Who thinks UN attack done by Bush Special OPs?

Is it possible WE blew up the UN in Iraq, to turn world opinion and Gain support? How plausible is it?

The UN attack is a PR nightmare for the admin and if anything it highlights how incompetent the US "plan" is...There would be other motives for US involvement though...

World opinion WARNED that this would occur if we went in unilaterally. It would be fairly stupid to make world opinion right.

mainly because a majority of the world was against the war and they've wanted a UN force there.

I think the idea it was a US action is nonsense, but I'm sure the local tinfoil hat brigade will think it likely. I guess those brown-skinned folks are too lazy/dumb/primitive, etc, to actually plan and carry out an attack. It MUST be an American plot!!!

Brazilian human rights activist Sergio Vieira de Mello.

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.

The FBI said it was a bomb made from Iraqi military ordinance, with
a 500 pound bomb being the largest item. They also reported that it was a flat bed truck, not a cement mixer.

Even without the tin foil hat, the question that needs to be answered
is this.

"Who has access to old Iraqi military ordinance."

1) What about the C4 report?

2) What about the cement mixer "eyewitness"?

3) What about the cement mixer report?

4) How did they smuggle a 500 lb bomb on a flat bed through security checkpoints?

5) Why didn't the flatbed truck carrying the 500 lb bomb arise any suspicions as it approached and parked next to a prominent international organization headquarters?

6) How did the FBI figure all of this out already? In their first rate solar powered Baghdad crime lab?

7) The head of this FBI investigation was sent over to Iraq to help find WMD's. Does that raise any flags for you?

8) Who has control of Hussein's prewar arsenal?

9) If the Iraqi resistance has control of Hussein's prewar arsenal, why is this only the second time (with the Jordanian embassy attack) they've ever used anything more destructive than a primitive bomb or grenade launcher?

And my tinfoil hat is firmly in place.

Actually, I think we fed "intelligence," if you can call it that, to certain groups who would benefit from blowing the crap out of Chalabi and his ilk. Weren't they supposed to be meeting there, but canceled? Then, oops, it was actually the UN who was blown to hell.

This gets more freakish by the day.

:tinfoilhat:

RV

just people that are pissed at the US

shrub....follow the $$$ and where does it lead ??? who benefits ????

shrub and his minions benefit BIG time...getting the UN cowed into submitting...the UN was getting to be a real big problem to the shrubco...now, the UN gets the message....

That makes sense. That is certainly plausible.

The enemy of my enemy is my brother. <<<<---that works for us, too.

'new and improved' USA-sponsored saddam....


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.

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.

Long before the war began, many here were screaming to the rafters that democracy was the last thing the neocons wanted in Iraq (there is a Shiite majority and many are pro-Irani). Chalabi's name soon came up as the guy the neocons wanted as the next Saddam. Remember the pictures of the Chalabi gang and the "spontaneous" pro-American supporters in Baghdad?

So, the UN starts pushing for a real democracy and..BOOM. And the next day, who shows up to point fingers at the boogieman Saddam?

Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Governing Council and leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said that during a meeting on 14 August "we received information that a large-scale terror attack would take place in Baghdad

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=435503

Ok, Ok, I put $5 on Chalabi to win, place, and show in the 19th...

to get more repukes in Congress, MARTYR TOM DeLAY, hit the despised(by them)UN, create a diversion to plant the WMD's to back up the David Kay report that was done weeks ago but was announced they were going to wait til mid-september (my guess is 9/11/03), bounce CA recall off the headlines because it was taking up to much bush* face time, distract from the domestic issues - blackout, economy etc.

Seems far-fetched, right?

by any stretch, given to what we know about neocons thus far. I think it's ironic (it a dark sense) that this happens ONLY DAYS after the UN had 'forced' itself on the US Colonial powers. The fact that we know that the Bush cabal didn't want them there is motive, but there are others.
I'm not saying yes, although I have my suspicions. :tinfoilhat:


"If there's any doubt, there is no doubt."
-- Robert De Niro
'Ronin'

but every death and injury that results from this illegal invasion and occupation is their fault.

remember that the UN slapped Iraq with sanctions for 12 years. An economic sanction is basically a siege. A siege is a hostile act of war. The rest of the world has been waging a war on Iraq for 12 years.
Iraq may view the UN as an enemy since it didn't take aggressive measures to turn back shrub*.
If I was the secretary-general, I would have tried to raise an army in order to turn back the invasion.

To force the UN to offer support, so Bush would not be seen as begging them for support.

it's a setback for them.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bush20aug20001428,1,1055496.story?coll=la-headlines-world-manual

The UN is now either:

1) out of the picture completely

or

2) in the picture under US command and protection completely.

Either way the neocons win.

Rove's PR machine might not be happy, but the PNAC hawks are sure living their dream in their big oily sandbox.

Plus, how bad would that be for them if it were true and the truth came out?

act any politician has ever committed?

Re: their M.O.

what is their M.O.? Complete honesty?

This is a HUGE embarrasment for Bush and Co.--showing that the situation in Iraq is completely out of control. It makes the US administration look incompetent and it gives confidence to other would be suicide attackers.
It is a huge victory for the insurgents, who are able to show that they are able to strike anywhere, even the most important compounds.
If anything, this signals a new phase of more aggressive insurgency

How do the PNAC'ers lose here again?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

And sometimes the suspect with the

1) most obvious means

2) clearest motive

and

3) unlimited opportunity

is the guilty party.

The prime suspect is not always guilty. But anyone who thinks either al-Qaeda or the Iraqi resistance had a more fullproof means, straightforward motive or ample opportunity to pull off this attack than US/Chalabi mil/intel black ops should really take a minute to reconsider his or her own personal biases.

didja happen to notice the price of gas shot WAY WAY up in the last few days?

They had record profits leading up to the war.

Now they can keep prices high using this as an excuse. And they ARE using it as an excuse. Check any news source. "Instability in Iraq........"

Think about it -- isn't cheap Iraqi oil COMPETITION to the existing suppliers of oil?

They don't want competition.

NO DOUBT! NO EVIDENCE NEEDED!

Just make shit up and post it on the board.

Remember: means, motive and oportunity.

but asking us to judge without any facts is asking us for an uninformed, irrational position. But it is likely.

No war = No occupation = No Iraqi outrage = No bombing.

Period.

I think it is more likely Al Qaeda operatives, who don't want the UN to rescue us out of this mess in Iraq.