The US, UN & Iraq III

I don't think stooge is the reason here. The terrorists are well aware, I'm sure, that there's bad blood between the UN and the US. I think they're trying to separate us from any possible support from the rest of the international community and I think it's a smart move, politically. Look at the Jordanian Embassy last week.

Thankfully, Annan isn't so stupid. They (Annan, UN administration) are *(edit comment) closer to us, now, and more pissed at the terrorists.

(Saw and heard Annan's remark.) BTW, the dingus who waved off US security is going to lose his head! Annan knew nothing about it, as he was on vacation in Scandinavia.

I'm not down with your theory, yet, Tartarin, but it is one possibility.

Who did it? Saddam loyalists, al-Quaida, or does it matter?

*edit-- I had seen the softer of the two Kofi interviews when I wrote this. After seeing the other--Kofi was pretty crappy toward the US.

Oh, how cute, he's taking Bush lessons!

I wasn't casting aspersions on Annan. His wife's family lives in Scandy. I was just saying that's why some dimwit told the US thanks, but no thanks without Kofi's knowledge.

But, hey. All the big boys knows how to vacate. :wink:

I heard Anan tonight. What he said was that he didn't know whether or not security help had been offered or not, nor, if it were, if it was refused. He was noticeably angry, which is rare for him, and quite pointedly said that no nation-building has yet been effective without U.N. involvement. He had something to say about the attack, but he certainly didn't sound that sympathetic to the Americans. And, he interrupted his vacation to be a meaningful presence in his position. george stayed at his ranch, and called Brazil to offer condolences.

From what I've been reading, it could have been any one of several groups. The New York Times said it was estimated that about a thousand young Saudis had come to Iraq to join the resistance, in addition to those from Iran, Syria, etc. And there didn't seem to be any great Iraqi citizen outcry about this. No matter how you slice it, Kipling was right. East is East, and West is West. How would a European (or American) nation react if followers of another belief invaded and said there must be change to meet the invaders' ideas?

I believe in democracy, and freedom, but I believe there is no universal definition of either. There is a better way to help the Iraqis, and it could easily be started with restoring the utilities. It is said over and over again that Saddam let them go, but they were still functioning when Saddam left. I shouldn't think having little to do but sit and think or talk during 100 degree weather would foster friendly attitudes.

Annan may not have known the US offered assistance during the interview you saw, but the information had gotten to him in the one I saw. Also caught the explanation of a UN official, who was in Baghdad at the time of the refusal of US help, and the blast.

The interview I saw was Kofi very angry and placing blame, where it belongs--on the terrorists. He said he couldn't believe a UN official would refuse security from the US. (Damage control) He also said something weird--and unsupportable to me-- that the US should have given security anyway. Screw that. If you have the highest ranking UN official telling you to take a hike, you don't beg.

Maybe they thought their Blue Hats were enough. I'd love to know the name of the guy who made that call. I'm sure we will.

What I saw and heard was a segment on the PBS newshour tonight. Did you hear a later one, sofia?

I can't say. In and out of the room--stopped to hear his remarks--didn't note what channel. I'm almost sure it was the six or seven o'clock news.

I'll try to find a transcript. Meanwhile, did you see the interview with the UN representative, who admitted they'd turned away US security forces?

<going for transcripts or the story>

sofia - couldn't find text, but this was in the financial section of the New York Times.


UN will remain in Iraq, says Annan
By FT staff (New York Times)


Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary general, on Wednesday said his organisation would remain in Iraq despite the attack that killed at least 20 people, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN's top envoy in the country.

"We will continue our work in Iraq... We will not be intimidated."

Mr Annan, who interrupted his holiday in northern Europe, said he would meet with the UN Security Council in New York on Wednesday afternoon to make a comprehensive assessment of the organisation's security arrangements and what needed to be done.

He said the UN would not be distracted by what he called "senseless violence," but expressed disappointment that the US-led coalition had failed to create a secure environment in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the European Commission announced that they would be scaling down their presence in Baghdad, recalling three officials on temporary assignment in the Iraqi capital.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the bomb, which ripped throught the Canal Hotel, housing the UN headquarters in the eastern part of Baghdad. The explosion also left more than 100 people injured.

