Afghan mob storms UN office, kills 8, beheads 2

reply to post by 27jd


When responding to the brutality in the “Kill Team” photos you say “over there I think they almost respect that kind of brutality.”

Who are “they” over there that "almost respect" that kind of sport killing of their own? Are they the Taliban? All Afghans? all Muslims? You’re saying the crowd is all riled up over the Koran burning but the “kill team” photos would be “almost” respected.

Also... I never mentioned the Taliban especially as good guys. I don't believe this story as it's reported: religious nutcase burns Koran.... religious nutcases respond by killing UN staff. But it's good fodder for the sheep.

Originally posted by soleprobe
Who are “they” over there that "almost respect" that kind of sport killing of their own? Are they the Taliban? All Afghans? all Muslims? You’re saying the crowd is all riled up over the Koran burning but the “kill team” photos would be “almost” respected.

My point was that their culture is rather primitive, and in primitive cultures, violence tends to be a part of daily life and probably isn't as shocking to them as it is to us. Has nothing to do in particular with their specific religion, or their nationality. Not to say that they were cool with the kill team photos, I just don't think it rubbed them the wrong way as much as an attack on their religious beliefs, which in a primitive culture, tends to trump all else. This is why I think you have a comprehension problem, perhaps English isn't your first language. If you go back a couple pages and read, you'll see that I have nothing more against the Muslims, than I do any other organized religion.

Also... I never mentioned the Taliban especially as good guys. I don't believe this story as it's reported: religious nutcase burns Koran.... religious nutcases respond by killing UN staff. But it's good fodder for the sheep.

Again, a little more reading of the last few pages of this thread seems to be in order for you. We've been discussing that even though the people were protesting the Koran burning, and pictures posted of the signs they were carrying with the translations prove that, the actual killing of the UN staff was most likely carried out by Taliban fighters, using the protests as cover. I've asked you several times to prove your theory...that the protests were due to the "kill team" photos, and that an angry Afghan mob took revenge on a few non-military UN workers who had nothing to do with the kill team at all, by sawing their heads off. Seems to me your theory paints the Afghan people in a much worse light, and is much better "fodder for the sheep".

Originally posted by 27jd
I just don't think it rubbed them the wrong way as much as an attack on their religious beliefs

What you “don’t think” is what you don’t know.

Originally posted by 27jd
This is why I think you have a comprehension problem… If you go back a couple pages and read, you'll see that I have nothing more against the Muslims, than I do any other organized religion.

This is why I think you have a lying problem because “If you go back a couple pages and read, you'll see that I have” never referred to the term “Muslims” in any of my comments.

Bottom line is you are trying to paint the Afghans as primitive savages who would get more outraged over a lone nut in Florida burning a Koran than the image of their own people being killed for sport by a brutal and oppressive occupation by robber barons.

Originally posted by 27jd
….pictures posted of the signs they were carrying with the translations prove that, the actual killing of the UN staff was most likely carried out by Taliban fighters,

So you’ve got pictures of 2 signs being held up in a crowd. Many protests have been infiltrated by intelligence operatives holding up signs having nothing to do with the actual protest and then those very same signs are published in the press. And of course I have to trust the India press for the correct translation.

Originally posted by 27jd
“I've asked you several times to prove your theory...”

I never claimed that I could prove this theory that the uprising is more likely the result of the “kill team” photos anymore than you can prove with certainty that the Taliban sawed off the heads of the UN staff. It was my opinion. It is also my opinion that ATS is run by intelligence (most likely military) and usernames like you are part of the intelligence apparatus but that’s just my opinion. I can not prove this.

Originally posted by 27jd
“….a few non-military UN workers who had nothing to do with the kill team at all.”

And a few Afghans including children killed for sport “had nothing to do with” the “war on terror” or defeating the Taliban. The UN is only "non-military" in hype but not in deed.

Originally posted by soleprobe
This is why I think you have a lying problem because “If you go back a couple pages and read, you'll see that I have” never referred to the term “Muslims” in any of my comments.

Really? At the top of this page, you said:

Who are “they” over there that "almost respect" that kind of sport killing of their own? Are they the Taliban? All Afghans? all Muslims?

