Article

2003-08-19 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-08-19 9:06:33 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A huge explosion on Tuesday rocked a hotel housing the U.N. headquarters, injuring a number of people and severely damaging the building, a spokesman said. The force of the blast, which knocked out windows up to a mile away from the scene, destroyed several cars, including one that was on fire. The U.N. spokesman in Baghdad, Salim Lone, informed U.N. headquarters in New York that a number of people were hurt in the explosion, but no one was killed as far as he knew. Lone said the explosion destroyed a significant part of the Canal Hotel in northeast Baghdad, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said in New York.
U.S. Black Hawk helicopters could be seen flying toward the scene of the explosion. Black smoke rose hundreds of feet into the air. U.S. military officials could not confirm what had happened.
United Nations weapons inspectors worked out of the hotel during the period before the war.

Fox is carrying footage now. Looks like three story building, section of front corner caved in. Wounded being carried away by chopper, ambulance and private cars. Army now reporting at least three dead.

Posted by Steve 2003-8-19 9:28:36 AM|| 2003-8-19 9:28:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Oops, seems like Abdullah the Saddamite got a bit confused by all those "united"-things. You know, United Nations, United States, kind of difficult when you have the IQ of a demented goat.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-8-19 9:33:09 AM|| 2003-8-19 9:33:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 and the French begin their surrender to any parked cars in the vicinity? Could this be more than just a Schadenfreude moment? Possibly a hardening of UN attitudes to the Arab/Baathist/Persian bastards doing this crap?

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-19 9:53:14 AM|| 2003-8-19 9:53:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 It's a quagmire. The imperialist U.N. occupiers must leave Iraq. I call on all Arabs to jihad the U.N. with all the jihad you can jihad.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-8-19 9:54:21 AM|| 2003-8-19 9:54:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This shows that the opposition is a Baathist conspiracy against the people of Iraq, not a spontaneous resistance against US occupation - if it were the latter, why target the UN? OTOH it make perfect sense for the Baathists, who want to push out the UN that has recognized the Iraqi Governing Council, and which may yet provide reconstruction aid. They especially want to kill the Brazilian who heads the UN effort in Iraq, since he has been vocal in advocating that the UN should recognize the IGC.
A hardening of attitudes - I hope so Frank - more so on the part of Kofi and the UN pros, then on the part of the French, who put their own interests above the UN institutional interests every time. Shifting opinion in fence-sitting states - New Zealand, Canada, India, even Germany - would certainly help.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-8-19 10:00:02 AM|| 2003-8-19 10:00:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The UN "hardening its attitudes"? Yeah, right. More likely, they'll blame it on the US "destabilizing" Iraq. Then they'll vote to condemn the US for "actions which resulted in the destruction seen in Baghdad".

Remember, the UN is on the side of the despots, not the side of the people.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-8-19 10:22:14 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-8-19 10:22:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 RC - my following of Kofi's actions throughout indicate that Kofi and the UN secretariat is on the side of the UN's institutional interests, period. Thats why the Kofi was less hostile to the US pre-war than Blix was - Blix was acting essentially for France and Russia, not for UN institutional interests - which looked less for stopping the war (the Franco-Russian line) then for insuring that it was done through the UN - US non-UN action was a pure loss for the UN - for France weakening the UNSC was worth it if it weakened the US. Similarly now, Kofi and especially Serge, have been more open towards the Iraqi Governing Council than have the French, etc. The UN's goal is NOT to undermine the US position or support despots - the UN's goal is to make the UN important, to get the UN involved, and generally to show the UN's importance. And to increase their budgets and payrolls. Their actions are not easily explicable otherwise.

I note you say "they'll vote" As should be clear, I was referring to the UN bureaucracy, not to the member states. When you talk of a vote, are you referring to the UNSC or the GA?

I cant really see either body voting to blame to this on the US - this is the US involved, not Israel.

If the UN is on the side of the despots,why were they targeted? In particular it looks like the Brazilian head of the UN mission in Iraq was personally targeted.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-8-19 10:38:07 AM|| 2003-8-19 10:38:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 One wounded man had a yard-long, inch-thick aluminum rod driven into his face just below his right eye. He was able to speak and identified himself as a security consultant for the International Monetary Fund, saying he had just arrived in the country over the weekend. Yahoo

Ouch!

