Truck bomb marks second deadliest bombing in Iraq.
By on Jul 8th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Truck bomb marks second deadliest bombing in Iraq.
A massive truck bomb killed 150 people in a northern Iraqi town and “fresh attacks in and around Baghdad killed 31 others.” The truck bomb devastated the Shiite town of Tuz Khurmato. “I just visited the scene. It looks like an earthquake happened there,” Shalal Abid al-Ahmed, a member of the Salahuddin provincial council, told Reuters.
The death toll of 150 makes it the second deadliest insurgent bombing in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. In March, a truck bomb attack also blamed on al Qaeda killed 152 people in the northern town of Tal Afar.
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
Too bad Lindsay Graham wasn’t there to see how wonderfully well the surge is working.
Bush’s legacy will be How To Screw Up Multiple Countries in Six Easy Years (and just think…almost TWO years to go! I can’t wait to see what else he can f*ck up!)
July 8th, 2007 at 12:18 pmmicheal yon says this isn’t important because al-queda is on the run in Anbar.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm#1 if the warmongers like iraq and afganistan and they do they will be spooging themselves over Iran.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pmMichael Yon is a nitwit.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pmBush is claiming the surge is working, so he means the surge in deaths.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThe surge is working? Didn’t they just start tell us it hasn’t really begun yet?
July 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pmThe surge is working, if the goal was to get Iraqis and US Soldiers killed.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:53 pmYEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 1:03 pmNote that if three more people would have died, the headline would read :The DEADLIEST insurgent bombing in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pmAl Qaeda is on the run from Anbar all the way to Tuz Khurmato.
Let me guess…America is getting the blame for this.
Badger-now, if we had only sent in 300-400,000 troops in the beginning, we might be able to catch them…
July 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pmIf only Saddam were still around to use his velvet-covered iron fist to keep these people in line, the bombings wouldnt happen. We need to SUPPORT the dictators who keep these murderous neanderthal terrorists under wraps, not try to oust them!
Of course the dictators may decide to invade their neighbors or pursue WMD programs, but hey, whats the big deal with a little genocide here and there?
July 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pmComment by whiteyfresh — July 8, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
“them” are probably dead, being suicide bombers.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:20 pmIf we had sent in 300-400,000 troops in the beginning, we could have guarded or destroyed Saddam’s HUGE Munition dumps, and prevented their being looted. Chances are these looted explosives and artillery shells found their way in to the very Truckbomb that is in today’s headlines.
My question is , did Rumsfeld not see the potential danger of his inadequate planning, or did he do this on purpose. He’s supposed to be Smart.
Of course the dictators may decide to invade their neighbors or pursue WMD programs, but hey, whats the big deal with a little genocide here and there?
Yes, the wingnuts had no problem with genocide when Saddam Hussein was fighting a proxy war for the U.S. against the big bad Iranians. Rumsfeld shook hands with him and gave him money and WMD precursors, the U.S. supplied him the very Bell helicopters which were used to quell the uprising of the Kurds, and all the conservetards were happy until Saddam wanted more oil and Kuwait was willing to pay big bucks for us to stop him.
So he was stopped, and he was disarmed, and the genocide ended under Bush 41 and Clinton. He had ZERO WMD’s and no chance of getting any, no money with which to invade other countries. He was no threat at all.
Then when George W. Bush needed a foolproof way to get himself reelected and access to oil and gas reserves in the Middle East he lied and made Saddam out to be a threat. And all the wingnuts who can’t get laid and live in their mommy’s basement or have a crappy humiliating job they hate line up behind their daddy figure because invading Iraq gave them the chance to feel like men, something sadly lacking in their real lives.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pmAnd slaughtering your muslim brethren does what exactly to convince America to leave Iraq?
This attack is definitely the fault of the United States. All these flower-shop owners were driven to become homicide bombers and massacre their fellow Iraqis by the invasion, that much is clear.
We need to leave Iraq NOW so that potential mass-murderers can get back to operating kiddie carnivals and sewing couch doilies.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pmTony S.,
You are clearly an idiot.
If the US leaves there will be even more violence.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pmYes, the wingnuts had no problem with genocide when Saddam Hussein was fighting a proxy war for the U.S. against the big bad Iranians.
Using Soviet weapons, German chemical expertise, French nuclear technology and eating Brazilian wheat. Yes yes, it was certainly a worldwide affair, wasnt it? Wouldnt it then be incumbent upon Dr. Frankenstein to rid the world of his own monster?
So he was stopped, and he was disarmed, and the genocide ended under Bush 41 and Clinton. He had ZERO WMD’s and no chance of getting any, no money with which to invade other countries. He was no threat at all.
I see, so why DID Clinton keep a no-fly zone over northern Iraq for ten years, why did the U.N. have inspectors running around Iraq until 1998?
Considering that we get more oil from Canada and Venezuela, you would have thought invading one of them to ‘guarantee’ our oil flow would have been easier instead of running to the other side of the world.
Trex, Im thinking that you have had girl problems throughout your life, specifically speaking they dont like you. No need to take it out on others, just get used to the online porn you frequent and try to be civil.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pmMr. President, you must have inherited too many retard-genes from your ancestors.
