Expect more attacks like the one we saw today.

[Cascadian]

As a result of our aggressive and wreckless policies in Iraq and the World, any doubts of an alliance between Saddam and any Islamic extremist groups has now been put aside. I honestly think that there are hundreds if not thousands of angry Islamic fundamentalists entering Iraq.

Saddam may have hatred for fundamentalist and vice versa but this could put all differences aside to fight one enemy. The United States.


While the attack was on the UN not the US, you can bet that you will be seeing more attacks like this throughout Iraq.


John

[silverchair]

1. i agree...

bush has stirred up a hornet's nest over there. notice how many terrorist bombings there have been lately around the world. it's only going to get worse.

[chesley]

2. Ahhhh!

But they haven't been here.

[Cascadian]

3. ?

What do you mean?

John

[diamondsoul]

4. Ahhhh.

So it's perfectly ok with you if non-Americans get blown to bits or even Americans living abroad, just as long as the bad guys don't get too close to your house. Nice.

[Cascadian]

8. What are you talking about???

I never said anything like that. Any bombing is bad and it's bad ALL people get maimed or die. I never said that it was okay! How dare you make such assumptions! All I am saying is that expect more terrorist attacks! Wake up!

John

[diamondsoul]

15. Um John?

My response was to the post above yours. The person who said "Ahhh! But they're not happening here."

Sorry to have confused you.

[Cascadian]

17. it's okay!

eom

[chesley]

28. No

I don't like it if anybody gets "blown to bits". Tht being said, we are at war, a war that we did not start. If you don't see that, then nothing that I can say will change your midn. At war, unfortunately, people die. I would rather it be the terrorists and their sympathizers than American troops or civilians.

[lumpy]

29. "A war that we did not start"

Problem is we started a 'new war' against Iraq, a country that has not proven to have been involved with AlQueda. Bush's creative war has not only managed to bring unprecedented disaster to Iraq, but has created more enemies against this once respected American country.

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. A war we did not start?? Bullshit!

All roads lead back to one person : George "Poppy" Bush. The creator of three terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and his lame brained non elected asshole son.

Who exactly did what and when is up for debate, but no matter what scenario proves to be true, it must never be forgotten that the Bush Criminal Empire is ultimately responsible for all of it.

[NickB79]

33. Troll alert

The "a war that we did not start" comment being used to refer to Iraq gives it away.

[Dhalgren]

7. They weren't "here" before.

It was always difficult for foreign elements to committ massive crimes in this country. It still is. The fear mongering that the current administration has conducted and conducts (with the collusion of the media and the Dems) creates a false sense of fulneralbility among the populace. It is no easier for "terrorists" to attack American domestic targets now, than it was in 1998 - it is just that now, everyone buys into the fear and it is just a tool of the administration and nothing more.

[Bandit]

9. Yes the mighty warrior Bush* has saved us all

:shrug: ignorance is bliss.

[leftchick]

16. and I feel oh so safe here in the US because we invaded Iraq!

Pulease... :eyes:

[caledesi]

19. Yet...still time. Too busy killing troops in Iraq.

[Brian Sweat]

21. Ahhh, now I see the genius that is Bush.

Bush has provided all of the people who want to kill Americans a convenient target in their own back yard. So instead of going through all of the trouble of traveling to America and going through all of the security checks, they can just drive over to Iraq and take a few pot shots at our troops.

Simply Brilliant.


</sarcasm>

[quinnox]

5. I agree

All the more reason to find these terrorists, and make sure they don't hurt anyone ever again. Terrorists are an enemy of humanity.

[Dhalgren]

11. "Terrorists are an ememy of humanity"?

"Terrorist" is a label assigned to certain individuals, by other individuals, for specific reasons. "Terrorism" is a politico-military device, used througout human history to varying degrees of success. As a device it is neutral as to "good/evil". If we, as a nation, have enemies, they are individuals or groups or nations that are at odds with us for specific reasons and toward specific ends. We are not "hated for our freedoms", and our enemies are not "evil-doers" - they are enemies and if we lose sight of why they are are enemies and how we should deal with them militarily and politically, we not only won't "win" against them, we won't even know who they are until it is too late.

