Bombings Kill Nearly 60 In Sunni Areas Of Iraq

[Pale Rider]

As if THIS will EVER end....



Bombings Kill Nearly 60 In Sunni Areas Of Iraq




2008-04-15 18:05:36
By KIM GAMEL Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) — Bombings blamed on al-Qaida in Iraq tore through market areas in Baghdad and outside the capital on Tuesday, killing nearly 60 people and shattering weeks of relative calm in Sunni-dominated areas.

The bloodshed — in four cities as far north as Mosul and as far west as Ramadi — struck directly at U.S. claims that the Sunni insurgency is waning and being replaced by Shiite militia violence as a major threat.

The deadliest blasts took place in Baqouba and Ramadi, two cities where the U.S. military has claimed varying degrees of success in getting Sunnis to turn against al-Qaida

Article continues here... (http://charter.net/news/news_reader.php?storyid=14555281&feedid=14)

[mundame]

As if THIS will EVER end....


BAGHDAD (AP) — Bombings blamed on al-Qaida in Iraq tore through market areas in Baghdad and outside the capital on Tuesday, killing nearly 60 people and shattering weeks of relative calm in Sunni-dominated areas.

The bloodshed — in four cities as far north as Mosul and as far west as Ramadi — struck directly at U.S. claims that the Sunni insurgency is waning and being replaced by Shiite militia violence as a major threat.

The deadliest blasts took place in Baqouba and Ramadi, two cities where the U.S. military has claimed varying degrees of success in getting Sunnis to turn against al-Qaida




Yeah, it's all total lies the government is feeding us.

This is April. I hate to THINK what the enemy is planning for September and October! This is their chance to get us outoutout of their country, lots of violence before our election (and theirs, Oct. 1).

I think the daily heavy shelling of the Green Zone tells the story of our having lost this war better than anything else. Because it didn't used to get shelled at all; now it's heavily shelled daily, with deaths and injuries constantly. When the enemy can freely shell the other side's headquarters, that is called "losing the war."

[Dilloduck]

Yeah, it's all total lies the government is feeding us.

This is April. I hate to THINK what the enemy is planning for September and October! This is their chance to get us outoutout of their country, lots of violence before our election (and theirs, Oct. 1).

I think the daily heavy shelling of the Green Zone tells the story of our having lost this war better than anything else. Because it didn't used to get shelled at all; now it's heavily shelled daily, with deaths and injuries constantly. When the enemy can freely shell the other side's headquarters, that is called "losing the war."

Feel free to stop it any time you want--( BTW Who is winning the war ? )

[Gaffer]

Yeah, it's all total lies the government is feeding us.

This is April. I hate to THINK what the enemy is planning for September and October! This is their chance to get us outoutout of their country, lots of violence before our election (and theirs, Oct. 1).

I think the daily heavy shelling of the Green Zone tells the story of our having lost this war better than anything else. Because it didn't used to get shelled at all; now it's heavily shelled daily, with deaths and injuries constantly. When the enemy can freely shell the other side's headquarters, that is called "losing the war."

Could you supply some links to these daily shellings? Also info on these mass casualties.

Isn't it interesting that these attacks come as Petraeus is testifying in congress. Could it have possibly been planned that way? And yes you can probably expect an escalation of things just before the election. Could it be because they are trying to influence things? And I wonder who would stand to gain by bad news from iraq?

[mundame]

Could you supply some links to these daily shellings? Also info on these mass casualties.


I suggest reading the news sites.


Isn't it interesting that these attacks come as Petraeus is testifying in congress. Could it have possibly been planned that way?

Gracious, I should think so --- wouldn't anybody plan it that way? The point is, they CAN escalate attacks, and we can't stop them. Not even when they are shelling our headquarters daily. Now, the enemy shelling our headquarters is never going to be a sign that we are winning. Not in ANY war.


And yes you can probably expect an escalation of things just before the election. Could it be because they are trying to influence things? And I wonder who would stand to gain by bad news from iraq?

Well, of course they are trying to influence "things," namely, our elections! That is not rocket science. The Iraqis would gain, certainly. Maybe the Iranians, maybe the Saudi al Qaeda. If you are trying to say the Democrats would gain, Iraqis don't care about American Democrats, except as a means of getting us OUT of their country.

I'd say that what is going on now is Sadr making his move to become the next Saddam (and probably Iran through Sadr), as well as the general infighting. And al Qaeda apparently resurgent again; Guess we'll have to bomb and fight in Fallujah yet again --- how many times have we "conquered" ol' Hamburger Hill Fallujah at this point? I think we're up to the fourth time, maybe fifth.

[Dilloduck]

I suggest reading the news sites.



