The UN attack, "conspiracy theories" and primary suspect identification

There are three possible suspects in the Baghdad UN hotel attack:

A) Iraqi resistance
B) al-Qaeda or another sophisticated, funded al-Qaeda-like terrorist organization
C) US/Chalabi neocon mil/intel black ops

To rationally deduce the primary suspect (not necessarily the perpetrator), we must comparatively evaluate each suspect's means, motive and opportunity.

If this was the Iraqi resistance:

1) how and why has there been a sudden huge increase in their attack sophistication and the destructive force of their utilized weapons?
2) why would they use the most destructive weapon in the entire resistance campaign to target the sensitive, peaceful, diplomatic, relatively pro-Iraqi head of the UN delegation?

If this was al-Qaeda:

1) where did they come from? how are the cells operating? who is supplying them with food, housing, weapons and logisitical support?
2) why wouldn't they at least attempt to direct their typically well-coordinated, sophisticated attacks against the hated US rather than the sensitive, peaceful, diplomatic, relatively pro-Iraqi head of UN delegation?
3) remind me again, why did we remove Saddam from power? to clear a path for a sophisticated and deadly terrorist organization that actually may have been connected to the 9/11 attacks?

Meanwhile, suspect C had:

1) the obvious and unquestionably proven means,
2) a clear, direct, unambiguous and compelling motive, and
3) all the opportunity in the world.

*****

Now consider the target: the peaceful, diplomatic, altruistic, comparatively pro-Iraqi Brazilian UN human rights activist Sergio Vieira de Mello.

US neocons had a clear and obvious motive to target this man and his encroaching UN delegation. Such a vicious and deadly "terrorist" attack would either drive the UN completely out of Iraq, or else ensure that the UN operated only under the auspices of strictly controlled US security forces. The pro-Iraqi suspects, on the other hand, did not have any clear, direct, unambiguous and compelling motive for limiting the UN's influence in Iraq in deference to US neocon imperialists.

US neocons also obviously had the means to wreak such destruction several thousand times over. However, for pro-Iraqi forces, this attack would represent a huge leap in destructive capacity.

Finally, US neocons clearly had the unfailing opportunity -- free rein, in fact -- to perpetrate such an act under the cover of active hostilities. But for pro-Iraqi forces, this attack would represent an uncommon, unlikely and completely unexplained success considering their complete and total defeat of any and all (putative) US security measures.

but I did read this on breaking news:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Many Iraqis blamed foreign followers of Osama bin Laden for the devastating U.N. bombing, others pointed to Saddam Hussein loyalists. All agreed that the U.S.-led occupation is ultimately the cause of the chaos in Iraq.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA9I1NQLJD.html

There is no conspiracy involved. All governments do covert operations of one kind or another, rarely do they cause the deaths of so many innocent people, but every time the US does something to increase revenues for the defense and energy industries, that is not a conspiracy, it is just rich old men who want even more money, or US policy, whichever term you prefer.

Unless you're suggesting that these "rich old men" never communicate their intentions to one another and just happen to act towards a converging goal, I can't see how what you're describing isn't a conspiracy.

"conspiracy theorist". It's right wing word theft, like "pro-life" for anti-abortion, or their use of "patriot" when they really mean facist. It gets into the vernacular based on repetition, not appropriateness.

Although I'm sure it originally referred to paranoid-schizophrenic right-wing militia types, it now is a label slapped on anyone who doesn't believe media and gov't spin, thanks to right-wingers who accuse liberals of being blasphemers because God is supposedly working through W. and everyone knows God doesn't make mistakes.

I agree with you.
In Germany, some weeks ago, von Bülow, former minister, published a book on 9/11. Two major print publications (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Der Spiegel) ran "reviews" of the book.

They completely avoided to discuss the content of the book. Even before they briefly mentionend the content, they used the word "conspiracy theories" several times.

According to the reviews, the world is too complex for people who "believe in conspiracy theories", they can only survive if they distort and simplify (!) reality and use conspiracies as an explanation model.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung calls them "parainoid, simple, or politically hurt minds".

Very nice if the world is so simple. Then you don't have to face the ugly possibility that your own government could lie to you and even support covert operations (even the idea is absurd, naturally).

This from counterpunch qualifies as one of the great untold stories of last year...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0211/S00019.htm

"And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?

Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.

This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. There--in an article by military analyst (and Washington Post Columnist) William Arkin, detailing the vast expansion of the secret armies being massed by the former Nixon bureaucrat now lording it over the Pentagon--came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception."

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.

In other words--and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan--the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people--your family, your friends, your lovers, you--in order to further their geopolitical ambitions."

******

And it raises the possibility of a fifth possibility.

E) The attack on the UN was a covert operation gone wrong. The terrorists were being set up by Rumsfeld et al but someone lost sight of the ball. If this was the case it might explain why the INC warning wasn't passed on to the UN.... the US authorities already knew about the attack and were planning on foiling it to great fanfare. Only they screwed up.

Yes, I read about that. There was an article in last November.

Everybody could read it. Nevertheless, if there is an event that could be the consequence of such covert operations, every major newspaper would call the idea of another cause then "terrorists" as wild, absurd conspiracy theories.

They reported the story, but no comment, and that's it.

AP Story, November 13, 2002
<<
The study called for the Pentagon and CIA to develop a new capability to "evoke responses" from terrorist groups so they can be attacked pre-emptively. Covert action, psychological operations, computer attacks, special operations forces and "deception operations" would be combined in that role.

Michael Vickers, a former Special Forces soldier and one-time CIA officer, said the evolving nature of the war on terrorism makes it likely that covert military operators will be called on more often in the months ahead.
>>

http://www.news-star.com/stories/111302/gov_1.shtml

it anywhere in secret. The idea being to target the UN and maybe it wasn't specifically deMello, but his office was in a particularly vulnerable location so he had to be "sacrificed." Or maybe they didn't know who the hell deMello was...and it didn't matter.

It could have just been a desperate attempt by "Saddam Loyalists" or any other group who wanted to show the UN that allowing the US to run the show will reap the wrath of ME Resistence who are sick of American Corporatists calling the shots. It was planned it seems........and kept secret (inspite of what Chalabi may know or not know...he's an opportunist curring favor with one side or the other) anyway it was planned well enough that it was successful and huge in it's implications.

I've approched this trying to think if I was a "Resistence" person in Iraq....what would I be doing and who would I be linking up with. I think my experience here on DU and reading so many "Cold War Spy Novels" also come into play in my thoughts. I could even go farther and say......what would we here on DU do if we were desperate enough if Bush was re-elected and the Hell we live in goes on. I won't say more because I don't want Asscroft to target poor innocent little me for thinking these thoughts from living through the "Cold War."

But, I think about the Iraqi's the way I think about all people who are "Resisting." What would I do? How would I behave, Who would I link up with, Who would I trust, How would I plot it, How would I get the stuff I needed to do the job, and where would I be the most effective if I was desperate and wanted to make a BIG STATEMENT.

Maybe, somewhere in there, is an answer for why the UN bombing was successful. I still don't think it was us.....too well planned for the Bush crew who are probably in disarray right now....although the press won't report it.

Just my long 2Cents.........:eyes:

Too politically damaging.

But the most destructive "resistance" attack so far served the hardcore neocon hawk agenda quite well, and that's a doozy of a coincidence.

served Bush/Cheney so well though......I think no matter what happens the "whore US press" make it serve Bush/Cheney....but many of us who still look on the UN as a Chief Mediator in Disputes among Nations....will be very upset by this........

But, I might have a longer history in hoping for UN achievements in disputes that you Stick Dog....so I understand why you are thinking what you are thinking.......

If Chalabi was involved in the bombing in any way, and I think he just might be, I'm sure there are many in this administration who loose sleep worrying what he'll say next! Today he said he gave the Americans a week's warning that Saddam loyalists together with foreign agitators were planning an attack.

At least engage in it rationally. For the first two groups you pose a list of questions. For the last group, you present a series of statements. This is a dishonest method. If you are posing questions for the first two, you should pose questions for the last as well. Just for the sake of a fun argument, let's answer the questions:

If this was the Iraqi resistance:

1) how and why has there been a sudden huge increase in their attack sophistication and the destructive force of their utilized weapons?

There has been an increase in the "destructive force" of the weapons, but not necessarily the sophistication. Even if one were to assent that there has been a "sudden huge increase" in both these categories, one could find any number of plausible explanations for that increase, including the growth of the organizations and coordination, the increased recruiting opportunities, the time it takes to conceive and execute the plan, or merely timing in general.