Rescue efforts were scaled down on Wednesday morning, as hopes of finding people alive among the rubble faded.

"There are 20 dead and there are many believed still trapped in there," Ahmad Chalabi, member of the Iraq governing council, told reporters after holding a meeting with Paul Bremer, US governor.

The attack is the biggest setback for US-led efforts to rebuild Iraq.




Neither US nor UN officials would speculate on a motive for the bombing or who was behind it, but western intelligence officials have raised increasing alarm in recent weeks over the inflow of foreign fighters into Iraq.

Terrorism experts warned, however, against assuming outside extremists were responsible. Andrew Krepinevich, a military analyst and Pentagon adviser, said: "Success breeds imitation."

In an address to the UN Security Council in July, Mr Vieira de Mello made what now appears a prescient remark, saying, "the United Nations' presence in Iraq remains vulnerable to any who would seek to target our organisation".

Experts said the attack was likely to make Iraqi citizens less co-operative with US authorities, as doubts grew about the country's long term stability.

And here's an op-ed on the situation, also from the NY Times.



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/opinion/21HERB.html

Finally.

I've been around the world and I, I, I...

I found a part of what I'm looking for. FOX had it. Here's an excerpt.

Tuesday's bomb blasted a 6-foot-deep crater in the ground, shredding the facade of the Canal Hotel, which houses U.N. offices.

Except for a new concrete wall built recently, U.N. officials at the headquarters refused heavy security because the U.N. "did not want a large American presence outside," said U.N. spokesman Salim Lone. {----I'll remember his name. I think we're going to hear it a lot more, if he's the one that made the call.}

Annan said Wednesday that both the United States and the United Nations made mistakes when it came to security in Iraq.

"The coalition has made some mistakes and maybe we have, too," Annan said from New York. "I don't want to get into finger pointing but along the way mistakes have been made by all concerned."
------------------
If the interview I saw holds up--the fault of the UN officials was refusing US offers of security. The fault of the US, in Kofi's eyes, was allowing the UN officials to refuse, which of course is utter bullshit.

How can you consult Fox and expect to be served with the truth ? That's ridiculous. We can't even start to debate if Fox is admitted as a reliable news source.

The question whether the yanks wanted to protect the United Nations, of which you are, I hope, part, is ridiculous too. It's not up to them to protect ****. Anyone in the security apparatus intended to fail on 9/11, which should put them out of the position to make maffia-like protective proposals in the first place. The guts. Invade a country and kill tons of children in a preceding embargo, and then offer a military cordon to the international diplomats who wanted to settle things in a non-bloody fashion. US soldiers have no business in Iraq, or is that remark's relevance expiring after a certain occupation date? The arrogance... "we offer you protection." Against whom? We don't even know.

The most credible terrorist factions have been closed down in France, Germany, and are operating in Tchetchenya to hinder Russia. Well, well, do we see a pattern here. France, Germany, Russia. Anonymous terrorism. CIA? Naaaah... they wouldn't do that!



America's vast military and security apparatus made its people believe they were genuinely attacked. They weren't. It now wants us to believe that the attackers have new followers all throughout the world. The apparatus needs us to believe in terrorism -- the level of that belief is vital for their survival. To shatter 3000 New Yorkers' lives, and the life of thousands of other people around the globe, is an instrumentally legitimate tool, by their book.

I spit on that. And I spit on those who don't question the genuineness of this so-called war on terrorism, which is really the contrary, it is a war for terrorism.

Yes, Sofia, Fox-news are obviously the only one ... ... .... because others reported the complete report:

Yeah well that's fair comment, Wolf. Certainly these actions since September will cause an increase in terrorist activity, for want of a better word.
And well-organised and -motivated terrorists cannot be beaten from inside a bomber or a tank, not communicated with down the sights of a gun.

Israel. Chechnia. Ireland. Vietnam.

