TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- explosion at UN in baghdad
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

explosion at UN in baghdad

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Aug19.html

is anyone else worried this could wind up like vietnam? a larger, more powerful military force just can't win because guerilla warfare is so persistent?

there isn't a good way to defeat guerillas without saturating the country and becoming paranoid dictators ourselves, and even then an effective underground can still operate. looking grim...

Re: explosion at UN in baghdad

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Aug19.html is anyone else worried this could wind up like vietnam? a larger, more powerful military force just can't win because guerilla warfare is so persistent? there isn't a good way to defeat guerillas without saturating the country and becoming paranoid dictators ourselves, and even then an effective underground can still operate. looking grim...

we all know that the guerilla's arent the majority in iraq and that if america were to leave now they would take control of iraq and create a new minority ruled oppressive regimn, we dont want to have this whole taking over iraq thing become a cycle.

i belive the guerilla movement can be beaten if the occupation is stuck through until the new governing body of iraq can control such insurgencies.

The guerilla movement may be quashed in time, but events such as this one will keep occurring with regularity over the next two years. In their rush to push their cause for war through, I get the feeling that the coalition hadn't adequately planned the post-war reconstruction of Iraq, and lack the resources - at present - to deal with these militant groups or to repair essential infrastructure. Expect to hear the word "quagmire" a fair bit in the coming months.

Any, with regards to this bombing, they've confirmed 3 dead and a number still missing including UN representative Sergio Vieira de Mello who is, from what I can gather, the highest ranking UN official in the country at the moment (- see here -). Still no word on a cause or of any groups claiming responsibility.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...ures/index.html

more of these tactics should be used, 0wn4ge

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...ures/index.html more of these tactics should be used, 0wn4ge

Ugh, that's pathetic. We'll see how these tactics "improve troop morale" once the loyalists begin to intensify their attacks on troops in retaliation.

quote:

"The bad guys are going to be upset," Lt. Col. Steve Russell told Reuters. "Which will just make it easier for us to know who they are."

Yep they'll be the ones shooting at the troops and setting off car bombs outside embassies - they are not, as some clearly seem to think, Palestinian journalists holding cameras. The entire thing would be farcical if it wasn't so gravely serious.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yep they'll be the ones shooting at the troops and setting off car bombs outside embassies - they are not, as some clearly seem to think, Palestinian journalists holding cameras. The entire thing would be farcical if it wasn't so gravely serious.

u.s. troops killed a foreign journalist (i can't remember the nationality, i think german) with a video camera because they thought he was holding a shoulder grenade launcher.

it is gravely serious and the troops are wound up and nervous. they're castigated for thinking attackers are journalists, then excoriated for thinking journalists are attackers.

the article i read was in the print edition of one of the newspapers i get, can't remember which, otherwise i would post a link. anyway, the partner of the journalist who was killed had nasty things to say, essentially accusing troops of knowing he was a journalist and shooting anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil u.s. troops killed a foreign journalist (i can't remember the nationality, i think german) with a video camera because they thought he was holding a shoulder grenade launcher. it is gravely serious and the troops are wound up and nervous. they're castigated for thinking attackers are journalists, then excoriated for thinking journalists are attackers.

The cameraman was Palestinian:

quote:

Sunday, in an incident that has prompted renewed protests and concern from news operations and journalist groups, a Palestinian cameraman for Reuters TV, Mazen Dana, 43, was shot by a U.S. tank crew as he recorded footage outside a prison near Baghdad.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/column...media-mix_x.htm

And while it's hard to blame the troops for the conditions they've been put into by the politicians, there still needs to be some restraint shown. It seems like everyday there's a new story about the troops opening fire on journalists or protesters. Take a look at this from the article I provided above:

quote:

Dana's camera apparently was mistaken for a grenade launcher, even though he and his crew had been cleared by military officials.

And then read this:

quote:

But journalists who witnessed the incident said the shooting was result of tension affecting US troops in Iran. "We were all there, for at least half an hour. They knew we were journalists. After they shot Mazen, they aimed their guns at us. I don't think it was accident. They are very tense. They are crazy," said Stephan Breitner of France 2 television. [...] "There were many journalists around. They knew we were journalists. This was not an accident," he said. Reuters quoted soundman Nael al-Shyoukhi, who was with Dana, as saying that the US soldiers "saw us and they knew about our identities and our mission. "After we filmed we went into the car and prepared to go when a convoy led by a tank arrived and Mazen stepped out of the car to film. I followed him and Mazen walked three to four metres. We were noted and seen clearly," al-Shyoukhi said.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story...7%255E2,00.html

Hard to know what else to say really.

And back on topic, the death toll from the bombing now stands at 13:

quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A large truck bomb ripped through the U.N. headquarters in Iraq on Tuesday killing at least 13 people and wounding dozens, U.N. officials said. Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. special representative to Iraq, was among those wounded in the blast, which caused one side of the Canal Hotel to collapse -- trapping him and others in the rubble. The bombing continues a recent pattern of attacks on non-military targets in Iraq. Over the weekend, oil, water and electricity lines were attacked by what coalition spokesman called saboteurs. And earlier this month, a car bomb exploded outside the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, leaving 10 people dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...main/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Ugh, that's pathetic. We'll see how these tactics "improve troop morale" once the loyalists begin to intensify their attacks on troops in retaliation.

shows you why i support the US... this is one method in which the US is using non violent means and to which is responded too by violent actions, if anyone is to blame it's not the US. i hate how you guys throw back everything good the US does back at them and say its bad. (and yes regime change in iraq was a good thing)

hold on guys taking more thought on this, i dont know why this should be americas problem alone. they could have attacked the american embassy or other america targets but they decided to attack the UN, the UN people, obviously these attacker are agianst what the UN stands for, it was attack not only agianst the US but agianst most all countries of the world. where is the outrage agaisnt these extreme fanatics?

quote:

shows you why i support the US... this is one method in which the US is using non violent means and to which is responded too by violent actions, if anyone is to blame it's not the US. i hate how you guys throw back everything good the US does back at them and say its bad.

I'm not necessarily saying it's "bad" just that it's more likely to have the opposite effect it was intended to have. If these pictures incite more attacks against troops, then how is it likely to improve morale? It's senseless in the same way that Bush's "bring 'em on" comment was - it's unnecessarily bellicose and I fail to see the point in saying or doing anything that needlessly incites an escalation in violence against US troops.

quote:

hold on guys taking more thought on this, i dont know why this should be americas problem alone. they could have attacked the american embassy or other america targets but they decided to attack the UN, the UN people, obviously these attacker are agianst what the UN stands for, it was attack not only agianst the US but agianst most all countries of the world. where is the outrage agaisnt these extreme fanatics?

I would imagine (though I could be wrong) that the UN was targetted as it was seen as aiding the US in its "occupation" of Iraq. I don't believe that UN staff and embassies were ever targetted or under any threat in Iraq prior to the occupation.

Izzy has a good point.. You guys do realize it was the UN HQ that was blown to pieces.. not the US one.. Understand this point one would logically ony critize the UN about this..

Afterall lets say the French or Russian embassie was blown to bits in Iraq.. would you condemn the US for that to? For god sake take some responsibility on your own. After all the US did not want the UN in Iraq (maybe for partial fear of exactly what happened) but regardless the UN and the rest of the world wanted in... but they still won't take the responsibility for it.

It is not the US's fault the UN can't defend their own HQ... I mean obviously the US HQ was not blown up, I believe because it was heavely defended and secured.

You guys just don't get it do you. These same fanatics that were against the War, that are against the US, are also against the non-muslim world. When will you guys wake up and smell the burning bodies?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Izzy has a good point.. You guys do realize it was the UN HQ that was blown to pieces.. not the US one.. Understand this point one would logically ony critize the UN about this.. Afterall lets say the French or Russian embassie was blown to bits in Iraq.. would you condemn the US for that to? For god sake take some responsibility on your own. After all the US did not want the UN in Iraq (maybe for partial fear of exactly what happened) but regardless the UN and the rest of the world wanted in... but they still won't take the responsibility for it. It is not the US's fault the UN can't defend their own HQ... I mean obviously the US HQ was not blown up, I believe because it was heavely defended and secured. You guys just don't get it do you. These same fanatics that were against the War, that are against the US, are also against the non-muslim world. When will you guys wake up and smell the burning bodies?

BUT the United States is the occupying force and has the responsibility of maintaining order. I know, they're not accomplishing it. The UN did not invade Iraq, the United States did.

The building was not well defended. The suicide bomber drove a cement truck at high speed through a neighboring parking lot into the building.

quote:

Though there are security controls at the entrance to the United Nations compound, on the southeast outskirts of Baghdad, there are no security controls at the entrance of the parking lot next door

I agree that these people are against the non-Muslim world and not just the United States, but watch and see if the blame falls on the U.N. or the U.S. for security not being tight enough. The troops outside U.N. Headquarters are American. Are there even U.N. troops in Iraq (please don't flame me if this is a completely ignorant question)?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Izzy has a good point.. You guys do realize it was the UN HQ that was blown to pieces.. not the US one.. Understand this point one would logically ony critize the UN about this.. Afterall lets say the French or Russian embassie was blown to bits in Iraq.. would you condemn the US for that to? For god sake take some responsibility on your own. After all the US did not want the UN in Iraq (maybe for partial fear of exactly what happened) but regardless the UN and the rest of the world wanted in... but they still won't take the responsibility for it. It is not the US's fault the UN can't defend their own HQ... I mean obviously the US HQ was not blown up, I believe because it was heavely defended and secured. You guys just don't get it do you. These same fanatics that were against the War, that are against the US, are also against the non-muslim world. When will you guys wake up and smell the burning bodies?

Ook yes very interesting. But for my understanding the US made a commitment on restoring order and take care on everything there is to take care after the war ( Since the US started the war ). Now when it comes to making the US guilty for not protecting the UN facility.. well, the answer is easy. The US does not have enough power or even a small clue on how to even control Iraq, they cant even stop heaving their soldiers killed, how are they to protect the U.N.?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The cameraman was Palestinian: Hard to know what else to say really.

misread the post i originally quoted and responded to entirely! *smacks forehead and feels like an ass*

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil BUT the United States is the occupying force and has the responsibility of maintaining order. I know, they're not accomplishing it. The UN did not invade Iraq, the United States did. The building was not well defended. The suicide bomber drove a cement truck at high speed through a neighboring parking lot into the building.

Right but the UN after not invading Iraq still wanted to be there, and they must realize whatever country that has just been through a war is a dangerous place, be it Iraq or say France.

quote:

I agree that these people are against the non-Muslim world and not just the United States, but watch and see if the blame falls on the U.N. or the U.S. for security not being tight enough. The troops outside U.N. Headquarters are American. Are there even U.N. troops in Iraq (please don't flame me if this is a completely ignorant question)?

It is very interesting. I just found out that the UN (or at least some personel in it) is blaming the US already for the lack of security. However the UN HQ was lightly guarded by its own peacekeepers (not US), AND they declined US security protection (as reported by the Pentagon) claiming they did not want the appearance of a "fortress" but wanted a happy hippy easy access look to the Iraqi people.. who obviously really love and appreciate the easy access look. But regardless the UN knowing whats best for Iraqis wanted to appear open and as a free force working for their benifit. I don't think anyone one got the memo though.

The US has made it its own responsibility to protect the UN (I get this image of a little puppy running after its owner...) by its own part, but even it can not protect it if the UN declines the protection. But of course when it does deny the protection it still is the US fault as well.... Of course we all know now that the UN HQ is heavily gaurded by US troops now...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Right but the UN after not invading Iraq still wanted to be there, and they must realize whatever country that has just been through a war is a dangerous place, be it Iraq or say France.

absolutely. i was just discussing that with my family last night.

quote:

It is very interesting. I just found out that the UN (or at least some personel in it) is blaming the US already for the lack of security.

yep, one headline i read this morning called the explosion an embarrassment for the U.S. and the rest are following suit. "where U.S. protection failed" is a popular theme today.

quote:

The US has made it its own responsibility to protect the UN (I get this image of a little puppy running after its owner...) by its own part, but even it can not protect it if the UN declines the protection. But of course when it does deny the protection it still is the US fault as well.... Of course we all know now that the UN HQ is heavily gaurded by US troops now...

lovely picture yesterday of an American soldier standing behind an enormous gun and staring into the distance, some caption about American soldier now stationed out UN HQ accompanied.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil lovely picture yesterday of an American soldier standing behind an enormous gun and staring into the distance, some caption about American soldier now stationed out UN HQ accompanied.

Ya again, now not the image of a puppy dog (well I guess you can still use that one) but now I get one where its like a Mother going after a son. The son wants to do something dumb but on his own, like play by itself far away, so the Mom is like "Ok I'm against it but you are old enough now to take control for your actions and I can't control you anymore", and then the son falls flat on his face after a few steps and starts to cry. The Mom of course instantly picks him up again and says to herself "What an idiot I was, I'll never trust myself to leave you alone like that again" and keeps the son close to her side.

Staring; The mom as Lady Liberty herself.
The independent tripping Son as the UN HQ in Iraq
Casting; The International Situation
Directed by; Fanatical Arab-facists who want to bring down the world
Produced by; Saudi Oil Money

Now playing on a local TV screen near you.

Its the action-packed tradgey that everyone is taking about this end of summer.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Ya again, now not the image of a puppy dog (well I guess you can still use that one) but now I get one where its like a Mother going after a son. The son wants to do something dumb but on his own, like play by itself far away, so the Mom is like "Ok I'm against it but you are old enough now to take control for your actions and I can't control you anymore", and then the son falls flat on his face after a few steps and starts to cry. The Mom of course instantly picks him up again and says to herself "What an idiot I was, I'll never trust myself to leave you alone like that again" and keeps the son close to her side. Staring; The mom as Lady Liberty herself. The independent tripping Son as the UN HQ in Iraq Casting; The International Situation Directed by; Fanatical Arab-facists who want to bring down the world Produced by; Saudi Oil Money Now playing on a local TV screen near you. Its the action-packed tradgey that everyone is taking about this end of summer.

lol, great metaphor!

someone on the radio from abcnews said this explosion proves that iraq had WDMs

quote:

Originally posted by rizen someone on the radio from abcnews said this explosion proves that iraq had WDMs

are you sure it wasn't Fox News?

I find it odd that they would refuse an offer for protection. The police don't ask me if they should patrol my area, they just do it. They police the area, they have the intelligence and they know better than me what needs doing. We've heard the US side of the story, but all I can find from the UN at the moment are quotes from Kofi Annan who says he's unaware of any such offer. He stresses that it's wrong that it should be a matter of decision, and that if indeed an offer was refused then he criticises whoever was responsible.

I would have thought Kofi Annan of all people would have been aware if the UN had been offered let alone refused US protection! Something doesn't smell right, we'll have to wait for more details I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard I find it odd that they would refuse an offer for protection. The police don't ask me if they should patrol my area, they just do it. They police the area, they have the intelligence and they know better than me what needs doing. We've heard the US side of the story, but all I can find from the UN at the moment are quotes from Kofi Annan who says he's unaware of any such offer. He stresses that it's wrong that it should be a matter of decision, and that if indeed an offer was refused then he criticises whoever was responsible. I would have thought Kofi Annan of all people would have been aware if the UN had been offered let alone refused US protection! Something doesn't smell right, we'll have to wait for more details I guess.

oh no.. evil_bastard is back too.. its like one big horrible reunion

Look you are repeating what the clueless Kofi said the line where "the UN shouldn't be able to refuse protection". But they did. Iraq is not "RUN" by the US, it is run by the Iraqis and there are police and they are Iraqis and the Iraqi police are responsible (although highly incapable) of protecting all areas in Iraq. And therefore using his Kofi-logic Iraq is to blame for not protecting the UN which came to help protect the Iraqis... AHH brain is hurting.

The reality is Iraq is occupied. There is no police to protect the UN. There is a military. The military is a US military. The US military offered protection to UN, a person in the UN said no. Kofi cries to the mother "how could you let me do that.. you have to take care of me, I'm young and stupid".

To me, that message coming from the Government Body of the WORLD doesn't smell right.

And perhaps Kofi would do wise to shut up, get the facts straight and stop trying to blame everyone but his own government for its faults.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Iraq is not "RUN" by the US, it is run by the Iraqis and there are police and they are Iraqis and the Iraqi police are responsible (although highly incapable) of protecting all areas in Iraq. And therefore using his Kofi-logic Iraq is to blame for not protecting the UN which came to help protect the Iraqis... AHH brain is hurting.

so now you gonna blame Iraqi's guv(the US Popet) for this??lol
well maybe if the US gets out of there,we wouldnt have all these bombings???have you thought of that??

dont tell me they are there to bring democracy,well it seems like the Iraqi paople dont want that,but the US still insists for the Democratic government.So how is this freedom?they are forcing and not letting the people to choose the governemnt of their choice,because thats no good for the US for the sake of future terrorism!!!is the American government blind??ffs THEY DONT WANT YOU THERE!!!as long they stay,the the more Iraqi's will hate,the more they hate the more violence.

LEAVE Iraq!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard The police don't ask me if they should patrol my area, they just do it. They police the area, they have the intelligence and they know better than me what needs doing

with this logic i would belive that you thought the US didnt need to go to the UN to police the old iraqi government. So the US should have protected the UN without even asking after the invasion but should have asked the UN wether to protect the world prior to the invasion

quote:

dont tell me they are there to bring democracy,well it seems like the Iraqi paople dont want that

it might be a complete mistake to even debate with you but i call this non-sense.
firstly, wether the iraqis want it or not do you think a monarchy or dictatorship is better for the iraqis then a democracy?
secondly, we do not know that the iraqi people dont want democracy. did you make that up or are you basing your opinion on the few extreme fanatics that are conducting the guerilla warfare (some of which arent even iraqi nationals).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.