Margaret Hassan

Margaret Hassan: Another US Black Operation?

I was away for most of the week and I am surprised there was no comment on this.

Iraqi authorities admitted they still had no clear idea about who killed the aid worker Margaret Hassan.

Hassan’s abduction as a high-profile relief worker was perfect as an operation to discredit the enemy.

Her execution has now come conveniently as the US marines received unwanted attention of despicable war crimes in Fallujah and in particularly with the killing in the mosque incident by a US marine.

Just as with the Abu Ghraib incident which was neatly shelved by mainstream media after the Nick Berg murder.

The killing of hostages has been going on regularly for some time now. I don't think the killings distract anyone from anything. On the contrary, the shooting and beheading of innocent hostages is becoming barely noticed.

Also, I don't think the incidents at Abu Ghraib were neatly shelved.

vista, sorry to say it but how can we discuss such a thing when it's merely an assumption? aren't we acting a little bit paranoid at the moment?

Hassan's kidnapping and death made no sense from the standpoint of the "insurgents". Her death came at a most opportune time for the US marines - the timing was impeccible.

If the 'terrorist' group was thinking, they would have let the marine murder story run for a few more days.

These conveniently timed executions discredit the enemy, deflect anti-US and anti-war opinion and reinforce the terror myth.

They appear as basic counterinsurgency operations.

"All warfare is based on deception." Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, circa 300 B.C.

But that is still no evidence vista. And it sure didn't work, looking at the fact that despite the report of the killing of Margaret Hassan, the "Fallujah-case" still got more attention from the media.

No there is no evidence but one can certainly to the math.

Ever heard of the philosopher Karl Popper? He said that what you are describing can be seen as pseudoscience. He always used people like Karl Marx or Sigmund Freud to explain what he meant. Imagine, you are a Marxist, and you can not stand how this world is unequally divided by the horrible Capitalist system. Everytime you read the newspaper, watch the news or walk through town, you do observations which base your theory. However, that is a very subjective approach. Whereas a Marxist can use these observations to point at the great unequality there is, a Capitalist can as well use some of its examples to base his theory that Capitalism can bring a lot of advantages to certain people (whereas the Marxist believes it are disadvantages). So, observations can be very subjective. You bring a theory into this thread which states: Margaret Hassan was not killed by Iraqi insurgents, but CIA operatives. You do certain observations, and link those with certain subjective foreknowledge. However, nothing is certain until you have excluded the possibility your theory is not true, by making (to a certain extent, objective) theories against your basic-theory, which are than rejected. But so far, we are only at the beginning of an assumption, and because of that, basing your statement can not be done by "... one can certainly do the math".

That math is especially important given that all accounts of Hassan's kidnapping make it out to targeted and well-organised. Zarqawi denounced it as well as most other militant organisations. The group taking credit for it is generally described as "previously unknown" or "minor", which does not match the descriptions of the kidnapping being organised and targeted. Since the very beginning there have been rumours of Iraqi government troops and Americans being involved.

There is no proof, and there very likely won't be for quite some time. There are a lot of things that point to dirty tricks and black ops though.

See, now that are theories which can exclude the "non-truthness" of your basic theory vista.

Actually, I was quite surprised when mainstream commentator Steve Paikin of TVO (other thread) mentioned the rumour that Allawi may have been behind it. And Allawi is a CIA stooge.

And yes, Hasson's was curious from day one.