I don't think it is anything unusual. Sabotage to protest occupation has precedents. The French Resistance committed acts of sabotage in France during Nazi occupation, for example. They'd rather have the country for themselves, even if it just a steaming wasteland.
If you build it they will come. We built a magnet for terrorists. Our occupation is like tethering a 600 mile long USS COLE to the port city on the gulf, making it vulnerable every point along the way. Coming into Iraq has given terrorists throughout the region the ability to get to us in a way that was not possible otherwise. Saddam loyalists certainly make up some of those taking shots at US soldiers, but this bombing has Al Qaeda written all over it. The loyalists wouldn't target the UN, but would target the US military. I fear this is just the beginning.
Exactly, Scorched Earth--reminds me of "Red Dawn". Destroy infrastructure so your enemy can't use it either. They are either insurrgents and foriegn "agitators" or Saddam loyalists/pissed-off Iraqis. Most likely, they are a volitle mix of any or all of the parties mentioned above; consummed with religious AND secular fury against the U.S. A Clausewitz(check my sp)style brew is steeping in Iraq as we speak. They have a readily available "shelter state" i.e. Iran, from which to move in and out of the battlefield over the border for refuge. A state to support and fund their actions(in whole or in part): take your pick, Saudi Arabia, Syria.....I am not crying Vietnam, but we are dangerously close--I sincerely hope that isn't the case. A better question: Wouldn't you act as a "freedom fighter/terrorist" if a foriegn invader was occupying YOUR homes and businesses? I know I would.....I might be a tree-huggin' liberal but I know how to use a rifle
1) The Un reps have been very clear that the security in question was not theirs, or of their choosing, but was, as determined by the recognition of Iraq as an occupied state, the purview of the occupying power. This is not merely hindsighted finger pointing; this was an area of some contention prior to today, as the UN feared this kind of attack, but was allegedly reassured that the occupying forces had the area under control. The Cambridge prof expert on the area on the BBC said that, according to the statements released by the UN and his contacts within the UN, the UN is making it very plain that A) They do not see this as an attack on the UN, but rather an attack on the US ability to control the situation, and B) Almost a direct quote, the UN holds the US responsible for the security failure here, and as the UN feels that this entire situation was a largely unsupported US creation, they are not all that impressed with the US position that this further demonstrates their cause. 2) The former Asst. Sec State, speaking on CNN, made two strong points: 1) That the US leadership is correct, now, in asserting that the US can not be seen to back down due to actiosn like this. Once we started this, we cannot bail out or give in at this stage, as he said. and 2) That trying to link this event to the war on terror or justify the war with this is silly, as Iraq was, as he said, the one state in the whole region which Al Queada and others couldn't get into. Saddam's totalitarian regime and expressed antipathy for extrmist causes ensured, according to the State Dept. former Asst. Secretary, that Iraq remained the on region unavailable to them, actually inaccessible. Only the situation caused by the invasion has opened those doors. 3) According to the BBC sources, US forces have begun to notice more and more 'foreign nationals' among those they are rounding up in Iraq during resistance actions. It is becoming more and more apparent that other Islamic nations/movements are beginning to get involved, and are treating the US occupation similarly to the USSR occupation of Afghanistan. There is much thought that a widespread Jihad of similar proportions is underway.
Another point. I have been watching CNN, the BBC, etc. all day, and almost every expert, on-sight reporter, or correspondent has not only not blamed this on Saddam, but has been clear to point out that the thrusts of the attacks in the past few days are leading many to believe that another force is starting to take hold here, Al Queda or something similar, and that the massive organization recent attacks display is doubtfully the work of a man as on the run as Saddam is.
The former Asst. Sec State, speaking on CNN, made two strong points: 1) That the US leadership is correct, now, in asserting that the US can not be seen to back down due to actiosn like this. Once we started this, we cannot bail out or give in at this stage, Almost the dictionary definition of "quagmire", a mistake you can't extricate yourself from.
Yeah, it is looking more and more like that every day. All indications are that exernal involvment is getting worse, and that the belief in some ME quarters that the fairly quick war engendered that a US backed democracy might have some viability has evaporated as our clear misinterpretation of the situation has become more and more clear. There might be a sad irony here. Saddam, for all his evils, did represent the one state in the region where Al Queda and the like had no hold, and where Theocratic extremism, the sponsor of much anti-US actions, could not gain power. In the end that might be the result of our actions, just that kind of authority in Iraq. Certainly what was formerly off limits to Bin Laden and the like has now become fertile ground.
Not quite, but Bush went on and on about this action being part and parcel with the war on terror, a fairly transparent attempt to justify that pre-war connection. There was a time when I would have been incredulous at such a clumsy attempt, and assumed that most viewers would recognize it for what it was, see that it didn't tally with facts, but in fact contradicted them, and laugh off Bush's speech. But given the other arguments that many have bought with equally convincing support, I wonder if this will soon become accepted wisdom as well.
Whether the war is justified or not, it still bothers me that people are blaming the US, instead of condemning what the terrorists are doing.
I don't see anyone doing that, per se. What i see is people refusing to buy into the US effort to make commerce out of this event by proclaiming it a sign of the justice of thier cause, while refusing to acknowledge the fact that they created the situation in which this could and was probably bound to occur. Also, from the UN point of view, they were ignored pre-war, told they were irrelevent, that the US could and would handle this, and that has proven untrue, as have our arguments to them as to why it had to be done. Now we told them we had security well in hand, and that has prven untrue, and they have paid for it. I see their point, but that is not the same as excusing or ignoring the perpetrators themselves. But, take this as an analogy, broad though it may be. Collect a bunch of innocnet people and thrown them in jail. Forget who is innocent, that is just to distinguish this from regular prison experience, ok? So these people are thrown in jail, a failure on the part of the collecting power, yes? So in jail one of them kills another one for his desert. Who comitted the crime? The prisoner. Was it an almost inhuman act, to kill someone else for pie? Yes. But would the power that caused/allowed the circumstance, and who is nominally in control of the situation come under righteous fire for the event as well? Of course.
I haven't watched the coverage on TV yet, but why on earth wasn't this place under heavy guard by the US military? I haven't heard of any US service men and women injured or killed, so they couldn't have been keeping the UN Headquarters under any kind of close guard/surveillance, could they? And why not? Isn't it an obvious target? It is to me, and this is the reason. It shows, fair or not, the "weakness" of the US occupation force to the world. And this will get major media play world wide. What a terrible thing to happen. These terrible things keep adding up, don't they.
It was defended by the US, and as the UN had complained in recent days of being a low priority for US protection, they had actually stepped up the protection to qualm UN fears. Nowhere near the level of protection US sites are getting, which is part of the cause for some anger, I suppose, but it was described as 'significant' on the BBC. On the other hand, to defend the lower level of security, there is a realistic belief that being protected by US forces actually increases a target's risk potential, as the US is seen as the occupier/enemy, and being seen to be in concert with them or protected by them makes something more of a target. Also the Un is stating that this attack was , as it was foreseen to be before it happened, largely a message about what kind of protection the US can offer/what kind of control it has. As such US protection was almost a necessary part of the equation for the bombers, if that theory is valid.
No? Really? It's kinda like saying that MadMax posting his friend's email message just so he could share something personal. C'mon, do you see any post expressing indignation about the terrorist act? All I see is how the US got Iraq into this situation. MacBeth, a better analogy is this. Someone is walking through a bad neigborhood and see a run-down house. He tells the tenants of the house that he'll tear it down and build him a new house. Everybody who knows the neigborhood adivces him not to do it because the local gangsters don't want anybody to mess with anything here. Yet, stubbornly, he goes ahead and tears down the run-down house. But sure enough, the gangsters come and beat up the person and the tenants, and sabbotage all efforts of buiding a new house. Now do you focus your blame on that person or do you condemn the gangsters? The guy may not have any right to tear down the house. He may have done something really stupid. But c'mon, who are the real bad guys there?
If the people who owned the house didn't want it torn down, if the housing commission said not to do it because there were better ways, and if the guy wouldn't listen to the kind of house the owner wanted, but said " I am tearing down your house and building you one just like mine, and you will live in it and like it, and I'll stay here till you do." I would suggest that there would be enough blame to go around.