Fair and balanced ...... you decide


http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

The whole rather scandalous point is that the Bush team wants more terrorism, yes needs it. And we are the cannon fodder.

A victory based on lies and deceipt is a theft, not a victory. We can have no pride in denying a people a heritage that, for good or bad, is held in equal reverence by it's followers, as is our own.




Thursday, 21. August 2003. 07:52
NEWSPAPER SECTIONS

The military and the people
Sader city marches against US helicopter incident
By Sarmad S. Ali and Zaid H. Fahmi

BAGHDAD - Thousands of demonstrators swarmed onto the streets of Sader city on Friday to show their support for Al Hawza and Ahl-el-Beyt, the group of holy imams that Shias revere. The crowd sent a strong message to the Coalition and the Governing Council in response to an incident on Wednesday, when a US forces helicopter appeared to remove a banner from a local communications tower. In the immediate aftermath of Wednesday's incident, 3000 people hit the streets to protest. An American unit went in to investigate and was drawn into a firefight, where one Iraqi attacker was killed and four others were injured.

"There was a banner hanging over the tower and the phrase 'Qa'em Ehel el-Mehdi grant us victory' was written on the banner. Some days ago an American soldier in a helicopter holding a bayonet tried to tear the banner to pieces. An honest citizen from this city climbed the tower and struck the helicopter and the soldier with a stick," claimed Hussein Ghali, one of the demonstrators.

Apology

US Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez told journalists at a briefing on Thursday that the commander of the forces responsible for the incident has since apologized.
"We're not going to let this happen again….we'll take precautions. We understand that that's important to the people of Iraq," he added.

But the apology did not deter the people of Sader City from making their presence felt on the dusty streets of the neighborhood. The demonstration that took place before Friday prayers was largely a spontaneous show of disapproval, and was not organised.
"Every Friday prayer we go to another bigger mosque, al-Hikma mosque, nearby but this Friday we have come to this mosque because it is the nearer to the place of incident and we have been instructed to do so by the office of the martyr Sader," said Haji Ali Mehdi, another protester.

A Fatwa issued

Demonstrators said Muqtada el-Sader had called for a general demonstration to denounce and condemn the "crime" committed by US forces and issued a Fatwa. People came from many parts of Baghdad such as Shuala , Baghdad al-Jedeeda , Sader City , Husseiniya and Diyala.
"Our aim in this demonstration is to send a warning to the Americans never to come into this city again," said Ahmed Elwan, another protester. "Since the banner incident there has been no soldier seen roving in the neighborhood and if any patrol even thinks of coming in here again , it will be kicked out," Elwan added.

Eight new banners

More than eight other banners were hung over the tower in a show of defiance. And armed men patrolled the rooftops surrounding buildings, apparently to protect the demonstrators . Sheik Abdul Hadi al-Derraji, Imam of Ahl-el-Beyt mosque, strongly condemned the attack on the banner during Friday prayers. He described it as an attack on all Muslims and their "consecrated rites". He went on to say warn that under these conditions of occupation, America is playing a very dangerous and tricky game.

A warning

"Let all the world know that America has not come here to liberate Iraq as the mole governing council claims but in fact they have come here in order to exploit Iraq's resources and riches. That is why the American Administration has exerted a great effort to form a council that carries out orders that have mutual interests for both sides only and not for the masses," al-Derraji said.
"After the accident the Americans sent a person saying that the helicopter does not belong to them. But when it was proved that they were responsible for the accident, their leaders started to apologize saying that the orders had not been issued by the central Leadership," the preacher said.

He added that the people now demanded the complete withdrawal of all US forces from Sader city. The preacher also confirmed that US forces had apologized, but that the apology was rejected.

The other side


http://www.iraq-today.com/index.html

Ge, good link. Thanks. As was the article you posted just above.

Thanks K ........ Wouldn't it be beautiful if truth were either black or white and lies were the opposit ? But then ....for what would we need our hearts ... somehow our skin, our dreams and wishes, don't look the same from the inside, hidden from insult.