'15 dead' in huge blast at UN HQ
- Thread starter The_Pikeman
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
yeah was just reading that (and was about to post it).
freaky
edit: btw, CNN says 17 dead, but I guess it will rise. 500 persons usually work there
freaky
edit: btw, CNN says 17 dead, but I guess it will rise. 500 persons usually work there
Last edited:
The UN envoy died before the rescue team could get to him...
The people who do this don't realise that the 'free iraq' they want will be more and more miles away for every attack they make on UN, american and british forces. And as they hit a hospital in the process the public support of their actions won't rise either.
They now have no reason to be 'surprised' or 'angry' when the Americans or Brits shoot arms dealers and seize weapon stacks the coming weeks.
The people who do this don't realise that the 'free iraq' they want will be more and more miles away for every attack they make on UN, american and british forces. And as they hit a hospital in the process the public support of their actions won't rise either.
They now have no reason to be 'surprised' or 'angry' when the Americans or Brits shoot arms dealers and seize weapon stacks the coming weeks.
Last edited:
Not every Iraqi citizen is a terrorist, Ivan. Those weapons could've been used three ways I think:
A) Protection against extremist Saddam supporters.
B) Protection against trigger happy occupying forces.
C) Protection against whoever moves in next when said occupying forces vacate the area.
A) Protection against extremist Saddam supporters.
B) Protection against trigger happy occupying forces.
C) Protection against whoever moves in next when said occupying forces vacate the area.
Every time the US or brits do something to protect themselves or the UN mission they are criticised. Now the facts are there to tell the public they need to do more.
And the people who use weapons in way B could support or be the ones who support these bombings.
The biggest mistake they made in 1991 was to stop and retreat, while they got both the north and the south 100% ready to topple Saddam that time. The fact that they went out then only made Saddam's position a lot stronger so they have more problems now.
And the people who use weapons in way B could support or be the ones who support these bombings.
The biggest mistake they made in 1991 was to stop and retreat, while they got both the north and the south 100% ready to topple Saddam that time. The fact that they went out then only made Saddam's position a lot stronger so they have more problems now.
I couldn't dissagree more, just because some of the iraqi population has decided to become terrorists dose not make arms dealers and the rest targets for assasination. Fighting these people that way is a losing battle. Of course there is going to be huge arms sales in iraq the "goverment" cant keep anyone from looting/killing the main roads are not safe and there is very little police to sort these problems out. I'd want a weapon in that situation, so woukd most people. Targeting arms dealers is not right, them selling arms isn't a terrorist action far from it and even though they had a link with the hussain goverment dose not put them on the same level as him. Take Nazi Germany for an example, a low level offical was not held resonsible for the hollocost{SP?} and rightly so.
-How.
Last edited:
blowing up the same UN which did it's utmost to delay the attacks on your country is no way to say 'thanks for the effort'
As i said earlier, they had to push through in 1991 instead of giving saddam 12 years to strengthen his position in the regions which were rebelling in 1991
As i said earlier, they had to push through in 1991 instead of giving saddam 12 years to strengthen his position in the regions which were rebelling in 1991
dude i hope you realize Saddam has hardly anything to do with this attacks, as well as most of the other ones?
if he's still in iraq, he was much better things to do (like hiding). before the war, experts all over the world warned about the increasing terrorist activity it will cause. but bush never listens. guess they were right
if he's still in iraq, he was much better things to do (like hiding). before the war, experts all over the world warned about the increasing terrorist activity it will cause. but bush never listens. guess they were right
"bring them on!"
Ivan, this looks more like Al Quaeda signature than ex-Husseins soldiers or fedayeen who targets US soldiers.
Al Quaeda has a big grief with UN and since the collapse of the Iraqi regime, they have been entering in the country like in a church. No more repression against radical muslims like in Saddam's time, they are profiting from it and they don't really care about the Iraqi people as long as they can further the chaos of war...
Certainly more will come.
Ivan, this looks more like Al Quaeda signature than ex-Husseins soldiers or fedayeen who targets US soldiers.
Al Quaeda has a big grief with UN and since the collapse of the Iraqi regime, they have been entering in the country like in a church. No more repression against radical muslims like in Saddam's time, they are profiting from it and they don't really care about the Iraqi people as long as they can further the chaos of war...
Certainly more will come.
about Sergio
http://globonews.globo.com/GloboNews/article/0,6993,A588116-2398,00.html
(in portuguese, but a translator should work)
http://globonews.globo.com/GloboNews/article/0,6993,A588116-2398,00.html
(in portuguese, but a translator should work)
There's another point of view for the Iraqi-people :Crazy_Ivan said:
First the UN did its utmost to keep Saddam in power ...
Now they're supporting those foreign invaders that have made things worse then they were while Saddam was there ... sure they didn't have food and water, but at least there weren't any terrorist attacks. You'd only had to watch for Saddam's henchmen.
And you think they should say thanks ?
For what ?
There's still no oil
and the americans & british keep it for themselves ... (or at least it looks like that when you can't get oil & a bunch of army vehicles drive by ...)
There's still no reliable source of food, electricity & water ...
And the fat cats in that building were enjoying food, water & electricity ...
Can you even think of a better target ?
Yes.A_Rimmerlister said:
But the real question should be: Can you think of an easier target?
CrazyIvan, do you remember who it was that enforced those sanctions against Iraq for nearly 13 years? You know, those sanctions that killed over 500.000 Iraqis and made it a living hell for the rest of them, except Saddam that is.
