UN Blast an Inside job?

This is a nice twist. you can read the story here it is from CNN. I wonder, however, who was behind this inside job? Was it Baath party remnents? Jihadis looking to score a kill? Iran, Saudi, the US (to get much needed international help)?
Interesting....
Thoughts?

Well, my Guess is that if it was really an inside job, it could be narrowed to two possible candidates. Either a remnant of the Saddam regime trying to get back at the US/UK/UN, or someone from the US/UK occupation.

My reasoning would be that if it was a remnant of Saddams Regime, it would be obvious they were trying to get rid of top UN figures. As far as why, most likely the fact that the UN allowed the US/UK occupation to take place. Had the UN done the job they are actually there for, either ALL of them would be involved, or the US and UK would have been haulted.

If it was someone from the US/UK, it would obviously be to gain UN approval for the occupation, and try to get more UN involvement in said occupation. And how better to get their attention than to take out someone so high up in the UN foodchain.

Granted, all of this at this point both from myself and CNN (who we really can't trust anyway) is ALL speculation, and we will most likely find out that it was not an inside job, but just the work of a few Muslim extremists.

[Edited on 22-8-2003 by ImAlreadyPsycho]

Why an inside job? It was a flatbed loaded with explosives. If it was an inside job, and done by former intelligence operatives, it certainly could have been done much cleaner and more professionally....(i.e. bomb trap his desk, etc.) I'm not sure where the press is going with the "inside job" angle....but I'm sure I don't like it....

What I gather from the article is that the investigators are saying that the UN was responsible for their own security needs (ie: security guards, etc.) In such, without proper screening, etc., the UN failed to possibly identify former regime loyalists.

With al the ideas of a conspiracy behind this I am leaning towards a view that this is another step in the Saudi-Iranian Supply-side Oil War. Suppressing competitive Iraqi oil output with occassional attacks keeps Iraqi oil offline and its working much better in the markets than the regime sanctions and food for oil program. Note: a pipeline will be turned on to Turkey this weekend. I would wager that within a week or two, if not seriously guarded and patrolled, its professionally plinked (ie: oil flow again hampered and stopped). Attacking the UN and the other ongoing strife deters investment and reconstruction ---- a long term market plan/strategy.....

regards
seekerof

Much possible, as it was well known fact that UNs Iraqi guards were from Iraqi SSS (Special Secret [or Security] Service..) Diehard Baath members..

One can hardly call it an inside job though, when you've got the foxes guardin' the henhouse boys....

You know it was GW Bush.

interesting

With al the ideas of a conspiracy behind this I am leaning towards a view that this is another step in the Saudi-Iranian Supply-side Oil War. Suppressing competitive Iraqi oil output with occassional attacks keeps Iraqi oil offline and its working much better in the markets than the regime sanctions and food for oil program. Note: a pipeline will be turned on to Turkey this weekend. I would wager that within a week or two, if not seriously guarded and patrolled, its professionally plinked (ie: oil flow again hampered and stopped). Attacking the UN and the other ongoing strife deters investment and reconstruction ---- a long term market plan/strategy.....

Now tie that in with DR's theory on the Opec standard switching to the euro and you have a grand conspiracy indeed.

An inside job? Not hard to imagine....

Always ask the important question... who stands to gain?

Answer: The US

Funny then, that the US has the one organization just perfect for organizing such "inside jobs"... the CIA... and who do else would already have inside contact with such handy groups such as Saudi terrorists???

Originally posted by Gazrok
One can hardly call it an inside job though, when you've got the foxes guardin' the henhouse boys....

Now, why would you hire the enemy as guards in a hostile land, unless you were just setting the stage for something to go down???

Whoever is behind it he has to be stupid, since the U. N. was against the war and is the only counterbalance to the U. S. coalition forces.

Originally posted by Niclas
Whoever is behind it he has to be stupid, since the U. N. was against the war and is the only counterbalance to the U. S. coalition forces.

Which certainly leads credence to the thought that the US is the one to gain something...

Why an inside job? It was a flatbed loaded with explosives. If it was an inside job, and done by former intelligence operatives, it certainly could have been done much cleaner and more professionally

Why make it look professional when terrorist are the one's they're gonna blame? That would make no sense and make actually look like it was an inside job ....

Yeah, Id have to go with Dragon on this one. Bombing the UN is the last thing the terrorist orgs would want to do, if they want to stir hatred against the US. Bombing the Un will piss off all the countries that actuallysupport and trust the UN. Bombing the Un building would simply create even more sentiment, and get even more foreigners involved in Iraq.

Why the helkl would they bomb the Jordinian embassy too? Jordan, last time i checked, was helping out the foreign fighters in Iraq, and sending em a little help along the way too. And then of course, right near the UN bombing, another terror attack in Israel, to make it look more and more like Arabs are nothing but gun toting Islamic nutcases.

Very benefical for the US and Israel.

...there was a contingent of US troops on site at the time of this,so called "attack",they were conveniently on the other side of the building at the time,I sure would like to have more info as to what it was they were doing there at all.

The most telling information is that which is unavailable to us.

The most frustrating thing about it is that since it was passed off as being an attack by "guerillas" or some other "unofficial "organization,the truth will never come to light,the munitions used in the bomb were common to be found laying around in Iraq,strange how not so long ago,a pile of these munitions which were collected were ignited somehow and exploded,maybe to cover for something that was missing and used to bomb UN Hq.

I find it difficult to believe that such a highly trained and well equipped force would have so little control over this whole mess.

If the Iraqi poulation was as well monitored as the US population there would be a lot less carnage.

Watch em chip all of the Iraqis to see if it makes a difference,you hear that about to happen,you know sumpin is up.BioChip in the disguise as some kind of medical care would be about par for the course,and a really good test for later uses.

But it really makes no diff,b/c our troops shouldn't be there anyway.

wandering*

The U. N. didn't think they needed tight security because there is no reason in attacking them. An Iraq without the U. N. wouldn't gain even the terrorists (but maybe the U. S. as dragonrider pointed out).

SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Americans polled say they are very concerned (40 percent) or somewhat concerned (29 percent) that the United States will be bogged down for many years in Iraq without making much progress in achieving its goals. Just 18 percent say they�re confident that a stable, democratic form of government can take shape in Iraq over the long term; 37 percent are somewhat confident. Just 13 percent say U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone very well since May 1, when combat officially ended; 39 percent say somewhat well.
Nearly half of respondents, 47 percent, say they are very concerned that the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq will lead to a large budget deficit and seriously hurt the U.S. economy. And 60 percent of those polled say the estimated $1 billion per week that the United States is spending is too much and the country should scale back its efforts. One-third supports the current spending levels for now, but just 15 percent of those polled say they would support maintaining the current spending levels for three years or more.

www.msnbc.com...

Originally posted by Seekerof
What I gather from the article is that the investigators are saying that the UN was responsible for their own security needs (ie: security guards, etc.) In such, without proper screening, etc., the UN failed to possibly identify former regime loyalists.

With al the ideas of a conspiracy behind this I am leaning towards a view that this is another step in the Saudi-Iranian Supply-side Oil War. Suppressing competitive Iraqi oil output with occassional attacks keeps Iraqi oil offline and its working much better in the markets than the regime sanctions and food for oil program. Note: a pipeline will be turned on to Turkey this weekend. I would wager that within a week or two, if not seriously guarded and patrolled, its professionally plinked (ie: oil flow again hampered and stopped). Attacking the UN and the other ongoing strife deters investment and reconstruction ---- a long term market plan/strategy.....

regards
seekerof

you may be on to something.