We need to leave Iraq NOW, we need to leave YESTERDAY! Its a known fact that if the United States wasnt in Iraq, the monsters who drive car-bombs into markets and wedding celebrations in Baghdad would be busy making candy and caring for the elderly instead.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:47 pmAnd slaughtering your muslim brethren does what exactly to convince America to leave Iraq?
Comment by Tony S. — July 8, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Their evil plans show that they can attack at will, and that America with it’s $400 Billion a year Military, can’t stop them. Asymetric Warfare.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pmThese are sunnis killing shiites. They are technically Muslim brethren, but they have been fighting each other since the 7th century.
And stick a microphone in the face of a heart broken survivor, and they will blame AMERICA for not stopping this carnage.
Tony S. you are being sarcastic, right???
July 8th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWouldnt it then be incumbent upon Dr. Frankenstein to rid the world of his own monster?
Frankenstein was unplugged in the 90’s. That’s what Clinton was doing, powering down the monster. Do you have difficulty following a basic premise?
And no, it wasn’t really a worldwide affair as the CIA went to these foreign sources and oversaw technology transfer specifically to hide the fact that it was American propping up Saddam.
And you’re avoiding the ugly fact that conservetards didn’t have a problem with Saddam as a dictator then and nor would they ever have had they not needed a post-facto excuse for invading Iraq once it was clear to the world there were no WMD’s, and the invasion was based on a lie.
The fact that you would lie and squirm to obfuscate this says everything anyone needs to know about your character, or lack thereof. Weak and unmanly, no ability to take responsibility for one’s errors. A moral coward.
Considering that we get more oil from Canada and Venezuela, you would have thought invading one of them to ‘guarantee’ our oil flow would have been easier instead of running to the other side of the world.
You’re a bozo. The PNAC members — which include Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Perle and the other architects of this war — have openly admitted that access to oil was the reason for invading. They were clamoring for this as far back as 1998. Even Bush himself finally admitted that access to oil was the reason for the invasion, saying that “we can leave those oil reserves in the hands of terrorists.” The cat is long out of the bag, and you’re a little behind on your talking points.
No, Venezuelan and Canadian oil are not nearly enough with a growing China and India. Try reading a book sometime.
Oh, and your efforts at a comeback were lame at best. Stick to the know-nothing propaganda, at least there you show some promise.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pmWe need to leave Iraq NOW, we need to leave YESTERDAY! Its a known fact that if the United States wasnt in Iraq, the monsters who drive car-bombs into markets and wedding celebrations in Baghdad would be busy making candy and caring for the elderly instead.
Comment by Tony S. — July 8, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
————————————————————————————–
Oh yeah, I forgot.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pmIts a known fact that if the United States wasnt in Iraq, the monsters who drive car-bombs into markets and wedding celebrations in Baghdad would be busy making candy and caring for the elderly instead.
Here is a story of an Iraqi that illustrates that point:
It’s clear that the Bush maladministration is making enemies in Iraq faster than it can contain or kill them.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pmLindsey Graham said it burned much better than trucks were burning just a year ago!
July 8th, 2007 at 2:17 pmWILLYLOMAN IS A NAME HIJACKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember when you Lefties said that you disapproved of such things!
Well let’s see if you are true to your word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment #127
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/conyers-impeachment/#comment-3918913
REMEMBER THIS WAYNE:
Anyone that does hijack a name usually gets imediate condemnation from the rest of the posters.
Comment by Wayne — July 3, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
YOU SAID IT HERE:
#237
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/03/political-appointees-given-new-regulatory-powers/
imediate condemnation for willyloman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 2:17 pmMy my, Trex, you certainly are in high-dudgeon today, arent you? Id stick to decaf lattes, they are less likely to interfere with the ritalin. Or maybe the beret is too tight, try experimenting with both to find what works.
You do understand how global policy works, dont you, or is such a concept beyond the burned-out synapses which constitute your brain? That it has to change and morph on a continuing basis? Try looking through a few books yourself (drooling over ‘The Far Side Collection’ doesnt count) and read about Yalta; youll learn about FDR, Churchill and Stalin getting together to discuss the fate of the globe. If youre lucky you might even find an accompanying photo showing FDR and Stalin getting chummy with each other, all smiles and nonchalance.
Ya see (try to keep up now), sometimes in this complicated world you need to make deals with unsavory people to accomplish a near-term goal; its why the U.S. allied with Stalin’s Russia to defeat the nazis. You do realize Stalin was a mass-murdering tyrant, do you not?
Now the only thing you have left to worry through your buck-teeth is why various U.N. members were receiving oil-chits from good ol’ Saddam while the supposed sanctions were in place. How is it that the Iraqi people suffered and starved while Saddam managed to build gold-plated toilets, and all under the auspices of the U.N. “oil for Food” program? Here’s a hint: the United Nations is comprised of more than just the United States.
Now youre a good and caring liberal, which means you need to glom onto the victim du-jour, in this case the Iraqis, but at least TRY to bludgeon your dura into comprehending that Hussein couldnt have stayed afloat for as long as he did without under-the-table complicity from countries that dont start with the word “United”. Was America involved with Hussein, surely, as was the rest of the world, but again wouldnt that make him our responsibility to then get rid of to make the world a better place?
Youre really not very good at this, are you?
July 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pmWILLYLOMAN IS A NAME HIJACKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember when you Lefties said that you disapproved of such things!