What am I "lying" about, again?

Bottom line is you are trying to paint the Afghans as primitive savages who would get more outraged over a lone nut in Florida burning a Koran than the image of their own people being killed for sport by a brutal and oppressive occupation by robber barons.

Trying? They are a primitive culture, much moreso once the Taliban invaded. And I never said they were "savages", again you're the liar. The Taliban however, ARE savages. Were their own people not killed, time and again, by the Taliban for perceived infractions against Islam? Particularly, the most vulnerable members of their society. Their wives, mothers, and daughters.

Before the Taliban's takeover, Afghan women were:

70% of school teachers

50% of civilians in the government workforce

60% of teachers at Kabul University

50% of students at Kabul University

40% of doctors in Kabul

But when the Taliban took over the capital city of Kabul in September 1996, it issued an edict that stripped women and girls of their rights, holding the Afghan people hostage under a brutal system of gender apartheid. The edict forbade women and girls from working or going to school. It effectively placed all women under house arrest, prohibiting them from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative. Women who had lost all of their male relatives in the war were literally trapped in their homes.
Women were prohibited from being seen or heard. The windows of their homes were painted, and they could not appear in public unless wearing the full-body covering, the burqa. Women were beaten for showing a bit of ankle or wearing noisy shoes. They could not speak in public or to men who were not relatives. They were beaten, even killed, for minor violations of these rules.

Women accused of prostitution or infidelity were hung in public squares or stoned to death, and persons accused of homosexuality were put in a pit near a wall, which was then toppled, burying them alive. Ironically, brothels proliferated under Taliban rule, employing educated women who had no other way to survive. The Taliban alternated between frequenting and raiding the brothels.

www.now.org...

You're dwelling on an incident where one group of soldiers lost their minds, and went rogue. They were unable to handle the pressures of multiple deployments, and the stresses of war. They snapped. Now, they are going to be punished. But, you were nowhere to be seen when the Taliban took over and began brutalizing the Afghan people. Because you're a hypocrite. I see both sides as being in the wrong. You're obsessed with one side, and blind to the other.

So you’ve got pictures of 2 signs being held up in a crowd. Many protests have been infiltrated by intelligence operatives holding up signs having nothing to do with the actual protest and then those very same signs are published in the press. And of course I have to trust the India press for the correct translation.

That's 2 more pictures than you have.

Originally posted by 27jd
I never claimed that I could prove this theory that the uprising is more likely the result of the “kill team” photos anymore than you can prove with certainty that the Taliban sawed off the heads of the UN staff. It was my opinion. It is also my opinion that ATS is run by intelligence (most likely military) and usernames like you are part of the intelligence apparatus but that’s just my opinion. I can not prove this.

I'm (and ATS in general is) military intel? Well, I hope to see a check soon. Even though I speak out against our occupation of these countries, in thread after thread, you really went there. My post history is readily available. You are obviously extremely desperate to somehow validate your admitted "opinion" about this incident, despite the FACT that it is documented, not just in the western media, but in press reports all across the world. They were protesting the Koran burning. That's a FACT. You should be able to at least find a Russian, or an Iranian source that backs your claims, if they are in any way true. But they're not. You're free to your "opinion" though, even when it's completely wrong.

And a few Afghans including children killed for sport “had nothing to do with” the “war on terror” or defeating the Taliban. The UN is only "non-military" in hype but not in deed.

The soldiers responsible for those attrocities will be punished. Where were the "revenge killings" and riots against the Pakistani invaders after they killed countless Afghans, including women and children, many documented on video? The Taliban a-holes who committed all those murders will not be brought to justice, and you seem to be perfectly fine with that. It's only unacceptable when U.S. soldiers commit attrocities in your view, it seems.

reply to post by 27jd


Where do I defend the Taliban?

reply to post by soleprobe


Where do you condemn them? You've pointed out the attrocities of the U.S. soldiers, in post after post. But you keep calling it propaganda when the violence of the Taliban is pointed out. I'm saying the Afghan people have been getting the raw end of the deal from both sides, and you keep saying I'm some kind of disinfo agent or "establishment lackey". I DO NOT SUPPORT OUR OCCUPATION OF IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN. I would like to see our soldiers brought home. I'm just saying it's pretty disingenuous if you, and the Afghan people are enraged over the actions of a few bad soldiers, but not equally enraged over the actions of the entire Taliban.

reply to post by 27jd


There's no evidence that Taliban are behind this. If someone says Hitler tortured Canadians just because I don't believe that doesn't mean I defend Hitler.

