Blast at the ICRC. Question

[Postman]

Trying to see this from the attackers point of view, of what value is blowing up the Red Cross?

It makes no sense to me from a strategic standpoint to attack the Red Cross. Maybe my ignorance of the facts on the ground prevents me from expressing an informed opinion, so I can only speculate.

1.)The Red Cross was attacked to show that no place is safe in Iraq?
2.)The Red Cross was being used as an unreported known haven for collaborating Iraqis?
....................................................................
warning, warning, tin foil perspective:

The attack makes completely no sense strategically and militarily. What the attack DOES do is open up a negative propaganda side of the "resistance."

Who would gain from that? The Occupiers.

Draw your own conclusions.

[incapsulated]

1. Same reason they attacked the UN

And the police stations.

"Do not help in any way or die."

They have no problem killing Iraqis they view as "collaborators" and it is mainly Iraqis working in these places.

[qwertyMike]

2. Belfast

In the 1970's the word on the street in Belfast was that Security forces deliberately ignored the IRA warnings (to clear civilains) that tha IRA always called in. To turn popular support away from the rebels.
I believe this is documented.
I will check for the links.

[incapsulated]

3. Two problems with that theory

One, they can't want this type of bad press.

Two, every time this happens, they turn as many Iraqis against the US as in favor. This is happening because we are there.

[tridim]

4. Maybe their informants thought Wolfowitz

was taken there?