The attack on the UN HQ in Baghdad:The ends justify the means [Archives:2003/662/Opinion]

The amazing speed by which the attack on the UNIHCOM Headquarters in Baghdad was blamed on Islamic militants or Islamic terrorists is more a source of suspicion rather than assurance that the overseers of the affairs in occupied Iraq are really on the ball. The more astute observer is bound to seek deeper and more comprehensible and logical explanations for the horrifying attack. From the outset it appeared far fetched and too self-inflicting to put the blame on the genuine resistance movements in Iraq or “Islamic terrorists” to carry out such a crime.
The reasons for this conclusion actually emanate from a far stronger inclination to associate this heinous attack to factions that would definitely have to gain more from such an attack, at least as they see it. Indeed it would seem much more logical and justifiable to assume that the forces behind the occupation of Iraq would find more reason to undertake such a radical approach to serving their not so transparent interests for being in Iraq in the first place. First of all the occupiers hastily “surmised” that the attack was carried out by Islamists who are “allied with elements of the old regime” etc. This rather fuzzy picture leads one to assume that the occupiers already were prepared to make such hasty accusations even before the attack took place! By following tactics based on a policy of the “ends justify the means”, which the Bush War Office has manifested by its notorious disregard for ethical and moral standards in the international arena as well as the domestic front, since the Bush Presidency began. This would be in keeping with the general orientation of the Right Wing-Zionist Alliance holding the helms in the United States (there have been reports of possible Israeli involvement in the bombing).
One might ask why would the “War Office” would be the most likely candidate for promoting such an attack? There are more logical reasons than pointing the finger on fuzzy fly by night “terrorist groups” and accordingly tying the attack to the resistance movement. First of all the resistance movement has been fairly consistent in the way it has conducted its resistance directly against the occupying forces. This was probably worrisome to the Bush “War Office”, since this makes the resistance legitimate and worthy of respect for the genuine nature of their operations. Second of all the record of the Bush Administration in the United Nations has been one of failure. First of all the UN inspectors proved to be steadfast in resisting the pressures of the Bush Administration to see it their way, before the war was launched. Then when Dr. Sergio Mello, the former Director of UN operations in Iraq, came along after the occupation, his report to the United Nations on Post-Occupation Iraq was a clear denunciation of the occupation, in well phrased diplomatic language, as any astute observer was able to conclude. On the other hand the efforts of the Bush Administration to convince other nations to join and give some “international” flavor to their adventure in Iraq, for domestic political considerations, also proved to be a flop. Those nations that hinted on possibly participating with a small token force, would only do so with a UN mandate to justify such participation. This mandate was far from coming. On the other hand, the UN refused to grant official recognition to the “Temporary Governing Council”, which was clearly a continuing message to the White House that this is just not the way to conduct the business of international affairs. This is understandable when the best man the War Office could find to represent them in the TGC is wanted for fraudulently stealing US $ 30 Million from a Bank in Jordan that led to the bankruptcy of the bank. Thus, we are already seeing the White House seeking to convince the UN that an international force is needed to “protect international workers” in Iraq diplomatically after showing the proof by a well planned sophisticated deadly attack that was far beyond what the guerrillas engaged in the resistance effort were capable of undertaking. Furthermore, the US forces are fully responsible for the security of civilians and all other parties in Iraq, especially those of the UN who are highly approved of by the Iraqi people. The obvious laxity shown by the US forces in providing the adequate protection that would have prevented such a deadly attack or at least reduced the heavy toll substantially raises many questions. It is worth noting that one did not hear any “eyewitness” accounts by any US soldiers, who might have been in the area, as chances are that these forces were “conveniently” backed off from the area before the attack. To escape with the explanation that a “private security force” was commissioned to guard the UN HQ was just not convincing. Everyone knows that such a force is usually hired to prevent burglaries or minor cases of arson and not to prevent such sophisticated deadly attacks. The tape release of one of those fly by night “Islamic” organizations does not help cover the US forces for their neglect to say the least, since it is well known that many of these organizations are dubious in nature and have strong covert links to clandestine factions that have nothing to do with Islam and are usually employed to harbor a strong media campaign against Moslems and Islam. It is worth noting that Israel has a good track record in undertaking similar types of bomb attacks against friends and foe alike (the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in the early days of Israel's “fight for independence” and the killing of many an international dignitary including senior UN officials, who failed to see things the Israeli way (Paul Bremer, the US Administrator in Iraq evaded a direct answer to a question in his press conference regarding possible Zionist involvement).
——
[archive-e:662-v:13-y:2003-d:2003-08-25-p:opinion]