Originally posted by soleprobe
There's no evidence that Taliban are behind this.

The Los Angeles Times reported today that while the demonstrations themselves were an organic response to the Quran burning, the acts of violence might actually have been instigated by Taliban operatives with the express purpose of subverting otherwise-peaceful protests.

Both Afghan and Western officials cited mounting evidence that insurgents had seized the opportunity to infiltrate crowds of demonstrators in both Kandahar and Mazar-i-Sharif, concealing themselves among those who otherwise might have marched relatively peacefully.

[One U.N. official] said the three Europeans who died in the Mazar-i-Sharif compound were not victims of random mob violence but were hunted down in the bunker where they had taken refuge. Afghan officials, who have made dozens of arrests in connection with the assault, said evidence so far suggested that the main instigators were allied with the insurgency.
www.salon.com...

If someone says Hitler tortured Canadians just because I don't believe that doesn't mean I defend Hitler.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying you don't believe the Taliban inflicted brutality and murder on the Afghan people?

the acts of violence might actually have been instigated by Taliban operatives

Yep… that’s something I could see western intelligence operatives doing as well. They did it at the G20, western operatives dress up as anarchists torching cop cars and the western (Canadian) media reports that it was real protesters.

three Europeans who died in the Mazar-i-Sharif compound were not victims of random mob violence but were hunted down in the bunker where they had taken refuge.

That’s also something that could be carried out by western operatives. Not the first time they dress up like the locals and commit acts of terror and violence to blame it on various factions.

Originally posted by 27jd
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying you don't believe the Taliban inflicted brutality and murder on the Afghan people?

That’s not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about the title of this thread: “Afghan mob storms UN office, kills 8, beheads 2”. I don’t believe “[Taliban] mob storms UN office, kills 8, Beheads 2”. So to me your continued reference to the history of Taliban brutality towards the Afghan people is a different subject matter so I just ignore it within the context of this thread.

Originally posted by soleprobe
That’s not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about the title of this thread: “Afghan mob storms UN office, kills 8, beheads 2”. I don’t believe “[Taliban] mob storms UN office, kills 8, Beheads 2”. So to me your continued reference to the history of Taliban brutality towards the Afghan people is a different subject matter so I just ignore it within the context of this thread.

The discussion is not about the "kill team" either, but that hasn't stopped you from bringing it up time and again. You have a real problem with hypocrisy, it seems. It's okay for you to share your opinion about what the Afghans were angry about, but not okay for anybody else. You readily believe any source that shows the U.S. military in a bad light...but call propaganda, blame it on western intel, and plead the 5th when it comes to showing the Taliban in a bad light. You even stated you wouldn't believe it if you heard that Hitler had tortured Canadians, but again, no problem believing anything bad about the U.S.

reply to post by 27jd


I don’t believe anything bad about the US. I believe the bad things about those who have usurped the US.

And I have no problem with you sharing your opinion. I am not telling you to shut up and not share your opinion. All I said was that I find your opinion irrelevant so I ignore it... you're free to tell me the opinions of mine you find irrelevant and have ignored also and I wont call you a hypocrite.

Originally posted by soleprobe
I believe the bad things about those who have usurped the US.

Well, that's one thing we agree on. I do too.

All I said was that I find your opinion irrelevant so I ignore it... you're free to tell me the opinions of mine you find irrelevant and have ignored also and I wont call you a hypocrite.

But you'll call me an "establishment lackey" and even a paid U.S. military intel agent. The reason I find your position hypocritical, is because you are outraged by the actions of the kill team, and rightfully so. But, you seem to be completely dodging the fact that the Taliban committed atrocities against the Afghan people that were equally horrendous, and much more frequently. That is fact, not propaganda. There is ample evidence to prove it, in all forms, pictures, videos, personal stories, etc. But, the Afghan people did not rise against the Taliban, with the exception of the Northern Alliance. That's where I derive my opinion from, that they probably weren't as outraged over those horrendous actions, as they were over an insult to their religion. Sadly, they are probably pretty used to that kind of brutality.

Heavily indoctrinated people behave in that way, doesn't matter if they're Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. Organized religion is one of the worst things that has happened to our species, IMO. It causes otherwise good people to lash out violently against those who they see as different, and a threat to their beliefs. Personally, I wish there were no organized religions, no armies, and no borders. The only kind of defense we should have, is defense against hostile alien invaders, we should never have to defend against each other. I wish all people kept their spirituality within, and we all worked together to advance our society, as one. I would LOVE to see the elitists all across the globe knocked down from power, so that the majority of the worlds wealth and resources belong to all of the people, not the top few percent.

Are we really so different in our positions? The only difference, is that I don't focus on one group of elitist bad guys. I focus on them all, the elitists who control the governments of the U.S., China, Russia, Europe, the M.E., etc. They are all pretty much bad guys, fighting over who gets the chance to screw the world up first.

reply to post by 27jd


Irrelevant
..................

Afghan mob kills UN workers.

On Friday, April 1st 2011, an angry mob was incited to attack a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan. The mob stormed the base and 7 UN workers were killed.

• 4 British-trained Nepalese soldiers or "Gurkhas",
  
• Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché—a former fighter pilot—seconded to the U.N., along with
  
• Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and
  
• Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission's political section.

Too much internet comment has been posted elsewhere debating the pretext, excuse or perceived insult which was used by the mob's ringleaders to incite the mob to attack. This post is intended to leave that subject well alone.

I reject that other discussion as irrelevant to the real needs here which are a discussion of how and why UN workers were vulnerable, undefended and left to die and who is responsible.

Therefore these quotes from this topic contain points I think which are important and helpful and to which I wish to respond positively to.

Originally posted by Jakes51
This was just plain wrong! This attack was not on a military installation, but a place for humanitarian purposes. Building schools, providing medicine and medical care, and other socially uplifting endeavors. Chances are this will go down by the wayside with time? We will hear condemnation and talks of condolences to the families affected by this attack. No one will be brought to justice, and there will be little of any retribution. This angry mob may have ruined it for everyone in Afghanistan who are in desperate need of what the UN provides to impoverished and war torn nations.

If anyone remembers, the major UN mission in Iraq was bombed and scores of people were killed. After the Canal Hotel bombing, for all practically reasons the UN effectively pulled out of Iraq, and with them their important assistance to reconstruction. We will hear of reasons for this dastardly act of barbarism, but there is no reason for this madness.

I don't want to hear about military occupations, drone attacks, atrocities, Libya or any other mishap associated with the Western involvement in Afghanistan or elsewhere around the Muslim world. There is no excuse for this what so ever, and I hope Muslim religious authorities scathingly condemn this atrocity. I suppose any infidel will do? Seeing as they had no problems making heads roll during their attack on this compound, and I think heads need to role for those responsible?

Originally posted by arcanewings
These people are cowards. Thousands of people storming a U.N. site, and killing 7 people for a book. They took SEVEN human lives for a book. Here's a tip for all those people that decided to raid the U.N site, next time go around the corner and do a full scale march on a NATO base, and we'll see how many of you survive. U.N workers...not soldiers. You want to scream tragedy and indiscriminate killing of civilians in your country by NATO forces, then turn around and do this. I have no sympathy for barbarians who decide to behead people. I'm not saying were doing the right thing over there or that we don't have our own crimes to answer for, however I openly condemn anyone and all who kill helpless, and defenseless people. For any reason.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Homedawg
using enough gun is always a plus...

Exactly, and having enough gun for a charging, adrenaline fueled grizzly is not an easy feat. But that AA rapid fire shotgun would probably be the best bet, and like I said, what I would want if I were in front of one. Same with a situation where a crowd of people was trying to kill me at close quarters, as was the case in this incident. You don't want to pray and spray with a long range rifle, since you may very well kill innocent people outside the mob. Buck shot would offer good coverage, and not kill any babies in cribs a half mile away.

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

ARM such UN workers and ANY office overseas and stateside for that matter with GUNS. Many guns, with large caliber bullets. They prevent crazy muslims attacks every time

Thank you for those posts. Here is my reply.


How it went down

The Wall Street Journal: Inside the Massacre at Afghan Compound


The failures point by point

Only about 60 police were deployed, and they appeared uncertain how to respond. Initial attempts to disperse the crowd by firing warning shots appeared only to inflame the demonstrators.

Useless policing. Civil police need to keep protesting crowds or mobs intent on attack (hard to tell the difference initially) at an agreed protest line, which if passed without permission, especially in large numbers who can't be arrested then the attacking mob should be shot. It is up to the civil police to control the crowd. If they don't hold the crowd back it is the civil authorities fault when a mob gets shot down.

They phoned for help from the nearby military bases of German and Swedish forces, according to a person briefed on the situation.

Useless. Nearby is not near enough. The UN base or compound should be embedded within ISAF bases so an attack on the UN looks like an attack on ISAF, which it is.

The U.S.-led military said the situation "escalated rapidly" and that a swift-reaction team didn't arrive until after rioters were gone.

Useless. If the UN were depending on "swift" being swift enough to save them, they were wrong and misled. The UN should have leadership which tells them - you are not safe being "nearby" you need to be surrounded by a competent military defence.

Once demonstrators flooded the compound,

Useless compound defence architecture. It should be impossible for a crowd to breach a secure compound and if they try there should be fire power to kill those attempting to breach the compound or base.

a dozen Afghan police guards—the first line of defense—dropped their weapons

Useless guards. A dozen professional loyal soldiers manning 4 machine guns could probably have saved the day even at that stage.
The Afghan police are neither professional nor loyal to the UN so the UN should never have put their lives in the hands of Afghan police.

Inside the compound, a small contingent of Nepalese Gurkha guards working for the U.N. faced a conundrum: They were under U.N. orders not to open fire on demonstrators. The videos show one guard feebly trying to wave an elderly demonstrator out of the compound.

Gurkhas are not useless man for man. But 4 to 6 Gurkhas is not enough to hold off such crowd who by this time are armed with guns taken from the police.

When a mob breaches a secure compound they are clearly an attacking mob not "demonstrators". The senior members of the UN should have made that clear. If the Gurkhas had been better led they would have been able to put up more of a fight, but expecting so few of them to make up for failings everywhere else is unrealistic.

Inside the building, other attackers targeted one of the safe rooms. The door proved little protection against the mob.

Useless. Defence architecture needs to be more secure areas within secure areas. Those inside a safe room or bunker within a compound or base need to be able to kill those trying to enter the safe room.

The attackers searched the darkened bunker with a lamp and discovered Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché—the former fighter pilot—seconded to the U.N., along with Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission's political section.

Useless. Any defence attache worth their salt would know they were sitting in a death trap and would have refused to be responsible for such a poorly defended UN compound and would have ordered everyone out and relocated to the ISAF base.

Norway is a sick monarchy with a King of Norway who thinks it is funny or cute to appoint a penguin in Edinburgh zoo as one of his senior officers. I am not kidding.

The Norwegian military is not right in the head to have allowed UN staff into that suicidal UN compound.

Norway is responsible for the Nobel Peace prize and that is what happens to those who trust the Norwegian King, his peace prize or his military attaches. The Norwegian King gets you killed. Remember that.


This is a primarily a problem of lame security at the UN compound: badly constructed, probably poorly located, insufficiently guarded, guards insufficiently armed. Poor organisation from start to finish.

All that is needed is to be better armed and trained than the attacking mob, as this video from the movie "Zulu" illustrates.



Zulu - Final Attack (YouTube)

You need to have enough defensive fire power to stop as many as keep attacking

It is missing the point entirely to consider what the mind-set of the attacking mob might have been. Who cares what their motives for attacking are? It matters not when you are defending. What matters is to be armed and prepared to stop and repel their attack.


Ban Ki-Moon to blame.

Yes you can break this down into individual failures but the failure is one of leadership at the very top of the UN organisation.

If anyone is to be held responsible over this, it should be Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General.

This importance of this story is the shocking fact that UN bases in Afghanistan are practically undefended and a mob could easily storm a base and kill those inside.

UN security is a joke.

The UN needs to sack the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon for his gross incompetence in failing to defend UN personnel.


Ban Ki-Moon: totally useless.

The UN has a lot of great principles to uphold - universal human rights etc, but these need to be upheld at the point of gun, with proper military organisation, which the UN should be able to do, in principle, but with the wrong leadership, like Ban Ki-Moon's wrong leadership, fails to do.

The world's dictators don't want UN principles imposed upon their countries - they'd rather lock up or kill their political opponents - so these dictatorial governments would rather the UN was ineffectual, defenceless and impotent, like Ban Ki-Moon is.

That is why so many of the rotten governments of the world get to together at the UN to appoint such useless "hearts and flowers" types like Ban Ki Moon or Kofi Annan.

The UN leadership must prevent UN workers being killed as they go about the UN's business - by for example, making sure that UN compounds are properly defended with a robust military not afraid to shoot violent attacking mobs like that Afgan mob who killed the 7 UN workers in Mazar-e-Sharif.

We need to get some good military, security and safety advisors in position with orders to defend UN workers' lives using all means necessary, including machine-gunning attacking mobs no matter how many attack.

I want the UN leadership to defend our guys, to take sides, to realise this is war and to fight it to win.

I want the life of one loyal UN worker to be valued more by the UN high command than the lives of all in an attacking mob because we need those UN workers to achieve the UN's long term goals and we don't need any of those in such attacking mobs.

The right to protest, but not the right to kill

I am the last one to suggest machine-gunning protesters or demonstrators, having been a protester or demonstrator myself on a number of occasions.

A mob incited to lethal violence is a different thing from a crowd of peaceful demonstrators and our soldiers need to know the difference and react differently in both cases.

The mob attack on the UN compound was not a case of spray painting "Go home infidels" and smashing a few windows. This was a determined attempt to enter a "secure" (supposedly) base wherein people are being defended to inflict mob violence on those inside.

This was not an attack on property or vandalism but a murderous mob, there is a difference, and everyone has the right of self-defence in such circumstances.

The chances of reasoning with or negotiating a peaceful outcome with such an enraged mob are slim. You should always have the fire-power available to kill such a mob and be prepared to fight to survive.

The defence architecture of a military or diplomatic base - that means - security barriers, fences, walls, gates, guard posts etc - needs to be carefully designed so that only welcome guests, in good order, can enter with permission.

It is the responsibility of the civil authorities on the outside to hold any angry mob back outside the exterior defence barrier.

An angry, violent mob which breaches the defence barriers must expect to be shot.

Now, it is different if it is an essentially peaceful crowd of demonstrators. If, for example, it is some disarmed students occupying their administrative headquarters to protest education cuts, that is different. I don't know of any occasion in Britain anyway when the students' union has killed university administrators.

However, we are talking about Afghanistan where the locals often are armed and there is a war going on, don't you know?

The defence architecture of this UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, was inadequate in the extreme and the numbers, quality, loyalty and arming of the guards was also inadequate in the extreme.

This is not a case of being "wise after the event". This is basic military tactics. The UN secretary general and his senior security advisors should not have put UN staff in the hands of such poor military experts as are advising them.

The failure for appointing people who don't know what they are doing is the responsibility of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who the UN should sack forthwith.

Ban Ki-Moon is useless, he is failing to properly organise the military defence of UN workers in Afghanistan and elsewhere and UN workers are being killed like the 7 killed in Mazar-e-Sharif on Friday, 1st April 2011.

If not Ban Ki-moon then who for UN Secretary General?



Condoleezza Rice for UN Secretary General

I am hoping that Condi as UN Secretary General would find the weaknesses in the UN secretariat and administration and purge the incompetents whoever they are.

We need Condi as UN Secretary General, and I'll be her head of security, if she'll have me.

What would Condi do?

All I can say for sure is what I would do if I were responsible for UN security.

I can't promise that Condi would appoint me as her Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security or that she would even give me a second thought. She has always seemed to ignore me.

So I can't even promise that if Condi was made UN Secretary General she would instruct her Under-Secretary-General for Security and Safety to take expert advice from me.

In fact the guy that Ban Ki-moon appointed to that job, Gregory B. Starr

www.un.org...
6th May 2009

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced today the appointment of Gregory B. Starr of the United States as Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security. Mr. Starr will replace David Veness.

used to work as US Director of Diplomatic Security responsible for the security of US diplomats.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gregory B. Starr is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security. He was selected by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on May 6, 2009.[1]

Prior to his appointment with the United Nations, Starr was the Director of the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary within Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) from March 1, 2007.

So Starr was the guy watching Condi's back as secretary of state. He may even have got his job at the UN working for Ban Ki-moon with a reference from Condi. I don't know.

This guy Starr might not be up to his job at the UN but maybe it is because he is not getting the support he needs from the UN Secretary General? Maybe if Condi was his boss he would perform better?

I am certainly not going to vouch for Starr. If Starr is the problem I would advise Condi to sack or demote him. If that was the right move to take I feel Condi would take the right move, if not on my advice then on the advice of her other supporters.

Condi has a lot of clever friends and supporters and we would not see her fail just because she has inherited someone in the staff who is not up to the job.

How to get Ban Ki-moon out and Condi in

The UN Secretary General must be nominated by the UN Security Council.

Every country has a right to change its mind and change its vote. None of us signed away our freedom to Ban Ki-moon.

We are not now all slaves of Ban Ki-moon with no right to reject our imposed master.

Every permanent member of the security council - the USA, GB, France, Russia & China has a veto over the nomination of the UN Secretary general - and so if any of them change their mind about the incumbent UN Secretary General and want him out, their veto is available to withdraw the nomination of the Security Council.

I would say the way to go would be to take advantage of the UN head quarters being in New York.

The UN is administered from 5 main buildings in the world - New York, Geneva, Vienna, The Hague and Nairobi.

• The US President should take short-term control of UN HQ in New York, dismissing Ban Ki-moon.
  
• The US President should appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (New York)
  
• The Swiss government could also appoint Cond as acting UN Secretary General (Geneva)
  
• The Austrian government could also appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary (Vienna)
  
• The Dutch government could appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (The Hague)
  
• The Kenyan government could appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (Nairobi)
  
• Condi should appoint appropriate representatives from countries with dictatorships - so for example, the UN representative for Burma, (oops, "Myanmar" ) , would be Aung San Suu Kyi or her representative in New York, the UN representative for Libya would be the rebel leaders in Benghazi, new representatives for the Arab countries representing the "Arab Spring" revolutions and so on.
  
• The new UN should then hopefully confirm Condi as permanent UN Secretary General.

In other words, kick out the dictatorships and make the UN what it is supposed to be - an organisation of nations, rather than an organisation of governments some of whom oppress their own nations.

To start the process the US in particular needs to come to its senses about Condi and stop pretending that having her out of power is in some way "a good thing".

Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow
Condoleezza Rice for UN Secretary General

Hopefully before that she’ll be exposed and convicted for her part in the 911 cover-ups, which resulted in the mess we’re in today along with the murders of millions of Afghans and Iraqis. She’s part of the problem but now she’s a potential part of the solution?

Three stars from follow establishment lackeys. Are there any conspiracy theorists left on this conspiracy centered forum or am I the only one? It’s getting kind of lonely here in the midst of all these mainstream articles and links.

Originally posted by soleprobe

Three stars from follow establishment lackeys. Are there any conspiracy theorists left on this conspiracy centered forum or am I the only one?

Yes, clearly anyone who stars a post you personally don't agree with is an 'establishment lackey'. The world is full of opinions some agree with and some don't. Yo arent that special.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
The world is full of opinions some agree with and some don't. Yo arent that special.

Those opinions don't come from the world... they come from western establishment press which in reality is a very small world but with lots of cash to throw around.