Gracious, I should think so --- wouldn't anybody plan it that way? The point is, they CAN escalate attacks, and we can't stop them. Not even when they are shelling our headquarters daily. Now, the enemy shelling our headquarters is never going to be a sign that we are winning. Not in ANY war.



Well, of course they are trying to influence "things," namely, our elections! That is not rocket science. The Iraqis would gain, certainly. Maybe the Iranians, maybe the Saudi al Qaeda. If you are trying to say the Democrats would gain, Iraqis don't care about American Democrats, except as a means of getting us OUT of their country.

I'd say that what is going on now is Sadr making his move to become the next Saddam (and probably Iran through Sadr), as well as the general infighting. And al Qaeda apparently resurgent again; Guess we'll have to bomb and fight in Fallujah yet again --- how many times have we "conquered" ol' Hamburger Hill Fallujah at this point? I think we're up to the fourth time, maybe fifth.

Silly analogy---the enemy doesn't even HAVE a headquarters. Who is winning in Iraq ?

[mundame]

Who is winning in Iraq ?

Good question. Is anybody winning at all? That's not actually apparent, there are so many factions. Sadr and Iran are on the upsurge right now, and al Qaeda is rapidly recovering from their problems in the Sunni areas, by killing all the Sunni Sheiks that allied with us, briefly, and starting up their bombings again.

I guess I think we are stabilizing a perpetual losing by everyone. Whereas if our troops were gone, they'd have a civil war and settle it pretty fast --- the huge oil revenues are a BIG incentive for any ambitious strongman.

Well, wait ------------ the Kurds won their independence at the beginning of the war, de facto if not de jure. So the Kurds won, at least. Everybody else is still losing, I guess, including us. Note that the Kurds won by buttoning up "Kurdistan" tight and staying out of the war: staying out of a hopeless war is a winning strategy, like Joshua said in War Games.

[mundame]

---the enemy doesn't even HAVE a headquarters.


I bet they do. They'd have to. I bet they have at least one headquarters each. For the criminals, the al Qaeda, the oil smugglers, the Shia loyal to Sadr, the Shia loyal to someone else, the Iranians, whoever else there is.

The problem is, we don't know where their headquarters are, but they ssuuuuuuurrrrrrre know where our Green Zone is! BLAM!!

[Dilloduck]

Good question. Is anybody winning at all? That's not actually apparent, there are so many factions. Sadr and Iran are on the upsurge right now, and al Qaeda is rapidly recovering from their problems in the Sunni areas, by killing all the Sunni Sheiks that allied with us, briefly, and starting up their bombings again.

I guess I think we are stabilizing a perpetual losing by everyone. Whereas if our troops were gone, they'd have a civil war and settle it pretty fast --- the huge oil revenues are a BIG incentive for any ambitious strongman.

Well, wait ------------ the Kurds won their independence at the beginning of the war, de facto if not de jure. So the Kurds won, at least. Everybody else is still losing, I guess, including us. Note that the Kurds won by buttoning up "Kurdistan" tight and staying out of the war: staying out of a hopeless war is a winning strategy, like Joshua said in War Games.

Joshua was a hack--a kid tricked him.:laugh2:

[Gaffer]

I read the news daily, I also read lots of independent news sources and milblogs. Not a one has mentioned daily attacks on the green zone. There was ONE, over a week ago. Nothing else reported. Sooooo...how about links to all these attacks as the msm is not carrying them nor anyone else.

The headquarters for AQ is in mosul. sadr's hq is in sadr city. The iranians work in both places. aq is using the usual terror tactics to try to scare the peope and intimidate the local leaders. That will continue to go on whether there are 2 or 2000 aq in iraq.

sadr is a puppet of iran. Nothing more than that. He does what he's told when hes told. He does want to be a shite version of saddam. The cities and areas our troops take are not being left for the insurgents to move back into. That was the purpose of the surge. After its taken we garrison it.

Who do you propose should control the oil of iraq? sadr and iran? aq? or the US and iraq? It's really a simple choice and boils down to just that.

[mundame]

I read the news daily, I also read lots of independent news sources and milblogs. Not a one has mentioned daily attacks on the green zone. There was ONE, over a week ago. Nothing else reported. Sooooo...how about links to all these attacks as the msm is not carrying them nor anyone else.

You just aren't reading that news because you don't want to believe it, I think. Here are three links from major media, easily gathered by typing "Green Zone attacks" into Google News.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5leYnvOpPqrVCiXxC65pROPNYBAD8VTLA5G3
Iran Condemns Iraq Green Zone Attacks
By NASSER KARIMI – Apr 8, 2008
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday condemned for the first time rocket and mortar attacks against the U.S.-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad by supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jed_irIdjyJM7JRifQKk0ic4sQ4A
US troops plan to stay put in Baghdad's Sadr City: general
...Hammond said the main aim of the push into Sadr City was to stop lethal rocket attacks from Sadr City into the heavily fortified Green Zone, the seat of the Iraqi government and US embassy.
"My aim is to push the 107-mm rockets out of range," Hammond told a group of journalists from Western media outlets on Monday.
US military officials say at least 308 rockets and 288 mortar shells were fired, most of them towards the Green Zone, between March 23 and April 12.
Seventy percent came from from the Sadr City stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5uDALSiduV4&refer=home
Iraqi Attacks Kill 54 People; Green Zone Bombed, AFP Reports By Kari Lundgren
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- A mortar assault on Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, followed by a series of attacks across Iraq left at least 54 people dead today, Agence France- Presse reported.
Four attacks were made against the Green Zone, the site of the Iraqi government and U.S. embassy, injuring at least four people, AFP said. The U.S. embassy was evacuated, with staff moving into nearby bunkers, the newswire reported, citing an unidentified embassy employee. During the second attack, eight mortar rounds fell near the embassy complex and two into a nearby residential area, according to AFP.



Who do you propose should control the oil of iraq? sadr and iran? aq? or the US and iraq? It's really a simple choice and boils down to just that.

It's really a simple choice: do you give $17 billion of your personal fortune to hire mercenaries to flood Iraq and win this war, or do you let it drift on like it is?

Oh, wait.........you don't have $17 billion so you can't do that? It's not such a simple choice if you cannot do something, is it?

We can't "win" in Iraq, as if it mattered, and we know that because we've been fighting lightly armed men in white nightgowns for over five years and haven't won yet. Therefore there is no "choice."

You can't "choose" to do what you just can't manage to do.


If we could win, we would win.
We can't, so we don't.

[Gaffer]

I didn't see anything about daily attacks on the green zone. There was mention of multiple attacks. And the attacks have come out of....sadr city. which is adjacent to the green zone. One of the few remaining places that needs to be cleaned out.

So because you don't personally see any sign of victory in iraq we should just pull out and leave aq and iran to control the area. We can pull out of afgan too. No sense in staying there. After all, we already defeated the taliban. Why stay there and nation build when we can pull out and let the taliban and aq move back in. There's a bumper poppy crop to be harvested and who cares if all the money goes to a means to attack the US. Who cares if iraq's oil goes to fund iran's military and nuclear programs. Or their "space" program. Who cares if oil prices go to $300 a barrel. As long as our soldiers don't get killed and we don't spend any money on war and, most importantly, we make Bush look bad, then everything is fine.

Do you ever look at the big picture? At the consequences of actions and inactions? Do you have any concept of what your enemy is like and how he thinks? And I say "your enemy" because he hates you and wants to kill you as much as he hates me.

[mundame]

So because you don't personally see any sign of victory in iraq we should just pull out and leave aq and iran to control the area. We can pull out of afgan too. No sense in staying there. After all, we already defeated the taliban. Why stay there and nation build when we can pull out and let the taliban and aq move back in. There's a bumper poppy crop to be harvested and who cares if all the money goes to a means to attack the US. Who cares if iraq's oil goes to fund iran's military and nuclear programs. Or their "space" program. Who cares if oil prices go to $300 a barrel. As long as our soldiers don't get killed and we don't spend any money on war and, most importantly, we make Bush look bad, then everything is fine.


NOW you are catching on, good! http://www.pagealumni.us/boards/style_emoticons/default/toothy4.gif



Do you ever look at the big picture? At the consequences of actions and inactions? Do you have any concept of what your enemy is like and how he thinks? And I say "your enemy" because he hates you and wants to kill you as much as he hates me.

I suspect I look at a bigger picture than you do. For instance: Germany twice invaded other countries in multiple directions, and so frightened the world that other countries ganged up on Germany and thus defeated it. I would prefer that we not scare the world similarly.

As for my enemy the Musselmen, I am not as naive as you may think. I think if they COULD kill us all, they would. They say so, why would they lie? They don't seem to be able to do that, since it would be easy to send in a truckload of terrorists across Mexico along with the hundreds of invading Mexicans every day, but they never have in all these years. So they are too incapable, too primitive, too stupid. After all, they had to use our technology entirely, right down to the level of our flying schools, to attack us at all. That attack was clever, but after six years, I suspect it's a once-off.

You know, Gaffer, if you want to call something a war, the enemy has to attack once in awhile. Otherwise people lose interest.