[Kamika]

6. So i dont get it..

Just why do they attack the UN, if anything the UN is there to help them.

[Cascadian]

10. Something doesn't seem right about it.

We must look into how the U.S. reacts to this plus what the foreign and alternative press digs up in the next few days. It is strange that they would attack a neutral organization like the U.N.

John

[Dhalgren]

12. For more than twelve years

the UN has not been "neutral" towards the Iraqis. Think how the sanctions have hurt them and the UN still holds the US in good standing - no sanctions against the US.

[Kamika]

13. Ok true

I must have lost contact with my brain for awhile.. i cant believe i forgot that the sanctions were actually UN sanctions..


Yeah well no wonder they will blow the heck out of the un lol

[lumpy]

30. I do know one thing.

Far right Repubs have hated the idea of the United Nations having any influence in world affairs and would gladly see it dismantled. Bushco's decision to go-it-alone in Iraq furthers the anti-UN concept. There are dinos who would rather pick and choose who the enemy should be to further freeflowing capitalism without having to bow down to world opinion.

[liberalnurse]

14. I'm guessing here but

if the people suffer, then it trickles down to the root of their misery, the US occupation.

At least they had some clue as to what could and could not be done under Saddam. They had clear boundaries. Now it is total chaos. If they keep it miserable, then the Iraqi people will begin to think how good they use to have it, forgetting the pain and rath of Saddam and thinking only of what they lost.....

[berry]

27. Isn't "chaos" one of the prized tools of the Straussian PNACers?

Of course, they don't hold a patent on the idea, but one wonders. There was some speculation that Chalabi may have had a hand in the Jordanian embassy bombing. It's interesting too that now again we're hearing about Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia as channeling "terrorists" into Iraq. And newspeople are speculating that if it's Baathists, it might have been to make people nostalgic for the relative order of society under Saddam Hussein. But if it was Chalabi's group, it could have been to make people finally look to the US occupation as the only hope (just because it probably won't work doesn't mean it can't have been the motivation).

But of course I know nothing at all about this--it's just that targetting the UN is so odd. Maybe they are perceived as being allied with the US, and against Iraqis.

[ewagner]

35. Straussian

yes.

As well as the concept of the Moral War e.g. precision bombing where few if any civilians are killed.

[karlschneider]

18. My doubts about a Saddam alliance are FAR from "put aside", but I agree

there will be more incidents and fully expect some of them to be in the USA.
:-(

[Brian Sweat]

20. Saddam is no longer an issue and an alliance is not necessary.

Iraq is like a shooting gallery. Our troops are the ducks. You don't have to have an alliance with the guy next to you at the shooting gallery. You just load up an start shooting.

There were a lot of people over there that hated us before Schleprock decided to "fuck Saddam" and take him out. Now we have dialed up the hatred and provided our enimies with a convient, nearby target.

[KoKo]

22. The UN was a symbol.....and may have just been an easy target according

to General Montgomery Mix on MSNBC. He said the Iraqi's feel they have been invaded, their services haven't been restored, they are angry and we have to expect more of this since we are an "occupying force."

He felt their might not have been a message in the UN bombing but that when you have angry groups in a country thats occupied they will pick whatever target is the most vulnerable..

(I got the feeling General Mix (sp) may be one of the Generals who didn't want us there in the first place!)

[Ripley]

23. Just yesterday I told my spouse

that I felt something bigger was going to happen. The fact that the daily sniping, assassinations, mining of roads seemed to slack off just made me think the perpetrators were actually spending their time devising a bigger plan to do more damage. If they can get a bomb of that size so close to a hotel, think about what other horrific things they can do.

It is so sickening that the Bush Team decided they wanted to copy the situation in Israel/Palestine, but on a larger scale. How many of the children who witness the daily brutalities in Iraq will one day strap on a suicide bomb?

[imax2268]

24. I say...

we bring all our troops home before any more get killed...and that we don't waste anymore needed money over there...let them fend for themselves if that's what they want...

Bush has not made the world any safer...period...he has stirred up a storm of anger over there...many more of our soldiers will die I'm afraid before this is all over...

And someone posted earlier...something doesn't smell right with this...and I'm sure we won't hear the "real" details from our so called "media"...

What a mess...

[yolatengo]

25. The UN, even to a 'terra-ist'

I would think 'street' Iraqis and even Terrorists wouldn't have much
against the UN. Surely they know the US was basically the initiator
of most if not all 'sanctions' against Iraq since '91.

Many street Iraqis might even think "well, not me personally, but
Saddam and our country probably deserved sanctions back in
'91 for invading Kuwait, but the USA has done more to keep us
down and keep sanctions going than the UN since then".

Many Iraqis are probably also aware that Kuwait was drilling
diagonally into Iraqi oilfields. But, you might even convince
some of them: "sure, you had a right to get mad about that,
but the UN, the Arab League and diplomacy was the solution,
not a full scale invasion and looting of Kuwait when you were
told to stop by the UN".

I also think this might be part of a 'divide and conquer' strategy.
It seems logical that a terrorist might bomb (for example) something
in the UK. This could cause UK public opinion to sour further
(e.g. "Tony, we notice they haven't touched the bloody French or Germans!").
Likewise, bombing the UN has the effect that many countries would
isolate support for using the UN to bring democracy/stability/Iraqi
Governance to Iraq. "Why should we support sending our people,
via the UN there when they're getting bombed and shot? Let the
USA continue to do this all themselves! They started the damn thing!
Now they want us to cover the costs, AND 'donate' lives while they
hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton? Screw the USA!". After that,
you drive a wedge between the USA and UK, then you wait until
the USA gets sick of being there (and paying for it), then you
swoop in to 'save' Iraq with your fundie theocracy (I think I saw
this happen before in, um, Afghanistan in the 1980's). The USSR
wanted no help from the UN. They were an imperial superpower.
The Mujahedeen would target conscripts from 'lesser' Soviet
Republics to drive a wedge ("g*ddamn RUSSIANS in the Kremlin
sending us Tajik and Estonian slobs out here to die on the Steppes,
this is bullsh*t!") in support for the war.

The UN will be 'disinclined' to even be humanitarian if they are getting
a raw deal from Bush AND murdered by terrorists. They DO seem to
have SOME backbone and this is a mission that needs to be done
(despite the poor reasons for war, there WAS a war and innocents
do need help). I just wonder which of the myriad holes in Bush's
dyke will turn to disaster (will Halliburton pull out when they realize
they can do business there as pipelines blow up, civilian employees
are killed? will the UN pull out when they haven't the stomach for
the bombs or the cost? will 500+ more bodybags and NO support
from ANY allies convince red staters this is a debacle? I'm guessing
no on the last one; they're too pigheaded to admit they were wrong
and will kneejerk at any semblance of reason...).

Bigby

[KoKo]

26. CNN had a former Clinton (Jamie Rubin) saying Iraq was safe from Al Qaeda

under Saddam because he wouldn't let them in. He said that now it's an open country because of the chaos there (meaning Bush has screwed up) and that Iraq is more unstable now, and more open to terrorists and this kind of activity will continue there. (I believe Rubin was Under Secretary of State under Clinton).

I wondered when Wolf was going to cut him off before he said more about Bush's disaster in Iraq...and sure enough there was a sudden break for Bush's (Taped!) speech to the nation on the bombing.

Anyway, I was glad to hear Rubin tell the truth.

[maveric]

31. A bus just exploded in Jerusalem. LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=102

[Garage Queen]

34. Bush to Terrrrrrists: "Bring 'em on!" Terrrrrrrists to Bush: "ok."

<sarc/>

:evilfrown: