• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

String of Attacks Kill at Least 110 Iraqis in Two Days

dahunan

Lifer
"Mission Accomplished"
"Bring It On"

Whatever happened to that story of British Soldiers caught planting bombs anyhow?









http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/international/middleeast/30cnd-iraq.html?hp
String of Attacks Kill at Least 110 Iraqis in Two Days


By ROBERT F. WORTH and SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: September 30, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 30-A car bomb detonated near a fruit and vegetable market in southern Iraq this morning, killing at least eight people and wounding 41, police officials said, the latest in a string of attacks on Shiite civilians that has left at least 110 people dead in two days. The killings come a day after three car bombs killed 108 people north of the capital and as the Oct. 15 referendum on the country's constitution looms.


Forum: The Transition in Iraq
Today's car bomb went off in the town of Hilla, and killed at least two women in addition to two children, the police said. The bomb was remotely detonated about 10:15 a.m., in the al-Sharia market in central Hilla and tore into a crowded area of people shopping for food. On Thursday, three pickup trucks packed with explosives detonated in quick succession in Balad, 50 miles north of the capital, killing up to 99 people, according to some news agencies, up from initial reports of about 60, and wounding scores of others.

The death toll rose sharply overnight in Balad because American troops, who had helped to evacuate the wounded to American-run medical facilities, brought the bodies of those who had not survived to local hospitals this morning. In all, 100 people were killed and 150 were wounded in the blasts, said Dr. Qasim al-Qaisi, Balad Hospital's manager.

Thursday's attacks appear to have been coordinated for maximum damage. The first bomb went off at 6:30 p.m., tearing into a crowd of shoppers at an open-air market and workers making their way home on Masraf Street, one of Balad's main boulevards, hospital officials and witnesses said.

The second car bomb detonated 10 minutes later across the street, just as crowds of emergency workers and police officers were arriving to help the wounded. The third blew up 10 minutes later in a residential area that is predominantly Shiite, like the area hit by the first two, Interior Ministry officials said.

Also on Thursday, American military officials announced that five United States soldiers had been killed by a roadside bomb, in the deadliest single day for American forces in Iraq in almost two months. The soldiers were killed Wednesday while conducting combat operations in Ramadi, an insurgent stronghold in Anbar Province, west of Baghdad, military officials said in a statement, without providing further details.

 
Just Iraqis being Iraqis. If the Sunnis or Al Qaeda was behind it the Shiites will retaliate. Look for more executed bodies of Sunnis or Foreign Arabs to be found in a few days.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Just Iraqis being Iraqis. If the Sunnis or Al Qaeda was behind it the Shiites will retaliate. Look for more executed bodies of Sunnis or Foreign Arabs to be found in a few days.

Along with anyone who tries to run for a public office too

Cheney told us Americans that the insurgents were almost done.. They will give up soon

BTW, Where do they get all of their bombs and weapons.. Maybe from the GIANT military bunker we left unprotected after we found it? 😀
 
dahunan

How about we just pull out and let the civil go on with our blessing.

How soon before you start screaming that we should protect the poor Sunnis from genocide?
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
dahunan

How about we just pull out and let the civil go on with our blessing.

How soon before you start screaming that we should protect the poor Sunnis from genocide?



How about we never go in to begin with and find a better solution

We are STUCK now so it is becoming a hell.. so what.. eh?
 
Like you say - we should have never gone in there. - You opinion - not mine.

However, that is the past; what about the present and the future.

Willing to be a party to genocide? Is it ok when the media can not report it; but when they do,it is a different story?
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Like you say - we should have never gone in there. - You opinion - not mine.

However, that is the past; what about the present and the future.

Willing to be a party to genocide? Is it ok when the media can not report it; but when they do,it is a different story?

Do you feel that we the US are partially to blame for the current civil war occuring in Iraq right now?

We CAN'T leave.. NOW.. can we... :roll: that is obvious

Do you think we did a good job preparing for and forcasting the insurgency? I thought Scowcroft and Bush Sr. already told the world that this is exactly what would happen if we invaded Iraq and Baghdad specifically?
 
Iraq is like an onion.

Keep peeling off layers to expose more problems underneath.

If we pull out and let them "solve" their problems, the Sunni's will get wiped out.
And the people that ignored what the Sunni's were doing over the past few years will now complain that they are being mis-treated.

The Sunni's do not want any part of the government unless they can dictate the terms.
They are still living in denial of being a minority.

We may have peeled off a couple of layers to expose the mess.
Now does the US bail out, or tough it out to the end?
The end being a government that can control itself and decides that the US is no longer needed to assist them.

It does not good to continually point out all the Iraqi vs Iraqi killings that are happening and continue to blame the US. They are doing it to themselves; they were doing it in one form or another before we arrived, and will probably continue to do so after we leave.

Those type of complaints and people are starting to sound like a tired old scratched record. It is better to come up with a way to solve problems, rather than being a follower and complain about them.
 
Pull out, replace with Muslim troops from nearby countries. They offered back in 2003, time to give up control. Sorry, no bases or oil then...

Not my country, not my war, not my worry.
 
yeah right, bush give up that hard-earned (meaning someone elses life) oil...no way, staaay thee cooouuurse!

you people remind me of a kid with his finger in a pencil sharpener cranking away....

he could just take his finger out...regardless sooner or later the finger will be gone and come out easy....

so they keep on cranking...
 
I think civil war is inevitable in Iraq. Mainly because the minority have been suppressing the majority for so long. Also because they recognize a divide between themselves and they don't stand together.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Like you say - we should have never gone in there. - You opinion - not mine.

However, that is the past; what about the present and the future.

Willing to be a party to genocide? Is it ok when the media can not report it; but when they do,it is a different story?

It seems to me that there are probably more options than failing to make progress and genocide...staying, but moving towards being able to leave, seems like a good alternative to me.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Iraq is like an onion.

Keep peeling off layers to expose more problems underneath.

If we pull out and let them "solve" their problems, the Sunni's will get wiped out.
And the people that ignored what the Sunni's were doing over the past few years will now complain that they are being mis-treated.

The Sunni's do not want any part of the government unless they can dictate the terms.
They are still living in denial of being a minority.

We may have peeled off a couple of layers to expose the mess.
Now does the US bail out, or tough it out to the end?
The end being a government that can control itself and decides that the US is no longer needed to assist them.

It does not good to continually point out all the Iraqi vs Iraqi killings that are happening and continue to blame the US. They are doing it to themselves; they were doing it in one form or another before we arrived, and will probably continue to do so after we leave.

Those type of complaints and people are starting to sound like a tired old scratched record. It is better to come up with a way to solve problems, rather than being a follower and complain about them.

As you say at the end there, it's better to come up with a way to solve problems. "Staying the course" is not a plan, having a plan is a plan. We have no plan that has been ever communicated to us, and even if we have a secret plan, it doesn't seem to be progressing very well.

A can-do attitude is certainly necessary, but attitude only goes so far, at some point you need a plan of some kind.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
dahunan

How about we just pull out and let the civil go on with our blessing.

How soon before you start screaming that we should protect the poor Sunnis from genocide?



How about we never go in to begin with and find a better solution

We are STUCK now so it is becoming a hell.. so what.. eh?

You have a time machine?
 
We can't go back in time, that is true. We can however, rid the nation of the abject failures in judgement that got us to this point in time. Cheney should be the first out the door for insisting the insurgency is in its final throes. With his grasp of reality, we do not need him one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Rumsfeld should be the Cheney escort out of Washington DC. Without Rumsfeld, Iraq's new Oil Minister wouldn't be a convicted bank felon and accused spy for Iran. A more rational Secretary of Defense would never have allowed Iraq to be occupied with a totally inadequate force.

If we fire Condi Rice for grossly misadvising the president, she can have her oil tanker named after her again.

In other words, the status quo isn't working. The socalled conservative consensus is to keep the blithering idiots on the job. It's as if the mindset is "how much worse can we do now?".
 
Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
We can't go back in time, that is true. We can however, rid the nation of the abject failures in judgement that got us to this point in time. Cheney should be the first out the door for insisting the insurgency is in its final throes. With his grasp of reality, we do not need him one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Rumsfeld should be the Cheney escort out of Washington DC. Without Rumsfeld, Iraq's new Oil Minister wouldn't be a convicted bank felon and accused spy for Iran. A more rational Secretary of Defense would never have allowed Iraq to be occupied with a totally inadequate force.

If we fire Condi Rice for grossly misadvising the president, she can have her oil tanker named after her again.

In other words, the status quo isn't working. The socalled conservative consensus is to keep the blithering idiots on the job. It's as if the mindset is "how much worse can we do now?".

That can get rid of the internal problems; Keep the loudmouth/naysayers at bay. Couple of sacrifical offerings.

However, what about the external problems?

 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
We can't go back in time, that is true. We can however, rid the nation of the abject failures in judgement that got us to this point in time. Cheney should be the first out the door for insisting the insurgency is in its final throes. With his grasp of reality, we do not need him one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Rumsfeld should be the Cheney escort out of Washington DC. Without Rumsfeld, Iraq's new Oil Minister wouldn't be a convicted bank felon and accused spy for Iran. A more rational Secretary of Defense would never have allowed Iraq to be occupied with a totally inadequate force.

If we fire Condi Rice for grossly misadvising the president, she can have her oil tanker named after her again.

In other words, the status quo isn't working. The socalled conservative consensus is to keep the blithering idiots on the job. It's as if the mindset is "how much worse can we do now?".

That can get rid of the internal problems; Keep the loudmouth/naysayers at bay. Couple of sacrifical offerings.

However, what about the external problems?


What I suggested was just a start, not the end.
A whole lot of heads need to roll. Keeping the same failed policy makers in office is not going to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.
 
Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
We can't go back in time, that is true. We can however, rid the nation of the abject failures in judgement that got us to this point in time. Cheney should be the first out the door for insisting the insurgency is in its final throes. With his grasp of reality, we do not need him one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Rumsfeld should be the Cheney escort out of Washington DC. Without Rumsfeld, Iraq's new Oil Minister wouldn't be a convicted bank felon and accused spy for Iran. A more rational Secretary of Defense would never have allowed Iraq to be occupied with a totally inadequate force.

If we fire Condi Rice for grossly misadvising the president, she can have her oil tanker named after her again.

In other words, the status quo isn't working. The socalled conservative consensus is to keep the blithering idiots on the job. It's as if the mindset is "how much worse can we do now?".

That can get rid of the internal problems; Keep the loudmouth/naysayers at bay. Couple of sacrifical offerings.

However, what about the external problems?


What I suggested was just a start, not the end.
A whole lot of heads need to roll. Keeping the same failed policy makers in office is not going to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.

Given politics, those shoulders will not become bare.
Therefore, what can actually be done not to satisfy political egos.

 
Back
Top