheney's buddies?

Do you ever consider these kinds of interests and factors?

[QuietStorm]

90. that leans back to the we did it theory

which would be the testament to that chalabi/osp/feith/kagan/PNAC arrogance I was talking about in my last post. that is if I am understanding you correctly.

[QuietStorm]

89. sound

that is sound and simple. One thing for sure OBL had us as paper tigers. If we are arrogant enough to stay it will be hell. and that is how they got the USSR. The only snafu is it does also seem from a strategic standpoint the US is intertwined with Israel so Israel (feith, OSP, Chalabi, neocon headset) does have a stake in this is a well (I am not sure what that means except perhaps it might speak for a high level of arrogance which might mean the US will go for the bigger guns. I guess what I am wondering are the good ole boys big enough to cut their losses and get out now or will they say in the fight for the sake of Israel's security and that domiance the PNACers seem to be hell bent on.). Another long paranthetical. Without it your hypothetical from the enemy side is sound.

[Sick of Bullshit]

92. Here's what I think

The US does not want the UN in Iraq. Remember before the war, there were UN inspectors there, but * told them to get the hell out. Before the war, Pentagon staffers who warned of a long quagmire, like General Shinseki, were sacked. When the war started, the first thing the "liberators" did was "liberate" the oil fields and protect the Ministry of Oil. Almost immediately after that, very lucrative oil contracts were handed out, including a nice contract to a company that had named one of its oil tankers after the current National Security Advisor. Then * issues an executive order granting immunity to oil companies for any bad thing they might do in Iraq.

[skip fox]

75. UN bombing part of a trap!

Peter Bergen on CNN this morning was AGAIN stating that Iraq has become a magnet for Jihadists throughout
the region, that al-Quaeda and other radical Islamic groups are pouring into Iraq as a "target rich"
environment. (Bergen, who is one of the mose credible sources on these issue has been saying this for
WEEKS and WEEKS! Only now, since the bombims of the Jordanian embassy and the UN, are American
officials noting the possiblity of the resistent consisting or more then disgruntled "Saddam loyalists.")

Bergen contention this a.m. was that the UN bombing's purpose is to dissuade other Western governments to
aid US and Britian in policing and reconstructing Iraq. The interviewer did not ask him, but he was clearly
implying that the United States is view by the opposition as caught in a trap and al-Quaeda is trying to isolate
us in the country so they can kill Americans.

Thus . . . the quagmire is shortly upon us.

Meanwhile we're still arguing about who is doing this, applauding ourselves on our resolve, and even claiming
that the terror groups coming into Iraq is a "good thing" cause now we can take our War on Terror right to
them on their own front.

It sounds as though we're not only acting like the pig getting ready for its slaughter, but polishing the apple
they will stick inour mouth.

[QuietStorm]

77. so the question remains

did US/Chalabi/OSP (w/help from the OSP rump unit) set this trap?

[skip fox]

78. Not the way Bergen sees it.

It's a trap sprung by the Jihadists (incl. al-Quaeda) of the region . . . cutting us off.

[QuietStorm]

79. yes I am getting a sense of the official line

no wait the official line as this will not deter our peace efforts in Iraq. Well if bergen is right we may be fucked. If it was plan cut by OSP, they might have another more dramatic move up their sleeves. Truth is you can now wave bye bye to the UN. Kofi seems to have gotten the message. In the meantime I just read today in the paper more US troops are needed. I should place that article.

[ewagner]

80. Good call

That appears to be the inescapablle conclusion.

Anybody think these guys are smart enough to figure it out?

[tlcandie]

81. Just finished watching LINK TV news ...

There was another well-known journalist interviewed about the UN bombing who had this same exact theory....

Closing off the U.S. and trying to keep others out to target ONLY Americans/British...

[skip fox]

82. The way out???

There is no way out. Or, there is . . . it's just what we did in Vietnam. Prop up a weak government, declare victory and get the hell out before it falls apart.

And if we're there long enough to go through THAT old cycle, then the forces that take over Iraq (maybe in many pieces), will be most hostile to the United States. Then we'll find out how terrible state-sponsored terrorism can really be. (And we won't have the political will to re-enter the country.)

If we cut our losses now and get out as fast as possible, it will also be very bad.

W. has gotten us into a damned-if-you-do-or-don't situation, and he's clueless.

Worst case? (Even than above?) We attack Iran on the premise that all the terrorists are coming from their country with theri backing (a balloon that was tossed up today on the talkshows). Then we'll be a pariah in the entire area for decades after getting our clock cleaned.

Damn. Looks bleak.

[ewagner]

85. Good analysis

There is another option to your scenarios that I think the PNACboys might just be cynical enough to buy.

Step one, prop up a government that has some faux sense of a democratically established government.

Step two, make sure whoever is in charge is one each ruthless Son-of-a-bitch.

Step three, arm above mentioned SOB to the teeth and make sure he has enough money to keep a loyal army.

Step four, get the hell out of dodge!

Step five, as insurections mount after the withdrawal, turn the other way while aforementioned SOB ruthlessly murders anybody who gets in his way.

In short.....put another Saddam in there.

[Robin Hood]

88. Well Duh!

The UN was an instrument of the US during the ten years of sanctions.