The attack against the U.N. runs totally counter to the flow in Iraq.
Whoever organized this terrorist attack is undoubtedly some party who hates the U.N. enough to want them to quit Iraq as soon as possible. Iraqi resistance organizations, including the Arab League, have condemned and denounced this bombing as an act of terrorism. There is no reason for the Iraq resistance to bomb the United Nations, which is the main hope for stabilizing things after the months of chaos and destruction.
World opinion desperately wants the U.N. to take over with a peacekeeping force....except for the U.S. and Israel, which for obvious reasons are determined that the military presence is maintained. The PNAC website has all the plans. It looks like the bombing is a staged piece of terrorism designed to scare the U.N. into "further irrelevance".
The war (aka a prolonged act of international terrorism perpetrated by the Bush Administration) has already killed up to 8000 civilians. To sacrifice 20 more innocent lives in a staged terrorist act for the considerable political coup of elbowing out the U.N. is no skin off the noses of Wolfowitz, Cheney et al. Just like Saddam Hussein , these politicians have no conscience or humanity.
This is almost to stupid to warrant a response, but having myself been stupid longer than most, I'll venture an answer where the others might just be too flabbergasted for words.
Counter to what flow? The whole history of the middle east is to decieve through diplomacy and then instigate through terror. The PLO sues for peace and then blows up a bus load of Jews, the Saudis denounce terror and then fund the activities of martyrs -- they even had the balls to hold a telethon for the families of palestinian suicide bombers, if they're willing to go that far publicly, you cannot speculate faz enough into their backroom dealings in support of terror, there's a money trail a mile wide, the US has protected it, continues to protect it even, for political expedience. However, even the US is close to moving Saudi Arabia out of their favor, all that lies between is the stabilization of Iraq and then the long deserved extermination of the Saudi royal family is at hand. It's tricky, cause the devil that comes after them migh be worse: the clerics, but after 20 years American patience is wearing thin.
If you want to play message board analyst, then be intelligent. The people with the most to gain from destabilizing Iraq at this moment are the Saudis to whom our attention would turn the moment we substitute their oil supply.
Do we have our own hawks? Of course, but they don't need to blow up the UN to get them on side and any suggestion of such is ridiculous, they just ignore the UN when that bureaucratic quagmire proves to slow, they have aptly demonstrated that they feel they do not need the UN to either stay or go.
But it doesn't even go that far. This is the scatter-bomb approach that terrorists like. The Ba'ath and shi-ite's lower levels are running about a little directionless and it's more important for them to attack anything western than be selective about who/what that might be. Though it is obvious that Saddam learned from his first gulf war experience and has planned alll along to fight a "resistance" campaign rather than get burned in a war. Resistance campaigns, like vietnam, can work by transforming the enemy into an occupier who is either seen as unjust or otherwise it loses interest and commitment itself and leaves the campaign after a time.
PS.
At this point it would be wise for you to lay off the weed. Excessive use makes you paranoid and you don't need any more.
The PNAC website has all the plans. It looks like the bombing is a staged piece of terrorism designed to scare the U.N. into "further irrelevance".
The war (aka a prolonged act of international terrorism perpetrated by the Bush Administration) has already killed up to 8000 civilians. To sacrifice 20 more innocent lives in a staged terrorist act for the considerable political coup of elbowing out the U.N. is no skin off the noses of Wolfowitz, Cheney et al. Just like Saddam Hussein , these politicians have no conscience or humanity.
So, the war was a prolonged act of international terrorism...and the UN attack was orchestrated by politicians to make the UN even more irrelevant. OK. got it.
The attack against the U.N. runs totally counter to the flow in Iraq.
Whoever organized this terrorist attack is undoubtedly some party who hates the U.N. enough to want them to quit Iraq as soon as possible. Iraqi resistance organizations, including the Arab League, have condemned and denounced this bombing as an act of terrorism. There is no reason for the Iraq resistance to bomb the United Nations, which is the main hope for stabilizing things after the months of chaos and destruction.
World opinion desperately wants the U.N. to take over with a peacekeeping force....except for the U.S. and Israel, which for obvious reasons are determined that the military presence is maintained. The PNAC website has all the plans. It looks like the bombing is a staged piece of terrorism designed to scare the U.N. into "further irrelevance".
The war (aka a prolonged act of international terrorism perpetrated by the Bush Administration) has already killed up to 8000 civilians. To sacrifice 20 more innocent lives in a staged terrorist act for the considerable political coup of elbowing out the U.N. is no skin off the noses of Wolfowitz, Cheney et al. Just like Saddam Hussein , these politicians have no conscience or humanity.
Yeah, let's try to not to make accusations unless we have real evidence. You think that perhaps Hussein's regime doesn't quite like the UN? You know, all those sanctions and resolutions over the years might just piss off a few people. Hell, I bet even some of the average everyday Iraqi, Josed Iraqi if you will, citizens hate the UN because those UN sanctions weren't even doing much damage to Hussein et al but rather the civilian population itself.
