Sectarian deaths still increasing.
By on Jun 8th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Sectarian deaths still increasing.
“As of Friday, 206 unidentified bodies had been found on Baghdad’s streets, compared with 176 during the first eight days of May.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
No comments yet? Just a little too ugly to think about. I feel sorry for the Iraqis who just want to get on w/ their lives.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pmMeans a surge in deaths in Baghdad, but Bush will find some way to spin it differently.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:39 pmI never know what to say anymore. Words are beginning to seem so inadequate.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:41 pmPick one…
1. “But Clinton did it too!”
2. “We’re fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.”
3. “He serves at the President’s pleasure.”
4. “Libtards are cowards.”
5. All of the above.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:43 pm6. “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”
June 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pmsometimes it’s just overwhelmingly depressing. not giving up though…i’m too old and set in my ways to give up on putting a stop to the madness!
June 8th, 2007 at 9:45 pmexactly zooey.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:46 pmAmerica can’t keep the Peace. Very good and making War. Lousy at Peacekeeping.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:46 pmI never know what to say anymore. Words are beginning to seem so inadequate.
Comment by Zooey — June 8, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
You said it. I thought America spoke during the last election? All the polls I saw said that the reason we voted for a democrat majority in congress was to end the occupation. What do we get? A Fredo no confidence vote.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:46 pmThis is just ugly, folks. George Bush – the Liberator of Iraq…
June 8th, 2007 at 9:47 pmYou said it. I thought America spoke during the last election? All the polls I saw said that the reason we voted for a democrat majority in congress was to end the occupation. What do we get? A Fredo no confidence vote.
Comment by Namtillaku
That’s your fault for being foolish enough to think that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans.
It’s all just plain political theater. A game that keeps either party in power, like a pendulum swinging back and forth. Making sure that no viable third party candidate can ever have a chance at getting elected, thus keeping the status quo in perpetual power.
They are like 2 sides of the same coin, working in unison, looking out for their own class, the wealthy elite.
You want REAL change? It’s very, very simple…
STOP VOTING FOR EITHER OF THESE 2 PARTIES.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:55 pmYou want REAL change? It’s very, very simple…
STOP VOTING FOR EITHER OF THESE 2 PARTIES.
Comment by JPV
After 6 yrs of “America’s CEO” at the helm, we had to hope, JPV. When I vote 3rd party, I feel like I’m throwing my vote away. Remember all those nimrods who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and helped put Brush in the WH? Say what you want, but no Dem would have gotten us into Iraq like we are.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:04 pmPost 12 > I think Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton would have gone into Iraq like Bush did, but they would NOT have had Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:08 pmI admit to being one of the nimrods who voted for Nader in 2000, and I have regretted that vote cast every day for the last 7 years.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:10 pmI focus now on continuously communicating my viewpoints and demands for accountability to every politician I can, regardless of party.
I get nowhere with the Republicans as of yet.
Democrats do respond, sometimes not with any real conviction or assurances, but they do respond.
It is absolutely appalling the mayhem and slaughter continues over LIES so Bush and his oil buddies can manage the oil. Just as pathetic – the news hype about Hilton instead of the real world news.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:12 pmPost 12 > I think Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton would have gone into Iraq like Bush did, but they would NOT have had Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld.
Comment by Jay Randal
I dunno… the whole Iraq thing seemed like the Neocons’ ultimate wet dream. I could be wrong, but I just don’t see any Dem, other than Lieberman, R-Conn, doing something quite so… what’s the word I’m looking for here… STUPID, yeah, that’s the word, STUPID.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:13 pmPress fixated on Hilton allows Bush to fire General Pace without a whimper from Congress and allows Bush to prepare more openly for his attack on Iran soon.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:17 pmHeyzeus, sometimes you’re stuck choosing between the lesser of 2 evils. In this case, the difference between those 2 evils has turned out to be staggering.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:21 pmI voted for Nader precisely because of my disgust with both parties, but felt I was safe in giving a show of support to a third party.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:25 pmI honestly believed that America was nowhere near stupid enough to elect Dumbo Bush.
And I was right.
I simply had not considered that an election could be stolen in America.
You want REAL change? It’s very, very simple…
STOP VOTING FOR EITHER OF THESE 2 PARTIES.
Comment by JPV
The neocons love this…
June 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pmWe can not afford to split the Democratic party again. This would be a sure win for the republicans AGAIN. Our best hope is to strengthen the Dems – get people in we approve of and trust. Also, if campaign finance reform could become law and we know the a$$es won’t touch it we could choose candidates by quality rather than monetary worth.
republic of stupidity > there are NeoLiberals just like the NeoCons who wanted an attack on Iraq too, but the big difference is the NeoCons are more greedy for OIL and desire more profiteering. Bush has recently stated that the US will be in Iraq for the next 50 years, so how can he say that? Has Hillary Clinton told him that she will continue to keep some troops in Iraq for her 4 to 8 years as president? And who after that has agreed to keep troops in Iraq?
June 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pmHillary knows some sh!t that most people, even in high places, do not.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:31 pmRemember, she was a presidents wife for 8 years, and may have been privy to info the rest of us only see in our nightmares…..
Right now she sits on the fence on bases out in the mesopotamian deserts……
Jay, that 50 yr statement is almost too disturbing to consider. I can’t imagine what our politicos are thinking at this point. As strong an entity as the US is, nothing, and I repeat, nothing is unbreakable. ALL empires decline. Some go slowly… Rome, British, and some go quickly… Nazi Germany, the USSR.
People never learn, or they only learn the hard way. I shudder when I think of this country’s future.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:32 pm50 years may be on the low end, given Vladimir’s suggestion to Georgie that he put his missles in Central Asia….
June 8th, 2007 at 10:42 pmCorporate America and Oligarchal Russia are a match made in (hell)…
“put his missles in Central Asia”
So THAT’S Russian slang for…
Actually, that one had me scratching my head too. Strange bedfellows indeed. The Hundred Yrs War, redux, w/ nukes to boot.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:47 pmrepublic of stupidity > the new US Embassy in Iraq, by the time it is completely finished, will cost about 2 to 5 billion dollars. The bases are being constructed to last for years and cost untold billions of dollars. It appears that from day one that our US government intended to occupy Iraq for a half century. I believe this is a huge mistake, possibly even might bankrupt and destroy the US empire, but some Democrats are involved in it and we must root them out and expose them.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:48 pmAmerica can’t keep the Peace. Very good and making War. Lousy at Peacekeeping.
Comment by david
Peace dont sell weapons. Peace is anti-trade, ergo anti-capitalism for people who only sell wars.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:53 pmYa know, Jay, I find that embassy a truly disturbing fact. I have to say, it really looks like BrushCo intends to stay, and stay, and stay.
Ever see “Chinatown”? (Most likely… one of the better flicks of the last 50 yrs…) Anyways, there’s a line of dialogue in it that goes something like this…
“Kill a man, and you go to jail. Kill a whole valley, and you get a building named after you in downtown LA”. Somehow seems to fit here.
Maybe we are seeing the end of American democracy right now and the birth of the Empire, but I don’t think this will have a good ending for anyone. maybe Brush and Ptin just made a deal to split the world…
June 8th, 2007 at 11:01 pmWho said this:
“A statement by a head of state calling for or implying the destruction of a member state of the United Nations is as a matter of principle unacceptable, and this is a threat to international peace and security,”
A. Saddam Hussein, refering to the impending US invasion of Iraq.
B. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, refering to the threats made by President Bush against Saddam Hussein.
C. Lebanon’s next head of state, General Emil Lahhoud, recalling Israel’s recent invasion.
D. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, talking about Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remarks that Israel’s “Zionist regime should be wiped off the map.”
(D = rewsnA )
June 8th, 2007 at 11:58 pmJuan, so, who invests in the corporations that sell weapons? Who profits? Who gains monitarily when people get blown up?
War Profiteers are the real enemy of mankind.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:00 amAmerica can’t keep the Peace. Very good and making War. Lousy at Peacekeeping.
Comment by david
Peace dont sell weapons. Peace is anti-trade, ergo anti-capitalism for people who only sell wars.
Comment by Juan C
It’s also the pervasive dishonesty of washington, throughout history.
For example( food for thought):
June 9th, 2007 at 12:01 amHow many of the many treaties the US Government made with Native American tribes did the US government keep vs the government breaking the treaty?
