The UN attack, "conspiracy theories" and primary suspect identification

[stickdog]

There are three possible suspects in the Baghdad UN hotel attack:

A) Iraqi resistance
B) al-Qaeda or another sophisticated, funded al-Qaeda-like terrorist organization
C) US/Chalabi neocon mil/intel black ops

To rationally deduce the primary suspect (not necessarily the perpetrator), we must comparatively evaluate each suspect's means, motive and opportunity.

If this was the Iraqi resistance:

1) how and why has there been a sudden huge increase in their attack sophistication and the destructive force of their utilized weapons?
2) why would they use the most destructive weapon in the entire resistance campaign to target the sensitive, peaceful, diplomatic, relatively pro-Iraqi head of the UN delegation?

If this was al-Qaeda:

1) where did they come from? how are the cells operating? who is supplying them with food, housing, weapons and logisitical support?
2) why wouldn't they at least attempt to direct their typically well-coordinated, sophisticated attacks against the hated US rather than the sensitive, peaceful, diplomatic, relatively pro-Iraqi head of UN delegation?
3) remind me again, why did we remove Saddam from power? to clear a path for a sophisticated and deadly terrorist organization that actually may have been connected to the 9/11 attacks?

Meanwhile, suspect C had:

1) the obvious and unquestionably proven means,
2) a clear, direct, unambiguous and compelling motive, and
3) all the opportunity in the world.

*****

Now consider the target: the peaceful, diplomatic, altruistic, comparatively pro-Iraqi Brazilian UN human rights activist Sergio Vieira de Mello.

US neocons had a clear and obvious motive to target this man and his encroaching UN delegation. Such a vicious and deadly "terrorist" attack would either drive the UN completely out of Iraq, or else ensure that the UN operated only under the auspices of strictly controlled US security forces. The pro-Iraqi suspects, on the other hand, did not have any clear, direct, unambiguous and compelling motive for limiting the UN's influence in Iraq in deference to US neocon imperialists.

US neocons also obviously had the means to wreak such destruction several thousand times over. However, for pro-Iraqi forces, this attack would represent a huge leap in destructive capacity.

Finally, US neocons clearly had the unfailing opportunity -- free rein, in fact -- to perpetrate such an act under the cover of active hostilities. But for pro-Iraqi forces, this attack would represent an uncommon, unlikely and completely unexplained success considering their complete and total defeat of any and all (putative) US security measures.