I think if we are attacked again we should go to the offending area and totally defeat them, just for a change. Just for a change!!!! Am I asking too much here, that American forces actually WIN a war once in a while??? Darn.

Letting bin Laden escape and then getting bogged down in Iraq that never attacked us at all ------- no, that just doesn't cut the mustard.

[Gaffer]

NOW you are catching on, good! http://www.pagealumni.us/boards/style_emoticons/default/toothy4.gif




I suspect I look at a bigger picture than you do. For instance: Germany twice invaded other countries in multiple directions, and so frightened the world that other countries ganged up on Germany and thus defeated it. I would prefer that we not scare the world similarly.

As for my enemy the Musselmen, I am not as naive as you may think. I think if they COULD kill us all, they would. They say so, why would they lie? They don't seem to be able to do that, since it would be easy to send in a truckload of terrorists across Mexico along with the hundreds of invading Mexicans every day, but they never have in all these years. So they are too incapable, too primitive, too stupid. After all, they had to use our technology entirely, right down to the level of our flying schools, to attack us at all. That attack was clever, but after six years, I suspect it's a once-off.

You know, Gaffer, if you want to call something a war, the enemy has to attack once in awhile. Otherwise people lose interest.

I think if we are attacked again we should go to the offending area and totally defeat them, just for a change. Just for a change!!!! Am I asking too much here, that American forces actually WIN a war once in a while??? Darn.

Letting bin Laden escape and then getting bogged down in Iraq that never attacked us at all ------- no, that just doesn't cut the mustard.

I think we are on different levels of the same path.

I don't believe in sitting back and waiting for another attack. The war is being mismanaged, and its as much the fault of congress as the white house. Like so many times before its not being fought as an all out war but little skirmishes. Because everyone is afraid of world opinion and losing their cushy seat in politics. We are stuck fighting a war with islam that is going to go on for the next 100 years.

A war should be declared by congress. Not just give the president permission to take action and fund it. That's not playing to win, that's looking for a way out. Same with the exit strategy. There should be no such thing. You exit when your done. No strategy is involved.

There are iranian, hamas and hezbo agents already here in the US. More sneak across the border all the time. Not to mention those with visas and the ones that over stay. They aren't attacking because the time is not right. They want everyone thinking they are safe and nothing is going to happen to them. Lull the population until a prearranged time. Most likely in conjunction with any hostilities such as a war with iran.

bin laden escaped for one simple reason. There were not enough US troops in the country and they had to rely on local militia to surround him. He went to pakistan. We can pull all the troops out of iraq today and put them in afgan and we still won't get bin laden. I suspect we won't get him until we go into iran. Do you buy into mfm's logic that shite's and sunni can't get along and fight together against a common enemy?

As for the enemy attacking once in a while. What do you call the London bombings, or the Madrid bombings, or Bali? There are tons of other cases where they were caught before they could carry out their plans. Both here and overseas. Just because the strikes weren't successful doesn't mean the attacks were not made or intended. Not to mention the individual acts like running people down with cars, sniping incidents, shooting sprees and so on. There's a lot going on that doesn't make the national news. It's a different war. One where the enemy is sneaky and murderous and uses our own freedoms against us. And fought on a totally pc level that hampers us even more.

[mundame]

I think we are on different levels of the same path.

I don't believe in sitting back and waiting for another attack.

I do, and I know that sounds shocking after 9/11, but this is why: governments use that kind of carte blanche to get a free ticket into every war they can think of. Like Bush in Iraq: there were a lot of reasons to hit Iraq, and I thought they were good ones at the time (because I assumed we'd win ---- there is never a good reason to LOSE a war, unless you are defending your homeland, and possibly not then if the force is overwhelming: see Japan.). These reasons had nothing at all to do with 9/11 --- it was about oil, American oil companies, Bush's father, not having taken Saddam out properly in the first place, about the no-fly zones, about trying regime change instead of sanctions which DEFINITELY weren't working. I think the last was most important.

But this is exactly how nations screw up, taking on political wars that don't matter to anyone but the politicians: for example the Boer War and the Crimean War, both of which the Brits lost bigtime with lots of losses and the people hated those wars. In our case it's Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. And we're worse than the Brits at wars like that because the people become disgusted and antimilitary. We lost the draft after Vietnam because it was so awful and now there aren't enough cannon fodder to fight effectively in Iraq.

I feel we have to wait until an attack because 1) otherwise everybody with too much testosterone sloshing around in their system wants to make war on every country they can find on a map, and because 2) it's the only way Americans can fight ------------ if we're mad. We can't fight advisor-type wars like the Germans did so effectively with Turkish forces (and in Iraq --- that's where the British did in fact surrender thousands of forces to German-led Turks, and they mostly died in the desert); we just can't. We know we can't because we've spent our lives watching our troops fail at these types of war ---- Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. It's just not our thing.

We should go with our strengths, and our strength is in righteous anger.


We are stuck fighting a war with islam that is going to go on for the next 100 years.

Well, maybe. Maybe not. The Crusades DID go on several hundred years. (We lost.) So it could be. Particularly since the world is wildly overpopulated, and they of course want our resources; that's why they are moving in. I think we should stop that. That's how Malthus works: when there's a resource crunch, one genetic group battles another and the winner inherits the Earth. I'd rather it was us.

But I don't like predictions, because they are about the future, which hasn't happened. Another example from the safe past is the anarchists, who made a lot more trouble than even the Muslims have, but they disappeared after WWI. Just vanished, poof. Maybe the Islamists will vanish, too.




There are iranian, hamas and hezbo agents already here in the US.

You don't know that, because there is no evidence of it.


More sneak across the border all the time.

You don't know that, because there's no evidence of it.


Not to mention those with visas and the ones that over stay.

We do need to kick these out.


They aren't attacking because the time is not right. They want everyone thinking they are safe and nothing is going to happen to them. Lull the population until a prearranged time. Most likely in conjunction with any hostilities such as a war with iran.

Assertions aren't the same thing as verifiable facts.


I suspect we won't get him until we go into iran.

Sometimes I wonder if that's where he is, too.


Do you buy into mfm's logic that shite's and sunni can't get along and fight together against a common enemy?

I think we should let them kill each other, if that's what they like to do, and it is what they like to do. Hey, it wouldn't be our fault. I can never understand why we are spending OUR blood and treasure keeping these awful people from each others' throats. We should WELCOME them killing each other!!


As for the enemy attacking once in a while. What do you call the London bombings, or the Madrid bombings, or Bali?

I call that "somewhere else." There is lots of violence in the world, including in Sri Lanka, in Tibet, in the Nigerian Delta, in Colombia, and none of it has much to do with us.



There are tons of other cases where they were caught before they could carry out their plans. Both here and overseas. Just because the strikes weren't successful doesn't mean the attacks were not made or intended. Not to mention the individual acts like running people down with cars, sniping incidents, shooting sprees and so on.

The biggest problem you all have is that none of it goes on here.

Personally, I think the war has worked from that point of view: we've scared them off.

It's interesting talking to you, Gaffer, thanks for the conversation.

[Dilloduck]

now there aren't enough cannon fodder to fight effectively in Iraq

The Crusades DID go on several hundred years. (We lost.)


:cuckoo:

[Gaffer]

You made a lot of good and interesting points, but I disagree on some of them.

"We can't fight advisor-type wars like the Germans did so effectively with Turkish forces (and in Iraq --- that's where the British did in fact surrender thousands of forces to German-led Turks, and they mostly died in the desert); we just can't. We know we can't because we've spent our lives watching our troops fail at these types of war ---- Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. It's just not our thing."

Our troops have not failed in any of these wars. The politicians did. They gave away north korea and Vietnam and they are trying to give away iraq. when left to the troops the wars can end quickly and with victory.

Concerning the enemy agents.
"You don't know that, because there is no evidence of it."

There is no news report evidence. And the government is not willing to give up its info for security reasons. Why do I feel there are agents here. Because it's what I would do if I were them.

"I think we should let them kill each other, if that's what they like to do, and it is what they like to do. Hey, it wouldn't be our fault. I can never understand why we are spending OUR blood and treasure keeping these awful people from each others' throats. We should WELCOME them killing each other!!"

We are in agreement on this. However, to walk away leaves it open to the outside influences, which in the long run would be very bad for us. A safe haven for aq or iran running the place, possibly both.

"I call that "somewhere else." There is lots of violence in the world, including in Sri Lanka, in Tibet, in the Nigerian Delta, in Colombia, and none of it has much to do with us."

So attacks in europe don't count in the war? It's islam verses the west. Not just the US. There's lots of violence in the world that has nothing to do with us alright. But there's also just as much that has everything to do with us.

"The biggest problem you all have is that none of it goes on here.

Personally, I think the war has worked from that point of view: we've scared them off."

There is plenty that goes on here. But the pc press and the government won't tell anyone about it. Look how often the media doesn't mention a criminals ties to islam. Or the government says a perpetrator was acting on his own. They haven't been scared off. They are just being more cautious and devious and more importantly, patient.

Your right that America needs to get mad. But 9/11 didn't make everyone mad. Makes me wonder how many Americans are going to need to die to make America mad.