Well let’s see if you are true to your word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment #127
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/conyers-impeachment/#comment-3918913
REMEMBER THIS WAYNE:
Anyone that does hijack a name usually gets imediate condemnation from the rest of the posters.
Comment by Wayne — July 3, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
YOU SAID IT HERE:
#237
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/03/political-appointees-given-new-regulatory-powers/
IMMEDIATE CONDEMNATION for willyloman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 2:20 pmIt’s clear that the Bush maladministration is making enemies in Iraq faster than it can contain or kill them.
Couldnt have said it better myself. The surest sign of victory is the slaughter of your own civilian support base. Its been scientifically proven that when a great battle has been won, armies routinely turn on their own populations in celebration.
History is the best guide to prove this point out. After winning at Gettysburg, Lincoln immediately had every citizen of Schenectady, New York put to the sword to offer an exclamation point on the victorious battle.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pmIf the US leaves there will be even more violence.
Comment by Mr. President
I’m going to hazard a guess here and say, Tony S thought he was being sarcastic…
July 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pmUnlike many other Sunnis in Fallujah, Marwan had little love for Saddam’s Sunni-led regime. Yet once the dictator fell, he turned against the Americans.
You see??? Yet more proof!
A Sunni from a Saddam-stronghold was looking forward to the day when his Sunni-supporting leader was ousted in favor of a government run by the murderously oppressed majority who would of course not look to avenge their years of brutal subjugation.
Anecdotal? Hardly! Marwan went from running an orphanage and caring for the poor to strapping on an AK and beheading unveiled Iraqi women, all because the United States appeared in his little patch of desert! Are you all BLIND to this madness?
July 8th, 2007 at 2:36 pmSunni from a Saddam-stronghold was looking forward to the day when his Sunni-supporting leader was ousted in favor of a government run by the murderously oppressed majority who would of course not look to avenge their years of brutal subjugation.
You act like poor Marwan had access to the internet and cable news, and would understand the fine points of the Shia-Sunni split.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:51 pmHe lived in a police state where Saddam won election with 99.99% support. He probably knew that he didn’t like Saddam and his police state….but I doubt he was up to date on the ramifications of the Iraq war. Obviously Bush and Rumsfeld weren’t too savvy about it either.
Youre right along the lines of my point, badger.
Marwan didnt have access to late breaking news or world opinion PRECISELY because the United States had blocked such access for years through a carefully targeted programs. These programs took the form of pogroms, programmed programs and insidiously programmed programs the likes of which havent been seen since the Tsar’s pogroms.
Marwan was shapeshifted from an innocent seller of beads and tastefully decorated crockery to nihilistic barbarian literally overnight because of America. It really is a shorer leap from mild-mannered kiosk operator to eye-gouging savage than you think, and it should be understood that Marwan HAS to behead and torture his fellow Iraqis because of this terrible inducement the USA has brought about.
The good old days are looking gooder and gooder.
July 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pmSorry Iraqis, I know we thought Saddam was a great guy during Reagan’s term when we gave you chemical weapons, satellite intelligence and had Donny Rumsfeld shake your hand in person while all of this was going on. But you see, now we need a new enemy to scare ourselves with and justify our obscene military budget, so your going to just have to deal with it for a while. Nothin’ personal,it’s just business. Careful, don’t trip over that child’s leg, there. Life’s great here, you know, wish you could see it. Ta Ta!
July 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pmIt really is a shorer leap from mild-mannered kiosk operator to eye-gouging savage than you think, and it should be understood that Marwan HAS to behead and torture his fellow Iraqis because of this terrible inducement the USA has brought about.
First of all, Marwan was attacking Americans, not Iraqis, you numbnuts. Try and follow along.
Secondly, having one’s country invaded and countrymen killed is exactly what caused the colonists to throw out the British — again, you numbnuts. Yes, invasions by foreign occupiers do tend to turn one to savagery, as history has shown ad nauseum.
And if common sense and the confessions and explanations of the insurgents themselves weren’t enough, you have the observations of American officers and studies by our allies based on interrogations of prisoners, that, in fact — the invasion radicalized Iraqi and non-Iraqi alike.
Your racism in your description of what an average Iraqi might do for a living is duly noted. Before we invaded Iraqis were all sinister nuclear scientists, germ warfare experts, and tank drivers. Now during the occupation they’re all bead sellers and camel drivers.
July 8th, 2007 at 3:38 pmTony S. This thread is about the MOST DEADLY truck bombing in Iraq coming a day after Lindsey Graham”s ROSE COLORED assessment of the situation in IRAQ. Your sarcasm WAS amusing at first, but now it reads like a less than clever attempt to avoid the tragic situation in Iraq.
July 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pmOh how the situation has improved!
Now the long sufferring under Saddam Iraqis have complete freedom, peace and prosperity. The “liberation” has in fact “liberated” so many of them from their lives and property that anything the vile monster Saddam could have accomplished looks like mole-hill next to a mountain. Somehwere around 650,000 Iraqis, most women and children, pernantently “liberated”! Two millions or so practicing “tourism” around the country and abroad, in search of a roof over their heads and to find climes less rich with airborne led objects. Whole cities, like Falujah, “liberated” with 90% of buildings still in a “liberated” state.
Oh well, maybe then things are actually worse then under Saddam, who at his thuggish worst never managed to kill and displace so many of his countrymen.
But, But, But, But! Fear not!!!
Because at least they do not have to suffer under tyranical foreign overlords who conspire to permanently opress them and steal all of their national treasures! No one would even dream to build Vatican-sized palaces vor their vice-roys, complete with 10,000 “staff”, olympic pools and royal accomodations, at the expense tens of times greater then those palaces which Saddam ever managed to build in his 20 years of reign combined. No one would, as a first priority, “privatize” all of Iraqs national industries, with no provision of local ownership, thus guaranteeing wholesale ownership of alll Iraq by those foreigners! No one would create oil “sharing” laws which granted foreign overlords 80% of Iraqi oil! And to drive the point, really, really, home; no one would allow foreign corporate mercenaries to roam Iraqi streets with a licence to kill, at will, with total impunity and above any laws, anyone they did not like, for it would surely mean that the Iraqis are to be slaves and the foreigners their masters. That would be unthinkable, surely? And, so, of course, no foreign empire would ever dream to, after stealing everything not nailed down, to build mermanent fortresses to house their centurions, in case should the locals forget the order of things and their place at the bottom of it!
No one would … oh wait …
July 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pm“In March, a truck bomb attack also blamed on al Qaeda killed 152 people in the northern town of Tal Afar.”
So, please tell me how they know it was al Qaeda. That’s Bush’s new strategy. Blame all violence in Iraq on al Qaeda or Iran. I sincerely doubt that these car bombs were done by al Qaeda. Why? Because they were aimed at Iraqi’s and not at the US soldiers. Why would al Qaeda want to kill Iraqis?
July 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pm“If only Saddam were still around to use his velvet-covered iron fist to keep these people in line, the bombings wouldnt happen. We need to SUPPORT the dictators who keep these murderous neanderthal terrorists under wraps, not try to oust them! ” Patty and her Cakes
Patty, I suggest that you go to your local JC and enroll in a critical thinking class. Your skills are sadly lacking.
There were no “murderous Neanderthal terrorists” (I assume you are referring to al Qaeda) in Iraq until we invaded. We created the mess that is Iraq and we are responsible for their being al Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi’s don’t like al Qaeda any more than we do. But they are tolerating them as long as they are targeting US soldiers. The minute al Qaeda starts targeting Iraqi’s, the Iraqi’s will drive them out of their country. That’s why I am convinced that these car bombings aimed at Iraqi’s have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:17 pm“Of course the dictators may decide to invade their neighbors or pursue WMD programs, but hey, whats the big deal with a little genocide here and there?Comment by Patty and her Cakes”
Patty, I see that you are concerned about genocide. So, I assume that you are very upset by what is going on in Darfur right now. Why didn’t you mention that in your post?
July 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWhy would al Qaeda want to kill Iraqis?
Exactly.
Its not AQ, its ordinary everyday purveyors of childrens books and doll houses who have decided to incinerate their fellow Iraqis, and all because King George invaded.
As I have been continually saying, its America that turned peaceful Iraqis into crazed, bloodthirsty animals, and the sooner we leave the sooner they will go back to being sane, benign world citizens.
Why cant you people see that we need to leave NOW, not tomorrow or next year, NOW NOW NOW! Iraq will revert to its normal state of lazy, peaceful backwater and the car-bombing savages can get back to tending their orphanages and social centers. We caused this, we can stop it.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pmThe minute al Qaeda starts targeting Iraqi’s, the Iraqi’s will drive them out of their country. That’s why I am convinced that these car bombings aimed at Iraqi’s have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
Man, talk about waiting around for something better than “Fcuk you, neocon!”
Ok, Ill bite. You must be convinced someone else is committing these bombings, who would that be (refer back to your Critical Thinking 101 classes if necessary)?
July 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmSo, I assume that you are very upset by what is going on in Darfur right now. Why didn’t you mention that in your post?
Perhaps I was in the same state of mind that the left finds itself as they cry solemn rivers over the fate of the Iraqi people.
Dont get me wrong, I would love nothing better than to see a few Marine battalions beating the hell out of the Janjaweed, but then again if a Marine gets within 500 miles of Darfur the left would suddenly claim that they have been pining over the fate of the black Sudanese for decades. And of course America would somehow gain the liberal enmity for creating a problem in what was otherwise a perfectly acceptable situation.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pm“Ok, Ill bite. You must be convinced someone else is committing these bombings, who would that be (refer back to your Critical Thinking 101 classes if necessary)?”
Yes, Patty, using critical thinking skills one would surmise that the bombings were done by Iraqi’s as part of their civil war. You remember that Civil War don’t you, Sunnis fighting Shia and vice versa. That’s what we are in the middle of with our military not even knowing who is friend and who is foe.
You certainly are a good little dittohead. I’ll bet that Rush Limbaugh is your hero.
BTW, I have had several critical thinking classes while in pursuit of my Masters Degree. That’s how I am able to look at all sides of a situation and come to an intelligent and reasoned answer rather than having to visit right wing web pages to get my talking points.
Stick around little girl. You are going to be an easy target for your idiotic posts.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pmKatie,
So you are willing to allow the massive deaths that will most surely result when the US troops withdraw?
July 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pm“Perhaps I was in the same state of mind that the left finds itself as they cry solemn rivers over the fate of the Iraqi people.”
So, I guess it doesn’t bother you that we are responsible for the deaths of 500,000 plus innocent Iraqi’s. But I suppose you don’t think any Iraqi is innocent including women and children.
