• 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.

Terrorists continue effort to derail elections in Iraq

Riprorin

Banned
Car Bombs Kill Scores in Two Iraqi Shi'ite Cities

VOA 19/12/2004 20:44

Two car bombs exploded within hours of each other in two Iraqi cities holy to Shi'ite Muslims.

A blast in the city of Karbala killed at least 12 people and wounded more than 30 others. Another car bomb exploded in later Najaf, killing at least 45 people and wounding more than 60.

Both car bombs went off within a few hundred meters of sites holy to Shi'ite Muslims, the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf, and the Imam Hussein mosque in Karbala.

Hospital officials in Najaf say the death toll there could still rise. The Associated Press reports that the bomb exploded near a funeral procession for a leading tribal sheikh, and that several of the city's senior government officials were present.

Two hours earlier, in Karbala, a car bomb exploded in the city's main bus station, near a police recruiting center that witnesses believe might have been the original target. The blast occurred just a few hundred meters from the Imam Hussein shrine, one of the holiest sites in Shi'ite Islam.

Reports from the scene say police cordoned off the area, as firefighters tried to extinguish several burning cars and minibus taxis that caught fire after the main explosion.

It was the second car bombing in Karbala in five days. An attack near the shrine Wednesday caused similar carnage, and, at the time, some government officials said they thought it was aimed at inflaming tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.

A key Sunni Mosque in Baghdad was hit by mortars early Sunday, causing several injuries. It is not clear who fired them.

Meanwhile, a large group of gunmen ambushed a vehicle carrying election workers in central Baghdad. Eyewitnesses said the attackers dragged three men from the car and shot them, and then set fire to their vehicle.

The Iraqi electoral commission confirmed that three of its employees had been killed. The attack happened on Haifa Street, a main thoroughfare that has been the scene of intense clashes between insurgents and American and Iraqi troops in the past.

The electoral commission is responsible for organizing the elections, scheduled for six weeks from now.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have said they expect an upsurge in attacks before the poll, as insurgents try to derail the vote. But despite questions from some quarters about whether Iraq is stable enough to hold a truly free and fair election, U.S., Iraqi and U.N. officials have said that the poll will be held on schedule.

In another development, insurgents released a videotape of 10 men they claim are kidnapped Iraqi employees of an American security firm. The men are shown handcuffed and blindfolded, and a voiceover on the tape threatens to kill them, unless their employer stops working in Iraq.

Link
 
The attacks appeared designed to provoke sectarian conflict with Saddam Hussein's long-dominant Sunni minority -- officials have seen similar motives behind previous attacks in the cities.

Shi'ite leaders called on their people not to reply in kind.

Shi'ite religious leaders say they will not be provoked by bombs and reject accusations by some secular opponents that they want to install an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy.

"They are trying to ignite a sectarian civil war and prevent elections from going ahead on time. They have failed before and they will fail again," said Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, one of Iraq's most respected Shi'ite clerics.

"The Shi'ites are committed not to respond with violence, which will only lead to violence. We are determined on elections and Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has made this clear."

Link

Their response will be at the polls.
 
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

 
They sure seem to be succeeding now, as they have been for years now. I don't expect the next 45 days to change much.
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

Well it has the advantage of us being able to declare victory and get the heck out.

I keep going back and forth between us staying to provide security and leaving pronto. The old saying is "you break it you bought it", and we lobbed a helluva lot of bombs there. Still I wonder if staying just makes it worse. I don't know.
 
Iraq is heading towards civil war, and 145k americans are gonna be caught in the middle of it. I bet the roads to Kuwait have all been widened and freshly paved
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

So, Klixxer, how long was it after WWII before Germany had free elections?

 
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

So, Klixxer, how long was it after WWII before Germany had free elections?

In truth, it wasn't until 1990 when Germany was re-unified. That would be 45 years after WWII ended.

So, if the comparison is valid, we'll be in Iraq for 45 years waiting for democratic elections.



 
We already know that fat guy who is the interim president is going to win. Its not like the US is actually going to allow them to vote in a Muslim radical even though technically it would be democracy..
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

So, Klixxer, how long was it after WWII before Germany had free elections?

In truth, it wasn't until 1990 when Germany was re-unified. That would be 45 years after WWII ended.

So, if the comparison is valid, we'll be in Iraq for 45 years waiting for democratic elections.

I think it would be appropriate to take enough time to do it right like we did in Europe. I really don't like this rush to have an election and then to get the ell out. I agree that it is the wrong thing to do and the result will be chaos.

 
I love how the media is now painting all of the attacks as "attempts to derail the elections". What's different between what we were seeing a year ago and what we're seeing now? Nothing.
 
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
We already know that fat guy who is the interim president (Allawi) is going to win. Its not like the US is actually going to allow them to vote in a Muslim radical even though technically it would be democracy..

The election is already decided...you actually think Bush is going to leave the choice to the people?

Diebold has the deciding votes held safe and sound.
 
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

So, Klixxer, how long was it after WWII before Germany had free elections?

In truth, it wasn't until 1990 when Germany was re-unified. That would be 45 years after WWII ended.

So, if the comparison is valid, we'll be in Iraq for 45 years waiting for democratic elections.

I think it would be appropriate to take enough time to do it right like we did in Europe. I really don't like this rush to have an election and then to get the ell out. I agree that it is the wrong thing to do and the result will be chaos.

Nobody cares what you like. You should pack your bag and get your ass over there if you feel so inclined.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
I love how the media is now painting all of the attacks as "attempts to derail the elections". What's different between what we were seeing a year ago and what we're seeing now? Nothing.

The difference is the divide between the Sunnis and Shiites. A year ago this wasn't much of an issue. A lot of Sunni clerics are actively preaching against voting, are supporting the insurgency, and preaching against the "infidels." For the Shia it's quite different.

If you want some background, read this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6735643/

BAGHDAD - In a ritual practiced thousands of times, the men gather at two mosques ? Um al-Qura in a Sunni neighborhood, Baratha in a Shiite one ? at the appointed hour. The phrase "God is greatest" is uttered four times, and the men line up in successive rows. An hour or so later, crowds spilling into the halls, they bow their heads in graceful uniformity. Silence ensues, and they pray.

The words uttered in between, though, echo across a yawning divide.

Each week in Baghdad, sermons to the faithful offer a tale of two Fridays. Both sermons ? one Sunni, the other Shiite ? dwell on the issues that color Baghdad's weary life: the insurgency, elections planned for next month and the U.S. military presence. But the messages are so diametrically opposed as to speak to two realities and two futures for the country.

... more at the site
 
Actually they are succeeding. In fallujah I read that something like 1% of potential voters have registered. Iraq is a mess and it's not getting _any better_.
 
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

So, Klixxer, how long was it after WWII before Germany had free elections?

In truth, it wasn't until 1990 when Germany was re-unified. That would be 45 years after WWII ended.

So, if the comparison is valid, we'll be in Iraq for 45 years waiting for democratic elections.

I think it would be appropriate to take enough time to do it right like we did in Europe. I really don't like this rush to have an election and then to get the ell out. I agree that it is the wrong thing to do and the result will be chaos.

You can thank all of the Liberals and the Liberal press for the need to rush. "Gotta get out ASAP gotta go gotta go!!!"
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually they are succeeding. In fallujah I read that something like 1% of potential voters have registered. Iraq is a mess and it's not getting _any better_.
Fallujah is the benchmark by which to measure all of Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually they are succeeding. In fallujah I read that something like 1% of potential voters have registered. Iraq is a mess and it's not getting _any better_.
Fallujah is the benchmark by which to measure all of Iraq.
I wouldn't say that, but it is a very visible example of what's going on there.

 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually they are succeeding. In fallujah I read that something like 1% of potential voters have registered. Iraq is a mess and it's not getting _any better_.
Fallujah is the benchmark by which to measure all of Iraq.
I wouldn't say that, but it is a very visible example of what's going on there.

It was a sarcastic remark.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually they are succeeding. In fallujah I read that something like 1% of potential voters have registered. Iraq is a mess and it's not getting _any better_.
Fallujah is the benchmark by which to measure all of Iraq.
I wouldn't say that, but it is a very visible example of what's going on there.

It was a sarcastic remark.
I know, but if it was an attempt to undermine my post I didn't think it did a fabulous job of it 😉

 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

Well it has the advantage of us being able to declare victory and get the heck out.

I keep going back and forth between us staying to provide security and leaving pronto. The old saying is "you break it you bought it", and we lobbed a helluva lot of bombs there. Still I wonder if staying just makes it worse. I don't know.

Declare victory? Having elections and declaring victory is nothing more than a a theatre act.
 
Originally posted by: blahblah99
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh yeah, an election in a war zone, what a great idea!

How stupid can you get, i mean, seriously, do you believe ANYONE has ANY freedoms in a WAR ZONE?

It's an election for PR, noting more, it is NOT democracy in action, it isn't even close.

Well it has the advantage of us being able to declare victory and get the heck out.

I keep going back and forth between us staying to provide security and leaving pronto. The old saying is "you break it you bought it", and we lobbed a helluva lot of bombs there. Still I wonder if staying just makes it worse. I don't know.

Declare victory? Having elections and declaring victory is nothing more than a a theatre act.
It's better, but yeah basically it's a farce, because the mindset of the people over there is simply far behind that of those in the West, who have an ingrained sense of self-control. People in the West truly believe that things are not "right" if they don't have a say in their own lives and government, but people in the middle east are no more able to appreciate that perspective than we are theirs. It's just too far behind to drop in a democratic government and expect a bastion of freedom to emerge. Even if I'm wrong, and there are plenty of people who do want a say in their destiny, and do feel that they deserve it, there are so many who won't, or who would rather continue with the way things are.

At the end of the day it's impossible that the US will have dropped hundreds of Billions in cash, and a bunch of lives, all over nothing more meaningful than grabbing one guy and throwing him behind bars.

The best would have been if Iraq did something stupid and found itself gruesomly attacked over something - and the people knew it was all the fault of their leaders. Then they'd rise up, but as it is now too many see the "liberators" as aggressors.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually they are succeeding. In fallujah I read that something like 1% of potential voters have registered. Iraq is a mess and it's not getting _any better_.
Fallujah is the benchmark by which to measure all of Iraq.
I wouldn't say that, but it is a very visible example of what's going on there.

It was a sarcastic remark.
I know, but if it was an attempt to undermine my post I didn't think it did a fabulous job of it 😉
Well, undermining it was too easy, really. There's the fact that voter registration in Iraq is based on records from the food rationing program that began in the ealy 90s where the vast majority of Iraqis were registered already. I seriously doubt only 1% of the people of Fallujah were part of the food rationing program so whatever you read about people unregistered in Fallujah was either a distorsion or simply factually incorrect.

Besides, registration is now done in Iraq. Campaigning has begun as of Dec. 15.

 
Back
Top