Monday, August 25, 2003

One of the mysteries about the current mess in Iraq is the identity of the people involved in the resistance against the occupation, and in particular, the UN bombing. It is fairly clear that no one really has the slightest idea as to who these people might be, and a major part of the reason for this is that the Iraqi people are doing all they can to shelter the operations of the fighters for national liberation. The main candidates are:

  • Baathists

  • the Iraqi people who are angry at the occupation

  • al Qaeda members

  • some other Islamic fundamentalist group

  • independent Arabs or Muslims who have entered Iraq out of sympathy for the Iraqis

  • agents of foreign governments.

The Americans don't want to admit that the resistance might be coming from the Iraqi people. In the absence of weapons of mass destruction, they have had to fall back on the argument that the attack on Iraq was to liberate the Iraqis from tyranny, and the presence of vast numbers of Iraqis fighting their 'liberators' makes that argument look as silly as it is. They are therefore claiming that the resistance is a combination of Baathists and outside forces, which of course they call 'terrorists'. Leaving aside the obvious point that terrorists are people who cause terror, i. e., the Americans, and not the people who are trying to remove the source of the terror, who would be more accurately described as the beginnings of a guerilla army of national liberation, this argument also has a major flaw for the Americans. If they admit that their Iraqi adventure has caused a resurgence of Islamic terrorist groups focused on removing the Crusaders from Iraq, they will eventually have to admit that the attack on Iraq actually damaged their bogus 'war on terror' by causing a revitalization in the international movement of Islamic fundamentalism. Nevertheless, Bremer of Baghdad, who actually wept over the coffin of Vieira de Mello (CIA-supplied essence of onion?), said:

"Iraq has become a new field of battle in this worldwide terrorist fight."

and, on who was responsible for the U. N. bomb:

"One is that it was done by members of the former regime, for a variety of reasons. Another is that it was done by foreign terrorists, of which there are several varieties around. The third, quite obviously, is that it was done in some form of cooperation between the two. As far as I can tell from the facts as I have seen them so far, all three of these hypotheses are still at least worth pursuing."

Army Gen. John Abizaid said:

"I think Iraq is at the center of the global war on terrorism."

Generalissimo Busho himself said:

"Iraq is turning out to be a continuing battle in the war on terrorism. We're going to stay the course."


"I also believe there's a foreign element that is moving into Iraq. And these would be Al Qaeda-type fighters. They want to fight us there because they can't stand the thought of a free society in the Middle East. They hate freedom. They hate the thought of a democracy emerging."

So it appears that the word came down from on high (Cheney) that the bad guys 'would be Al Qaeda-type fighters' (don't you just love the subjunctive), and all the players read their lines. Despite some reasonably cynical scepticism at the American position, it appears that the Americans are actually facing the worst of all possible worlds: resistance from the local population, resistance from those still loyal to the old regime (labelled somewhat misleadingly as 'Baathists', but encompassing a much larger group than those who were card-carrying Baath party members), and foreign Islamic fundamentalist groups and individuals moving in through porous borders into Iraq. About the only group that may be innocent is Ansar al-Islam, which the Americans are again using as a scapegoat, which is somewhat funny as the same extremely anti-Saddam group, which has possible slight ties to al Qaeda, was used by the Bush Administration before the war to tie Saddam to al Qaeda. Ansar al-Islam was only able to continue to exist because it was protected by the northern no-fly zone and Saddam couldn't get at it, and it is implausible that its members would be acting with Baathist supporters of Saddam (Ansar al-Islam also denies any involvement in the UN attack). We're still really no closer to understanding who really was behind the UN bombing, and listening to the official theories of the Americans probably just allows us to identify who wasn't involved. Many people, including me, feel that the events of 9-11 were a joint operation between Islamic fundamentalists and certain American elements close to the current American government. Could the same dynamic duo be behind the U. N. bomb attack?:

  1. The Bush regime really, really hates the United Nations. In particular, the neocons see the United Nations as one of their greatest enemies against their attempt to put the whole world into a state of cleansing war. The UN is also despised due to its attempts to protect the Palestinian people from annihilation.

