I was inspired to create this thread out of the latest incident that has resulted in aid-workers being captured as hostages. I am very upset by this,
because even insurgents in Iraq probably have their own set of logic and guidelines to follow.
They know, that in their position, that by targeting agencies and workers that are dedicated to the recuperation of their country, is nothing short of
foolish. Yet, this happens. And when it does, it gets a lot of media attention that wouldn't normally be available. Take for instance, how you rarely
(if at all) see footage of coalition military being taken hostage, yet you see the media all over these kinds of situation where you have foreign aid
services being targeted and disrupted.
Red Cross attack
UN chief envoy to Iraq killed
Coalition civilian aid workers captured and killed
This, like many other patterns, is not a coincidence. Terrorists, insurgents, crazies, whatever you want to call them, always have a set of rules and
guidelines to follow, no matter how radical they are. They know that in committing to such actions, they are only serving to put their own society at
a disadvantaged position, which is usually the opposite of what your typical insurgent/rebel/terrorist is trying to do with their political
This is, to me, a very obvious act of clandestine organizations with the intention to continue imposing setbacks on Iraqi people. Simply put, this has
to be enforced by the same kinds of bastards who sanction Iraq as a society, but not Saddam Hussein's former government.
1. Why and HOW could such terrorists use a Red Cross ambulance as a bomb that successfully enters a properly guarded center of operations in Iraq?
2. Since the UN was a chief proponent of the opposition of Coalition forces' involvement in Iraq, why would the terrorists attack their most viable
and official ally? How did they manage to get a truck nearby a UN building that is likely to have also been, at the very least, under surveillance?
3. What kind of sense does it make for the same kinds of terrorists to attack civilian aid workers, particularly when it is well known that the
Japanese are there ONLY for reconstruction efforts?
In two of the instances, 1 and 2, you have a very improbable event given the usual circumstances. I say this because in both instances, both are
international organizations which are usually well-protected and fortified because they know as well as I do that they are not friends with everyone.
Henceforth, in both instances, it may have been some kind of set-up with one main objective:
To discourage any kind of unmediated, uncontrolled, assistance to the Iraqi people as a whole. In all three instances, the immediate result was
just that. The Red Cross packed their collective bags and left at that time. The UN also left the area, leaving Coalition forces in full command of
the military, political, and civil aspects of the situation in Iraq.
This third instance really strikes me, because I just knew it would happen. The Japanese were only there to help rebuild. They weren't there to
assist the Coalition militarily, but only to provide assistance through such noble efforts as irrigation, the repairs from the damage done by the
invasion, and other types of damage control.
Some articles that indirectly support some of the items I have discussed:
"The US government could have prevented the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Iraq's capital city, but they did not
Mr Ahmad Chalabi
, a member of Iraq's interim governing council, has admitted that on August 14th the US government was informed about the
plot to use a truck bomb in a large-scale attack "aimed at a soft target in Baghdad"
. The US military bases in Baghdad are all hard, fortified
targets, leaving the UN offices as the only soft target available for Arab aggression against the foreign occupation.
While Western media portray the attack on the UN building in Baghdad as a setback for the US, in fact it helps the US government to achieve two key
objectives. US officials were quick to exploit the incident
, pointing the finger of blame at Iraq's neighbours, Syria and Iran, thus undermining
political opposition to military action against these regimes. The US also used the opportunity to invite foreign troops to Iraq, but only under
American command, thus legitimising the occupation and releasing US military resources for the next conquest."
a similar attack on the Red Cross happen in Afghanistan, nearly 3 years ago... but this time with C-130 gunships...
"A Kabul warehouse belonging to the International Red Cross was today bombed in fierce daylight raids on Afghanistan.
Massive explosions over the city could be heard in opposition held land 50 miles to the north. Huge clouds of smoke billowed on the capital's
One security guard was injured in the attack on the Red Cross warehouse. A Red Cross spokesman in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, said the
building's roof was marked with the Red Cross insignia.
The north of the Kabul - where the main daylight raids took place today - is home to four Taliban military bases and a government transport depot.
Witnesses said they saw several military trucks near the bombed warehouse.
The low-flying warplanes - AC-130 gunships - went in to action using air cannon against military and terrorist targets south of Kandahar.
AC-130s are heavily armed and have sideways firing weapons that can saturate an area over extended periods
, including at night and in bad
weather. Heavy machine guns and cannons can be locked on a target by computers.
I included the Afghanistan incident primarily because it falls under this BS campaign of the "War on Terror".
face in the title, some typographical and grammatical cleanup, emphasis alterations, and more info on what the Japanese were doing in
[Edited on 4/9/2004 by AlnilamOmega]