Hanging a Lantern 101

Joe, if you are going to ‘hang a lantern’ for something another member of your team said, use the complete post. Most viewers of the site don't read the comments sections. The partial quote you used made me look like a monster. What you did was the kind of selective, self-serving quote I expect from the NY TIMES. This is the full post to provide context for the last line you used in isolation:

"This is a case of UN evolution in action.

The U.N. requested that American military forces not provide heavy security for political reasons.

The UN-icks did not want to "..seem to close to the US" or "...be seen as endorsing US actions."

Too bad the Al-Qaeda didn't use a bigger bomb.

Posted by: Trent Telenko on August 20, 2003 02:56 AM “

Was that over the top? Yes, it was. I apologize for that. It was morally wrong to suggest the U.N. deserved to be truck bombed. What I was trying to say was if the local U.N. people wanted to get a Darwin award that much. The bomb should have been bigger to get the ones working for the award. I was unaware at the time the bombing was most likely an inside job and not one by terrorists.

However, that being said, was it “Idiotarian Right Wing Terrorist Supporting? Joe, you or anyone else saying that needs to get a life.

It is a documented fact that the United Nations is a terrorist supporting organization world wide. The U.N. in Iraq was a terrorist supporting organization against the Iraqi people. The U.N. staff in Baghdad were mercenary monsters working with the Iraqi state's mass killing monsters to deny food and medicine to the Iraqi people and assist the regime in surviving international sanctions. And this evil was not just limited to Baghdad U.N. offices.

The UN High Commission on Refugees knew the size, scope and extent of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure in the refugee camps it ran and not only stayed silent. It justified it’s silence as a necessary part of doing its job after Israel over ran Jenin and got the goods on UN complicity with terrorism. The U.N. was not only running a sanctuary for suicide bombers attacking Israel in Jenin. Every Palestinian refugee camp it runs is a sanctuary for suicide bomber terrorists.

The 3rd Worlder bureaucrats running the U.N. and their E.U., Russian and Chinese enablers will not let either the "Oil-For-Food" program or the UN High Commission on Refugees be either reformed or abolished to prevent them from being a tool of terrorism. It would set a dangerous precedent that would be a mortal threat to the whole of the U.N. bureaucracy. That makes the entire U.N. bureaucracy complicit in terrorism. This also means that the whole United Nations is on the American list of organizations to be eliminated in the War on Terrorism. Even if the State Department is in denial over it.

As I stated before, I view terrorist attacks on the terrorist supporting United Nations much as a cynical cop views criminal gang wars. The only thing wrong on a practical level, as opposed to the moral one, are the innocents that get killed in the cross fire.

This isn’t a Bircher world view Joe. It is American Jacksonian.

I take it, Joe, A.L. that you don’t view assisting state terrorism against the Iraqi people or suicide terrorist attacks on Israel as a part of America’s War on Terrorism? If so, then you all are playing a game of "Left Wing Terrorist Supporting Idiotarianism." The events of 9/11/2001 showed, to me if not you two, that terrorism anywhere is a threat to Americans everywhere. That Tyranny anywhere is a threat to Freedom everywhere. And that the U.N. is on the other side.

I apologize, Joe, for being over the top on your site, but I will shed no tears and feel no pity that the U.N. either a) got bombed by Al-Qaeda, b) got bombed by Ba’athist covering up graft and corruption in the U.N. oil for food program or c) bombed itself to cover up U.N. graft and corruption in the same program.

In the real world the penalty for stupidity is often death.

Now A.L. is saying things like this:

Trent, Mischa, and M. Simon seem to suggest that truck bombs are OK if the folks blown up are our enemies - which pretty much puts paid to any moral judgement one can make about the Palestinians or 9/11.

Oh please! A.L., you reach for your moral equivalency straw man criticisms the way a life time NRA member clutches his gun and for many of the same psychological reasons.

There is a difference between wanting your enemies dead and wanting to commit genocide on a people and a culture, the Palestinian goal. It is the political doom of modern liberals that they only see shades of gray and cannot make the moral distinction between Jacksonian motives and those of the Islamic Death Cult.

The U.N. office in Baghdad was a symbol of tyranny and terror because the people working inside were complicate with the state terrorism of Hussein Regime for more than a decade. At this point, given that there was a ex-Soviet 500lb aerial bomb used in the attack, the most likely scenario for what went down was a criminal conspiracy between Iraqi Ba'athists and high U.N. officials in Baghdad to kill Sergio Vieira de Mello and stop his investigation of the "Food for Oil" program.

The list of most likely suspects in this attack are those local hire Iraqi guards, U.N. security people and U.N. high officials who should have been near de Mello and killed in the blast, but were not.

It will be interesting to see how many U.N. officials claim diplomatic immunity in the face of American FBI investigators before all of this is said and done. If Kofi Annan refuses to revoke the diplomatic privileges of officials claiming immunity to aide the investigation, we will have a very good idea whether he is involved in this criminal conspiracy.

All rights reserved. This article can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/hanging_a_lantern_101.php

Persons wishing to contact the author of this article for reprints etc. should put a request in the Comments section, or send an email to "joe", over here @windsofchange.net.