Do you mean to implicate the U. S.?

If the U.S. wanted that building blown up, they wouldn't use a car bomb.

But I am saying that nearly any Iraqi could be a suspect. Saddam loyalist? Al-Qaeda? Just another bunch of occupiers now as far as you're concerned, and they look easier to intimidate. Saddam opponent, either active or too scared to take direct action before? Pissed at the U.N.'s collaboration with Saddam? Weapons are plentiful, security is laxer, revenge is sweet. Here's your chance.

Other than the terminally apathetic (and even that could be a pose), the possibilities above do not eliminate many Iraqis.

How does one write an article about the murder of UN workers in Iraq and in exaclty four sentences tie this event to Jewish extremism? Read the BBC and find out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3164675.stm

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.

Yeah, and that Moron Annan is on tv blaming us for their idiocy. Unbelievable.

Drudge has a link to a NYT story that reports that investigations are ongoing of the UN's Iraqi guards - it seems that the UN was stupid enough to keep the old, Saddam Hussein-era, fresh out of Iraqi Secret Police, security guards.

Unbelievable.

When I read stuff like "Too bad the Al-Qaeda didn't use a bigger bomb" I really wonder if I'm just too old, or whether the John Birth Society has finally taken over this country.

Or maybe it's just the coarsening of our culture.

Yeah, de Mello, and that Christian Children's Fund lady - those one-worlders!!

You aren't too old, and the Birch Society is long gone. Okay, if you're still using them as an example, maybe we can revisit the old issue...

Anyway, what I'd like to point out is this. There are people, and I'm among them, who dislike the U.N. I mean really dislike them. Corrupt, meddlesome, cynical, accomplices and abettors of murder and genocide cloaking themselves in a false legitimacy, made even worse by their pretentions to speak for the planet. It is no exaggeration to say that this body and its officials are the enemies of many of the things I hold dear.

Now, understand this: there are people out there who feel the exact same way about the U.S.A. I mean, they'd use the exact same adjectives here.

Leave aside whether they're justified in these idiotarian beliefs. Just accept that they have them. Now... think back to 9/11, and all those "good, now America knows what it feels like" comments, and "anyone who would bomb the Pentagon has my support," and other episodes of moral wretchedness and smirking schadenfreude. Remember what that felt like. Remember the mindset that was behind it.

Well, if it's "too bad they didn't use a bigger bomb" on the U.N. in Baghdad, because you attribute the same adjectives to the U.N. that I do, does that mean people who feel the same way about the U.S.A. are entitled to gloat JUST AS YOU'RE DOING when people take down buildings and kill your civilians? Because obviously that's the working principle here.

Just asking.

Joe,

Yeah, I was over the top with disgust.

I knew that the Kofi would find a way to blame the USA for his organization's screw up because that is what 3rd worlders do. They can't be responsible for their own stupidity or corruption. It has to be a US plot.

But understand Joe, that I view the U.N. as a terrorist supporting organization that the USA will have to eventually destroy, like most international non-government organizations that are dominated by the Tranzies.

My view of attacks on the U.N. is colored by that. Like a cynical cop viewing a gang war, the only thing wrong with it are the innocent's getting caught in the crossfire. That other terrorists, or even faction within the U.N. itself, blew up a U.N. building in Iraq was poetic justice at the very least, save for the innocent Iraqis killed.

I view the U.N. in the same terms. But the U.N.'s destruction (or regime change) must happen on the diplomatic front. Bombs are not acceptable.

Now, the U.N. personnel. and the people in that building WERE innocents in the sense that there is no justification, period, for bombing them. By referring to the "innocent Iraqis" killed, you implictly accept foreign U.N. personnel (or possibly all U.N. personnel, it could be read either way) as legitimate targets of terrorism.

Try that last paragraph this way:

"My view of attacks on Israel is colored by my view of the Israeli government as state terrorists who murder Palestinian children. Like a cynical cop viewing a gang war, the only thing wrong with Islamic Jihad's resistance activities are the innocent's getting caught in the crossfire. That Islamic terrorists, or even a faction within the Israeli government that wished to disrupt the peace process, blew up that bus was poetic justice, save for the innocent Muslims killed."

Is the problem with the above paragraph the fact that parts of it are untrue, or that its whole moral worldview is deeply twisted and wrong? They are VERY different objections.

Joe,

I replied in a seperate post.

Can't you see the UN brasilian director who was in that building was the target. This guy was repeatedly commenting on the bad consequences of US occupation of the country and the fact that the oil should be used to rebuild the country first, not to refund the US military effort. how could a truck with 600 kilos of explosive come close to such a sensible building exept for US troops to let it pass by them?? this type of attack never occured in Baghdad since then and now you wonder what terrorist group acted, I can only see one: the US as always serving their cause and blaming it on a fake media hyped organisation like Al Quaida (who isn't really fake but US controlled as everybody knows).
And as of 9/11 this argument doesn't stand to me anymore, I've red enough studies, analysys and articles from various sources that do not belong to R. Murdoch's network to know it was prepared by a US led organisation. So please try to look at the bigger agenda and then speak, it is just common sence. Or you might be to short sighted to see the shit flying at you, in this case keep on walking in the dark.

Vinceslas, you are getting basic facts wrong. The building wasn't guarded by US troops, but by locals hired by the UN. The UN had refused greater security measures proposed by its own security chief as well as those proposed by US forces. So much for your understanding of events.

who had the most to lose.

who is controlling the oil,people, government.

who is pumping 3 billion dollars a week into iraq.

why give it up to the u.n. all that hard work for nothing.

so when sombody asks you who has the most to lose with the u.n., there i say u.s.a..

they did it. look at pearl harbour.

read your history.

Poor attempt, scott. The Bush administration has much to "lose" if Iraq is seen as not improving in stability. There is no risk of "losing" control of Iraq to the U.N. at this time. The US already has an authorizing resolution for its control and could veto any further resolutions that threatened that.

Likewise, as with "vincelas" above, reality doesn't match your perception.