How did the United Nations, imperialist media, and Zionist academia react to the attack against the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad?

The United Nations

Under the title: Top UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello killed in terrorist blast in Baghdad, the United Nations of Kofi Annan came to the rescue of the Bush regime. The U.N. announced, "The top United Nations envoy in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed today when terrorists blew up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing at least 14 others and injuring dozens more in what Secretary-General Kofi Annan denounced as an inexcusable "act of unprovoked and murderous violence."

A U.N. Security Council statement expressed similar feelings: "This horrible attack, aimed at undermining the vital role of the U.N. in Iraq, will not affect our determination."

Analysis

One: the syndicate that goes by the name: U.N. Security Council never bothered to take any measure to investigate the attack that killed De Vieira. Such inaction is suspicious considering that the council has been interfering in the internal affairs of every country in the world and appointing commissions to investigate the minutia of events as orchestrated or demanded by the United States. What is the motive for that inaction?

One reason exists. The Bush Regime would never authorize the U.N. to investigate its own international crimes. An example was the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri. When Israel killed Rafiq al-Hariri to destabilize Syria and Lebanon, the U.N. Security Council looked -- as ordered -- only in one direction: Syria, and swiftly moved to form commissions with the sole purpose to implicate Syria and fix evidence, while it never investigated the primary beneficiaries of the assassination: the U.S. and Israel.

Two: in the same fashion, without due process, without investigation, and on the same day that the United States declared the attack against the U.N. in Baghdad as "terrorist," meaning committed by Iraqis or other Arabs, a submissive U.N. imitated the United States and classified the attack "terrorist," as well.

Three: to be sure, De Vieira and staff were victims of a terrorist attack, but behind that attack was the United States that ordered it for tactical reasons related to its occupation of Iraq.

Although this may sound preconceived, it is, nevertheless, potentially true because of consistency factors. In fact, the killing of De Vieira is consistent with all the following partial listing of events:

• It is consistent with the historical behavior of the United States to assassinate world leaders such as Dag Hammarskjöld (a former U.N. General Secretary), Patrice Lumumba (Congo’s first prime minister after independence from Belgium), and the failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein. The fact that President Gerald Ford abrogated the program to assassinate foreign leaders deemed inimical to U.S. interests does not mean that the program did not continue in other forms.
  
  
• It is consistent with the CIA’s covert operations around the world, including the assassination of a U.S. president (John Kennedy) who questioned the increasing Zionist control of the Congress. And that in addition to all the military coups that the U.S. planned in Indonesia (1960) and Iraq (1963) in which countless people perished under direct U.S. supervision. In Indonesia alone, over one million people lost their lives because of a coup, organized by the American embassy in Jakarta, against the pro-leftist government of President Ahmad Sukarno.
  
  
• It is consistent with the philosophy and practice of the neocons in this bogus war against "terror." Remember: the Valerie Plame affair where the White House exposed her identity as a CIA agent to take revenge on her husband (former Ambassador Joseph Wilson) who, earlier, exposed as a hoax the White House story that Iraq bought yellowcake uranium from Niger.
  
  
• It also is consistent with Rice’s theory of "creative chaos," and Rumsfeld theory of "vandalism" as an expression of freedom. But most importantly, it is consistent with Israel’s assassinations by remote control detonations.

Why did the U.S. and Israel kill De Vieira as it killed Hariri on February 2005? Answer: it killed De Vieira to create the impression that the U.S. is fighting implacable terrorists in Iraq, and, as I said before, it killed Hariri to destabilize Syria and Lebanon through the UNSC.

Let us examine the view of Russia and China on the assassination of Hariri. Sergey Lavrov, Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs said, "That the resolution [1636] showed the resolve of the international community to find the truth in this case." [Source] [Italics added]. Now that we established that the Russians, together with the "international community" wanted to find the truth, let us examine the rational of Li Zhaoxing, Minister for Foreign Affairs of China for adopting the same resolution.

Zhaoxing: "The assassination of Hariri last February was, indeed, distressing; today’s meeting carried positive significance, not only for searching for the truth and bringing the perpetrators to justice, but also for preventing the recurrence of similar incidents. [Source] [Italics added].

So, "principled" Russia and China were searching for the truth! But where were Russia and China when the United States killed De Vieira? Was the Saudi-connected billionaire Hariri, whom the U.S. propaganda depicted as a key international personality, more important than De Vieira? Can anyone explain the reason for the disparity of treatment reserved to both men? Was Hariri so crucial for world security that the imperialist triumvirate, the U.S., U.K., and France and their pawns (or subaltern partners) of turn, Russia and China, decided to investigate his assassination but not that of De Vieira? Why does Russia and China not investigate the murder of over 250,000 Iraqis by the United States and its death squads or Chechens by the Russian forces?

