Sergio de Mello was no supporter of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

It is known that the chief U.N. representative Sergio de Mello was very critical of the U.S. operations in Iraq. De Mello had in fact been on record to sympathize with the Iraqi people and their plight. He also commented in saying "I would not want to see foreign troops in Copacobana..." in reference to his hometown of Rio de Janiero.

Does anybody have any suspicions with what has happened today? Why on earth would anybody target the U.N. For the most part, they have been there to help the people of Iraq. It also well known that Bush and his pals did not want to have the U.N. there.

Something strange is going on here. Anybody agree?

John

But I suspect we'll never really know...I certainly will not believe the official US version without independent verification from other reputable sources...

It usually does. Of course the only way to find out anything is from the foreign press. I just find the whole thing very suspect. De Mello had been the stauchest critic in the U.N. operations in Iraq. I would not put anything past the Bush administration anymore.

John

semblance of truth on the situation. I do think that others certainly would have a motive for the same type of action though but I too would put nothing past this bunch...

"Something strange is going on here."

Yes, indeed.

:tinfoilhat:

that none of the u.s. contingent was hurt - or was it "only" 1 u.s. soldier? that got me thinking right off that something's not quite the way they say it happened. the cabal is certainly not above ANYTHING to make things go their way.

cameraman who they knew was a cameraman and said the camera in his hand looked like whatever kind of weapon they described!

Millions of people think that dirty little US stooges did it, plain and simple. Once you get over the hump of thinking that your government isn't capable of such behaviour, it isn't hard to believe.

of!

That's why we are working so hard to get rid of them. :kick:

the U.S. probably had their hand in this. The CIA are a clever bunch.


John

No DOUBT! NO EVIDENCE NEEDED!

I love this conspiracy stuff, just make shit up and post it.

I am not making any conclusions but it is highly unusual that anybody would target the U.N. They have been the ones actually helping the Iraqis. Also, don't forget that some key U.S. Senators were to be at the press conference there when the bomb went off in Baghdad. Luckily, their plane was delayed in Jordan. Something just isn't right.

John

Where did you see that they were to "be at the press conference?" I saw an article stating that Cantwell was to have a telephone talk w/ de mello at 1:30 pm, which was delayed as a result of the flight delay. She was to take the call at Coalition headquarters. Since the call didn't go through, she was arranging to meet with him elsewhere. I have yet to see any evidence or source claiming - as you do - that the contingent was supposed to be at the press conference. Could you provide that?

I also heard this on a BBC internet broadcast. This is what I heard but that could also be what was initially reported and I have heard nothing since. PARDON ME if my info isn't up to date sometimes!

John

from: http://www.komotv.com/stories/26708.htm

The session was scrapped because the plane she and other lawmakers were traveling on was delayed on a flight from Jordan. The meeting was to have been at the military headquarters used by the U.S.-led forces in Iraq, about 5 miles from the U.N. site, Cantwell said.

suspicion means?

from what evidence we had so far..Is the way I got it!

you're the one who is going off.

No DOUBT! NO EVIDENCE NEEDED!

I love this coincidence stuff, just post whatever shit the Bush Administration makes up to tell the media.

I haven't seen enough proof to make a judgment as to what happened. Maybe there was a conspiracy to assassinate Sergio de Mello but there are many other possible explanations.

edited for spelling

...a much better source than the US propaganda media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1022216,00.html

They give good arguments for why it's jihadists.

Way to get them back for 9/11, huh?

"The Quiet American"

If you read the book and/or saw the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's immediately what I thought of when I read this story.

It's happened before in other places. This would not be the first time.

I have been wanting to read that book and see the Marlon Brando movie.

Anybody read or seen these?

John

ago and the "The Quiet AMerican" just came out on video with Brendan Fraser and Michael Caine.

Marlon Brando was in "The Ugly American".

The movie they didn't want to give airplay to before the attack on Iraq!

Can you imagine why?

Why the UN is a target - BBC

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

Excellent piece of information...

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?

Why on earth would a concrete truck not be pre-authorized and/or thoroughly checked. Were they laying a new patio in the middle of a war? Seems to me that this transport all by itself should have aroused suspicions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1022200,00.html

"The bomb was hidden in a cement mixer lorry, but confusion surrounds whether it was allowed into the compound - where building work had been going on - or whether it was detonated while parked outside a new 12ft-high perimeter wall. The truck was thought to have contained 500lb of C4 military plastic explosive."

contract?

construction was going on nearby, and that there was a major road going right by the hotel. But that makes the attack even more suspicious--because the planning looks even more meticulous, and one supposes that not everyone can get a cement mixer by snapping his fingers.

One of the UN spokespersons said, early on, that whoever else may have been responsible (directly, for setting the bomb), the US was responsible for all security in Iraq. I would add, it goes with the territory of invading and occupying a country. To blame the UN for wanting to establish its independence from the "coalition"--as at least one military spokesman seemed to--is disgusting. Any sane person would want to put a distance between themselves and the US authorities. How else to establish trust?

One other thought--this story is also convenient to BushCo* in that they can try to use it to "establish" that there *are* foreign terrorists operating in Iraq--much better for PR than to have to admit that it's ordinary Iraqis (or even "bitter-enders"). They probably think they can better fend off criticism for losing a soldier a day to snipers if they can say it's "terrorists." "Terrorists," after all, attack for no good reason. If it's Iraqis, sooner or later people will ask what the occupation is doing wrong (and yes, people are already asking this). So, whatever else this bombing was, it is a PR windfall for BushCo*. Or, anyway, they may be hoping to shape it into that. I'd like to hope that they won't be able to spin everything, indefinitely, but just now I'm sunk in gloom.

and demonstrated an increasing inclination to do so, voting unanimously to approve the US appointed governing council. Although it made barely a blip in our radar it may have been devastating to Iraqis to see the world approve of Chalibi as US proxy.