I feel very sorry for you. It must be horrible trying to get through life with a total lack of soul.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:37 pm“Katie,So you are willing to allow the massive deaths that will most surely result when the US troops withdraw? Comment by Mr. President”
And you know this…how?? If we leave and get out of the middle of their civil war they may find it necessary to work out a solution to their problems. As long as they have the US to hide behind and allow to do their dirty work for them, where’s their incentive to work out their problems?
We are never going to leave Iraq under Bush because we are there for one reason only, and that is to steal their oil.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pmKatie,
Of course I do not know exactly what will happen, but it seems pretty clear that the various sects of Muslims in Iraq “work out” solutions by killing each other. Even though we are there trying to keep the peace, the sectarian violence is atrocious. With revenge killings and opportunistic Islamic extremist leaders, I can’t imagine the Iraq situation will improve if we leave.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pmOk, I guess my original surmise was wrong and katie is the obvious embodiment of my mistake.
A “Masters Degree”, well color me impressed! Did I mention that I am descended from Cetshwayo (dont bother pretending you know who he is) so I guess my pedigree is as good as yours. Can you manage to be civil or should we just slur one another and forget the debate?
If your fabled “Masters Degree” is in something other than interpretive lesbian dance than you would have enough ability to not discount that idea that AQ may have an abiding interest in keeping the Sunni and Shia from ever forming a consensus government; hint: terrorist groups have an easier time in places where government interference is negligible.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:52 pm“With revenge killings and opportunistic Islamic extremist leaders, I can’t imagine the Iraq situation will improve if we leave.”
Even if it doesn’t improve, we are beyond the time where we should still be feeding our brave men and women into that particular hell-hole.
If you care for the poor Iraqi’s and their plight, why are you not over there? If you are too old to enlist, you can always become an American contractor. Then you can make lots of money and help the Iraqi’s.
Personally, I believe the Iraqi’s were much better off with Saddam than they are with us occupying their country. At least they had clean water, reliable electricity and an intact educational system. We have ruined all that and we are fueling the violence in their country. If I had my way I would immediately pull all our troops out and use some of the money that we would have spent (you know those billions of dollars a month) keeping them there to help the Iraqi’s rebuild their own country, the one we ruined for them.
If they had jobs they would be too busy to be fighting each other. They might even find a way to achieve a common goal together, that goal being rebuilding the mess we have left for them.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:53 pmUnless they surge to the tune of locking down every hamlet and village in the country, this is going to be like beating up a feather pillow. Smack it on one side, the feathers just shift to the other.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pmOne more enormous failure for the chymp. Sums up his entire life.
One enormous failure after another.
“AQ may have an abiding interest in keeping the Sunni and Shia from ever forming a consensus government; hint: terrorist groups have an easier time in places where government interference is negligible.”
Boy, you have bought the Bush doctrine hook line and sinker. There really is no hope for you. You are unwilling to think of any possibilities other than those that are dictated to you by your Republic brethren. You see the world in black and white and nothing is going to change you.
As I said before, I feel very sorry for you. It must be really hard being you. Living without a soul is incomprehensible to me.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pmKatie,
No doubt, Iraq has been devasted. But we can not undo the damage. How specifically would we use the funds that you speak of?
If the Iraqis insist on bombings and civil wars then any newly constructed buildings without military protection will most certainly become primary targets for terrorists.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pmFor the trolls to be claiming that massive deaths will result from us leaving, shows the lack of faith they have in the Iraqi people. They’ll accept another strongman (dictator) be it Shiite or Sunni as soon as that leader emerges and shows that they can establish order.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pmThat’d probably Al Sadr at this point.
And yes, Iran comes out the winner.
Heckuva job, neocons.
So, I guess it doesn’t bother you that we are responsible for the deaths of 500,000 plus innocent Iraqi’s. But I suppose you don’t think any Iraqi is innocent including women and children.
Is this your “Masters Degree” at work again? Did the course-work include classes in hysterical hyperbole and smarmy innuendo?
Did you ever care for the masses of Iraqis that died under Saddam’s hand? Of course not, because he kept the Sunni and Shia from slaughtering each other and that seems to be your end-game. Forget the fact that he committed atrocities that would have made Hitler squeamish, as long as the Sunni and Shia are separated. Maybe you havent noticed, those arent American soldiers driving car-bombs into marketplaces.
I feel very sorry that you wasted all that time and money on your..ahem..”Masters Degree” when this farce is all you have to show for it.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pmRUCerious,
Yes, but that strongman will surely be aware that which ever side he represents will want revenge for any real or perceived deaths caused by the enemy.
He will give the people what they want, revenge killings. Also, he will eliminate the political opposition… like a Saddam-wanna-be.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:01 pmIf they had jobs they would be too busy to be fighting each other. They might even find a way to achieve a common goal together, that goal being rebuilding the mess we have left for them.
Youre starting to unravel, perhaps you need a break and we can start again?
The only thing that is keeping some Iraqi guy from driving a liquid propane truck-bomb into a crowd is a job? A JOB? Unemployed Abdul is sitting around the house trying to figure out what to do when suddenly the thought of vaporizing a few dozen of his neighbors becomes a reasonable alternative. Ok then.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pm#54 ~ Yes, Mr P. he’ll remove the opposition. That’s what a dictator does. What makes you think a democracy is viable in this situation?