See SDW, you aren't the only one with insane ideas. Just attacking the idea man.
What I mean is, to allow Iraq within OPEC once more, someone has to reduce the amount of oil exported to allow Iraq that qoutient. OPEC regulations of their members only allow a certain amount of oil to be sold by each member to keep things fair for all members. And only a certain amount can be exported as to not flood the market and drive down the value.
But with Iraq functioning outside of OPEC, they'll all be screwed worse than just lowering their quotient. Iraq would be able to undermine all of their quotients and then some. So getting Iraq into OPEC would be, at the very least, the lesser of two evils for OPEC.
Abu Nidal which means " father of the struggle " sprang from the loins of the PLO..It split off when the ideological differences became too great.
Nidal ( now defunct ) ..was marxist in the sense that like the PLO it used the same sort of rhetorical language.
In a wider historical sense the PLO "borrowed'" the marxist terminology in the1950's ( at the height of the cold war ), to align itself to its then arabic neighbours..Including Egypt's president Nassar who was openly courting the communist Russians as was Syria and other middle eastern countries.
At the time the marxist language dovetailed perfectly with the PLO's ( & abu Nidal ) political ambitions.
But now, this language is bitting the PLO in the tail..as such marxist rhetoric has fallen out of favor with all its neighbors..
In consequence, Hamas etc are ideologically distinct in urging the overthrow of Israel..That the enemy of my friend is also my enemy does not enter into the equation..
And does nothing to get you off the hook..
The question still remains..Nname me one fundamentalist Islamic Marxist terrorist group ?
Point is you can't because it is an ideological contradiction in terms..
What I mean is, to allow Iraq within OPEC once more, someone has to reduce the amount of oil exported to allow Iraq that qoutient. OPEC regulations of their members only allow a certain amount of oil to be sold by each member to keep things fair for all members. And only a certain amount can be exported as to not flood the market and drive down the value.
Iraq is an OPEC member but at this point does not have a quota.
Yeah, let's try to not to make accusations unless we have real evidence. You think that perhaps Hussein's regime doesn't quite like the UN? You know, all those sanctions and resolutions over the years might just piss off a few people. Hell, I bet even some of the average everyday Iraqi, Josed Iraqi if you will, citizens hate the UN because those UN sanctions weren't even doing much damage to Hussein et al but rather the civilian population itself.
See SDW, you aren't the only one with insane ideas. Just attacking the idea man.
BR, nobody knows who was responsible, and quite possibily, nobody ever will. Yes, we will get the usual "explanations" and finger pointing, and we will dutifully consign it to the endless and growing list of atrocities committed by whatever militant islamist group is the bogeyman of the hour.
If the US military and FBI are investigating this attack, and the crime just happened to be a home-brew imitating the methods of the many existing Arabic terror groups, then a fair and balanced conclusion is an impossibility. There is nothing ridiculous about using the cover of "terrorism" to achieve an aim...in this case to intimidate that 1940s dinosaur, the hated U.N., which stands in the way of American empire, (as outlined in the PNAC documents). It is these folk who are in the driving seat of this administration, and Rumsfeld, a chief PNAC author is probably the most powerful politician in Washington right now. A truck bomb would be an kids play for intelligence services or military, and such things have been done in the past on numerous occasions in numerous countries for political ends. Load truck with some dead Iraqis (theres plenty of those scattered about the countryside), aim truck at building...booom.
There is nothing any more far-fetched about this possibility than all the others brought up here.
Iraq is an OPEC member but at this point does not have a quota.
So I and the so called expert on NPR are mis-informed. Same effect once Iraq gets their oil infrastructure back online, whether if they stay with OPEC or not.
Same effect once Iraq gets their oil infrastructure back online, whether if they stay with OPEC or not.
I still say bringing them into a quota, even if it lowers some of the exports of everyone in OPEC, it keeps closer to the status quo. If Iraq is in the free market, all of OPEC will be forced to follow causing far greater losses for those in OPEC.
So I and the so called expert on NPR are mis-informed. Same effect once Iraq gets their oil infrastructure back online, whether if they stay with OPEC or not.
I don't know, but it's likely you heard him wrong. People commonly refer to the "OPEC 10" ever since the sanctions were put on Iraq.
As for who did the bombing, we don't know. It's great to speculate and all, but to put it on the saudi government (no matter who that is supposed to refer to) is pretty naive. it's important to remember that the neo-cons, who are only gaining in power, have been progressively building up a propaganda campaign against the saudis, and have discussed this for a while. My understanding is that the neocons and bushes disagree on this point, but those neocons have been pushing for it for a while. They have discussed it in their articles for a couple years, and, the hersh article on perle even had this bit from Saudi ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan (who, for all you bushies, happens to be extremely close with the Bush family):
Quote:
?There is a split personality to Perle,? Bandar said. ?Here he is, on the one hand, trying to make a hundred-million-dollar deal, and, on the other hand, there were elements of the appearance of blackmail??If we get in business, he?ll back off on Saudi Arabia??as I have been informed by participants in the meeting.?