In reverse order, the answer to the second question is that Russia and China live under U.S. capitalistic dependency. Other motives, of course, exist, but their discussion goes beyond the scope of this series. To answer the first question, let us see what the United States, Britain, France (authors of the draft resolution) stated in this regard: "Determining that this terrorist act and its implications constitute a threat to international peace and security."

If Russia and China, who allowed this scam to pass as a binding resolution, believe that the assassination of Hariri constitutes a threat to international peace and security, then did anyone read or hear Russia or China ever say the invasion of Iraq was a threat to international peace and security, and issue an official communiqué accordingly?

So how did the assassination of Hariri play in the Israel-American game in the Middle East, and particularly in Iraq? Concisely, the assassination of Hariri served two purposes:

1. The evacuation of Syrian forces from Lebanon. Said the resolution: "The 14 February 2005 bombing, which killed Mr. Hariri and 22 others, led to renewed calls for the withdrawal of all Syrian troops and intelligence agents, who had been in Lebanon since the early stages of the country’s 1975-1990 civil war."
   
   
2. Tying the assassination to Bush’s "war on terror." Said the resolution: "Defining the crime as a terrorist act, the Council said that the involvement of any State in it would constitute a serious violation of that country’s obligations to prevent and refrain from supporting terrorism in accordance with previous resolutions." It said it would also amount to a serious violation of the sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon.

Let us now connect all these findings in a logical synthesis to discover their intermediate and ultimate objective. The U.S. and Israel killed Hariri to isolate Syria, isolate the Lebanese resistance, attack Syria under the pretext of it was catering to terrorism, or overthrow the Syrian government and install a pro-American regime. Where are the intermediate and ultimate objectives? Intermediate objective: if Syria falls, the U.S. could then open a corridor between a planned Kurdish state in Northern Iraq and Israel. A plan such as this would finally connect Israel directly to a source of oil through a pipeline. Ultimate objective: Again, if Syria falls, the only state that obstructs the corridor to Afghanistan would be Iran!

Can we prove that Syria did not kill Hariri?

Billionaire Hariri who bought his way to the Lebanese premiership with bribery and donations was no longer prime minister at the time of his assassination; meaning, except for his money, he enjoyed no political power at that time. Two: Despite his on and off relations with the Syrian government, Syria could not have killed him in that explosive manner (spectacle) -- that was Israel’s way of getting rid of its Arab political adversaries. Why should Syria kill Hariri, if knowing that his assassination might raise a storm against it, especially knowing the connections between Hariri, the Saudi ruling family, Jaques Chirac, and the Bush family? Indeed, once the U.S. killed Hariri through Israel, Russia and China joined the U.S. in ordering Syria out of Lebanon by means of another U.N. resolution.

Note on Kofi Annan and the attack that killed De Vieira. We know that Annan is the personification of bureaucratic obedience. But his complete obsequiousness to U.S. diktats is such that he rarely ventures out of what the U.S. assigns him to do or say. Consequently, he always acted if he is an American employee.

Annan’s speeches are filled with vacuous rhetoric. For example, aside from his belated admission that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal, I read nowhere that Annan had ever dared to call the U.S. attack against Iraq, "terrorism," or an "act of unprovoked and murderous violence ." as he did De Vieira. When Annan leaves the U.N., a trail of shame will always follow his servile bureaucratic legacy at the service of U.S. imperialism.

Imperialist TV networks

Our example here is CNN (a subsidiary of the Zionist-controlled Time-Warner). CNN’s dispatcher from Baghdad quoted so-called, terrorism expert, Peter Bergen to comment on the American perpetrated attack that killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, but routinely attributing it to Arab "terrorists." As a terrorist expert [sic], Bergen, used his expertise (how did he acquire it, what was the curriculum, and who gave him the title?) to add his "hefty analytical dissection" of the attack. So what did Bergen conclude?

One: Some U.S. officials believe Iraq is becoming a major "magnet" for al Qaeda terrorists, who now pose more of a threat than remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said.

Two: Bergen said one counterterrorism official told him most of the militants are Saudis crossing into Iraq from Syria.

Analysis

One: is it not striking that our "expert" did not give any expert view on the attack but like a jammed recorded message repeated that some U.S. officials believed that Iraq was becoming a major magnet for al-Qaeda.

1. Logically, if there is major magnet, a minor one should exist! As you know, American propaganda is about figures of speech, parables, and imagery without substance. The whole idea behind the magnet theory was to create in the minds of the people an image of a situation so terrible that it requires continuing American intervention since, according to neocon indoctrination, the U.S. was a victim of such "terrorism."
   
   
2. Sarcastically though, what was the amperage of the electrical current that passed inside Iraq thus turning it into a major magnet? Even if we take the U.S. claim on terrorism at face value, it is not open for debate that "terrorism," as defined by U.S. imperialism, never existed in Iraq until Wolfowitz and Perle decided to invade it. It follows, U.S. neocons created both: the electrical current and magnet to destabilize occupied Iraq and prepare it for conquest.
   
   
3. It is beyond discussion that what is happening in Iraq under U.S. occupation is "terrorism." But, when we closely examine a phenomenon such as U.S. terrorism in Iraq, the outcome is always identical. "Terrorism" in Iraq is an elaborate long-term Zionist American strategy to disorient the Iraqis with ceaseless pyrotechnic bloodshed to provoke a war between the two major branches of Islam: Sunnism and Shiism.
   
   
4. It is essential to underline that in the entire 1,400-year of Islamic history there has never been any violent strife between Sunnis and Shiites (such as Catholics vs. Protestants in Northern Ireland) in any Arab or Muslim country. Animosities about the interpretation of dogmas and Sharia (Islamic Law) existed, but they were always on a scholarly level, although bigotry on both sides has been always present.
   
   
5. Categorically, in Iraq, there has never been any sort of separation -- in any form: cultural, social, religious, attire, language, literature, etc. -- between Shiites or Sunnis. (This writer was born and raised in Baghdad without knowing who was Shiite or who was Sunni, and no one ever asked who was who) The Irish example could be valuable here: can you distinguish between, an Irish Catholic and an Irish Protestant? More on this subject: but every one knows that Northern Ireland is mostly Protestant with a sizeable Catholic presence. In Iraq, it is common knowledge that most of the South is Shiite but with a sizeable Sunni presence.
   
   
6. In their rabid drive to partition Iraq, it is now very common to hear American Zionists and imperialists repeat, time and time again, the following expression: "The impending civil war between the Sunni Arabs and the Shiite people in the South . . . etc.". A question: Assume the Shiite would abandon their cultural Shiite heritage and embrace Sunnism, would U.S. Zionists still call them "the Shiite people?"
   
   
7. To make the civic milieu of such natural fusion and interaction among Iraq’s diverse communities disintegrate, the United States and Israel had to create something that can not only reverse the fusion of Iraqi society but also create a fighting war among the parties. That something was 1) "Zarqawi," and 2) real terrorism directed entirely against one party: the Shiites.
   
   
8. Moreover, U.S. claims that "foreign fighters" are entering Iraq from Syria and Iran is pointless. As the occupying power, the U.S. and its Kurdish and Shiite militia should be able to seal off the entire perimeter of the Iraqi borders. So why is the U.S. complaining? Answer: to give the impression that the resistance against the occupation is not Iraqi.
   
   
9. U.S. propaganda is remarkable for its ideological elasticity. An example is the capability to institute invented comparisons based on false information, and then present them as realities. From there, propaganda makers hope they can transmute the perception they were creating into a certainty, at least in the minds of those who depend on the empire for news.
   
   
10. Take for example the propaganda that tied President Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. In building up the image of al-Qaeda in Iraq as a "formidable enemy," the U.S. official whom Bergen cited in his article, characterized al-Qaeda as a force that is more dangerous than Saddam’s remnants."
    
    
11. Remember, just a few months earlier, the U.S. stated that Saddam and his regime were the most dangerous on earth! (After Israel unleashed its aggression against Lebanon, ABC News produced a video entitled: Examining Hezbollah as a Threat: Before 9/11, some officials were more concerned about Hezbollah than al-Qaeda. Yes, Hezbollah is devoted to fighting Israeli Nazism and occupation of Lebanese soil, but to compare it to al-Qaeda is a political buffoonery that the Zionist producers of ABC want the American public to adopt.)

Two: As far as it concerns the concept of criminal investigation, Bergen, as an "expert" demonstrated the banality of American investigative journalism:

1. For instance, without probing, analysis, skepticism, or investigation, Bergen, who is supposed to give his "expert" view on the matter, recycled what the other "expert" on counterterrorism was telling him. So, where is Bergen’s expert view?
   
   
2. Specifically, how did that official in Bergen’s story find out about the citizenship of the intruders in Iraq? Did he ask for and stamp their passports? How did that same official find out that these Saudi intruders entered Iraq via Syria, and not from Jordan or Saudi Arabia, which has over 350 miles of border with Iraq? Did he follow them with spy satellites from the moment they left their homes in Saudi Arabia until they entered Iraq and took their posts at "terror camps"?

NOTE

In part four of this series, I stated that, "when Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, Muqtada al-Sadr, Jawad al-Khalisi, and other clerics began complaining about the occupation, the brief marriage of convenience between Shiite black turbans and American neckties showed signs of strain."

In the heat of writing, I included Jawad al-Khalisi in the group of pro-occupation Shiite clerics who first sided with the invasion and occupation, and then turned against the AOR (the American Occupation Regime.) I apologize for that unintended inclusion. In fact, al-Khalisi has been exemplary in his consistent rejection of the American project in Iraq since George W. Bush threatened to invade Iraq.

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal