Jump to content

Talk:Canal Hotel bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.103.208.72 (talk) at 02:13, 19 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

--Kumioko 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the UN?

Since the UN was in opposition to the American invasion of Iraq, it is not clear whether this attack on the UN should be seen as an anti-American or pro-American action.

What an idiotic comment. I am speechless. Cema 21:16, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It was anti-life. Isn't that enough? Lee M 21:30, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem with that remark is that there is no reason to assume that it was either an anti-American or a pro-American act. It could be simply anti-UN. It could be broadly anti-Western. Or something I haven't thought of. Inasmuch as we're writing an encyclopedia, we don't need to include this sort of speculation: we can wait until something is known. Vicki Rosenzweig 22:10, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

fair enough

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3164675.stm --Jiang

Move?

Move to Canal Hotel bombing? --Jiang 21:34, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be called UN Iraqi HQ bombing or something similar, after all the UN was the target not the hotel. --Imran 22:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree. Either UN Iraqi Headquarters bombing or UN Iraq-Headquarters bombing. --seav 20:58, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

Arthur Helton

Is the dead Arthur Helton the former US Senator ?

Removal

I removed these sentences:

Although the UN is generally thought of as a neutral organization, it was not popular in Iraq due to its role in administration of the sanctions against Iraq in force since the end of the First Gulf War, which, according to UNICEF figures, were directly responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children and a huge rise in the mortality rate.
The recent Security Council decision to retrospectively sanction the US occupation, a direct breach of the UN charter, has only added to the anger felt by many Iraqis towards the organization.

...because it is now more obvious that the insurgency is not a popularity-based movement, and because the second sentence is speculative and off-topic. --M4-10 20:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles on victims

I'm not sure which of the victims are notable in the Wikipedia sense. I've removed redlinks for now... but if appropriate of course articles and links can still be created. If not suitable for articles, it still might be appropriate to link to suitable web pages about these people. --Singkong2005 04:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Security shortcomings in the UN

The UN report hosted by GlobalSecurity.org lists a number of shortcomings in the UN security routines. If someone has the time, it would be great if the article could include some of those issues and implications for the UN's other mission areas. --rxnd ( t | | c ) 14:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources

Samantha Power's January piece for the New Yorker contains a wealth of information related to this incident, particularly the UN's weak security and the lack of emergency services that could have saved lives.