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2003-8-19 10:38:49 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-8-19 10:38:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 If the UN is on the side of the despots,why were they targeted?

Because jihadis are stupid. As far as they're concerned, it's all "western".

As for the vote: naturally it would be in the GA, where the US couldn't just veto it. Besides, it was mostly a joke.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-8-19 10:53:02 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-8-19 10:53:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Time to run a binding vote on the IGC, whether they should be accepted in the UN as the legit representative of Iraq under US administration. Put the UNcrats on the spot

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-19 11:10:22 AM|| 2003-8-19 11:10:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Fox News was just interviewing a former Deputy Assistant Under-Secretary General [sumpin like that] of the UN who said:

1) UN workers were probably naive about security because of course they're doing nothing but Good Work, so how could anyone hate them?

[Admittedly the interviewer asked this with a leading question, but Deputy Dog agreed to it.]

2) Despite the fact the UN fought tooth and nail to keep the US out of Iraq, the UN was now "associated" with the big bad evil Yankees, and so are now vulnerable to attacks prompted by hatred of the Americans.

I exaggerate slightly, but only slightly.

If we're vewy quiet, we can hear the first sounds of moonbats blaming this on the US, for not having subdued all the bad guys yet (kinda like the museum looting business), and on George "Bring 'em on" Bush.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2003-8-19 12:25:19 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2003-8-19 12:25:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Frank - The UNcrats dont vote - the member states vote. You'd only be putting the UNSC members on the spot - and its pretty clear that without major concessions (that were not ready to give at this point) France and Russia would veto - how does this put Kofi on the spot? Kofi DOES NOT - repeat DOES NOT - control Chirac and Putin. He gets blamed for their actions here and in some other places, largely due to an ideological hatred for the UN (spiced by some legitimate frustration with Kofi) that transcends examination of what Kofi and the UNcrats actually do.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-8-19 12:29:36 PM|| 2003-8-19 12:29:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Indymadia - Bush did it to get back at Hans Blix.

Baghdad Bob Corp. - the Iraqi people did it to get back at the UN sanctions that kept them down so long.

Everybody else - the US is at fault for not providing adequate security.

Posted by El Id 2003-8-19 12:39:59 PM|| 2003-8-19 12:39:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 My Two Cents Worth: While this WILL get blamed on the United States by the press using some weird rational or the other, this attack may very well help to solidify world opinion against the remaining Ba'athist elements in the country. Not to diminish the suffering of those victimized by the attack, but it [the attack] may very well turn out to be a serious miscalculation on their part.

Posted by Secret Master 2003-8-19 12:41:07 PM|| [www.budgetwarrior.com] 2003-8-19 12:41:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 President Bush's comments just after the bombing referred to today's bombing of the UN offices as terrorism. This ties the increasingly ill-focussed and almost random post-invasion "anti-occupation" violence in Iraq: artillery into a prison, destruction of water supplies, and now the bombing of the UN offices. If one of the Iraqi children's hospitals hasn't been attacked, that will probably happen. The pre-war US claim that Saddam was in league with Al-Qaeda is in the process of being rendered moot. The talking heads on TV this afternoon are trying to distinguish anti-US activity, guerrilla warfare, Islamists, and terrorism, but a common-sense description of terrorism seems best. Would it really matter if the (inevitably) young Muslim men making bombs in Baghdad all carried officlal photo ID cards signed by Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar?

Posted by Tresho 2003-8-19 1:08:46 PM|| 2003-8-19 1:08:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The top U.N. envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was trapped in the building is now reported to have died.

Posted by Steve 2003-8-19 1:26:41 PM|| 2003-8-19 1:26:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 What, like we asked the goddam Psychotic Dictators Club to hang around? Weren't they whining that we wouldn't give them enough power? Let's see you protect yourselves for starters, assholes.

Posted by mojo 2003-8-19 1:26:51 PM|| 2003-8-19 1:26:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 update - serge vieira de mello, chief UN rep in Iraq is dead.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-8-19 2:33:29 PM|| 2003-8-19 2:33:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 De Mello used to be UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He was Kofi's personal choice as Iraq high commissioner.

Posted by Fred 2003-8-19 3:40:31 PM|| 2003-8-19 3:40:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I must say I am a bit bewildered and saddened: 19 comments and not a single line of sympathy for the victims. Instead more bitching about the UN and preemptive speculations about the blame game.
Some answer me the question how the UN employees could have protected themselves properly if even the mightiest military on earth isn't able (and probably can't be able) to fend of attacks in Iraq.
Of course the attack on the UN "makes perfectly sense". People who attack pipelines, water supplies and other infrastructure don't want the U.S./infidels/occupants to succeed. The greater UN role in Iraq holds the "danger" (for the Saddamists/Islamists) that opposition against the occupants would fade because Iraqis might have more sympathy for the U.N. than for the U.S. and that the life of Iraqis would get better with international help. And of course since the U.N. has more or less "legitimized" U.S. action in Iraq, it can be no ~~useful fool~~ "friend" for the attackers any more. Non Saddamist Iraqis with a brain between their ears might think differently though.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-8-19 6:30:16 PM|| 2003-8-19 6:30:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 TGA,you should see the comments wars on LGF and nicedoggie.net.Some people were downright gloating at the news of dead UN workers.I tried to explain to them that the victims weren't the SS,to no avail.
RIP.

Posted by El Id 2003-8-19 6:57:55 PM|| 2003-8-19 6:57:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 TGA: the UN compound wasn't protected by U.S. military -- and the UN doesn't appear to have taken any measures to reduce access to their headquarters building (i.e., barriers between the street & front of the building, etc). Some survivors remarked that the truck simply drove in off the street and into the building, then blew up.

I feel all sorts of sympathy for the victims, but I also think the UN's arrogance about the "protection" provided just by virtue of being the UN played a major role here. Having seen what happened to the Jordanian embassy just a week ago, they needed to protect themselves a lot better than they did. The person who was responsible for protecting that building and its occupants failed, with disastrous consequences.

Posted by snellenr 2003-8-19 6:58:48 PM|| 2003-8-19 6:58:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 The end result of this will be to pressure the US into giving the UN a greater role in post-Saddam Iraq. The UN's hardening of attitudes will not be against anyone else but the US. Get ready for an onslaught of condemnations coming from the UN & friends, against the US.

Posted by Raphael 2003-8-19 7:40:47 PM|| 2003-8-19 7:40:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 TGA - point taken, however, how many of the UN/ and staff were opposed to the UN games which could've caused US GI deaths? We'll never know. I imagine most of the frustration is in "how does it feel now, Ass?" mode. I feel no hatred for the individuals harmed in today's bombing. I also feel no sympathy for the mother organization which sent them in harm's way with less than competent protection. This could've very well been our troops (Beirut, '80s?) but did we see any outrage or commission of UN troops to fight back? F&^k NO!

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-19 7:49:49 PM|| 2003-8-19 7:49:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 TGA is correct.

First and foremost: my sympathies to the wounded and to the families of each of the dead.

Losing de Mello is not good: he seemed to be fairly reasonable (in a UN way, but still) and was trying to herd the various NGOs to do something. That's a thankless job but he seemed to be good at it. And at least as far as we know, he wasn't making unreasonable demands on Bremer. So while few of us would want the UN in Iraq in any controlling capacity, de Mello was a decent guy.

Posted by Steve White 2003-8-19 7:58:11 PM|| 2003-8-19 7:58:11 PM|| Front Page Top

19:38 Thase Elminelet9553
22:27 Frank G
22:25 Anonymous6024
11:54 Charlena
20:48 fred gunnniidddyyy
20:46 fred gunnniidddyyy
05:44 Becky
12:11 Becky
00:04 Stephen
23:54 .com
23:29 tu3031
23:15 .com
23:07 Alaska Paul
22:44 john
22:43 mhw
22:37 Zhang Fei
22:33 john
22:32 Raphael
21:54 tu3031
21:51 tu3031
21:49 SOG475
21:44 tu3031
21:12 tu3031
21:04 Matt
Merry-Go-Blog