July 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pmHeckuva job, neocons.
Wine and roses under previous administrations; business as usual, just dont rock the boat.
So much for caring about the downtrodden Iraqi people, after all, we had to keep Iran in check.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:08 pmPatty and her Cakes,
I agree that line of reasoning is fallacious.
Weren’t those Muslim Killers in the UK working doctors?
(the ones who tried to pull off attacks in London and Glasgow recently)
July 8th, 2007 at 5:10 pmRUCerious,
I don’t have much hope for Iraq, but it seems as if some of the people here want to have their cake and eat it too (not you Patty).
Katie, for one, seems to think that the Iraqis will be forced to reach some sort of agreement if we withdraw. However, I firmly believe that shortly after we leave, there will be an enormous rise in homicides.
I think that much more needs to be done before this conflict can be resolved. Pulling out our troops so that the Iraqis can “sort things out” would be a disaster.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pmI’ll leave Mr. President and Pattycakes here to play with each other. There is no reasoning with either of them. They are poor lost souls.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:15 pmMr Pee, you know squat.
The Sunni/Shia divide is exaggerated.
And, frankly, an Iranian style government wouldn’t be a bad thing in Iraq. For all the Western ranting about individual rights –which I don’t see being jealously protected in America– the secular governments under Saddam or the Shah were neither democratic nor benign. One can hope for an accelerated evolution of liberal democracy, but it isn’t what would find support by the majority at the moment. I’d say we’re looking at a mindset similar to England in 1660. Still very civilized, but a long way from equal rights for women or separation of church & state.
And what does America hope to accomplish? It can’t broker the peace because it is clearly the warmonger. And it has been tainted by lusting after Iraqi oil and tampering with elections. I say, GO.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pmAnd how does keeping our troops there help solve anything?
July 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pmHmm.
Much more WHAT needs to be done ??
Even though the mass media pays less and less attention to such figures, the spectacular car bombings killing Iraqi civilians are not the only evidence that things are getting worse, not better in Iraq, and that the so-called Surge, and the ballyhooed forthcoming September reports on “progress” are nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.
More American and Coalition forces have died in the ten month and eight day period between September 1, 2006 and July 8, 2007 than in any prior twelve month period during the Iraq war. According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count webpage – - http://icasualties.org/oif/ – - there have been 963 American and 1019 total Coalition deaths in the indicated period. The highest 12 month death total, prior to the current period of tragedy, was experienced in the period between March 1, 2004 and February 28, 2005 when there were 947 American deaths, and total Coalition fatalities of 1018. It should be noted that the 3/1/2004 through 2/28/2005 period encompassed the truncated First Battle of Fallujah and the horrific Second Battle of Fallujah, which occurred in months where total Coalition deaths spiked to 140 (April, 2004) and 141 (November, 2004) respectively, in yearly periods where the typical (what a terrible word in such circumstances) number of deaths were much lower than they are now.
Even more frightening – - because I believe it can be taken as evidence that the insurgent forces had strengthened even prior to the Surge and that such strength does not seem to have been greatly diminished in the period since additional troops began their deployment – - and totally unremarked upon by anyone in the media as far as I can tell – - is the fact that prior to September, 2006, the average of total Coalition deaths on a daily basis never exceeded 2.5 for more than two months in a row. Horribly, every month since, and including September, 2006 has seen a daily average of over 2.5 Coalition deaths. Prior to September, 2006 (in other words in the first three and one-half years of the war, there had been only six months in total, when total Coalition deaths exceeded three on a daily basis (March, 2003; November, 2003; April, 2004; November, 2004; January, 2005 and October, 2005. There have. however, now been six months with such a daily death toll in only the ten month period since September, 2006.
I do not expect September to bring anything new from GWB and his henchmen, and those he has co-opted, including his newest set of puppet generals. But anyone in power who either aids in GWB’s attempt to rescue or repair an already unalterably damaged legacy or fails to everything possible to bring the American involvment in the Iraq war to the quickest possible resolution will be judged by hisotry and by God.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pmMr Pee, you know squat.
The Sunni/Shia divide is exaggerated.
And, frankly, an Iranian style government wouldn’t be a bad thing…
Comment by david — July 8, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Okay, david.
I know you had more to say, hell, I even saw the year 1660 mentioned in your post. If you are going to admit right off the bat that you are a defeatist Lefty Iran-Lover, then how can you expect for anyone to take you seriously?
Please, next time you have something to say, keep the treason to yourself!
July 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pmPatty and her Kooks said
What sort of drivel is this? More Iraqis have died under the American occupation than would have died under Saddam. That’s statistical probability. And I think it is insulting to all Jews and Holocaust survivers and the memory of those who died under Hitler to make believe Saddam was worse. Shame on you! Saddam was a tyrant and he did murder and torture and he did make war, but he did not commit genocide and he was hardly a villain in the same league as Hitler. That was Bush Sr’s laughable comparision in the first Gulf War and Bush Jr’s silly rationale in the second. It’s just pathetic.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pm“terrorist groups have an easier time in places where government interference is negligible.”
Comment by Patty and her Cakes — July 8, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
And thus Patty and her “Cakes” just proved, despite herself, why Al Qaeda was not flourishing in Iraq while Saddam was in power.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:26 pmMuch more WHAT needs to be done ??
Comment by RUCerious — July 8, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
————————————————————————————
Our troops are doing their best to prevent excess blood-shed.
We need to do more studies of the sources of the conflict and work with the Iraqi people to set up some sort of agreement, however, this cannot be done with uncontrolled terrorism. Then we can begin to discuss what form of gov’t will work best.
(oh yeah, and we should bomb the Kaaba!)
July 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pmAh, yes, the age old cry of an imperial usurer! I have news for you, genius, this particular shtick is as old as the Ancient Egyptian Empire. The Romans where whining to the same tune as you about their uppity Germanic “provinces”. Etc and so on.
Here is a quote from a member of the parliment of one of the later empires, the British one, describing during the height of its glory how that business of “liberation” of the savages works:
From a speech by John Morley (1823 -1923):
“First you push into territories where you have no business to be, and where you had promised not to go;
secondly, your intrusion provokes resentment and, in these countries, resentment means resistance;
thirdly, you instantly cry out that the people are rebellious and that their act is rebellion (this in spite of your own assurance that you have no intention of setting up a permanent sovereignty over them);
fourthly, you send a force to stamp out the rebellion;
and fifthly, having spread bloodshed, confusion and anarchy, you declare, with hands uplifted to the heavens, that moral reasons force you to stay, for if you were to leave, this territory would be left in a condition which no civilized power could contemplate with equanimity or with composure.”
Does this sound familiar?
July 8th, 2007 at 5:32 pmComment by FactsOnly — July 8, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Excellent post! Damn, I hate it when history repeats itself!
July 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pmMr Peed in his Pants said
More studies? That’s the Bushite’s answer to every problem. It’s called being in denial. American troops are terrorizing the Iraqis. There is widespread murder & torture commited by American troops each day. But that goes unreported in the American media. And who gave you the fcuking right to decide what form of government would work best for the Iraqis. You mean you want to find the form that’ll kiss your butt best. Iraq has a government and it doesn’t much like what America is doing. It doesn’t want to pass the Oil Give-away Bill and it doesn’t like the Wall.
Mr Pee, you are the traitor. You’re the one killing innocent Iraqis and loyal American GIs so you can experiment with geopolitics. Your CEO Bush is a gullible jackass who bet on the longshot because it had such an unbelievablely big payoff. But longshots are longshots because they almost never happen. And the general who commits troops to a longshot should be court martialed.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:40 pmFactsOnly?
Okay, now try to find some pertinent facts!!!
Heyoooooooooooooooooo!!!
Usurer!
Do you even know what that word means???
I thought not.
Continue with your cutting and pasting sir, I am through with you!
July 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pm“Our troops are doing their best to prevent excess blood-shed…”
Not when the majority of the Iraqis want us out of there on a timetable, and the majority of them feel that attacking us is justified.
What planet were you a general on again???
July 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pmYou were funnier as ValianttheHater, Mr Pee.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pmJuly 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Comment by RUCerious — July 8, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
What do the supposed facts that “the majority of the Iraqis want us out of there on a timetable, and the majority of them feel that attacking us is justified”
have to do with my belief:
“Our troops are doing their best to prevent excess blood-shed…â€
???
July 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pmWhat is the Iraq war about? it wasn’t about terrorism as we abandoned the fight with OBL in the hills of Tora Bora. It wasn’t about regime change as that’s illegal under international law. It wasn’t about WMD as they never existed and the administration knew they didn’t exist or they wouldn’t have been manipulating the meager facts they had and besides the UN weapons inspectors would have found them eventually. Was it about Oil? Was it about protecting Israel? Was it a first step to retaking Iran? Was it about dominating the entire region in America’s name?
Whatever the neo-con jackasses thought, it has gone badly. And, as they jackals and jackasses will not confess to their genuine motives, I say they are not to be trusted and the USA must withdraw NOW.
Mr Peed in his Pants arguments of wholesale slaughter and bloodbaths are absurd. We heard that argument when Apartheid came to an end and it was false. Mr Pee is grasping at straws. He knows he’s fcuked up royally and he’ll go down in history as the worst American president ever. And the sun will set on the American Empire.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:56 pmUh, your belief is contrary to the situation on the ground. You are delusional, as usual.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pmMr Pea-brain said
Whose blood? I strongly suspect it isn’t Iraqi blood the US troops care about but their own redwhite&blue blood. That’s why they so often “spray & pray” the Iraqi civilians with gunfire –they operate on the premise that some insurgents are bound to be hit.
I’m sorry. You are delusional. The Americans aren’t there to prevent bloodshed, they’re there to shed blood. They are trying to pacify the country for American business interests. And you, sir, are a traitor.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:01 pmWell spake, david.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:01 pmRUCerious,
What is contrary about my belief?
Do you think that our troops are not doing their best?
Please, elaborate.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:02 pmIt doesn’t matter one goddamn bit what you think, Pee.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:05 pmThe troops are in the middle of a civil war that resulted from the erroneous concept of empire that the chymp thought would “transform” the ME.
It also doesn’t matter if the troops are doing “their best” or not.
It is irrelevant. Like you.
david,
I’ll admit, I know some Persian girls (sans rags, of course) that are damn hot. They are full American citizens and needless to say, they are not muslim. Hell, I’ve even banged a chick who was half Saudi. But the extent of your Islamophilia is beyond anything I’ve seen before, and I suspect that you are dead serious about everything that you say.