Really, the fact that the main anti-saudi US neo-cons are also the Israel Firsters (are there many that aren't?) shows the one clear motive. Maybe Bandar's right on another.
Anyhoo, it's pretty important to go check out the PNAC papers when discussing neo-con policy toward the saudis and the growing anti-saudi ideas they are dispersing through their propaganda.
BTW: did any of you guys see the insane cbs footage from INSIDE the blast and the aftermath. It's pretty extreme, and almost pornographic. Check it out if you want:
The saudis have been doing their own propaganda for a while now, finally caught their forked tounges in knots... but that's besides the point. A ridiculous case was made that this bombing is some sort of American ploy because it would be convenient to have the UN gone. I don't blame the saudis, I just think that's as likely -- ie, not likely. As I said, it's hardly a stretch to see that this has been part of the Iraqi (Shiite, Ba'aath loyalist) strategy from the beginning. To give up the cities and disguise their machinery of war so that it could then be used against an "occupying" force in an underground resistance style war.
Saddam loyalists/Shiites did this, not Amercans, not Saudis. Each of the other two have their own atrocities to answer for, but frankly, I could care less about the self flaggelating American guiltoholic left. First we nail saddam, then Saudi royals, then all their friends.
I do blame them for directly financing 9-11, as I did pretty much the day after it all started, and implied many times before 9-11, when the quetsion of terrorism came up. They are most surely the bank-rollers of palestinian "freedom fighters" so we know that they fund terror. A member of their family, Bin Laden, supposedly dispossed of all his holdings and the most wanted man on earth, eludes capture, do you really have to wonder too hard about that?
PS, why do you think the upper echelons of American security, military and intelligence have turned sour on Saudi Arabia? Perhaps they've gotten tired of obscuring the trail that ties middle east terror to the Saudi Royals? I don't imagine for a second that we're "nice guys" and didn't know anything about their dealings, afetrall, Bin Laden was once our instrument, as was Saddam. But it gets to a point where these guys become a little too dangerous/ambitious. I have absolutely no problems with smacking them down, hard enough for their grandchildren to feel it.
Abu Nidal (the individual) was notorious for selling his services to the highest bidder, on occassion he pretended to be a muslim, on others he was a Marxist and again he worked for the Israelis.
Worked for the Israeli's ? Sedgey, you must be like a bottle of old port..the longer you tank it the sweeter, & drunker it makes you..
He was, if you will, a quadruple plus agent under deep, deep cover whose only motivation was money. They should make a movie of the guy...
What about Muhammad Atta ? You don't have to rationalise it, just give me your personal take on how you square the contradiction for yourself. By not admitting there is one ? Or do you have a more analytical take ? Just curious.
last night, I was in the middle of repsonding to just this point when my 4 hour long limit went bink & cut me off.. By then, It was about 1 Am so I decided to get some shut eye....
Now as to your question regarding Atta..I see absolutely NO problem..
Consider this..Firstly, he knows what his mission is about..secondly his handlers deferred all questions of faith & action back to their cleric..
It is not a precedent in allowing the warriors of Islam to taste the fruits of the vine and to have illicit sex before their date with destiny.
It could have easily been justified by the cleric by saying that he, ( Atta ) & his fellow hijackers..were allowed a taste of what heaven promises to all those foot soldiers who die in defending the cause of Islam.
Furthermore, Atta considered all women virtually nothing but chattels & sex in that respect had absolutely no meaning...& no affect on his own sense of "purity "...
This would be completely in keeping with their movement's distortion of Islam..
That it is abhorrant behaviour to mainstream muslims would mean nothing..as Atta and his ilk would have considered them wrong in their interpretation of the Koran.
Just as the KKK or Nazi's had their own deeply devout " christians ", who were able to justify killing jews, burning crosses, hangings, torture and even having sex with those they were going to kill goes towards answering your challenge.
Anything is justifiable..just don't fall into the trap of measuring it by normal interpretations of christianity or Islam..
A ridiculous case was made that this bombing is some sort of American ploy because it would be convenient to have the UN gone.
First off, the U.S. was warned and did nothing. Does that at least support the case that the Americans want the U.N. gone?
Second, your ramblings about the Saudis, true or not, are no different than the anti-Bush ramblings the conservatives around here get all up in arms about. When a liberal spouts things about Bush like you do the Saudis, there's a windfall of people claiming that it something out of Roswell. Just an observation.