Yes that same UN, but that wouldn't have happened if they pushed through in 1991 when Saddams position was weaker that it ever was after that
if those dickheads didnt blow the power supply machines, the water supply station and the oil lines they alreay had that
Last edited:
Vacuum of power in Iraq stopped Bush Sr. of doing it. Sure, there is the UN mandate thing but that was just a political excuse. Bush Sr. knew well that if they removed Saddam, a new Ayatollah would took the power in Iraq, creating a clone of Iran.
Better have a dictator without teeth (for his neighbours) than a new radical islamist country controlling the 2nd oil reserve of the world.
Better have a dictator without teeth (for his neighbours) than a new radical islamist country controlling the 2nd oil reserve of the world.
What most people seem to forget is that most people on this globe do not even know what the UN is exactly. Most Iraqi's see it as part of the US forces. What they see is UN presence, which came in together with US presence, that makes it part of the US. Also do not forget American propoganda inside Iraq now. I bet you they propogate "cooperating with the UN to make this a better country". Which, in terms of people that do not like the US means "Occupying your country together with the UN". When i was younger even i found it hard to differiantiate things like the US, UN and NATO. There's so much instutituions, alliances, etc. that it is confusing for the average man, who's lived under Saddam's propaganda for 20 years, and now under American propoganda for half a year.
I am amazed sometimes by the inability of people here to look further, to live themselves in the minds of other people.
Now, this is in no way to say that an attack on the UN headquarters is what they deserved, but it was to be expected. And if British and American forces hadn't been in Iraq, the bomb wouldn't have been there, as occupiers the blood is as much on their hands as it is on the hands of the terrorists.
Much more bombings will follow, as much as they are hurting their own cause, the way the US and the UK are handling things they are hurting their own cause just as much. The normal citizens don't care who's in power, they want stability and a safe environment to live in. As it is now, both sides jepordize this greatly, so they dislike both sides... and since one side's foreign and omni-present, guess who gets the most blame...
I am amazed sometimes by the inability of people here to look further, to live themselves in the minds of other people.
Now, this is in no way to say that an attack on the UN headquarters is what they deserved, but it was to be expected. And if British and American forces hadn't been in Iraq, the bomb wouldn't have been there, as occupiers the blood is as much on their hands as it is on the hands of the terrorists.
Much more bombings will follow, as much as they are hurting their own cause, the way the US and the UK are handling things they are hurting their own cause just as much. The normal citizens don't care who's in power, they want stability and a safe environment to live in. As it is now, both sides jepordize this greatly, so they dislike both sides... and since one side's foreign and omni-present, guess who gets the most blame...
Last edited:
Blade, that could be true foor the analphabet living in a slump in the outskirt of Baghdad, it's certainly not for those organizing this kind of terror attack...
Furthermore, this attack has similiraties with what is happening in Chechnya, I really doubt it concerns Iraqi but I don't doubt UK & US politicians will use it to "prove" the "links" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaeda...
If you want to go deep about this war, think about China...
Europe, Japan and North America (Western World ©) are consuming most of the ressources of Earth. In Nigeria, US companies are exporting so much oil there aren't enought left to provide the Nigerians on their own soil. Controling Iraq is controlling the 2nd largest oil reserve...
Now China is entering the big game, they are successfully starting their economy and we have 1 billion chineses wanting to live "à la" Westerner...which would not be possible at this stage of technology and available ressources...
You see the pictures ? Big trouble ahead...
Furthermore, this attack has similiraties with what is happening in Chechnya, I really doubt it concerns Iraqi but I don't doubt UK & US politicians will use it to "prove" the "links" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaeda...
If you want to go deep about this war, think about China...
Europe, Japan and North America (Western World ©) are consuming most of the ressources of Earth. In Nigeria, US companies are exporting so much oil there aren't enought left to provide the Nigerians on their own soil. Controling Iraq is controlling the 2nd largest oil reserve...
Now China is entering the big game, they are successfully starting their economy and we have 1 billion chineses wanting to live "à la" Westerner...which would not be possible at this stage of technology and available ressources...
You see the pictures ? Big trouble ahead...
those terrorists are evil thats the only conclusion i can make.
but the best way to win the war against terrorism is to let those ****ers alone in theire mediocre country.
america wants to kill them all its a good idea but theire will be deaths on both sides thats all. (like the israel-palestine war)
about china, mm yes , big troubles ahead. maybe in 10-20 years they will try to take possession of Siberian gaz ressources, as russia is loosing power (mostly by demographic depression).
this world is getting more and more crazy. in 1989 people had big hopes , until the mid 90's when we all realised that nothing had changed
but the best way to win the war against terrorism is to let those ****ers alone in theire mediocre country.
america wants to kill them all its a good idea but theire will be deaths on both sides thats all. (like the israel-palestine war)
about china, mm yes , big troubles ahead. maybe in 10-20 years they will try to take possession of Siberian gaz ressources, as russia is loosing power (mostly by demographic depression).
this world is getting more and more crazy. in 1989 people had big hopes , until the mid 90's when we all realised that nothing had changed
I don't see how the UN was the 'puppet' of the US more than of any other permanent member of the Security Council. Veto power brings a certain degree of control. That was (and is) the only way to get powerful nations to join. There is nothing negative about it, that was the way it was intended to be - because it sure beats having no such 'forum of nations' at all.