Do not address me when you see my posts sir, and I will not address you.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pmMr Pea-brain, the troops do not support you any more. Read the press. The troops want to know what they’re supposed to be doing, what is the plan, how is victory defined, where’s the light at the end of the tunnel. How can the troops do their best if they don’t know what they’re supposed to be doing?
Read the White House press releases. The WH now thinks every insurgent belongs to alQaeda even though the Pentagon thinks otherwise. How can you ask troops to fight an enemy if the President plays politics with the identity of that enemy. Who are you fighting, Mr Pea-brain? Your shadow???
It’s over, Pee. Pack up and go home. It’s the only way to support the troops. Otherwise the blood of every soldier and civilian and insurgent who dies while this drags on will be on your hands. Senseless killing.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pmRUCerious,
Well, you did assert that my belief was false, I just asked for some elaboration. If you choose not to elaborate, then you have said nothing meaningful.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pmBush won’t make any progress in Iraq unless, he makes a political and a diplomatic effort in resolving key issues the Maliki government refuses to address. The surge has failed. It is plain to see. The rising number of Iraqi and American casualties are unacceptable. It is not possible for us to win a civil war if we are going to take sides by providing weapons and funds to Sunnis extremists. The Shiia groups will not work with us or listen to us.
We need to set a date to get all combat forces out of Iraq. We must tell the Maliki government that they must meet key benchmarks by a certain date and that there will be consequences for not meeting them. It is time for our troops to stand down so Iraqi forces can stand up. If more than 300,000 Iraqi forces have been trained why are our kids still fighting for them? It’s time for the Iraqis to fight their own civil war.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pmMr Pee-nut said
As usual, Mr Pee, you disgrace yourself when cornered. How many pairs of undershorts do you go through in a day?
And you always end a losing argument by entering sexist and pornographic language. You remind me of the babbling and ranting GI, a sexist, racist bigot, who is taken prison with Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five. He was a vile piece of work who lusted for blood and the suffering of others.
Personally, I suspect you’re 19 year old virgin. You certainly don’t know much of anything. You don’t have a job. And you certainly have no charm.
And I have no intention of ignoring you. I don’t mind feeding trolls –as long as it’s p!ss and vinegar.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pmAssociated Press – July 8, 2007 3:43 PM ET
BAGHDAD (AP) – Iraqi politicians are losing hope that the country’s security forces can prevent extremist attacks.
Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians are calling on civilians to take up arms to defend themselves. This, after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives.
The victims include 60 who died today in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.
How’s that again, Lindsey, Graham? Things are working out “beyond your expectations” eh? We’ll have to see just how high your expectations go when you run for re-election next year.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:57 pmDear me! So Iraqi politicians want the people to arm themselves. What will Bush say to that? Or does he think the 2nd Amendment is for Americans only?
July 8th, 2007 at 8:01 pmTP and the Democrat Surrender monkeys love this type of news.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:46 pmNothin’ like a car or bus swarm
just like the Palestinians
Youre really not very good at this, are you?
Comment by Patty and her Cakes — July 8, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
And you are “good” at what? Smear attacks?
Re-read your posts…all you have is personal attacks with no substance. Your obviously a smart individual but very hateful. Hope you find a little love in your life.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:56 pmTo those who think pulling troops out of Iraq now would be a “disaster:”
Iraq isn’t already a DISASTER?
You obviously didn’t read the topic of this thread. You just came in to spread your trollish lies, distortions, hatred of progressives, and distraction from the topic.
The topic: “… death toll of 150 makes it the second deadliest insurgent bombing in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. In March, a truck bomb attack also blamed on al Qaeda killed 152 people in the northern town of Tal Afar.” and “fresh attacks in and around Baghdad killed 31 others.â€
Disaster in Iraq IS the topic!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:25 amIraq isn’t already a DISASTER?
Comment by hterrya — July 9, 2007 @ 1:25 am
———————————————————————————
No. You Democrat Surrender Monkey!
(thanks Flaco!)
July 9th, 2007 at 3:02 amThe Iraq war is a disaster because the policy has been wrong from the beginning. The American people see what the president refuses to see that if we stay the course in Iraq we will lose more American lives. The president needs to level with the American people and set a date to bring all combat troops home. Bush’s policy of nation building has failed and our troops are paying the price for it. We can’t fight someone else’s civil war for them.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:30 pmIt is hard to imagine that Iraqi will kill another Iraqi. The ones that benefit the most from the carnage and sectarian violence are the occupation forces (ie British, US & their so-called allies). It isn’t difficult to kill scores of civilians with truck filled with bombs and detonated them remotely. As the occupying forces, they want to cause the Iraqis to fight each other and cause mistrust among themselves. As occupying forces, they want to tire iraqi with death and destructions. The strategy is called ‘divide & conquer’. The start of the sectarian violence coincides with the arrival of Negroponte to Baghdad. Negroponte was instrumental in the creation of death squad during the El Salvador civil war.
Any crime investigator will always check for motives and potential benefits from the crime. In this bombing, the occupying forces are the ones benefitting the most from the crime. Why should insurgents kill their own people ie people feeding them?
Here is the link of the capture of British SAS masquarading as Iraqis with ready-made bombs in car trunk who was subsequently rescued by British tanks against the Iraqi police.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/200905stagedterror.htm
July 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm