"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a
peaceful welcome." --George W. Bush, defending Vice President Dick
Cheney's pre-war assertion that the United States would be welcomed in Iraq as
liberators, NBC Nightly News interview, Dec. 12, 2005
"I think -- tide turning --
see, as I remember --
I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in
Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
What were the preludes predating the official appearance of
the Zarqawi hoax, and most importantly, was there a premonitory prelude
before all preludes? I shall discuss the premonitory preludes last --
backtracking is essential to see events in reversed perspective, thus
demonstrating that the U.S. prepared, labored, and executed those events
according to a long-term methodical plan.
Prelude 1: attack against the Jordanian embassy
On August 7, 2003, a car bomb exploded in front of the
Jordanian embassy in Baghdad killing a score of people and destroying the
fa�ade of the building. Colin Powell described the attack as follows,
The attack against the Jordanian embassy in Iraq strengthens
U.S. resolve to unite the world in this campaign against terrorism. The
terrorists need to know that we will not be deterred. We are ever more
determined to go after them wherever they are until this scourge is dealt with.
Powell was abstract. For instance, who were those terrorists
that he indicated? Of course, he meant the Arabs, since it is now fashionable
to exchange the noun �Arab� as a synonym for the noun �terrorist.� Powell�s
simplistic, indoctrinatory generalization on the idea of terrorism was
intentional. He had to remain inside the abstract world of symbolic language so
he could tie his invasion of Iraq to �terrorism,� as in his jingoistic emphasis
of the U.S. �resolve to unite the world in this campaign against terrorism.�
Also, Powell appeared to think of himself as an astute
political thinker who could mold the world to his deception. For example, while
he was well aware that the entire world was against his invasion of Iraq, he,
regardless, pretended the fake capacity or leadership to �unite� it in the
prosecution of his war of conquest.
Notice two important things. One: the name of Zarqawi was
yet to come out, although the deliberation to use it was already in the making.
Two: the United States lamely explained its ordered terrorist attack on the
Jordanian embassy by insinuating that some Iraqis resented the role of Jordan
in the war against Iraq. Andrew England of the imperialist Associated Press
externalized the American posturing on the �concept of resentment� with
the following words:
While Jordan is a major entry point into Iraq and remains
a large trading partner, many Iraqis are resentful that Jordan dropped its
support for Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War, and allowed U.S. troops to
use its soil as a base during the latest war. [Source]
Let us debate what he said by assuming that neither American
nor Israeli agents bombed the embassy. In this case, who, then, did the
bombing? England suggested, �Many Iraqis are resentful . . . etc. This has a
pertinent implication: England seemed to state that the attack was not a
terrorist attack in the American-designated sense; i.e., terrorism with
political cause, but an attack of vengeance.
Vengeance, however, is a crime of passion and not terrorism.
Consequently, because the attack was not an act of political terrorism, then
the implication is that those �resentful Iraqis� were not �terrorists� in the
Powell-esque sense. Clearly then, this conclusion contradicts Powell who, like
his boss in crime, was determined to debit the attack to a murky notion of
�terrorism,� which is the cry of Zionists of all colors against the Arabs
The question remains, did vengeance, as England suggested,
motivate the attack against the Jordanian embassy?
The answer is no. For instance, why should Iraqis exact
vengeance from Jordan (that undeniably facilitated the invasion by allowing
American forces to cross into Iraq from its territory) but not from the
American invaders themselves? And, to speculate, if it was that easy to hit
the unaware or unprotected embassy, then, logically, it should have been
equally easy for the attackers to hit the American forces at that same exact
moment, somewhere in Baghdad. On that day, according to my research, no such
attacks happened against the American forces.
To refute the idea of vengeance, let us consider this: it is
no secret that the entire Arab system was a primary and fundamental accomplice
in the U.S. wars against Iraq. However, while America�s most obedient clients:
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc., joined the U.S. in the
collective punishment and murder of Iraqis, Jordan, albeit ruled by a
treasonous, absolutist monarchy (installed by Britain to help with the birth of
Israel) was the only port of exit for the Iraqis during the long U.S. blockade
of Iraq: 1990- 2003. Not only that, but despite meager resources, the Jordanian
people supported all those Iraqis who sought refuge in Jordan.
Then, why the insinuation that resentful Iraqis wanted to
punish Jordan? Of course, England did not elaborate on the issue, but his
undeclared objective was clear: to deflect attention away from the American
involvement in the attack and cause Arab-Arab (Jordanian-Iraqi) hating.
Interestingly, did the Jordanian government accuse anyone except unknown �Arab
�terrorists�? No. As a U.S. lackey, Jordan accused the �terrorists� for the attack
but without specifying their identity.
By way of conclusion, considering the long history of U.S.
terrorism, the dire conditions of post-invaded Iraq, and U.S. objectives in the
region, indicting the United States for the attack against the Jordanian embassy
should be straightforward. Categorically, there was no rational for any Iraqi
or even �terrorists� to attack the embassy, mainly because the strategic
outcome for such an attack was irrelevant at best: it did not harm the
occupying force! On the other hand, it did not decrease the Jordanian support
for their American masters.
Then, how could we categorize the attack against the
embassy? Answer: it was a part of a detailed American campaign to create chaos
in Iraq, thus implicating imaginary elements that imperialist convenience
Given that I am categorical on this issue, you may ask, why
am I so convinced that the United States attacked the Jordanian embassy?
If intuition can help, the answer is to pave the way for the
second phase of building Zarqawi�s myth as a �fearless terrorist.� In other
words, to create an inconspicuous identity link between the Jordanian embassy
and Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi whom the United States and its Jordanian agents said
he was Jordanian, and then keep augmenting his (Zarqawi�s) profile with the
passing of time. In practice, the American policy for creating �terrorism� in
Iraq is the ideological and material conditio non plus ultra to justify
the continuing occupation of the country and increase the prospects for
confessional war among Iraqi Arab Muslims, partition, and inevitable gradual
Prelude 2: attack against the U.N. compound
While the CIA, U.S. occupation force, and Israeli agents
designed the attack against the Jordanian embassy to test the procedure for
manufacturing terrorism in Iraq, the attack they carried out against the United
Nations -- a few months after Bush called the U.N. �irrelevant -- had more
On August 19, 2003, unknown perpetrators detonated
bombs at the U.N. compound in Baghdad killing a score of people, among them
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and special envoy to occupied
Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello.
CNN reported the
attack as follows, �Sergio Vieira de Mello, a veteran U.N. official
appointed to the post in May, was killed when a bomb-laden cement truck
exploded beneath the window of his office in the Canal Hotel at about 4:30 p.m. [12:30 p.m. GMT; 8:30 a.m.
If you read the report,
you will notice that, although CNN�s dispatcher inserted in his article
standard propaganda items such as, �Some U.S. officials believe Iraq is becoming
a major 'magnet' for al Qaeda terrorists," he (or she) spoke only
of �a bomb-laden cement truck exploded beneath the window of his office in
the Canal Hotel.� In other words, he did not speak of �suicide-bombers,�
which is the daily mantra of Bush and American propaganda in Iraq.
Yet, and as expected, the United States instantly accused
�terrorists,� meaning �Islamic Arab terrorists,� for conducting the attack.
Nonetheless, the dynamics of bombing and technical aspects of the attack were
an exact replica of all attacks conducted by the Israeli Mossad against
Palestinians and other Arabs in Lebanon, Tunisia, Syria, and Europe.
Accordingly, it is very plausible, if not certain, that the United States -- either
by copying Israeli tactics or by collaboration with the Mossad -- executed the
To abandon caution in favor of direct indictment of the U.S.
policy of deception, I, would firmly state that the United States that
deliberately attacked Iraq while knowing it did not have WMD, also deliberately
attacked the U.N. compound because of calculations related to 1) the American
Occupation Regime (AOR), and 2) the propagandistic justification for its �war
Remember, at the
time of the U.N. attack, we were well into the fifth month of the occupation,
and a budding uprising was in the making as highlighted by the continuing
attacks against the American invaders who, at that point, lost only 50 soldiers
since Bush declared �victory� in May 2003. In addition to that, clergyman
Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, the Shiite leader of the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) [sic] who first approved of the invasion and
was instrumental in making it happen, turned against the occupation, thus,
unavoidably became a nuisance in Bush�s way.
It is self-evident
that, from military and political viewpoints of the occupation, implicating
invented �terrorists� for attacking visible non-Iraqi targets was crucial (from
U.S. perspective) to demonstrate the �long arm of terrorists� who spare no one,
hence, the necessity of America�s war on terror� beginning with Afghanistan and
ending in Iraq as a �second stage.�
Notice also, that
the U.N attack happened only 12 days after the attack against the
Jordanian embassy. This means one thing: the United States was (and still is)
in a desperate race with time to create terrorism in Iraq in
order to tighten its grip on it.
How did Bush, the State Department, the U.N., imperialist media such as CNN, and Zionist academicians react
to the attack against the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad?
The President of
the United States: �The terrorists have again shown their
contempt for the innocent, shown their fear of progress and hatred for peace. .
. . The civilized world will not be intimidated," (Full story)
President Bush is a national depot of rhetorical garbage -- analysis
Department: under the propagandistic title: Leaders
around the World condemn terror attack on U.N.; Sergio Vieira de Mello mourned as victim of "barbaric"
violence, The International Information
Programs of the State Department gave its opinion on the attack. It
said, �International organizations and national governments alike condemned the
terrorist truck bombing of the United Nations facility in Baghdad on August 19,
2003, and mourned the loss of life of U.N. special envoy Sergio Vieira de
One: with brazen hypocrisy, the statement borrowed the
adjective �barbaric� from Romano Prodi (current Italian Prime Minister, and
former president of the European Union). Objective: to show that world leaders
share U.S. view that the killing was barbaric -- this, of course, was barbaric.
However, the universal fact remains that no barbarity can equal invading a
country and destroying it without casus belli.
Two: notice the hypocrisy and collusion of European leaders
with U.S. imperialism. The State Department quoted Prodi
as saying, �the targeting of the civilian U.N. staff and of de Mello is
therefore an attack on the future of Iraq and its entire people." Prodi is
a shameless charlatan. For the record, Prodi, an exponent of an Italian
political system that has been subservient to U.S. imperialism since WW2, considered
the attack against the U.N. as an �attack against the future of Iraq . . . etc.
Up until the present time, I have not read that Prodi
considered the invasion of Iraq as an attack against the people and future of
Iraq. Nor have I ever read that he denounced or described that invasion (which
killed over 45,000 Iraqis up to the time in which the attack against the United
Nations occurred -- present estimated Iraqi deaths stand at about 250,000
people according to Iraqi sources) as �barbaric.� For the record, after his
election as prime minister, Prodi called the most deliberate war in history a
�mistake!� Yet, today, he still maintains his occupation force in Iraq intact
despite his pre-election promise to withdraw it.
Three: because 1) the U.S. dissolved the Iraqi state, and 2)
because independent international organizations to corroborate Iraqi events do
not exist, that leaves the U.S. as the sole source of information. It is,therefore,
more than expected that the U. S. appraisals on this attack or any other attack
would point the arrow in one carefully selected direction: �terrorists�
attacked the U.N.�
Four: did any one investigate the case from a criminal
viewpoint? Who decided that the attackers were �Arab or Iraqi terrorists?�
Further, by what factual evidence did world governments and press decide to
line up behind a superpower known for its gross lies?
Five: pay attention to the fact that the State Department
did not specify who these �terrorists� were, and why they attacked the U.N.
Conceivably, Iraqis and Arabs should have no reason to attack the U.N. because,
at least, it did not authorize U.S. aggression on Iraq.
Six: logical reasons, however, dictate that Iraqis have no
interests in targeting anyone except the occupiers from all nationalities.
Consequently, only the occupying power had interests in hitting the U.N. for
three fundamental reasons: 1) to create intense terrorist activities in Iraq,
2) to spread the notion that �terrorists� are �against the world,� therefore, this world must subscribe to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and
3) to prepare for the emergence of Zarqawi on the public scene.
How did the United Nations, imperialist media, and Zionist
academia react to the attack against the UN headquarters in Baghdad?
J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American anti-war activist. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.