Terrorists whom target assistance

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 statements.

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.

Think:
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:

from:
www.theinsider.org...

"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...


from:
www.guardian.co.uk...
"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 northern edge.

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".

edits: the face in the title, some typographical and grammatical cleanup, emphasis alterations, and more info on what the Japanese were doing in Iraq



[Edited on 4/9/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

pffft, you have got to be kidding, the US forces are streched thin in Iraq....that's why they can't guard every soft target there. BTW, the UN have their own forces, if you didn't know....they can take care of their own.

As for the Japanese that were kidnapped. it seems that Japan doesn't want to negotiate. And the US forces are not there to take care of foreign citizens, that's the job of their countries of origin.

People don't want the US to be a police force....but sure want the US to guard foreign citizens from other countries...????

BTW, before you start saying "But the US started this war..."

What's the first thing countries normally do when they know a war is about to start in a country where they have some citizens? humm.....that's a tough one.....


[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Muaddib]

Just a comment on the UN bombing. It was said, by the UN, that they refused American security. The US offered, and the UN said no thanks. Apparently they thought by distancing themselves from the US they would be at a lesser risk. They were proved wrong.

They're just driving a wedge between the US and it's coalition members. After the UN bombing the UN basically pulled out. Spain was hit and voters ousted their US friendly leader. Bush chances of being reelected diminish with a worse Iraq.

I see your conspiracy angle but I just don't agree. With election season upon us a peaceful Iraq is very much in the best interest of the US.


[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Bob88]

Originally posted by Muaddib
pffft, you have got to be kidding, the US forces are streched thin in Iraq....that's why they can't guard every soft target there. BTW, the UN have their own forces, if you didn't know....they can take care of their own.

As for the Japanese that were kidnapped. it seems that Japan doesn't want to negotiate. And the US forces are not there to take care of foreign citizens, that's the job of their countries of origin.

People don't want the US to be a police force....but sure want the US to guard foreign citizens from other countries...????

BTW, before you start saying "But the US started this war..."

What's the first thing countries normally do when they know a war is about to start in a country where they have some citizens? humm.....that's a tough one.....


[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Muaddib]

EXACTLY, muaddib. The UN forces have their own forms of protection, so where were they when the envoy was murdered?

Don't you think that because the US is spearheading the coalition invasion of iraq that it is at least partially responsible for the protection of coalition forces? That's what allies do for each other, right?

People don't want the US as a police force in other countries BEFORE the US invades their sovereign nation. There is a huge difference there, and the demand for a US protectorate is mandatory once they have already invaded.

The answer to your rhetorical question is that they usually deploy their own defense forces to take care of their people, but in the case of an alliance, the members of that same alliance are also responsible for the welfare of their friends. This case usually applies if they are part of an alliance that is jointly-committed to a military operation in a foreign country. The usual course of action in other cases is that they retract all of their foreign individuals, but since the Coalition already has a vested interest in Iraq...

Originally posted by Bob88
Just a comment on the UN bombing. It was said, by the UN, that they refused American security. The US offered, and the UN said no thanks. Apparently they thought by distancing themselves from the US they would be at a lesser risk. They were proved wrong.

They're just driving a wedge between the US and it's coalition members. After the UN bombing the UN basically pulled out. Spain was hit and voters ousted their US friendly leader. Bush chances of being reelected diminish with a worse Iraq.

I see your conspiracy angle but I just don't agree. With election season upon us a peaceful Iraq is very much in the best interest of the US.


[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Bob88]

Bob88, sir, firstly, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to understand my position. To me, that is one of the greatest complements I have received on this board thus far. That's not brown-nosing, but in fact, it is the truth.

You are right in saying the UN made a bad, if not arrogant, move when they said no to US assistance with defense. But, considering the idea that the UN, at the highest levels, is controlled by the same propogators of evil who I alluded to earlier, it is easy to surmise that such a maneuver was purposely done to allow for such a "soft target".

Your second point helps to illustrate one of the main reasons why these programmable insurgents have targeted such organizations. As you have said, the UN pulled out of Iraq as a result, thus leaving the area wide-open for the US and its allies to operate unchalleged and with more authority over the area. If Japan retracts their aid-workers from Iraq as a result, it would truly be a sad thing, though my trust in Japanese honor tells me that such a thing will not deter their efforts.

In terms of elections, I have to express my dismay at the election process within this nation. I strongly doubt that people, meaning the 280million or so population of the US, have anything to do with the highest levels of the election process (though I am very eager to be proven wrong on this, as I want my votes to be considered!). This situation was underlined with the 2000 election, where you had voting machines that were caught tabulating results inaccurately. That is, people would vote for one candidate, yet the machine would select a 'preferred' candidate as a response. Supporting this idea is the fact that the manufacturers of these machines have made it so that there can be no independent investigations of the software that dictates who picks who. Something I have said before and will say again is that when a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin buys out ACS, a voting conglomerate, it poses a serious threat to the idea that these voting machines are truly trustworthy.

Don't believe me? How is it possible that, during the Democratic nominational process, someone who was once the one of the lowest-regarded candidates becomes the sole Democratic nominee to challenge Bush in a matter of months? Was it the media? Was it that people were shocked by Dean's emotional outburst? Was it a case of who had the better political agendas or even the most amount of campaign influence? I really do not think so. The fact that Kerry is skull and bones also helps to validate this premise, considering that such an alliegance to a club is not only controversial, but also a common theme between presidents; past and present. This also helps to explain why of all the presidents the US has had, less than 1% of them reflect the genetic diversity of the American population as a whole. Such a statistic is impossible in a real democracy that relies on majority rule, in my humble opinion.

Putting 2 paragraphs short, nobody in command of the situation in Iraq gives two shakes of a rat's tail about what they are doing and how it will effect public opinion. What matters is what kind of powerful people they are pleasing, and who's pockets they are giving money to, it seems

These kinds of activities tie in to the same conspirators that assasinated Yitzhak Rabin, former PM of Israel. In addition to that, these activities are also similar to those who schedule IDF responses or PLO-related suicide attacks for a time that is near or shortly after scheduled peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Also, this is speculation, but how do we know that some of these infamous terrorist organizations are not part of some covert intelligence operation not limited to the US? Such actions by such radicals seem to fit the profile of those who command people to die by the sword in order to thwart the recovery of their own society, isn't this agreeable?

Wow, maybe this is the tip of an iceberg , meaning that this is part of something much bigger? nobody has really touched this topic after the first two external replies. are you all afraid of something or convinced that such a likelihood is just impossible?

I for one wouldn't be quoting Ahmad Chalabi for your argument. Thats the very man that led us into this war whom supplied a large portion of the false intelligence reports and has admitted he lied.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by heelstone]

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?

Check out my post in this thread AO on this 'angle':
Insurgents Now Threaten to Shoot Japanese Hostages

The angle that is currently circulating the Japanese boards and chat rooms and is now filtering into the English speaking chat rooms and baords is that the 3 Japanese "hostages" are well known anti-war activist and that the kidnapping is a ploy to possibly force Japan to withdraw its limited presence from Iraq.


seekerof

heelstone, thanks for reminding me of that man's tendency to promote inaccuracy. However, because I believe he was part of the same group of people that wanted the US to be in there in the first place, I strongly doubt that he would lie about that particular defense situation. I say that because he would be one of the most well-informed Iraqi officials in terms of US military movements as a result of his previous brown-nosing.

Seeker, I was looking at that thread just now and am glad you posted (I asked you to look into this before I saw your reply here). Thanks for linking it here so I can access it more quickly.

That is a very interesting angle, and is a very plausible strategy. Because I place faith in compartmentalized conspiracies, I believe the idea that they are ppl who are trying to get the Japanese out are part of the larger conspiracy I have outlined. The conspiracy I am stating is that there are certain organizations who do not want Iraq to be rebuilt in the balanced manner that the Japanese could provide for them.

On the other hand, it could very well just be people who want to get their families and friends out, of course. But Iraq needs the Japanese in this regard, because they are the only ones there who are almost completely dedicated towards reconstruction efforts. It is a very confusing situation, if I may say so.

We must have crossed paths while posting on other topics....as such, with little to dig in, I will try to see what I can answer:

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?

Hmm, as to the 'how', that could be a number of ways. The terrorists or insurgents could have simply taken a Red Cross ambulance or could have simply painted up a truck, similiar to that type ambulance truck. 'Why'....hard to say. 'How' they enetered a guarded center is also hard to say. Identification cards can be made or gotten, for a price. Also, it was determined that those Iraqi, etc. hired by the UN and Coalition forces were also Saddam and Ba'athist loyalist and/or insurgents. Imagine, if you will, I am an insurgent, and my plan is to destroy something within a guarded area. The best and most feasible way to do this would be to get hired as a worker, Red Cross, guard, etc. I would be issued a ID or identification card allowing me access. Once access is obtained on a regular basis because of the identification cards, the 'plan(s)' to disrupt are set in motion.

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?

The UN was there to provide medical and humanitarian aspects to the Iraqi people, as well as other things. They were targeted, IMHO, because the UN represents the 'western world', a voice, a creedo, a symbol. The truck possibly gained possible access by what I mentioned above. Again, it was determined and/or found that when the UN turned down the security of the US forces, because they were to "high profile", representing military, for which the UN wanted to avoid that stigma, the UN hired Iraqis as part of their security. As such, its possibly apparent that some of those Iraqis hired were sympathizers and allowed and/or perpetuated the faciliatating of the UN facility bombing.


Chalabi is a punk....and a US punk...which is going to be weened.

As to your other mentions, I will have to read and analyze and dig into.

All the above is sorted opinion....ie: my opinion, and subject to being ripped apart.



seekerof