Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (5492)	8/20/2003 10:40:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793656

That Mossedagh wished to establish a social democracy in Iran Oh, you must have loved that book! Another "Agrarian Reformer" knocked off by the CIA. They spent the entire cold war wiping out good democrats and propping up Dictators, didn't they? Just because they were mean and evil. Jimmy Carter? Screwed up in letting Iran go to the Mullahs? Oh, that never happened, did it? :>)

To: JohnM who wrote (5492)	8/20/2003 10:41:38 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793656

Them vs. the Civilized World U.N. bombing in Baghdad. James Robbings, NRO We have suffered greatly from the United Nations. Under no circumstances should any Muslim or sane person resort to the United Nations. The United Nations is nothing but a tool of crime. - Osama bin Laden, November 3, 2001 The terrorist bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was a particularly brutal and senseless act of violence. Whose idea was it to kill Sergio Vieira de Mello, U.N. special representative in Iraq and former High Commissioner for Human Rights? Who thought it would be useful for the cause to murder Chris Klein-Beckman the head of UNICEF in Iraq? How would all the other dozens of death and casualties bring about the Islamic paradise the terrorists say they are fighting to establish? If nothing else, killing this group of peaceful people pursuing a humanitarian mission demonstrated the terrorists? sincerity. They really are at war with the civilized world. As of this writing it is hard to determine who was behind the bombing. Al Qaeda declared war on the U.N. in 2001, but Saddam had a grudge going back to 1990. The National Islamic Resistance, the name used by a group claiming to be the umbrella organization of Iraqis opposed to the liberation, denied having anything to do with the bombing, and condemned it as a criminal act. This dovetails with the idea that the attack was the work of foreign infiltrators, perhaps in league with Ansar al-Islam, the al Qaeda affiliate from northern Iraq. It is also noteworthy that on Monday al Qaeda spokesman Abdel Rahman Al-Najdi called for increased attacks in Iraq, though did not mention going after the U.N. specifically. The most recent U.N. transgression from the terrorist point of view was unanimously passing UNSC Resolution 1500, which recognized the authority of the new Iraqi ruling council and established the U.N. Assistance Mission. (Syria, notably, abstained from the vote, citing that the resolution did not contain a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.) This may have been the motive for the attack. It parallels the car bombing of the Jordanian embassy, ostensibly for granting Saddam?s daughters asylum, but also for generally supporting the Coalition in its regime-change mission. Both attacks were apparently punitive, and both against soft targets. Rather than focusing their energies against the United States, the terrorists are aiming at anyone against who they have a grudge, and in the process strengthening the argument that they represent a threat to peace generally, and strengthening the international anti-terror Coalition. There may be a method to their particular type of madness. I was reminded of Rwanda in 1994. The Hutus kicked off their genocide by hacking apart ten Belgian U.N. peacekeepers as a warning to outsiders not to get involved. In this case it worked ? the U.N. did not respond to the mounting slaughter despite daily entreaties by the local U.N.-0forces commander, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, who later suffered a nervous breakdown. This event could be one of the inspirations for the Baghdad bombing, simple intimidation through a gross act of violence. It worked in Africa, it could work in Iraq. But much has changed since the 1990s. Even the U.N. can recognize that it was the collective failed leadership of that era that spawned the very threat we now are fighting. That lesson has been learned. These days, attacks of this sort this do not discourage or deter, they intensify resolve. Vieira de Mello might seem a poorly chosen victim. He did not support Coalition military action against Iraq, and in one of his last interviews described the occupation of Iraq as ?traumatic. This must be one of the most humiliating periods in the history of this people. How would you like it if your country were to be occupied?? He believed stability could be achieved by restoring Iraq?s infrastructure, establishing an Iraqi police force, and phasing out the Coalition presence as soon as possible. Laudable goals ? but directly at variance with those of the terrorists. If the Iraqi people establish their own democratic government in a climate of peace and security, the Islamic revolution won?t stand a chance. So the terrorists strike targets that increase the misery of the Iraqi people, like electrical lines and water mains; that deny them the income they need to build their new state, like oil pipelines; and that make international involvement in the development process as difficult and dangerous as possible. Most of these types of targets are easier to attack than military installations or convoys. The U.N. headquarters could have been beefed up ? Vieira had recommended as much, ironically ? but the U.N. did not want an American-supplied security perimeter. Perhaps they believed that associating that closely with the United States would increase the danger of attack, but in fact it was the headquarters? own weakness that made it irresistible to the bombers. Thus far international reaction to the bombing is universally condemnatory. There are no signs yet that the U.N. will use it as a pretext to leave Iraq. And this tragedy, like the Bali bombing in 2002, or the 9/11 attacks, serves to clarify both the high stakes for which the war is being fought, and the intensity of the enemy?s hatred for all that is not them. Despite what one might think about the U.N. as an organization, the victims of the Baghdad bombing were humanitarian workers on a mission to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. From the terrorist point of view, this is why they had to die. When the radicals say they loathe everything the civilized world stands for, believe it. nationalreview.com