|現在地 HOME > 掲示板 > 戦争３８ > 616.html ★阿修羅♪||
U.N. Baghdad Blast, Who Did It?
View of the U.N. HQ in eastern Baghdad after a huge explosion rocked the building
By Khaled Mamdouh, IOL Staff
CAIRO, August 20 (IslamOnline.net) - In a chaotic situation, things could easily get messy. This is the first lesson to be drawn from the attack on the United Nations headquarters in the Iraqi capital. As for the reasons behind such an attack, all possibilities are on the table and almost nothing is unthinkable.
Touching on the tragic attack, the BBC’s World Affairs Correspondent, Paul Reynolds, wrote on Tuesday, August 19 (the same day of the attack) “Why the U.N. is a target”, clearly implying the Iraqi resistance was behind the operation.
Having already identified the perpetrators, he moved on to what he believed was the reason behind the attack.
"There could have been a specific reason as well, tied to a vote in the Security Council last week.
"On 14 August the Council gave its approval to the recently formed Iraqi Governing Council and it also approved the establishment of a United National Assistance Mission in Iraq (Unami).
"The U.N. might therefore have been seen by the Iraqi resistance as an instrument of the United States and Britain in their occupation of the country," Reynolds opined.
He argued that: "By approving the Governing Council of Iraqis appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the Security Council put its weight behind the move towards an eventual democratic Iraq.
"By setting up the Assistance Mission, the UN was throwing its influence and resources behind that same move.
"Whether those behind the attack were supporters of the old regime or Islamists intent on making Iraq a new battleground, the United Nations presented a target."
However, the Iraqi resistance - the Islamic factions, in particular - were among the first to condemn the attack.
The Islamic resistance denounced the bombing that rocked the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, branding it as a "criminal" act.
In a statement, the group exonerated all Iraqi resistance factions from attacks on the U.N. office, the Jordanian embassy and strategic sites in the occupied country, including oil pipelines.
It asserted that Tuesday’s attack was meant to scare off the world organization to quit Iraq and leave the country to the U.S.-led occupation forces.
The statement also underlined that such attacks were plotted with the aim of discrediting the Iraqi resistance.
No Party Excluded
Looking for leads, U.S.-led forces and possibly U.S.-hired Iraqi police are studying the scene of the crime.
Beneficiaries must mark high on the list of suspects, only logic.
Applying this to the crime at hand, we find ourselves in a maze, to put it mildly.
Back to the BBC’s Mr. Reynolds, we find the same logic also applied.
"Some countries, led by France, want the UN to be much more of an equal with the Coalition Authority (that is the Americans and British).
"The resolution laying out what the UN should do in Iraq - 1483 - gives it a rather secondary position, for example in helping to form the Governing Council. It could advise, but the Coalition decided.
"In addition, many governments (India was an important recent example) will not send troops to help in peacekeeping in Iraq without a UN mandate.
"But if the resistance is now targeting the UN itself, then those countries will be reluctant to help even with a mandate.
"The United Nations was seen by many as the solution to the present crisis.
"This attack may force them to think again," he concluded.
This of course could be true. However, is this the only side there is to the crime?
Having already a clear condemnation of the attack from the so-called Islamic Iraqi resistance, we need to look deeper.
Who is the party that sees the current messy and chaotic situation in Iraq in their best interest?
Some may imply Iran, for example. It should not be that hard to understand why the Iranians want the U.S. always busy-minded trying to get things under control. After all, no one can tell who is next in the U.S. so-called "war on terror".
Others may imply the Iraqi Kurds themselves, on the grounds that they enjoy relative security and peace, have their own self-ruled areas - a case that may come to an end once a strong Iraqi regime is put in place.
Al-Qaeda operatives may not be excluded as well. Some may say the attack was not directed to their number one enemy; "infidel Americans". But again, the method and place of the attack deal - in any case - a heavy blow to the U.S. attempts to get things under control.
Can the U.S. occupation forces themselves be really ruled out as a perpetrator? Immediately after the blast, it was declared as "a suicide bomb attack". However, no identity of the bomber has yet been declared, not even a body has been referred to, so far.
In addition, can it be that the Americans want no U.N. role - as charged by the Iraqi Islamic resistance - at this point for some reasons?
As we put it in the beginning, it is a messy situation indeed where, in the absence of transparency and information, people depend on rumors and guesses.
So, I think before trying to guess why, we need to know who.