Thanks, Joe. Whatever you think of the UN - FWIW, I'd say that, bad as it is, it has proven over the decades to be a whole hell of a lot better than nothing - it doesn't excuse, or half-excuse, what happened to those people, and the bombing is not an appropriate segue into a tired rant about how terrible they are. As for the "irony" and the "blowback issue", we had one of our own, and it didn't excuse or explain anything then, either. The idiot dog was the worst of it, and thought he was being quite clever as well, but he wasn't alone. Never forget means never forget. Anyone who remembers happened on 9/11/01, and watches what happened in Iraq that day, and doesn't see the connection, and thinks it's something funny, or something they had coming, they haven't learned a thing. To think of what happened in New York, and then to see people - Americans! - say the same damned things that would have driven them crazy back then - it just makes me sick. It's not a left or right thing, either. If you can't see what's wrong with purposefully targeting civilians, and if you can't see how that overwhelms any of your political positions, you're an idiot. Plain and simple.

Well done Joe, and something that needed to be said.

I have deep reservations about much of how the UN operates and what it does, though probably not as deep as yours. But that bombing was simply a disgusting act of murderous terror against people who are trying to make a difference, (even if in so many cases they fail in reality).

I can understand people being angry with the UN, but we must not let our anger consume us and blind us (as I think it has to some degree over on Little Green Footballs).

de Mello was a fine human being, as I'm sure were the other poor souls caught up in that blast. As you know, the current Australian government has fully supported the US in seeing the need to vigorously prosecute the war on terror, including dealing with Iraq. de Mello was held in high regard by the government due to his work with us in East Timor (as yes I'm sure the islamofascists hated him for his work there), with the foreign minister barely able to hold back his tears as he addressed the House of Representatives following the terrible news. The deputy leader of the opposition was simply unable to finish her remarks and had to leave the chamber.

Truly we have right on our side in this fight, and we don't need to ape the worst characteristics of our opponents.

Amazing how we Americans can look up this with sadness despite our feelings about the UN as an organization - and the Europress concentrates on blaming the US for this bombing...You would think that they would realize (for once) that terrorists want to kill any one in their way and that they might focus on the significance of this tragedy. But no....

Thanks, Joe. I wanted to say all that, but I'm not a conservative and am not in the position to put it the way you just did.

I'd like to add, too, that Misha and the people on his thread try to explain away their behavior by saying it's "hyperbole," as if that makes it okay to be an asshole. It doesn't.

To all who laughed or cheered when the UN was hit:

Stand by your words, or stand down.

Joe,

I hadn't paid attention to the thread at all, but consider the possibility that this bombing was done by UN employees, or at least their local Iraqi guards (hired by Saddam's regime no less), and not by Al Qaeda. And that the motive was to cover up financial peculation by UN staff and their official Saddam Hussein business associates when he was in power. Instapundit has links to stories and blogs concerning this.

I noted in the comments section of one of the blogs that the Georgian KGB staff had led a riot to burn down their own headquarters, with its incriminating files, when Moscow ordered a crackdown on corruption. This was when the USSR was still around.

Certainly some people here were out of line. The truth might be worse, though - the UN might have done this to itself.

Post-script:

de Mello was purportedly investigating peculation concerning UN funds in the Oil for Food program in Iraq. It is criminal investigation SOP to suspect the UN staff and their Iraqi associates in this bombing. And yes, the UN is that corrupt and murderous.

Andrew, afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on the "better than nothing" judgment. I actually think the U.N. is WORSE than nothing.

Where we come back to agreement is that "it doesn't excuse, or half-excuse, what happened to those people." And then all the other stuff you wrote, too.

Tom... I'm willing to consider the possibility. I'm also willing to subject proferred evidence to the same withering inquiry as the French book that claimed the 9/11 attacks were a CIA operation.

Yes, the odds of the U.N. carrying out (or far more likely, bungling its way into) such an outcome given the financial shennanigans in Iraq and its own corrupt nature are higher. That said, the seriousness of such an accusation is beyond immense. It must not be made casually.

Joe,

Don't think of the UN as monolithic. Your statement concerning investigative SOP here - "... the seriousness of such an accusation is beyond immense. It must not be made casually" - is pretty silly in this context. Corrupt bureaucracies develop factions just as not so corrupt bureaucracies do. This is normal.

Furthermore billions of dollars were stolen and the Iraqis involved were quite murderous. They killed thousands of people on orders AND SOME OF THEM ENOYED IT. Their UN associates in the scams involved knew who they were dealing with.

The only question I have is why we didn't arrest all the Iraqis associated with these known UN scams earlier, and kick out the non-Iraqi UN staff as security risks.

For me, the most frightening issue is the naivete and stupidity of the UN in this matter. From the security to the Baathist guards. What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

Thank you, Joe. I only alluded to this on my blog yesterday, but you wrote pretty much what I wanted to say but lacked the skill to do with such grace.

Thank you so much.

There's few things more distasteful than the ability,of so many people,to spread guilt by association.After 9/11 people like Noam Chomsky were heard crowing how "the U.S. wasn't an innocent victim"*,as if the dead in Pentagon and in New York were somehow in league with Henry Kissinger.

Both the UN and the U.S. have done some bad things - as well as a lot of good - but that point had nothing to do with the moral right or wrong of the matter.The UN employees in Iraq were innocent victims of a degenerete and evil deed.

*paraphrased for brevity.

Does the UN support Palestinian terrorism - check
Does the UN support Palestinian murder schools - check
Did the UN support the murder regime of Saddam - check
Does the UN deny Israel a place in the regional groups - check
Does the UN go out of it's way to attack Jews (Durbin?) - check

I could go on.

And you want me to feel sorry for the poor sons of bitches behind this general support for fascism. Well OK. I feel real bad because that nice Hamas guy got killed the other day. And that nice bus bomber who left a wife and two kids behind so sad. I feel just as sad for those who died working for the UN. You have to remember that the UN like Hamas is a mostly charitable organization. I am really sad that their few mistakes overshadow their good works. We should all support Hamas and the UN for the good of mankind. Well at least their good intentions.

I feel so much better now that the hate is gone. What a relief. The UN.

I must say though that the bomb at the UN in Iraq seems to have awakened the fucks to terrorism. They even had sympathy for Jews for a few hours. That must have been a bit of cognitive dissonance.

If they stay reformed I will take back every bad thing I have said about them today. If they go back to their old habits I hope they get it double and again until they wise up.

M Simon,

You still seem to be missing the point. Even if we agree the UN as an organization is morally bankrupt in its tacit support of terrorism, to equate the UN with out-and-out terrorist organizations is repugnant. Islamic Jihad and al Queda make no bones about the means the have chosen to embrace to achieve their goals. To equate the UN to them, as Joe says, puts you in the camp of the vacuous moral equivalizers. (Is 'equivalizer' a word. Well, if not, it should be.)

The Polish government may have been complicit with the Nazis in carving up Poland; that doesn't make it morally acceptable to dance a jig when the Polish people find their country invaded and devastated by the Third Reich.

You want to marginalize the UN? Have the US withdraw from the organization? Fine. You'll probably see me lining up with you to convince others we need to keep as far away from those soulless bureaucrats as possible (but still support most of the relief work the UN undertakes). Send those sum bitches packing to Geneva or Paris or Gaza City. But you won't find me cheering terrorists when they bomb them.

The ends don't just the means. The means should determine our ends.

Joe - Thank you for me as well. Thing like this is why this liberal is happy to be a part of your blog.

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.

Violence isn't the issue - people have used violence to resolve political disputes as long as there have been people. What's at issue is that in the civilized world, we've set some boundaries around acceptable violence. Our kids are at greater risk over there because we limit the violence they can do; we do that because we are civilized.

And, having had a chance to reconsider, M. Simon stands pat with "I hope they get it double and again until they wise up." Say it in Arabic, Mr. Simon, and you can become a commentator on Al-Jazeera. I certainly won't be able to tell the difference.

A.L.

Well said.

That the U.N. is a waste of prime office space is readily apparent to anyone paying attention.

That it does far more harm than should be allowed is, sadly, self-evident.

That it does this harm because, in large part, the United States gives the U.N. the respect its asperations might warrant, rather than the respect its actions deserve, is sad.

And yet ...

The U.N. representatives are in Iraq because we - the United States - thought they could do some good in Iraq.

They were attacked by those who fear we are right in this instance and want to prevent that good from occurring.

There is nothing in this attack for those who wish our mission to succeed to cheer.

Let's get a few things out of the way first:

1) "It's a start, I suppose" is a joke. If you seriously believe that I'm advocating that somebody fill up a cement mixer and blow up the General Assembly, you're crazier than I ever was.

If you don't think it funny, OK. If you don't think it "appropriate", OK. Your choice. I don't expect everybody to have the same opinion on everything that I do.

But no matter HOW much you try to spin it that way, I do NOT "support" terrorism by making a deeply dark, deeply cynical joke about it.

If you think I do, then you must be mind readers, because, last I checked, I was the only one who knew what I meant.

2) Yes, the people who died in the blast might have been innocent. You'll never know, nor will I. The hotel workers were most likely to have been, unless they were in on the plot, in which case they'd be pretty damn stupid to be present when the thing went up.

But to immediately forget about every death that the UN has been complicit in (it makes even Hitler, may he rot in Hell, look like a sissy), every black marketeer using the UN as a front, every Smurf looking the other way while innocents are slaughtered, and issue a blanket sainthood to every one who died therein is simply idiotic. It may make you feel better, but I always thought that we Anti-Idiotarians were about facts, not feeeeeeeeeelings.

Yes, I DO feel sad for any innocents that died in that attack and yes I DO hope and pray that G-d will stand by their families in the horrid times ahead and lend them strength.

But my joke and my anger was about the UN and their crimes against humanity, the UN and the irony of them thinking themselves so far above the rest of us "peasants" that they didn't need our "steenkin' protection", the UN that demanded that we do nothing when we were brutally attacked and had 3,000 of our innocent slaughtered, the UN that never lifted a damn finger for our sake, yet continues to demand that we pay 25% of their part of Santa Claus to every terrorist and tin-pot dictator on the planet, the UN that has turned every country they ever laid their clammy hands on into a corrupt cesspool of disease, starvation, prostitution, genocide and oppression.

The UN, not the individuals. Are you beginning to see why I find it a little strange that people demand that I cover myself in sackcloth, tear my hair off and pour ashes over myself in grief that they got attacked now?

There are lots of organizations more deserving of my tears and sympathies, and if you expect me to offer them to the UN, you're gonna wait a long time, 'coz they ain't forthcoming.

To the victims of the attack (the ones that really were spotless innocents), to be sure, but that's hardly what my post was about, now was it?

And finally:

3) Do I "support" the terrorists who did this? Again, you'd have to be Noam Fucking Chomsky himself to twist this whole thing into meaning that. If "support" means wanting to catch every last one of them and anybody who ever as much as smiled at them, and torture them to death slowly with a rusty cheese grate then yes, I suppose I do. Anybody want some of my "support"? I'll be here all week.

The two things are not related.

I've been saying this all over the place for two fucking days now and I will NOT repeat myself again, nor will I take on another 300-post long discussion about what the meaning of "is" is because some fuckwit with a reading impairment didn't get the idea the first (or 46th time) and seeks to score another point.

That's it, and that's that.

I'm with Greg, right up until the last line. No, the means do not determine our ends. A.L. adds the concept that gets it right: there are some means that are beyond the boundaries, regardless of the ends they serve.

Yes, the U.N. has done more than most to create the environment in which terrorism has thrived and spread. Not sure if "fascist" fits them the same way it fits some aspects of the New Left, so I prefer the term "corrupt" in both a moral and financial sense. It also looks like they may have been done in with the collusion of their own security guards, and yes, if true that would be darkly funny. Not to mention a new milestone in even their stupendous record of cynical incompetence.

But A.L. also had it right re: the Al-Jazeera line. If car-bombing them is justified or morally deserved, and we hope for more of it, then why are we criticizing the Palestinians for a similar view vis-a-vis Israel?

Simon, You don't have to feel sorry for them. You DO have to understand that what happened is wrong, period. You DO need to acknowledge their common humanity enough not to cheer or wish for more.

Otherwise, we all might as well pack it up, admit that Hussein "Jabba the Hut" Ibish is right, and join CAIR.

We don't know who was responsible for bombing the UN building in Baghdad. While Sunnis who benefited from Saddam's regime, and/or Al Qaeda, were initially assumed to be responsible, closer inspection indicates a factional fight in the UN, or the Saddam loyalists directly involved in the oil for food scam, was more likely responsible.

And life has a way of being messy - it could easily have been various flavors of coalitions among several or all of the above groups.

Some people are also using the UN here as a symbol to express themselves on other issues.

All movements have their idiots. The difference is in how the sane, sober moderates discipline them (or not). Thanks for taking up that challenge and giving a good example of how it's supposed to be done.

Well said, Joe.

Misha:

But no matter HOW much you try to spin it that way, I do NOT "support" terrorism by making a deeply dark, deeply cynical joke about it.

If you think I do, then you must be mind readers, because, last I checked, I was the only one who knew what I meant.

My test for good art, good food, or good writing is that each needs no subsequent explanation--it speaks for itself. Your joke didn't make the cut.

Joe:

Way to speak up (along with MJT) about the thoughtless response to the UN tragedy. As wrongheaded and corrupt as the UN may be, tragedy is only word that describes this collision between transnational do-gooders and the psychopathic Islamist "resistance." And like most tragedies, it's nowhere near over.

My test for good art, good food, or good writing is that each needs no subsequent explanation--it speaks for itself. Your joke didn't make the cut.

You didn't like the joke, you didn't think it funny. Good. I can respect that. That's one of the FIRST intelligent responses I've had to that post, I salute you.

To all. Truck bombs are OK for people who call for truck bombing especially if it is done by the truck bombers the callers called for.

Is that clear? The UN has in its own small way has comitted an act of suicide. I'm just sorry that those who thought they were doing good got caught in the crossfire.

I am sorry for the innocent civilians. But, I consider them collateral damage. If their deaths causes the UN to wise up they will not have died in vain.

And hey - could the East Timor stuff have been solved without the UN? Probably. It was Australian troops who did the job.

I don't know why you all are so sad about an organization devoted to mass murderers that gets a taste of what they have been calling for for others.

But, I'm surprised no one has responded to my call for the support of the benevolent Hamas. Like the UN they build hospitals and support refugees. Are they not as deserving as the UN? I mean Hamas and the UN support murderers. But shouldn't we feel sorry for the innocent victims of Israeli counter attacks? If the Israelis would just stop retaliating all those innocent civilians would still be alive. Don't they deserve to live as much as the UN staff?

I get it. If the Hamas was as diplomatic as the UN and wore nice suits in New York then we could ALL support their good intentions.

Rawanda any one?

The UN is nothing like Hamas. If you count the bodies the UN is much, much, much, worse.

Friends and neighbors the UN supports murdering thugs around the world. How many murders a day are they complicit in? Accesories before and after if not during the fact. Mass graves in Iraq any one?

Now I will admit that staying in the UN and paying our dues has certain advantages for the US like the security council veto. But America has pretty much soured on the UN. Except for that great world renowned humanitarian Colin - I love Arafat - Powell. So I don't think you can say the US is responsible for what the UN has become. If you need to blame anyone there is always the French.

I will say it again, if mouthing the right humanitarian words is the criteria then Hamas deserves your support as much as the UN.

So lets hear it for Hamas. Anyone?

If the UN doesn't want any more blowback from supporting truck bombers and others of their ilk they should stop supporting truck bombers.

If the supporters of Hamas don't want to be collateral damage they ought to stop supporting Hamas and get out of the way.

I feel bad about UN supporters in the same way I feel bad for the German people of the World War 2 era. Because of their choices they got what they deserved. Let them take - RESPONSIBILITY. It was a shitty deal. Just ask the Jews, gypsies, homos, and other undesireables. When it comes to the UN ask the Rawandans. I'm sure there is a lot of UN sympathy just waiting to be tapped in that group or what is left of that group.

slimedog,

The UN tragedy was not coming to the aid of the Rawandans.

But I get your point. Twenty deaths is a tragedy. A million is just a statistic.

Fuck the UN. Let the bastards wollow in their own shit until they decide to clean up their act. Figure it out. Their reputation is so awful that the good and the evil are disgusted with them. Perhaps it is time they chose sides.

Let us hope this huge tragedy tilts the decision in the right direction. Let us hope that the minor errors in Rawanda, Sebrenica and a few other places are well forgotten. What do hundreds of thousands of deaths matter? They were just a bunch of nameless assholes. We have 20+ world shattering deaths here. One must show the proper concern and a sense of proportion. I mean we are not talking Jews or blacks here. We are talking representatives of the great UN.

The UN supports terrorism.

The UN got hit by a terrorist bomb.

This is a tragedy? Well so is suicide.

If the UN doesn't want any more blowback from supporting truck bombers and others of their ilk they should stop supporting truck bombers.

M. Simon, this is Chomskyite bullshit. How many times have we heard from the left that "we supported Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan."

Grow up.

M. Simon,

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't equate Hamas/IJ/AQ with the UN. Does the UN equivocate in their actions related to these terrorist organizations. Yes, I think they do. But no matter how morally compromised the UN may be in appeasing or tolerating despicable organizations, they do NOT advocate and promote terrorism. They may wallow in the gutter but the people and organization(s) responsible for bombing the UN's offices Bahgdad are infinitely worse, having embraced a moral nihilism that the West has only recently woken up to and recognized as a threat to open, free societies around the world.

NOTE: My previous comment had one serious typo. I meant to point out that even though the Polish government was complicit in assisting the Nazis in carving up CZECHOSLOVAKIA (not Poland), it didn't justify gloat when the Nazis invaded and subjugated the Polish people (with help from the USSR who, of course, later got burned by said Nazis).

I can speak from personal experience when I say that the suicide of a person IS a very real tragedy.

It's OK to point out the obvious blowback and the suicidal aspects of this incident. That's fair comment. U.N. must be undermined and replaced? Right behind you. Regime change there? Less satisfying, but sure, let's try it.

It is NOT OK to say "people who support truck bombers deserve truck bombs." No.

My sympathy for the UN is zero. The U.N. is just an institution, and one I have less than zero attachment to. My sympathy for every person who died in that blast, however, is real. And so is my condemnation - WITHOUT QUALIFICATION - of the people who did it. Because driving bomb-filled trucks into civilian buildings, even if they belong to a political entity you hate, is wrong. Period.

Timothy McVeigh, of course, would disagree. If you hate them enough, if that political entity has used tactics or supported actions you consider similar, it's just justice in his view to drive truck bombs into that entity's official buildings. Too bad if some folks die, but hey, maybe it'll wise them up.

Is that your view too? Is that really your view?

THINK, damn it!

Get the US (money) out of the UN >> send it to NATO. (Maybe create a NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group? see my blog tomgrey.bloggedup.com)

Joe, it's great for you to write like you did. And your last post seemed especially true/nuanced.

And yet, yet, yet. What ARE the boundaries?

Were the bomb assasination attacks against Hitler really wrong? I don't think so. When the Czechs succeeded against Heydrich (?), was that so wrong?

Americans danced, rightly, after WW II, after so much death. The Palistinians dancing as the towers fell, is that so different? I pity them.

When the Israelis retaliate against terror by executing a top terrorist (plus bodyguards), is that really so different?

The top mafia bosses always keep their hands clean; does that absolve them of responsibility?

There are lines, and grey lines, and fuzzy lines.
Why is this terrorist truck bomb so much worse than the US bombing in Kosovo?

Mischa has one important point unaddressed -- all those UN folk are voluntarily guilty of supporting the UN, and implicitly, if not also explicitly, the corruption. They weren't innocent civilians.

Such unjust UN behavior is sort of clear--but justice is not so clear.

"Civilized war". Kinda an oxymoron, no? I think "War is hell" is more true.

The US, and the West, and the UN, all we, whether we like it or not, ARE in a war. An asymetrical war. A war in which we can't really win an "unconditional surrender". So Saddam dies, or OBL, or is captured. That doesn't end the war.

The rich and comfy West, looks on while the Palestinians rot in their, what, 4th generation refugee camps (since no Arab states take them, and Egypt & Jordan refused to allow a Pali state before 1967). No matter how much terrorism many Palis accept, and how hateful they are, stupidly, self sacrificingly, anti-productively hateful, there is still some West influenced injustice in Palistine.

OK, the ends don't justify the means. Sounds good, but does that mean death by cruise missle is OK? The murdered Israelis on the bus were innocent. Horrible murder; but the UN bureau-shufflecrat "clean hand" masters?

I guess I'm trying to get into the shoes of the terrorist (they don't fit!); what are the "acceptable means" that allow the anti-West side to win? If there are none, and I think there are not, then that means the anti-West side is on the Neanderthal side of evolution, i.e. a dead end.

There's an important issue here, sorry I can't blog it clearly, yet. All body bags are equal, but some are more tragic than others.

The poor WTC folk who died. The poor Palistinians living in self-inflicted injustice. The cultural imperialism of the West...best, mostly right, but not perfect.

If somebody reads something more coherent that seems to be what I'm trying to say, please let me know.

Both UN detractors and UN supporters tend to forget that the UN was essentially a US creation. The Islamists do not, however, make that mistake.

Up above I read the claim that the UN was somehow responsible for more deaths than Hitler. I can't imagine how that claim could be supported except by the same kind of indirect calculation that can make the US or the the West or capitalism or virtually anyone or anything you choose responsible for virtually every death by violence or disease worldwide.

Over the course of the the UN's history, it has a times served as a force for good, or at least as a forum or safety valve for adversaries to air and even address grievances during times of crisis. We don't know, for instance, how hot the Cold War might have gotten if not for the UN. The apparent usefulness of the UN during the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Gulf War 1.0 - to give three examples - led many in this country and elsewhere to maintain and extend support, and even to envision a greater role for the organization, perhaps following the implementation of post-Cold War reforms.

During the build-up to GW 2.0, the UN was exposed for what it is - chiefly for being no better than the sum of its parts (the member nations), possibly closer to a greatest common factor rather than the lowest common denominator, but altogether inadequate in its present form to the current world situation. In short, it failed the test that Bush enunciated in his October '02 speech, a test that was roughly parallel to, but not the same as, the test of terrorist-supporting national regimes.

It probably remains in the US interest to sustain the UN as a forum, as an inefficient but possibly reformable clearinghouse for humanitarian and nation-building initiatives, and, more generally, as a long-term project in global cooperation and the propagation of human rights as we understand them. Until and unless we make the firm and unequivocal decision that the experiment has turned into an irredeemable failure and that we are through with the UN, if not with all that it was supposed to stand for, the US is in it, and it is in the US, and an attack on it and its personnel is an attack on the US.

The UN is clearly rife with corruption and hypocrisy, but it also includes many individuals, including Americans, who have had every reason to believe they are part of an imperfect effort to improve life on Earth, and that this effort was being made with the support of the USA - the government and its people. In Iraq specifically, the UN under de Mello is said to have been cooperating closely and positively with the US Coalition and the Iraqi Interim Council.

If we, as a nation, ever do abandon our commitment to the UN, we should do so by lawful and democratic means, not by truck bombs. In the meantime, it would be unseemly, dishonorable, and inhumane for us not to deplore any attack on the institution and its personnel.

Greg,

The UN supports and promotes terrorism. It was and is doing so in Iraq. de Mello was sent to Baghdad to stop that and, probably, cover it up.

What was interesting to me is that the UN was a target just as the Jordinian Embassy was a target a week ago. In that incident, Iraqis were angry because of how Jordan had treated them and supported Saddam. When I first heard of this incident, I immediately wondered if it was terrorists hitting the only target they could hit or if it was actual ire against the U.N. for their inability to accomplish anything, anywhere, anytime.

KymarFye,

The UN as a force for good is long gone. The institution is hopelessly corrupt financially, not merely morally, and the two feed on each other. The UN's Oil For Food program in pre-conquest Iraq is merely the best-known example, because it was the most lucrative.

The world would be much better off without the UN. It has been mostly a vehicle for oppression, terror and genocide for at least the past ten years.

It can't be redeemed because it does not have a single master capable of doing so. Most of its members benefit from it being a vehicle for oppression, terror and genocide.

Tom:

>The UN supports and promotes terrorism.
>It was and is doing so in Iraq. de Mello
>was sent to Baghdad to stop that and,
>probably, cover it up.

You want to back that up with facts??

Supporting 'liberation' movements is different - admittedly narrowly different, but different still - from 'supporting and promoting terrorism'. They certainly aren't a force for dealing with terrorism; they have certainly rolled over in the face of aggression, whether in Kosova or Israel - but you're reaching pretty far with that accusation...

A.L.

Tom,

A.L. is right. The UN's actions in regard to standing by watching genocidal killings in Rwanda (thanks, Kofi), support of various Palestian Authority institutions, and other morally repunant actions do NOT equate to a terrorist organization openly embracing terrorist tactics: indiscriminate or reprehensibly deliberate targeted bombing or civilians for political ends.

As I stated before, if you can't make that distinction, we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I would urge you to examine the arguments and emotions that have led you to equate a deeply flawed and compromised institution with those who deliberately and joyously killed thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11 - and many more on other occasions.

There is no hope.
This thread proves it.
Apparently, the definition of terrorism depends on who the victims are.

A.L. said:

>You want to back that up with facts??

Yep!

The IDF conquest of Jenin was a lot of things.

One of the most important was that it outed the UN High Commission on Refugees as a supporter and sanctuary provider of Palestian suicide terrorists.

The U.N. is failing the audit of war and much of the sound and light here about the "immorality of my post" is a bunch of people trying to avoid facing up to the evil that the U.N. has become.

A.L.,

Follow the money. Certainly some factions in the UN support, and promote, terrorism for ideological reasons, but most do it for money, and it was the money that de Mello was after. Study the Oil For Food program, and in particular the careers of the Iraqi Baathist leaders involved with it. They weren't nice people and, IMO, they were the ones who hired this bombing.

Certainly the Baathists had to share the proceeds of the scams and ripoffs. That is a major reason why the French threatened to veto a UN use of force resolution - check out ELF's role in the Food For Oil program and the relationships its management has with Chirac.

UN support for terorrism in Iraq consisted chiefly of taking bribes from Iraqi Baathists in exchange for letting them steal money from the Oil For Food program knowing that some of the stolen money would be used for official terorism against the Iraqi people - murder, torture, genocide, etc.

I expect the investigators are asking right now who didn't show up for work at the UN building in Baghdad that day or, in Len Deighton's words in his SS-GB, put their fingers in their ears before the bomb went off.

Greg,

You have your definition for the term, "supporting terorrism", and I have mine. Mine is the legal one - I'm a lawyer. I suggest you rent the DVD/video, Judgment at Nuremburg, and pay close attention to the definition of conspiracy. Or ask a lawyer.

The U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act makes knowing funding of terrorism an offense, and not merely the terrorism itself.

But feel free to use whatever definition you want. Just don't expect others to buy your premises and definitions.

Where was the part where you detailed why you found the UN contemptable?

Mike,

I never said I found the UN "contemptible". Are you confusing my posts with someone else's?

The UN just is, and it got that way in a normal and quite predictable (via political science) way. C. Northcoate Parkinson's insights are particularly applicable.

I repeat, many posters here use the UN as a symbol to flog their own agendas and, in some cases, express and/or vent personal issues.

The difference between them and us, is that we hold on to our values, both moral and civil. We do not kill just because we can. Or rape or pillage to show our superior nature. We have to remind ourselves about these lines, so we don't become just like them.

much respect, joe. you are absolutely right in your entry.

" But no matter how morally compromised the UN may be in appeasing or tolerating despicable organizations, they do NOT advocate and promote terrorism."

Now would that be by word or deed. If you count their deeds they are guilty as charged.

UNWRA.

Michael J. Totten,

As I under stand recent history America stopped supporting Osama in 1988 or so.

The UN is still supporting truck bombers (see the above on the UN/Pali villages).

I think you can see a difference if you squint real hard.

Did I mention that the truck likely came from Syria? (how long a ago is an important and currently unknown question). The UN voted Syria to be part of the Security Council rotation. They are the voice of the security Council at this time. No mass murderers there. (Well it was Dr. [President for Life] Assad's father actually.)

Did I mention the Pali villages in Lebanon? Now Hamas and IJ wouldn't be openly operating in those camps would they? Of course not. The UN wouldn't allow it. It would violate the UN Charter. Can't have that now can we? See, that proves the UN isn't suppporting terrorists. Its against the rules.

I am so looking forward to the day after the 2004 elections when the "liberals" wake up and ask "wha hoppened? Who was driving the truck that hit us?"

Hammas.

You know if the UN was an American organization without diplomatic immunity they could be charged under RICO. That is Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization.

"Even if we agree the UN as an organization is morally bankrupt in its tacit support of terrorism,"

The law says that if you support criminal action by aiding and abetting you are guilty of the crime.

By your own admission the UN is guilty.

This is too easy.

BTW to be guilty under RICO the actions have to be of a serial nature. A one time mistake or accident is not enough.

The UN still qualifies.

Homer,

"The difference between them and us, is that we hold on to our values, both moral and civil."

In a war you have to give up some of your values to prevail.

Actually they hold on to their values (pillage, murder, rape) pretty well with or without a war. It is we who have to give up some of our civilization to defeat them.

We need to do what we did in WW2. Fight like Devils, make peace like Angels. I believe we still have it in us.

Joe: Very sorry, but I feel obliged to yank your chain pretty hard on this one. What Misha said -- "It's a start, I suppose" -- was clearly a riff on the old lawyer joke:

Q: What do you call 2,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A: A pretty good start.

There. Any lawyers upset? Too bad; it's a joke. No reference to the party responsible for such a mass of fish food, either -- because IT'S A JOKE. Lawyers morally reprehensible, ergo dead lawyers funny, ne c'est pas? BECAUSE IT'S A JOKE.

My real disappointment here is with Misha. I wish he had never apologized, because where I come from bad taste is no crime -- and I come from America. His mention of being a non-native English speaker is absurd; Misha's command of the language, vulgarity and all, surpasses that of almost all the native speakers I know these days.

Bottom line, Joe? You were off base, at least where Misha was concerned. I respect his decision to apologize, but I disagree with it.

In no sense was he on the wrong side of "the civilized side of the line" when he told an updated version of the lawyer joke, because WHAT HE WROTE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM -- not condoning, not condemning, not any of it. It was a joke, and it was in bloody bad taste, and I for one am glad he wrote it.

It falls in the same category as the picture SNL ran of Leon Spinks after he got his ass whupped by Mohammed Ali in their return title fight -- covered with bruises, front teeth missing, a bloody mess -- with the mock quote, "Well, at least I still have my good looks."

Much (truly great, utterly distasteful) humor is based on the misfortunes of others -- Misha's JOKE was very much in that category. If you had chosen to go off on Trent for his comments, I would have no quarrel with you -- but cut me a break on the Emperor, please.

Regards,

Ted Seay
Suva, Fiji Islands

Joe, that's Stryker's post that you link to above, not mine. Mine will be posted shortly.

Good post too!

Joe,

This post exemplifies why I'm honored to link to you.

Ted Seay,

I don't think that your comment that Misha's joke was a riff on the old lawyers' joke stands up. The lawyers joke was in the abstract, this bombing was very real.

If Misha's joke can hold up let him tell it to Sérgio Vieira de Mello's widow, mother and sons, let see if he has the stones to tell it to Arthur Helton's family. This is a very real tragedy with real loss of life. To find humor in it is beneath contempt.

Joe Katzman points out the pain we felt when Middle Easterners danced and handed out candy after 9/11: "Remember what that felt like?".

He equates feeling the same way about anyone else's misfortunes as a "moral black hole". He then enumerates the series of things he feels all others are "entitled" to: "dislike, to oppose, to wish for the failure of another's goals. You're entitled to hold a grudge, to refuse to forgive. You may even be entitled to hate."

And after he informs us of our "entitlements", he tells us the penalty -- we will no longer be his friends should we continue to rejoice in the misfortunes of others we are "entitled to hate".

Joe, schadenfreude is a pure manifestation of hate. We choose to indulge it, M. Simon and I, even without your kind permission. You appear to have chosen the path of "tut-tut" and we have chosen another way, one more in line with the depth of the emotion we attach to these issues.

This is not a t-ball match, folks, where manifestations of glee can be suppressed with stern glares from the 'caring' parents. This is life-and-death.

Perhaps that makes you feel superior in some way -- well good for you. It indicates to me you may not feel the quite the same horrible pain we do at the pictures and accounts of suicide bombings.

Does this make us like the Palestinians? Indeed, it does. Hate is a primary human emotion, and it serves a very useful purpose. It hardens the will to do things you would never normally do if the world were a better place.

The UN actively aids and abets slaughter in Israel. M. Simon hates them, and so do I. If this is wrong in your eyes, then so be it. We have enough hand-wringers in the UN -- what we need now is hard men with hate in their eyes to deal with those on the other side.

Thanks, Joe, for putting your foot down on this.

In reading the rationalizations of all the justifiers of terrorist truck bombers who have posted above, I can only observe that they are the direct lineal decendents of the Ku Klux Klan, the Weatherman Underground, and Timothy McVeigh. Willing to kill the innocent in the service of ideology. In the end, I guess we are all Nazis.

In this Joe, you had a point and it was a good one. But you've overdone the point by now.

Misha wasn't making a joke; read through his blog sometime. He (or she) routinely talks about killing or harming people with whom he (or she) disagrees.

The difference in the case of the UN building bombing is a few of his (or her) fellow rightwingers finally--and at long last--felt Misha's comments were beyond the pale.

Thugs like Misha are, at their very core, cowards depending on mob support. The only reason Misha offered an unconvincing rationale is that he or she saw the risk of losing some of that mob support when a couple of top rightwing bloggers
expressed dismay.

The question is: why has it taken the rightwing so long to discover their rhetoric is becoming perilously close to that which they claim to despise?

Jade, all you've established is that you are tone deaf.

Robin:

I'll take tone deafness each and every day over the glorification and celebration of terrorism.

Yes, but what you have is nothing but tonedeafness. Misha has adopted a style for his blog that includes over-the-top rhetoric. His adoption of this style says nothing about his "fellow rightwingers" and doesn't make him a "thug" or a "coward". At best it makes him a humorist you don't care for. At worst, it makes him a humorist whose joke went too far.

This difference isn't that hard to follow.

Again, Robin, this wasn't an isolated instance for Misha and his crew of thugs; review his or her blog sometime and you'll see Misha regularly talks about killing or harming those whom he or she opposes.

If you follow the comments of Misha's sycophants, it's very apparent they didn't take the comments as a joke or over-the-top hyperbole. They were virtually orgasmic in their desire to out-do one another in glorifying the bombing and wishing more UN people had been murdered.

It was only when Misha saw a few non-bottomfeeders from the right express criticism that he or she decided to issue a half-hearted and backhanded mea culpa.

Frankly, Jade, I am led to believe by your fecund namecalling that your tonedeafness is intentional in this case.

And, Robin, I'll readily admit to tone deafness. I won't condone or defend those who exult in terrorism.

Pretending it's all a big joke or a misunderstanding when the participants aren't treating it as such cannot be misconstrued as anything but glorification of terrorism; that's not 'tone deafness.'