Bonus question: Can you name the treaty Bush is currently violating?
Wayne, you are going to think Im an idiot, but what do people mean when they say:
1) food for thought?
2) strawman?
I mean, besides the literal meaning.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:31 amOh, I see.
I guess my definition of the straw man argument was a little to controversial for this crowd.
Anyway, Juan, they removed my answer to your question but you should be able to find an adequate def. of the “straw man argument” with the googles. It is a logical fallacy used in debate.
June 9th, 2007 at 2:27 amThe blood of these people on the hands of George Bush is really getting thick! Appalling!
June 9th, 2007 at 9:14 amstarting Monday 21st May 2007
Monday: 111 Iraqis Killed, 217 Wounded
June 9th, 2007 at 10:47 amTuesday: 104 Iraqis Killed, 116 Wounded
Wednesday 9 GIs, 122 Iraqis Dead
Thursday: 101 Iraqis, 6 GIs Killed; 81 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 6 GIs, 34 Iraqis Killed; 38 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday 8 GIs, 91 Iraqis Dead, 116 Iraqis Wounded
Sunday: 3 GIs, 88 Iraqis Killed; 52 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 123 Iraqis Killed, 233 Wounded
Tuesday: 13 GIs, 169 Iraqis Killed; 146 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 4 GIs, 66 Iraqis Killed; 97 Wounded
Thursday: 3 GIs, 82 Iraqis Killed; 88 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 3 GIs, 81 Iraqis Killed, 87 Iraqis Injured
Saturday: 2 GIs, 78 Iraqis Killed; 59 Iraqis Injured
Sunday: 15 GIs, 106 Iraqis Killed, 115 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 1 GI, 58 Iraqis Killed; 51 Iraqis Wounded
Tuesday: 1 GIs, 105 Iraqis Killed; 87 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 6 GIs, 122 Iraqis Killed; 70 Iraqis Wounded
Thursday: 1 US Soldier, 1 British Soldier, 90 Iraqis Killed
Friday: 72 Iraqis Killed, 68 Injured
Juan,
This is the strawman argument
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
It is a logical fallacy to avoid debate. The site is actually pretty good, describes many of the most common debate tricks to avoid debate.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:49 amIsrael, offering Golan, awaits Syria proposals
JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel has told Syria it is willing to trade land for peace and is waiting to hear whether President Bashar al-Assad would cut ties with Iran and hostile guerrilla groups in return, Israeli officials said on Friday.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:59 amre# 32 Juan C & Mr. President
A “straw man argument” and a “logical fallacy” are two completely DIFFERENT things!
A “logical fallacy” is something that contradicts any of the rules of logic and/or the conventional meaning of words.
For example, to say “Smoking hemp is “dangerous” while drinking alcohol is not, is a logical fallacy.
Given that nothing is more “dangerous” than death, and given that people can and do die from alcohol overdose, while no person has ever died from hemp overdose, one can EASILY see the contradictions in logic and word meaning.
A “straw man argument” is a “nit pick” point made in an argument made for the purposes of trying to take down the entire “much stronger argument”.
For example, to argue “Explosive could not have brough the WTC towers down because people would have been seen doing it.”, is a “straw man argument”.
Regardles of whether or not one has the imagination to realize that people planting explosives would act and dress like the hundreds of workmen in the WTC everyday and the task could have been done over months or even years, this does nor bring down the “much stronger argument” that no HUMAN could create pyroclastic clouds of micron sized from INTACT building materials, before the invention of EXPLOSIVES, and why should 9-11 be any different.
June 9th, 2007 at 11:02 am“The neocons love this…We can not afford to split the Democratic party again. ”
I so agree with this statement. As long as the Republic party is the party of lemmings marching in lock-step with their masters, we can’t afford to split the Democratic party. Right now I know a lot of Republics who are ashamed of what their party has become and who will most likely vote Democratic in the 2008 election. One I know said to me “Even if I don’t like the guy, I’ll vote for him because the party I once knew and loved has become dangerously out of touch with what this once great county represents”.
Hopefully, some time in the future when we have recovered most of what we have lost, there will be a climate where we can reexamine our system of governance and come up with something better.
June 9th, 2007 at 11:14 amPersonally I’m not so sure that the parliamentary way of governing isn’t better than what we have. We need to have a system of governance where we can get a madman out of office by calling for a no-confidence vote. If we had that, George and Dick would be gone a long time ago.
(APN) BREAKING: 7 US Reps for Cheney Impeachment
(APN) ATLANTA – US Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) became the sixth and seventh total cosponsors of US Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s (D-OH) bill to impeach Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
In addition to Kucinich, the additional four Members of Congress who have signed on to H. Res 333 are US Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), and Albert Wynn (D-MD).
June 9th, 2007 at 11:20 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8
WOW they think 40cents in ever dollar goes to Blackwater
June 9th, 2007 at 11:30 am1) food for thought?
2) strawman?
I mean, besides the literal meaning.
Comment by Juan C
1) food for thought?
Food for thought.
When I used it I meant , take this issue ( in this case, Indian treaties ) and look in to it. Expand your knowledge on this to see the point I was trying to make.
Exercising the mind.=)
2) strawman?
A strawman argument is basically a statement or comment that has either a very weak or nonexistent connection to the real world. Either illogical or nonfactual.
BTW, to date, every treaty with the Native People of the U.S. has been broken bythe government.
Not a good track record. Is it any wonder that the rest of world suspect the honesty of our leaders word given???
The Bonus question:
The Bush Administration is violating the Jay Treaty, which was actually a treaty between the US and England/Canada, to insure fair treatment for the northern indian tribes.
From wiki:
Article III of the Jay Treaty declared the right of aboriginal peoples (people indigenous to Canada and/or the US) to trade and travel between the United States and Canada, which was then a territory of Great Britain. This right was restated in section 289 of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, currently codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1359: Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect the right of American Indians born in Canada to pass the borders of the United States, but such right shall extend only to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American Indian race.[4]
more info:
“Indigenous on the border are battling increased militarization and the violation of sacred sites while their civil and human rights are being violated”
June 9th, 2007 at 11:37 amWayne,
Thanks for the food for thought. :)
June 9th, 2007 at 11:56 amLook, for once, please try to use some or any part of the gray matter you might possess instead of simply allowing it to exist in the vacuum between your ears.
If the only force that has been capable of maintaining any semblance of normalcy leaves, what’s going to happen if the US simply withdraws? The violence and mayhem will skyrocket.
DOH!
June 9th, 2007 at 12:11 pm#43 The US will not, and should not “simply withdraw” BUT a Timetable for withdrawal WILL….Let the Iraqi’s Know that we have NO Permanent Designs on their country, and that we WILL leave in an orderly and thoughtfull manner.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pmThe Shieks in Anbar Province HATE Al Qaeda, and are Actually cooperating with our Marines to kill them.
The Shiite Militias HATE Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has bombed their Mosques and Markets..killing innocent Shiites.
Neither group want an occupying Army in their country. Both groups have centuries old grievances against each other…But NOTHING America can do will change this fact.
Interesting article by Joshua Partlow
of the WaPo this AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19103676/
It at first appears to be Bushit propaganda about US and Iraqis working together to “defeat the terrerists”, but it points out that the US military is working with a Sunni militia, not the Iraqi army in the Sunni enclave of Amiriyah.
At the end of the article it points out that…
“On Wednesday, a week after the fighting broke out, the Islamic Army issued a statement declaring a cease-fire with al-Qaeda in Iraq because the groups did not want to spill more Muslim blood or impede “the project of jihad.” American soldiers played down the statement and suggested it did not reflect the sentiments of the men they are working with in Amiriyah.
Later that night, Wilbraham led his tank unit on an overnight mission to allow the militiamen to arrest seven al-Qaeda in Iraq members. The raids were to begin at 1 a.m., but two hours later the tanks were waiting on deserted streets, with no sign of the group. Then Wilbraham was told the militiamen had called off the raids.
The tank driver, Spec. Estevan Altamirano, 25, expressed skepticism about his new partners.
“Pretty soon they run out of al-Qaeda, and then they’re going to turn on us,” he said. “I don’t want to get used to them and then I have an AK behind my back. I’m not going to trust them at all.”
