WAR: UN Finds Lebanese Report on Hariri Car Bombing Unsubstantial - Seeks Revision

A UN report found late Thursday afternoon that the Lebanese government's inquiry into the car bombing, killing Prime Minister Rafik Hariri among 17 others, was inconsistent and flawed. The Lebanese team of investigators neither has the capacity nor commitment to continue in a forward momentum. The UN has urged an international inquisition, although they admit there are still no strong leads as to who was behind the assassination. Presently, the burden of assessment has been placed on Syria, claiming that they "interfered" with the Lebanese government. This request for further investigation was initiated by UN Security Council, General Kofi Annan.

Last week, Syria began moving its 14,000 troops to the Bekaa Valley near the border with Lebanon and promised to bring all the troops and intelligence officials across the border into Syria as soon as possible.
www.cnn.com...

This strikes me as interesting....Isn't it usually the reverse? The country to blame refuses to withdrawal their troops and resists the international community’s wishes. I'm not sure where to stand on this one....

Clearly both parties share a large chunk of the blame....Syria's overburdening and ill-equipped presence....and the Lebanese' general passive manner of dealing with pressing issues...






Related News Links:
www.cnn.com
www9.sbs.com.au

Here's what that UN Report also indicated:

A UN fact-finding team reported yesterday that President Assad of Syria had threatened Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, “with physical harm”. But it stopped short of pinning his assassination on Damascus.

Syria leader threatened Hariri, says UN report

As for this mention:

This strikes me as interesting....Isn't it usually the reverse? The country to blame refuses to withdrawal their troops and resists the international community’s wishes. I'm not sure where to stand on this one.

Lebanese anti-Syria protests began.
Syria did resist/refuse to withdraw.
Then France weighed in, then the US, then Russia, then the UN.

What I find interesting, contrary to what you have stated as being interesting, is that Syria choose to withdraw temporarily to Bekaa Valley. The same Bekaa Valley that a Syrian journalist, among other international sourcings, indicated was where some of Saddam's/Iraq's WMDs were moved to. Is Syria temporarily stopping at the Bekaa Valley so as to facilitate the moving of those hidden alleged WMDs? That's another matter within itself, and has been discussed already within ATS. I'm just giving an alternative perspective to what I thought was "interesting."

Another interesting tidbit:
Syria gives up control only to be replaced by Iranian? Iranian? Yep, Hezbollah.






seekerof

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Thanks for that clarification on my behalf Seekerof....To use our favorite word again, that is quite "interesting".....

Hezbollah certainly does appear to fit the bill here...If there's a fight in the pub down the street, chances are there was a radical Shiite or two there....

I must admit I have the common American downfall of lumping together recent news on the middle east into one big hairball and then quickly disposing of it, so to speak....But nonetheless, I do know a little bit of my history, and I find it quite a shame to see an end to their attempts at peace and civil obedience come so rapidly to a halt....:shk:

Surely, finding the culprit will not so quickly bring a closing on this situation....


[edit on 3/24/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

as posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
Surely, finding the culprit will not so quickly bring a closing on this situation....

Not really a 'clarification' on my part.
Your opinion and thought on this was just as valid.

I too would like to know who the culprit was. I think there is a thread or two running around ATS that discusses some possibilities to who or whom the culprit is or may be, but nothing really hard or conclusive has been found, other than this report stating/indicating what it does.




seekerof

international independent commission, sounds good to me, but,

Does the UN have enough credibilluity left to be that international independent commission ?

I mean this UN statement coincides with the following timed news:

Kojo Annan, son of Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, received at least $300,000 in payments linked to a Swiss company, which had a contract under the UN sponsored Iraq oil-for-food programme.

So, is somebody applying pressing Kofi to deliver and get himselve/son and the UN off the hook??? The U.N is hanging on a thin thread and somebody might be pulling it..?


[edit on 25-3-2005 by Silenus]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Silenus]

I'm not sure the UN would be any better at this. They can't even figure out what's going on in the Sudan. Or react effectively to it.

It would be nice to bring some real hard core, CSI style investigation in, find out not just the group, but the individuals.

Problem is, much of that expertise will be American, Japanese, British, German, etc. Not local to the Middle East and not accepted by the man on the street.

Besides, they might actually find out who's behind it, and the last thing certain royal families and EU businessmen want is the truth being found.

Go get 'em, Grissom!