The US was warned? So, how were they to know exactly when and how. Since the rest of the world has pretty much decided to fvck off their responsibility to police Iraq, the US has a lot to do. You've got to figure that the UN was warned, or if they had any sense, and there isn't always proof of that, they were at some sort of state of alert.
Anyway, my comments about the Saudis (royal family) are spot on and well founded. America's own neo-con attitudes, so often mentioned here are just another layer of proof that the intel communities ahve decided that the Saudis are rapidly becoming an unmanageable risk. I agree that Iraq is a ploy to gain leverage to stop a greater threat. Unlike the critics, I don't particularly care if America wants to play empire. I'd rather have an American empire than any other empire you could name, we could use a little American empire in some parts of the world, but that's another discussion.
We pretty much know the Saudis have been funding terrorism for years. Evidence? It's in the family, Bin Laden is well hidden despite being the most wanted man in the world. The Saudi Royals are not lightweights, their intelligence/network in the middle eastern world is probably second only to Isreal's. It's naive to assume they don't know where Bin Laden is at, roughly speaking. They routinely held very public fund raising for the families of martyrs, when it became news in the west, they re-spun this practice to say they were raising money for displaced palestinians. A money trail goes from the Saudi Royals directly to the 9-11 hijackers. Right now, the US classifies this info for their own purposes, but we know of the money and of the intelligence. These were not scholarships, it's highly unlikely that they were scholarships since, as far as I know, intelligence communities seldom hand over bursaries for foreign study, and also we immediately knew a lot about the hijackers in the days after 9-11. We know the hijackers were aprehended and lost on multiple occasions in the snafus between the Canada-US border, we were keeping an eye on them, meaning someone informed us about something, meaning someone in the middle east knew these weren't "students" and made us aware. Our own failing was a tradgedy of ineptitude and criminal negligence on the part of our travel industry ( an over 20 year history abominable safety practice in fact)
But that's besides the point. All the political pointers have for a long long time told us that about the increasing duplicity of the Saudi leaders. They are in part constrained by the difficulties of maintaining power in their old countries.
What I don't understand is how a group of people who are (rightly) sensitive to the habits of American diplomatic practice suddenly become blind to the habits of middle eastern regimes and claim a lack of evidence. I think of it in the same way a court would think of "priors"
Take your pick:
The PLO: decries violence but avoids taking actual action against know terrorists and actually encourages martyrdom whenever a western camera is out of range. Arafat has scuttled two peace deals (once with helpfrom Netanyahu) This is well documented and spread throughout the middle east. As far as CANADIAN MOSQUES in MONTREAL and TORONTO, we have acquired recruitment tapes for Al Queda type training camps and calls to martyrdom. Check the CBC documentaries on this.
Iraq and Saddam. We comply, we don't comply, inspectors get out, we welcome inspectors. If you don't see this as anything other than obstinate non-compliance, then you're blind.
Iran. Incourages the murder of western people, the subjugation of women and the supression of personal liberties in the name of Allah. Yes, when something particularly heinous happens they pay lip service to "justice" but nothing changes.
Saudi Arabia. Apart fromthe links to bin laden and the fund raising for and promotion of martyrs, they've taken to arbitrarily arresting certain westerners and putting them on death row without cause and holding them as pawns in negotiation. It's abstracted a few levels from kidnapping, disguised as it is under a pretence of law, but it's really a diplomatic manouver used from time to time.
The track record of these regimes speaks for itself as much of that of the united states, moreso in fact. You are absolutely free to conclude that the US gov't is full of shady characters and scum buckets, I wouldn't disagree, but if we're measuring depravity and corruption in regimes, then the US has a lot of company on the chart.
First off, the U.S. was warned and did nothing. Does that at least support the case that the Americans want the U.N. gone?
Second, your ramblings about the Saudis, true or not, are no different than the anti-Bush ramblings the conservatives around here get all up in arms about. When a liberal spouts things about Bush like you do the Saudis, there's a windfall of people claiming that it something out of Roswell. Just an observation.
The US may have been warned. The US did request and recommend that the UN improve the security around their facility, using concrete baracades, zig-zag entrances etc. The UN refused, citing the desire to not put forth a military image, but a human and humanitarian image. Public image won out over security...how can you blame the US for this..this was a UN decision.
The attack against the U.N. runs totally counter to the flow in Iraq.
Whoever organized this terrorist attack is undoubtedly some party who hates the U.N. enough to want them to quit Iraq as soon as possible. Iraqi resistance organizations, including the Arab League, have condemned and denounced this bombing as an act of terrorism. There is no reason for the Iraq resistance to bomb the United Nations, which is the main hope for stabilizing things after the months of chaos and destruction.
umm...hmmm..yeah, why would the be "no reason for the Iraq resistance to bomb the United Nations", which is as you say "the main hope for stabilizing things after the months of chaos and destruction." Why exactly would the resistance want stability? Oh, yeah, right...they wouldn't. Which all alone negates the rest of your hypothesis conpletely, since it is based on that really way off base statement.
Blame everything on Bush and see if something stick...
Comments
Originally posted by sammi jo
The attack against the U.N. runs totally counter to the flow in Iraq.
Whoever organized this terrorist attack is undoubtedly some party who hates the U.N. enough to want them to quit Iraq as soon as possible. Iraqi resistance organizations, including the Arab League, have condemned and denounced this bombing as an act of terrorism. There is no reason for the Iraq resistance to bomb the United Nations, which is the main hope for stabilizing things after the months of chaos and destruction.
World opinion desperately wants the U.N. to take over with a peacekeeping force....except for the U.S. and Israel, which for obvious reasons are determined that the military presence is maintained. The PNAC website has all the plans. It looks like the bombing is a staged piece of terrorism designed to scare the U.N. into "further irrelevance".
The war (aka a prolonged act of international terrorism perpetrated by the Bush Administration) has already killed up to 8000 civilians. To sacrifice 20 more innocent lives in a staged terrorist act for the considerable political coup of elbowing out the U.N. is no skin off the noses of Wolfowitz, Cheney et al. Just like Saddam Hussein , these politicians have no conscience or humanity.
This is almost to stupid to warrant a response, but having myself been stupid longer than most, I'll venture an answer where the others might just be too flabbergasted for words.
Counter to what flow? The whole history of the middle east is to decieve through diplomacy and then instigate through terror. The PLO sues for peace and then blows up a bus load of Jews, the Saudis denounce terror and then fund the activities of martyrs -- they even had the balls to hold a telethon for the families of palestinian suicide bombers, if they're willing to go that far publicly, you cannot speculate faz enough into their backroom dealings in support of terror, there's a money trail a mile wide, the US has protected it, continues to protect it even, for political expedience. However, even the US is close to moving Saudi Arabia out of their favor, all that lies between is the stabilization of Iraq and then the long deserved extermination of the Saudi royal family is at hand. It's tricky, cause the devil that comes after them migh be worse: the clerics, but after 20 years American patience is wearing thin.
If you want to play message board analyst, then be intelligent. The people with the most to gain from destabilizing Iraq at this moment are the Saudis to whom our attention would turn the moment we substitute their oil supply.
Do we have our own hawks? Of course, but they don't need to blow up the UN to get them on side and any suggestion of such is ridiculous, they just ignore the UN when that bureaucratic quagmire proves to slow, they have aptly demonstrated that they feel they do not need the UN to either stay or go.
But it doesn't even go that far. This is the scatter-bomb approach that terrorists like. The Ba'ath and shi-ite's lower levels are running about a little directionless and it's more important for them to attack anything western than be selective about who/what that might be. Though it is obvious that Saddam learned from his first gulf war experience and has planned alll along to fight a "resistance" campaign rather than get burned in a war. Resistance campaigns, like vietnam, can work by transforming the enemy into an occupier who is either seen as unjust or otherwise it loses interest and commitment itself and leaves the campaign after a time.
PS.
At this point it would be wise for you to lay off the weed. Excessive use makes you paranoid and you don't need any more.
The PNAC website has all the plans. It looks like the bombing is a staged piece of terrorism designed to scare the U.N. into "further irrelevance".
The war (aka a prolonged act of international terrorism perpetrated by the Bush Administration) has already killed up to 8000 civilians. To sacrifice 20 more innocent lives in a staged terrorist act for the considerable political coup of elbowing out the U.N. is no skin off the noses of Wolfowitz, Cheney et al. Just like Saddam Hussein , these politicians have no conscience or humanity.
So, the war was a prolonged act of international terrorism...and the UN attack was orchestrated by politicians to make the UN even more irrelevant. OK. got it.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The attack against the U.N. runs totally counter to the flow in Iraq.
Whoever organized this terrorist attack is undoubtedly some party who hates the U.N. enough to want them to quit Iraq as soon as possible. Iraqi resistance organizations, including the Arab League, have condemned and denounced this bombing as an act of terrorism. There is no reason for the Iraq resistance to bomb the United Nations, which is the main hope for stabilizing things after the months of chaos and destruction.
World opinion desperately wants the U.N. to take over with a peacekeeping force....except for the U.S. and Israel, which for obvious reasons are determined that the military presence is maintained. The PNAC website has all the plans. It looks like the bombing is a staged piece of terrorism designed to scare the U.N. into "further irrelevance".
The war (aka a prolonged act of international terrorism perpetrated by the Bush Administration) has already killed up to 8000 civilians. To sacrifice 20 more innocent lives in a staged terrorist act for the considerable political coup of elbowing out the U.N. is no skin off the noses of Wolfowitz, Cheney et al. Just like Saddam Hussein , these politicians have no conscience or humanity.
Yeah, let's try to not to make accusations unless we have real evidence. You think that perhaps Hussein's regime doesn't quite like the UN? You know, all those sanctions and resolutions over the years might just piss off a few people. Hell, I bet even some of the average everyday Iraqi, Josed Iraqi if you will, citizens hate the UN because those UN sanctions weren't even doing much damage to Hussein et al but rather the civilian population itself.
See SDW, you aren't the only one with insane ideas. Just attacking the idea man.
Originally posted by LiquidR
What I mean is, to allow Iraq within OPEC once more, someone has to reduce the amount of oil exported to allow Iraq that qoutient. OPEC regulations of their members only allow a certain amount of oil to be sold by each member to keep things fair for all members. And only a certain amount can be exported as to not flood the market and drive down the value.
But with Iraq functioning outside of OPEC, they'll all be screwed worse than just lowering their quotient. Iraq would be able to undermine all of their quotients and then some. So getting Iraq into OPEC would be, at the very least, the lesser of two evils for OPEC.
Originally posted by segovius
Try Abu Nidal.
Abu Nidal which means " father of the struggle " sprang from the loins of the PLO..It split off when the ideological differences became too great.
Nidal ( now defunct ) ..was marxist in the sense that like the PLO it used the same sort of rhetorical language.
In a wider historical sense the PLO "borrowed'" the marxist terminology in the1950's ( at the height of the cold war ), to align itself to its then arabic neighbours..Including Egypt's president Nassar who was openly courting the communist Russians as was Syria and other middle eastern countries.
At the time the marxist language dovetailed perfectly with the PLO's ( & abu Nidal ) political ambitions.
But now, this language is bitting the PLO in the tail..as such marxist rhetoric has fallen out of favor with all its neighbors..
In consequence, Hamas etc are ideologically distinct in urging the overthrow of Israel..That the enemy of my friend is also my enemy does not enter into the equation..
And does nothing to get you off the hook..
The question still remains..Nname me one fundamentalist Islamic Marxist terrorist group ?
Point is you can't because it is an ideological contradiction in terms..
Originally posted by LiquidR
What I mean is, to allow Iraq within OPEC once more, someone has to reduce the amount of oil exported to allow Iraq that qoutient. OPEC regulations of their members only allow a certain amount of oil to be sold by each member to keep things fair for all members. And only a certain amount can be exported as to not flood the market and drive down the value.
Iraq is an OPEC member but at this point does not have a quota.
Originally posted by giant
Iraq is an OPEC member but at this point does not have a quota.
Leave it to giant to be better informed than the rest of us.
Originally posted by BR
Yeah, let's try to not to make accusations unless we have real evidence. You think that perhaps Hussein's regime doesn't quite like the UN? You know, all those sanctions and resolutions over the years might just piss off a few people. Hell, I bet even some of the average everyday Iraqi, Josed Iraqi if you will, citizens hate the UN because those UN sanctions weren't even doing much damage to Hussein et al but rather the civilian population itself.
See SDW, you aren't the only one with insane ideas. Just attacking the idea man.
BR, nobody knows who was responsible, and quite possibily, nobody ever will. Yes, we will get the usual "explanations" and finger pointing, and we will dutifully consign it to the endless and growing list of atrocities committed by whatever militant islamist group is the bogeyman of the hour.
If the US military and FBI are investigating this attack, and the crime just happened to be a home-brew imitating the methods of the many existing Arabic terror groups, then a fair and balanced conclusion is an impossibility. There is nothing ridiculous about using the cover of "terrorism" to achieve an aim...in this case to intimidate that 1940s dinosaur, the hated U.N., which stands in the way of American empire, (as outlined in the PNAC documents). It is these folk who are in the driving seat of this administration, and Rumsfeld, a chief PNAC author is probably the most powerful politician in Washington right now. A truck bomb would be an kids play for intelligence services or military, and such things have been done in the past on numerous occasions in numerous countries for political ends. Load truck with some dead Iraqis (theres plenty of those scattered about the countryside), aim truck at building...booom.
There is nothing any more far-fetched about this possibility than all the others brought up here.
originally posted by giant
Iraq is an OPEC member but at this point does not have a quota.
So I and the so called expert on NPR are mis-informed. Same effect once Iraq gets their oil infrastructure back online, whether if they stay with OPEC or not.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...fromEmail=true
Originally posted by LiquidR
Same effect once Iraq gets their oil infrastructure back online, whether if they stay with OPEC or not.
I still say bringing them into a quota, even if it lowers some of the exports of everyone in OPEC, it keeps closer to the status quo. If Iraq is in the free market, all of OPEC will be forced to follow causing far greater losses for those in OPEC.
Originally posted by LiquidR
So I and the so called expert on NPR are mis-informed. Same effect once Iraq gets their oil infrastructure back online, whether if they stay with OPEC or not.
I don't know, but it's likely you heard him wrong. People commonly refer to the "OPEC 10" ever since the sanctions were put on Iraq.
As for who did the bombing, we don't know. It's great to speculate and all, but to put it on the saudi government (no matter who that is supposed to refer to) is pretty naive. it's important to remember that the neo-cons, who are only gaining in power, have been progressively building up a propaganda campaign against the saudis, and have discussed this for a while. My understanding is that the neocons and bushes disagree on this point, but those neocons have been pushing for it for a while. They have discussed it in their articles for a couple years, and, the hersh article on perle even had this bit from Saudi ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan (who, for all you bushies, happens to be extremely close with the Bush family):
?There is a split personality to Perle,? Bandar said. ?Here he is, on the one hand, trying to make a hundred-million-dollar deal, and, on the other hand, there were elements of the appearance of blackmail??If we get in business, he?ll back off on Saudi Arabia??as I have been informed by participants in the meeting.?
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030317fa_fact
Really, the fact that the main anti-saudi US neo-cons are also the Israel Firsters (are there many that aren't?) shows the one clear motive. Maybe Bandar's right on another.
Anyhoo, it's pretty important to go check out the PNAC papers when discussing neo-con policy toward the saudis and the growing anti-saudi ideas they are dispersing through their propaganda.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in541815.shtml
go to "UN Bombing: Video" on the left, Click on "Aug. 19" in the upper left-hand corner and hit the link: "Raw Footage: Iraq Blast"
It will make you feel kind of foul after you see it, though.
Saddam loyalists/Shiites did this, not Amercans, not Saudis. Each of the other two have their own atrocities to answer for, but frankly, I could care less about the self flaggelating American guiltoholic left. First we nail saddam, then Saudi royals, then all their friends.
I do blame them for directly financing 9-11, as I did pretty much the day after it all started, and implied many times before 9-11, when the quetsion of terrorism came up. They are most surely the bank-rollers of palestinian "freedom fighters" so we know that they fund terror. A member of their family, Bin Laden, supposedly dispossed of all his holdings and the most wanted man on earth, eludes capture, do you really have to wonder too hard about that?
PS, why do you think the upper echelons of American security, military and intelligence have turned sour on Saudi Arabia? Perhaps they've gotten tired of obscuring the trail that ties middle east terror to the Saudi Royals? I don't imagine for a second that we're "nice guys" and didn't know anything about their dealings, afetrall, Bin Laden was once our instrument, as was Saddam. But it gets to a point where these guys become a little too dangerous/ambitious. I have absolutely no problems with smacking them down, hard enough for their grandchildren to feel it.
Abu Nidal (the individual) was notorious for selling his services to the highest bidder, on occassion he pretended to be a muslim, on others he was a Marxist and again he worked for the Israelis.
Worked for the Israeli's ? Sedgey, you must be like a bottle of old port..the longer you tank it the sweeter, & drunker it makes you..
He was, if you will, a quadruple plus agent under deep, deep cover whose only motivation was money. They should make a movie of the guy...
What about Muhammad Atta ? You don't have to rationalise it, just give me your personal take on how you square the contradiction for yourself. By not admitting there is one ? Or do you have a more analytical take ? Just curious.
last night, I was in the middle of repsonding to just this point when my 4 hour long limit went bink & cut me off.. By then, It was about 1 Am so I decided to get some shut eye....
Now as to your question regarding Atta..I see absolutely NO problem..
Consider this..Firstly, he knows what his mission is about..secondly his handlers deferred all questions of faith & action back to their cleric..
It is not a precedent in allowing the warriors of Islam to taste the fruits of the vine and to have illicit sex before their date with destiny.
It could have easily been justified by the cleric by saying that he, ( Atta ) & his fellow hijackers..were allowed a taste of what heaven promises to all those foot soldiers who die in defending the cause of Islam.
Furthermore, Atta considered all women virtually nothing but chattels & sex in that respect had absolutely no meaning...& no affect on his own sense of "purity "...
This would be completely in keeping with their movement's distortion of Islam..
That it is abhorrant behaviour to mainstream muslims would mean nothing..as Atta and his ilk would have considered them wrong in their interpretation of the Koran.
Just as the KKK or Nazi's had their own deeply devout " christians ", who were able to justify killing jews, burning crosses, hangings, torture and even having sex with those they were going to kill goes towards answering your challenge.
Anything is justifiable..just don't fall into the trap of measuring it by normal interpretations of christianity or Islam..
cheers Aqua
Originally posted by Matsu
A ridiculous case was made that this bombing is some sort of American ploy because it would be convenient to have the UN gone.
First off, the U.S. was warned and did nothing. Does that at least support the case that the Americans want the U.N. gone?
Second, your ramblings about the Saudis, true or not, are no different than the anti-Bush ramblings the conservatives around here get all up in arms about. When a liberal spouts things about Bush like you do the Saudis, there's a windfall of people claiming that it something out of Roswell. Just an observation.
Anyway, my comments about the Saudis (royal family) are spot on and well founded. America's own neo-con attitudes, so often mentioned here are just another layer of proof that the intel communities ahve decided that the Saudis are rapidly becoming an unmanageable risk. I agree that Iraq is a ploy to gain leverage to stop a greater threat. Unlike the critics, I don't particularly care if America wants to play empire. I'd rather have an American empire than any other empire you could name, we could use a little American empire in some parts of the world, but that's another discussion.
We pretty much know the Saudis have been funding terrorism for years. Evidence? It's in the family, Bin Laden is well hidden despite being the most wanted man in the world. The Saudi Royals are not lightweights, their intelligence/network in the middle eastern world is probably second only to Isreal's. It's naive to assume they don't know where Bin Laden is at, roughly speaking. They routinely held very public fund raising for the families of martyrs, when it became news in the west, they re-spun this practice to say they were raising money for displaced palestinians. A money trail goes from the Saudi Royals directly to the 9-11 hijackers. Right now, the US classifies this info for their own purposes, but we know of the money and of the intelligence. These were not scholarships, it's highly unlikely that they were scholarships since, as far as I know, intelligence communities seldom hand over bursaries for foreign study, and also we immediately knew a lot about the hijackers in the days after 9-11. We know the hijackers were aprehended and lost on multiple occasions in the snafus between the Canada-US border, we were keeping an eye on them, meaning someone informed us about something, meaning someone in the middle east knew these weren't "students" and made us aware. Our own failing was a tradgedy of ineptitude and criminal negligence on the part of our travel industry ( an over 20 year history abominable safety practice in fact)
But that's besides the point. All the political pointers have for a long long time told us that about the increasing duplicity of the Saudi leaders. They are in part constrained by the difficulties of maintaining power in their old countries.
What I don't understand is how a group of people who are (rightly) sensitive to the habits of American diplomatic practice suddenly become blind to the habits of middle eastern regimes and claim a lack of evidence. I think of it in the same way a court would think of "priors"
Take your pick:
The PLO: decries violence but avoids taking actual action against know terrorists and actually encourages martyrdom whenever a western camera is out of range. Arafat has scuttled two peace deals (once with helpfrom Netanyahu) This is well documented and spread throughout the middle east. As far as CANADIAN MOSQUES in MONTREAL and TORONTO, we have acquired recruitment tapes for Al Queda type training camps and calls to martyrdom. Check the CBC documentaries on this.
Iraq and Saddam. We comply, we don't comply, inspectors get out, we welcome inspectors. If you don't see this as anything other than obstinate non-compliance, then you're blind.
Iran. Incourages the murder of western people, the subjugation of women and the supression of personal liberties in the name of Allah. Yes, when something particularly heinous happens they pay lip service to "justice" but nothing changes.
Saudi Arabia. Apart fromthe links to bin laden and the fund raising for and promotion of martyrs, they've taken to arbitrarily arresting certain westerners and putting them on death row without cause and holding them as pawns in negotiation. It's abstracted a few levels from kidnapping, disguised as it is under a pretence of law, but it's really a diplomatic manouver used from time to time.
The track record of these regimes speaks for itself as much of that of the united states, moreso in fact. You are absolutely free to conclude that the US gov't is full of shady characters and scum buckets, I wouldn't disagree, but if we're measuring depravity and corruption in regimes, then the US has a lot of company on the chart.
Originally posted by bunge
First off, the U.S. was warned and did nothing. Does that at least support the case that the Americans want the U.N. gone?
Second, your ramblings about the Saudis, true or not, are no different than the anti-Bush ramblings the conservatives around here get all up in arms about. When a liberal spouts things about Bush like you do the Saudis, there's a windfall of people claiming that it something out of Roswell. Just an observation.
The US may have been warned. The US did request and recommend that the UN improve the security around their facility, using concrete baracades, zig-zag entrances etc. The UN refused, citing the desire to not put forth a military image, but a human and humanitarian image. Public image won out over security...how can you blame the US for this..this was a UN decision.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The attack against the U.N. runs totally counter to the flow in Iraq.
Whoever organized this terrorist attack is undoubtedly some party who hates the U.N. enough to want them to quit Iraq as soon as possible. Iraqi resistance organizations, including the Arab League, have condemned and denounced this bombing as an act of terrorism. There is no reason for the Iraq resistance to bomb the United Nations, which is the main hope for stabilizing things after the months of chaos and destruction.
umm...hmmm..yeah, why would the be "no reason for the Iraq resistance to bomb the United Nations", which is as you say "the main hope for stabilizing things after the months of chaos and destruction." Why exactly would the resistance want stability? Oh, yeah, right...they wouldn't. Which all alone negates the rest of your hypothesis conpletely, since it is based on that really way off base statement.
Blame everything on Bush and see if something stick...