June 9th, 2007 at 12:50 pmNor are we able to stop or reduce the violence. Regardless of what the US does, or doesn’t do, Iraq will most likely be in a civil war for 10 – 20 years. The question will be; how much involvement will US forces have with that civil war?
June 9th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThis may sound crass tho’ it’s not meant to…
All such violent death is particularly abhorrent to me. Yet am I the only who who finds it further disturbing that with all those already killed thus far in Baghdad and with all those who have since escaped that country that sectarian deaths continue to increase? Has the percentage of Baghdad natives killed by sectarian violence increased or is it relatively the same? If it is the same does that mean Baghdad has seen a significant influx of armed militants of both sects? Couple such an influx with the rise in the deaths of our troops and it would be clear that this grand “surge” strategy has failed. We don’t need to wait until September, December or 2008 to prove it.
Tragically throughout history we’ve seen that sectarian violence is never “cured” by sectarian murder unless one sect or another is completely wiped out. That just won’t happen in the modern day Middle East. We’ve also learned that it’s a rare day indeed when both sides agree that there’s been too much killing. Northern Ireland was an anomaly born of a unique time, a specific geography, a certain culture and a distinct political situation.
Only a strong central Iraq government can stop this killing. Through our actions and in some cases inaction, we’ve destroyed such a government however heinous and created conditions rendering it impossible for a better system to take its place.
While hardy perfect, we as Americans long prided ourselves on the good that we could do. Now it seems we’re known for not just breaking something but for irreparably pounding it to smithereens. And for what?
As The Daily Show reminded us this week: only Bush could go to war for oil and not get the oil.
AF
June 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pmstarting Monday 21st May 2007
Monday: 111 Iraqis Killed, 217 Wounded
Tuesday: 104 Iraqis Killed, 116 Wounded
Wednesday 9 GIs, 122 Iraqis Dead
Thursday: 101 Iraqis, 6 GIs Killed; 81 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 6 GIs, 34 Iraqis Killed; 38 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday 8 GIs, 91 Iraqis Dead, 116 Iraqis Wounded
Sunday: 3 GIs, 88 Iraqis Killed; 52 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 123 Iraqis Killed, 233 Wounded
Tuesday: 13 GIs, 169 Iraqis Killed; 146 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 4 GIs, 66 Iraqis Killed; 97 Wounded
Thursday: 3 GIs, 82 Iraqis Killed; 88 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 3 GIs, 81 Iraqis Killed, 87 Iraqis Injured
Saturday: 2 GIs, 78 Iraqis Killed; 59 Iraqis Injured
Sunday: 15 GIs, 106 Iraqis Killed, 115 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 1 GI, 58 Iraqis Killed; 51 Iraqis Wounded
Tuesday: 1 GIs, 105 Iraqis Killed; 87 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 6 GIs, 122 Iraqis Killed; 70 Iraqis Wounded
Thursday: 1 US Soldier, 1 British Soldier, 90 Iraqis Killed
Friday: 72 Iraqis Killed, 68 Injured
Comment by Tobey Tall — June 9, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Hopefully Monday: Tobey Tall
June 9th, 2007 at 2:14 pm2) strawman?
A strawman argument is basically a statement or comment that has either a very weak or nonexistent connection to the real world. Either illogical or nonfactual.
Not quite Wayne.
Your just describing a weak argument. However, a straw man is a bit different.
June 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pmIt is obvious to the American people that this surge is not working. We need a new strategy in Iraq. The current strategy must change because we can no longer win this war militarily. What we now need in Iraq is a strong and consistent diplomatic push towards some kind of agreement between the Shiia and the Sunni politicians and the Maliki government. We also need political reconciliation that will address issues that the Iraq politicians have so far refused to address. We need an oil law that will distribute oil revenues equally. We also need former Baath party officials to be allowed to take part in the Iraqi government.
Steps must be taken to disband the militias as promised. Steps must also be taken to make changes to the Iraqi constitution as promised accommodate the Sunni minority so they can have a greater say in government. Four and a half years is more than enough time for the Iraqi government to stand up its forces so our forces can come home. The administration must force the Iraqi government to meet concrete benchmarks that have stiff consequences if they won’t be met. Also republicans and democrats on the fence on the issue of Iraq must come together to set a deadline to get all combat forces out of Iraq along with a strong diplomatic and political effort.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:44 pm