  2. The attack on the United Nations had elements of brilliance from the point of view of the resistance. It was an easy target. It was a target hated by the Iraqis due to the role of the United Nations in running the sanctions program. The attack has already had a profound effect on countries like Japan, Poland, and Thailand, all of whom changed their plans to assist the Americans in the light of the obvious extra danger. The attack also showed that the United States has no real control over the security of Baghdad, and completely shattered the illusion of power which the Americans have tried to create. On the other hand, al Qaeda seems to be careful of its resources. While attacking the UN was very useful, a similar attack on an American group would have been much more useful if the ultimate goal is driving the Crusaders from Iraq. The fundamentalists know that Americans are quite tolerant of the deaths of non-Americans, but screamingly intolerant of the deaths of Americans, particularly if the deaths happen in bunches. It seems very odd for al Qaeda to be wasting resources on the United Nations when there are better targets around (an attack on an American military plane full of American soldiers with a surface-to-air missile would send a spectacular message). Al Qaeda is also not shy about taking credit for its actions, and their silence here probably means that al Qaeda took no part in this particular action (I have always felt that al Qaeda's failure to really take credit for 9-11 is very telling). I should add that I remain convinced that speaking of al Qaeda is falling into the American propaganda trap of identifying all national resistance groups in the Islamic world as run by one boogeyman, Osama bin Laden. If there is such a central group, and there may be, it is almost certainly not run by bin Laden, it is certainly not called 'al Qaeda', and it almost certainly has a much looser relationship with the local groups who actually do the attacks than the Americans would have us believe. There is nothing in the UN attack which shows any particular sophistication, and no real reason to see international Islamic involvement. A local group, perhaps with a little help, could easily have pulled this off.

  3. The Bushites were awfully quick to use the attack as a basis for approaching the United Nations to look for extra support, both in money and troops, for the occupation. The fact that this attempt is going to end in failure doesn't mean that it might not have been someone's plan to create an excuse for more international involvement in Iraq.

  4. We have known for some time that Chalabi has been enlisting (or here) former Iraqi intelligence agents to help in the fight against Iran, and, from Salam Pax, that the CIA was also involved. We are now learning that the American government has also been recruiting from the same group, for the wider purpose of serving as an American intelligence operation against those planning attacks on American forces. It is grimly ironic that the Americans are enlisting the help of the greatly feared thugs and torturers of Saddam all the while pretending to be Iraq's liberators.

  5. It turns out that the security guards at the U. N. building were former Iraqi intelligence agents. In fact, there is reason to suspect that the attack had inside help, as it occurred just when a high-level meeting was starting, in a place in the building nearest the office of Sergio Vieira de Mello, and the security guards are not cooperating with the investigation. I would like to know whose idea it was to keep on such obviously inappropriate people who had been in place since the time of Saddam, and had been used by Saddam to spy on the UN. It is also an interesting coincidence that the same group of people being recruited by Chalabi and the Americans for intelligence work may have been providing the inside help required for the success of the UN bombing. Who were the security guards really working for?

  6. Chalabi claims that he and the Iraqi Governing Council had received intelligence on Thursday, August 14, that "a large-scale act would take place . . . against a soft target, such as Iraqi political parties or other parties, including the UN." He even knew it would be a truck bomb. He said: "It specifically said that this attack would take place using a lorry to be detonated either through a suicide mechanism or through electronic detonation." Chalabi also said that he knew that neither the Coalition Provisional Authority nor coalition troops would be attacked. The Iraqi Governing Council informed the Americans of this, but they did nothing to increase security at the United Nations, and did not even bother to tell the United Nations of the warning. On top of their failure to meet their international law obligations as Occupying Power to keep the UN building safe, not to mention their failure to properly secure ammunition dumps which led to bomb materials being readily available, the fact that the Americans had and ignored specific warnings, and failed to give the UN any hint of these warnings, is extremely suspicious. The American failure to protect or warn is even more striking given the recent attack against the Jordanian embassy (Chalabi is of course no friend of Jordan), and a spate of minor attacks against UN targets. It is interesting that Chalabi has been trying to recruit Iraqi intelligence members, Iraqi intelligence members were guarding the UN building, and Chalabi claims to have had advanced knowledge of some kind of attack.

  7. Sergio Vieira de Mello, who may have been specifically targeted as the bomb went off near where he was in the building, was involved in the liberation of East Timor, and was highly identified with the process of freeing that country from Indonesian army oppression. Osama bin Laden, or someone being passed off as Osama bin Laden, specifically mentioned East Timor as one of the injustices against Islam, apparently as he did not want Islamic Indonesia to be deprived of its right to slaughter and enslave the people of East Timor. But there is someone else who might have similar feelings. When Bremer of Baghdad is in the United States, he works as an errand boy for none other than Henry the K. One of Henry the K's proudest accomplishments was encouraging the enslavement of the East Timorese by the Indonesians. Is it possible that Henry the Z was also mad at Sergio Vieira de Mello?

  8. On Sunday, a bomb exploded outside the house of Mohammed Saeed al-Hakim in Najaf, killing three guards and injuring 10 others. Mohammed Saeed al-Hakim, who was slightly injured, is an influential Shiite cleric, and has close religious ties to Iran. I can't help but think of the explosion in the mosque at Fallujah, an explosion originally blamed by the Americans on bomb making within the mosque, an allegation that was then retracted (perhaps because it was religiously offensive), leaving the whole incident officially unexplained. The Iraqis blame the Americans for the Fallujah incident. Needless to say, I see a pattern of targets whose removal would benefit the Americans. The pattern is deep: the Americans had been warned that Mohammed Saeed al-Hakim was in danger, and apparently did nothing to protect him.

  9. The Israeli ambassador to the United Nations was quick to claim that the truck which carried the explosives came from Syria. The Israelis have played this game before, managing to use a false rumor about Saddam heading for Syria to provoke the Americans into the attacks at the Syrian border that led to the deaths of at least 80 people, including some Syrians killed in Syria while the Americans were in 'hot pursuit' of an Israeli phantom. The Israeli position is rather obviously to use every lie possible to give the Americans an excuse to attack Syria. In fact, the truck used appears to be a Russian-made truck of the type commonly used by the Iraqi military. Chalabi has long been accused of being an agent for the Mossad, an accusation that is not very helpful as it is made of just about everyone, but you have to wonder. You also have to wonder of the coincidence of the UN bomb and the Israeli bus bombing taking place at practically the same time, particularly as Sharon used the bombing to 'retaliate' by targeting a Hamas moderate who favors a 'two-state' solution, when Hamas was not responsible for the bus bombing, thus guaranteeing the end of the 'roadmap'. The simultaneous attacks in Iraq and Israel were not helpful to the Bush Administration as a whole, but may have been thought to be helpful to the Zionist/neocon elements in the Bush Administration, and the Israeli generals for which they work. Both the Zionists and the war mongers against Iran and Syria are gearing up to use the chaos of the 'war on terror' to further their goals.

  10. We've now seen another attempt to blame the Saudis, this time for 'terrorism' in Iraq. It seems that blaming the Saudis is always going to be the fall-back position for the Bush Administration. The Saudis have long had their iffy relationship with the funding of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups, but this was completely ignored in the United States, and in fact was encouraged by the Americans in those cases where the terrorist groups could be deployed against Russian interests. It was only when the Saudis tried to take an active role in solving the Palestinian problem, offering suggestions that would have led to a successful 'two-state' solution, that the disgusting American media suddenly started to see Saudi involvement in every terrorist plot. The Saudis wisely stopped talking about the Palestinians, but not soon enough to become the universal whipping boy for all cases of alleged terrorism. The long-term plan is to use the 'war on terror' to either replace the current ruling families of Saudi Arabia, or at least scare them into being more agreeable to American oil companies, a development that has already started to occur.

  11. The set-up of Syria and Iran is just starting. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said:

    "I'm not in any position to state that the governments of Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia are in any way responsible. But at a minimum I can state that these fighters are not being stopped at the borders, and this is something that causes us a great deal of concern."

    Rumsfeld, speaking of the 'terrorists', said:

    "They clearly are not being stopped by the countries from which they're coming."

    Look for the porous borders to be used a one of the excuses for the next war against Syria or Iran. 'Terrorist' attacks against a non-American target make a nice excuse for a war.

Given current American attitudes towards the United Nations, and the general level of violence by the neocons, not to mention the machinations of neocon/Zionist propaganda/politics in the Middle East, it's odd that the first inclination of everybody seeing the UN bombing wasn't to blame the Americans. The Iraqis are convinced that it was an American operation, and they may very well be right.