It is also particularly unclear whether there is such an entity as "the Iraqi resistance." It is just as possible that diverse groups with different agendas are engaging in combat operations with the CPA/CF, with only loose coordination.

2) why would they use the most destructive weapon in the entire resistance campaign to target the sensitive, peaceful, diplomatic, relatively pro-Iraqi head of the UN delegation?

Even if we assent to your interminable string of adjectives, there are several good answers. First, it is a soft target. There is no way the truck would have gotten near soldiers' quarters or the Coalition Headquarters. Blowing it up in a street with soldiers doesn't proide the same dramatic (i.e., media) effect, and also risks a botched operation. We also don't know whether de Mello was specifically targeted (A better question might be: Who knew where his office was? Some loosely organized resistance movement? How would they know something like that?). Finally, we have no clue about where those who committed this act place the device used in their hierarchy of available devices. Just because it is the most destructive used SO FAR, doesn't mean it is the most destructive they possess or have the capacity to possess, so your question is itself flawed in your major premise.

If this was al-Qaeda:

1) where did they come from? how are the cells operating? who is supplying them with food, housing, weapons and logisitical support?

This could be applied to terrorist organizations in general. Does Iraq have porous borders? perhaps? Does Iraq have population segements that would assist al Quaeda? Perhaps. We can't answer this with any degree of certainty, but we certainly can't rule out al Quaeda for that reason.

2) why wouldn't they at least attempt to direct their typically well-coordinated, sophisticated attacks against the hated US rather than the sensitive, peaceful, diplomatic, relatively pro-Iraqi head of UN delegation?

Again, your string of adjectives. You should cool it with those, since you would come off as much less manipulative and thus much more persuasive if you dropped the whole bit. However, you may be supplying YOUR valuation of the UN for al-Quaeda's valuation of the UN. I suspect they hate the UN - perhaps not as much as they hate the US, but certainly for similar reasons. Once again, the soft target designation holds here. They have motive, means and opportunity, in any case.

3) remind me again, why did we remove Saddam from power? to clear a path for a sophisticated and deadly terrorist organization that actually may have been connected to the 9/11 attacks?

This has nothing to do with your initial queary, and can thus be ignored. If it is al Quaeda, then this is certainly a good critique for of the Bushistas pre-war nonsenses; however, the question is not related to their motive, means, or opportunity.

Meanwhile, suspect C had:

1) the obvious and unquestionably proven means,

really? How so? Could you explain your use of "unquestionably proven"? I think it is a sneaky distinction. Simply because the means of A and B aren't obvious, doesn't mean that those groups don't possess them, especially given the secretive nature and dearth of information on those groups. I think its flawed logic to assert that C is more likely because its means to conduct the operation is more in the open, especially if A and B are known to operate in secret.

2) a clear, direct, unambiguous and compelling motive, and

Same critique. Simply because the motive of organizations A and B hold some amguity 9and this is the only distinguishing factor...), doesn't mean they shouldn't remain primary suspects. In fact, they both have motives for conducting the operation, if you expand your thinking to encompass their own mindsets. Moreover, the motive of C is not at all "unambiguous," since one could just as well say that this bombing seriously impairs any number of US efforts, particularly the recent Bush to highlight the growing stability, along with the desperate effort to recruit foreign militaries into peace-keeping duties. That the target stands as a rival to particular US efforts (and it certainly DOES), doesn't mean that it doesn't align on general efforts. So, the motive for the attack is ambiguous, or, AT LEAST AS ambiguous as the motives of suspect A and B.

3) all the opportunity in the world.

The same could be said of A and B. We have no information on this, and its not clear that any group can be distinguished on the basis of opportunity with what we now know.

In short, your list here is terribly biased, and not really conducted according to any fair standard of deduction or induction that I'm aware of. You do get us started asking the right questions. It's your artificial result that doesn't make sense. then problem is that you began from an a priori "conclusion," then attempted to justify it, much like a person (as Nietzsche famously said) who hides a coin behind a Bush, then finds it there and shouts "Aha!, I have found it!" Well, of course you did. You knew where it was all along...

Yes, I included a long string of adjectives. Yes, I included a spurious anti-Bush observation among my questions for B.

But that's it.

Otherwise everything I say stands as a completely unbiased analysis. The reason I didn't include a string of questions about option C is that there are no legitimate questions about option C's means, motive or opportunity.

Means: Who DEFINITELY had the PROVEN (rather than speculative) means to mount this attack? We can't say this about A or B. But we can definitely say this about C.

C is the clear winner of the means test.

Motive: The clear and obvious neocon motive = "UN either out of Iraq completely or else under US security forces' thumb." A simple turf battle between two organizations vying for control. Directing the attack at De Mello makes perfect sense in this context.

Whatever motives A & B might have to deploy the most destructive weapons either has used in the entire resistance effort on the UN's human rights chief rather than the hated US are relatively nebulous, to say the least.

C has the most obvious and straightforward motive. However, this is admittedly the most subjective of the three measurements.

Opportunity: How can you seriously advance the contention that the opportunity of a resistance's or terrorist group's covert ops is as great as the opportunity of the controlling armed force's covert ops? That is simply a ridiculous claim on its face. It's like saying that the Crips have the same opportunity to deal drugs on the Bloods' turf as the Bloods do.

C is the clear winner of the opportunity test.

Great thread Stickdog.. I'm with stickdog on this markses

and further evidence if any is necessary that the five sentence rule is stupid in the DU context.

Markses...

A semantic argument accusing him of cheating the logic flies in the face of common sense.

I particularly like this bit of the original post.

"why would use the most destructive weapon in the entire resistance campaign to target the sensitive, peaceful, diplomatic, relatively pro-Iraqi head of the UN delegation?"

And I am inclined to agree with 9215 on the Al Qaeda is a covert operation theory.. especially given what we now know about 911.

But I wonder if in this particular instance of mayhem there is a fourth option..

D) an external to Iraq conspiracy involving someone other than Chalabi/Bremer/Covert ops etc.... There are lots of potential suspects, criminally insane Zionists being just one possibility.

The National Congress warning and the failure of Bremer to pass on the warning to the UN points in the first instance in their direction though.

At the very least someone was grossly negligent and Bremer should get his marching orders....

As for the worse possibilities, from Kofi Annan's appearances on Teev I think the UN is keeping a surprisingly open mind on who it thinks is behind this. And no doubt many other foreign powers are too. Not that you can expect them to say so...

It fits the way this seems to have taken BushCo by a bit of a surprise. As in ... hey, who ordered the covert ops?

as I suspected from the begining. How sad to always suspect your own government for every malicious act perpatrated against us/we/them
:(

this then we aren't leaving our ears open to diverse opinions........we have "earmuffs" on.. But I understand that not everyone can go with what appears to be "fringe" theories.....but some of us.....want ALL THE INFO.....to process and digest.

But, understand where you are coming from here.........

I strongly suspect that Chalabi was behind the bombing.

it's the first thing he's been right about.

I wonder what changed his luck?

The BFEE never wanted the UN in Iraq anyway as we have seen over the past year or so. Now, to some extent, the BFEE wants the UN to put some order in the place, but they still don't want the UN to snoop around too much and find things like the Rumailiah oil being stolen and other scandals waiting to be exposed.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind. The UN may move closer to accepting the BFEE plan (obeying Bush's orders)for Iraq and the international community, if they believe it was crazed Arabs that did this, as the Bali and other bombings are meant to portray then the BFEE benefits as they have from other bombings: They, like them or not, are the "stabilizing" force in a world growing increasingly crazy.


I don't think the human specie has much of chance at this point. These fascists have so many ways to ratchet up the terror and never be held accountable that they can just cruise on the crest of the chaos wave as it rolls and builds. People will keep accepting more and more curtailments of their rights as fear dominates.

The UN going into Iraq infuriated me. I have always said that they should have let Bush stew in the mess and at some point be held accountable, but now the UN and the BFEE are "in it together". The BFEE's power increases when shit like the UN bombing happens, that is why I believe the BFEE is behind it.

Don't mean to be a pessimist, but I think we are headed for oblivion.

Much of the explosives were ex army ordnance, including grenades and artillery shells. Many Iraqi's resent the UN's role in both weapons inspections, and the crippling sanctions during the '90's.

Al Qeada's favourite material is C4 or its equivalent. Furthermore Al Qaeda's beef is with the US......not the UN. They would have targeted a US facility.

A 'Black Op' would have emulated Al Qeada's MO.

Seem to recall that a number of minor arms stashes have been uncovered
in Iraq since the "end of major combat operations" (nothing in the way
of bio-chem shells, just high explosives). Handy.

"FBI special agent Thomas Fuentes said the explosives appeared to
have come from Saddam Hussein's pre-war arsenal."

"The FBI said the UN bomb was made from 454 kilograms (1,000 lbs) of
old munitions including one single 226-kg (500-lb) bomb."
(both from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3167291.stm)

So we have one chunky bomb and 500lb of assorted dressings.

If I was an Iraqi resistance fighter, I would keep the grenades for
use in an appropriate manner, especially as they would not add
anything significant to the bang from a 500lb bomb anyway.

On the other hand, if I was trying to drive a wedge between Iraq and
the rest of the world, I could load up all the bits from a discovered
stash onto a tarp-covered lorry (or whatever), pay some local lad to
drive it *there* at *that* time and press my radio transmitter from a
safe distance. The chance of finding a recognisable fragment of my
little radio receiver is effectively zero considering that I would
(a) put it as close to the heart of the explosion as possible and
(b) make sure that my colleagues were in charge of the "investigation".
Behold, we have another terrorist incident!

Ever watched how sheepdogs herd sheep into a pen? No running round
barking continuously, just the occasional nip at the right time and
place to keep the flock moving just where you want them.

Nihil

gets by two U.S. checkpoints with the back LOADED WITH 225 KILOGRAMS OF C4 - there is someone on the inside helping out.

EDIT - Something else that bothers me, why is the FBI (wow the Feds are global now) doing the investigation? Doesn't the UN have the same amount of sophisticated tools for the job? Remember, FBI = John Ashcroft.

I'm shocked.

I need my "who stole my strawberries?" fix.

You lumped them all together. Often times in foreign (and domestic) policy there are rogue elements within an organization. What about a black ops operation by a subset of agents with an agenda - ala JFK assassination (IMO).

neither can be casually mentioned as even a highly unlikely suspect.

I understand your point, though. It would be a better analysis if I broke out possible rogue elements of the Iraqi/US mil/intel neocon alliance (like Chalabi) from the Bush administration itself.

Furthermore, althecat has correctly noted that the legit or rogue intel assets of other (nearby?) countries must also be weighed as possible suspects.

And I agree that right now, Suspect C clearly had the most to gain. I mean, where did this mysterious "arsenal" come from so suddenly, and why would it be used UN officials??? Meanwhile, we've seen months and months of Bush and Company refusing to work with the UN to get Iraq back on track. Something really is fishy here, but unfortunately, these are not the type of questions/theories that will be addressed on the evening news.

First of all, the UN is not universally loved in the Middle East. Many Arabs hate the UN because of the partition resolution on Palestine in 1947 and believe that the UN gave Arab land to the Israelis. The UN is not loved by certain factions in Iraq because they're seen as an impediment to the Baathists returning to power.

Second, Sergio de Mello was hated by many Islamists for his role in the liberation of East Timor. Again, both he and the UN were viewed as having stolen Muslim lands and turned them over to the kafir. The bomb was detonated on the same side of the building as de Mello's office.

Given these two items, isn't it at least possible that this was just what it appears to be? An attack by Iraqi or Islamist elements intended to kill a man and damage an organization that they consider an enemy?

But, of course, other explanations such as yours are quite possible.

Anytime you disquise your weapon delivery system as a cement truck I'd think it counts as a 'covert op'.

or a rocket/missile/mortar (as first UN eyewitness reports stated -- subsequently scrubbed from all press service accounts)?

:toast: Awesome, dude! These are exactly the kind of authentic questions and arguments which must be made every time another one of these totally bogus propaganda spectacles come along. Keep on Rockin' on the wavelength of Truth and Justice!

I've gone back through the thread and noticed that while several folks have mentioned that the US obviously had the best motive for wanting the UN out no one has said quite what that motive is. Could someone help me here and spell it out for me?

The clear and obvious neocon motive = "UN either out of Iraq completely or else under US security forces' thumb." A simple turf battle between two organizations vying for political, economic and social control. Directing the attack at de Mello makes perfect sense in this context.


*******************************


de Mello in the recent news:

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.

Salameh warned that ordinary people, frustrated by the lack of basic services four months after the fall of Saddam, could rally behind ideological opponents of the occupying forces. "In reality, the population is very surprised. They don't understand how such a level of efficiency during the war could be followed by such a lack of efficiency in 'peace,"' he said.

Salameh accused the U.S. government of promoting an ideological agenda and of making "errors of judgment."

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."

Look, first of all stickdog let me say that I'm not even going to attempt to change your mind on this. This is my last post before bed, although I really wish I had the energy to stay with ya here. But again, the links you posted indicated that there was actually a fairly good relationship developing between the US and UN representatives in Iraq. As far as concerns about the UN somehow seizing control of the situation, well, how many divisions does the UN have? Trite I know, but true. The fact is that the US has the power in Iraq right now and won't give it up until we're ready. The UN is not going to suddenly start dictating how to spend Iraqi oil revenues or anything else. There are many Iraqis though, and Islamist extremists, that have no love at all for the UN or de Mello. I doubt that explosives are very hard to come by there, and I'm sure there are places fairly close to the UN headquarters where a truck could be loaded with them. That to me seems a much more plausible scenario, but to each his own.

Anyway, my apologies again, but I have to sign off. Why can't you start a thread like this when I'm not coming off a 36 hour straight work day? :)

De Mello's whole gig in Iraq was to try to get us to accelerate Iraqi sovereignty way ahead of the neocon time table. The Iraqi Council was HIS IDEA. Scrapping international oil executive control of Iraqi oil in favor of Iraqi control was HIS IDEA. Working directly with natural Iraqi leaders -- as opposed to neoconmen like Chalabi -- was HIS IDEA.

Do you think this made him friends at Halliburton, Dyncorp, Betchel and the Carlyle Group? Do you think Chalabi appreciated his influence? Do you the way the UN gained popularity vis a vis the US by NOT ACTING LIKE AN OCCUPYING FORCE was sitting well with Bremer, a man de Mello called "a true neocon who doesn't care about international legitimacy"? Why is it so easy to believe that some random Iraqi would KILL HIMSELF to express his dissatisfaction with the relatively pro-Iraqi UN, but so hard to imagine a crew of rogue defense/oil contractor assets getting rid of a thorn in their side using the zero risk strategy of a hired Iraqi driver blown to bits from a safe distance?

do things without anyone peeking over their shoulder. They would be able to privatize all humanitarian aid to Iraqis. No one would be able to monitor what they do with oil profits. Who would the Iraqi people go to when they need to complain about human rights abuses?

The UN is a rival to the US's authority in the region. Bush said he was going to run the country (the US) like a company - how do you profit the most? Strive for a monopoly.

two more witnesses that had to go also. Witnesses everywhere, but Iraq and Afghanistan are kind of like free-kill zones. Bushco can easily get away with murder there.

in addition to all your points, won't this act have powerful political repurcussions in the u.s.? this is going to make it much harder for the opposition to the war both in congress and among the people. bush can say, see, al qaeda is there, we were right to go in. mccain is already saying "whatever it takes to complete the mission". peple are inclined to think this was al qaeda and that's not good for us.

would have done the deed. Clearly they expect this "crisis" to provide them with credibility for their war here at home (and McCain has been hawkish on this all along). And they hope for the same response from the UN members....there is an expectation that the UN members will simply provide the US with all the soldiers and other resources they need now in response to the bombing...but don't want them to interfere or bear witness to how they will run the show. The UN is not in the business of supplying warriors to do the bidding for an imperialist nation.

No way suspect C could think this would drive out the UN. On the contrary, the UN is forced to stay in, including under less favorable circumstances vis a vis the Americans, and UN-supporting countries (France, Germany) are forced to participate in a UN force, lest the UN become irrelevant. That would be the motive for a "C" attack.

However, some good points have been made in support of A and B, too; for example, Qaeda could pick any soft target to demonstrate vulnerability and make the max impact. And you have no way of knowing how sophisticated the "A's" are or are going to get.

My personal jury is still out.

We've been fighting the UN on the terms of them sending in troops. We'll take all the troops they want to give us, but only on our terms.

Now, whose negotiating hand was strengthened by the UN HQ "terrorist" act, the US's or the UN's?