The Zarqawi affair, part 9 of 15By B. J. Sabri, Online Journal Contributing WriterSep. 22, 2006 |
Lufthansa Fined Record $4M for Alleged 'Discrimination' Against Jewish Passengers
Netanyahu Won't Commit to Not Striking Iranian Nuclear or Oil Sites But Will 'Consider' U.S. Warnings
'Anti-Cancel Culture Conservatives' Seek to Cancel Writer Chris Brunet for Criticizing Israel
U.S. Spends Record $23 Billion On Israel Since Oct 7
'The First Live-Streamed Genocide': Al Jazeera Documentary Exposes Israeli War Crimes in Gaza
"The best way to find these terrorists who hide in holes is to get people coming forth to describe the location of the hole, is to give clues and data." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003 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:
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:
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.
Two: As far as it concerns the concept of criminal investigation, Bergen, as an “expert” demonstrated the banality of American investigative journalism:
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. B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American anti-war activist. Email: [email protected]. Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal |