Bombs kill at least 80 as Shiites mark anniversary of mosque attack

Wasn't the purpose of President Bush escalating the war with 21, 000 more troops in Iraq suppossed to put a stop to this carnage?

Shouldn't those people dying in Baghdad today all just be insurgents, al-Qaeda, and Iranian agents?

Well?

We're waiting for the carnage in Baghdad to stop. Enough already!











Bombs kill at least 80 as Shiites mark anniversary of mosque attack - USATODAY.com

BAGHDAD (AP) — Thunderous explosions and dense black smoke swirled through the center of Baghdad on Monday when three car bombs ripped apart a crowded marketplace, setting off secondary explosions and killing at least 71 people, police said. A suicide bombing nearby killed at least nine.
PHOTOS: Watch troops track down a sniper | Blog

The blasts shattered the city center on the first anniversary, according to the Muslim lunar calendar, of the bombing last year of the important Shiite Golden Dome shrine in Samarra, north of the capital. That attack by al-Qaeda in Iraq militants set off the torrent of sectarian bloodletting that has turned Baghdad and much of central Iraq into a battleground.

A column of smoke hundreds of feet wide billowed a thousand feet into the air above the market near the east bank of the Tigris River and near the Central Bank building.

Ambulances and pickups rushed many of the nearly 165 wounded to nearby al-Kindi hospital in the largely Shiite region that has been hit be a series of deadly bombings since the first of the year.

The worst carnage occurred about 12:25 p.m. when three parked car bombs exploded shortly after the Iraqi government called for a 15-minute period of commemoration for the bombing of the golden domed shrine in Samarra a year ago.

The bombs struck within a minute of each other, targeting two buildings about 200 yards apart. One of the cars was parked near the entrance to a parking garage under one of the buildings.

Shops and stalls were obliterated and billowing smoke blackened the entire area on a beautiful sunny day in Baghdad...

KidRocks said:

Bombs kill at least 80 as Shiites mark anniversary of mosque attack - USATODAY.com

Click to expand...

How will you be celebrating?

CurrentAffairs said:

How will you be celebrating?

Click to expand...

Well me and about 60 million Americans are all partied out from the walloping the Republicans took at the ballot box from the last elections. Now, were ready to party when Hillary gets elected!

That, my friend, is how I will be celebrating, you?

KidRocks said:

Well me and about 60 million Americans are all partied out from the walloping the Republicans took at the ballot box from the last elections. Now, were ready to party when Hillary gets elected!

That, my friend, is how I will be celebrating, you?

Click to expand...

Your thread isn't about the November midterms or the Hillary candidacy. Your political thrill from the death of others is dispicable.

CurrentAffairs said:

Your thread isn't about the November midterms or the Hillary candidacy. Your political thrill from the death of others is dispicable.

Click to expand...

Your precious President Bush is responsible for theirs and our troops deaths and you my friend have blood on your hands as well for supporting the slaughter of our troops by way of supporting President Bush at any cost!

KidRocks said:

Your precious President Bush is responsible for theirs and our troops deaths and you my friend have blood on your hands as well for supporting the slaughter of our troops by way of supporting President Bush at any cost!

Click to expand...

Now we're getting down to it. At least you are not trying to derail your own thread, as you were earlier, with talk of Hillary and the midterms. Now, tell us why you celebrate these deaths. What about the deaths of our troops and those dying at the hands of terrorists give you such a thrill? How, in your mind, are you able to "use" an American death as a way of further showing your hate for the President? Does a death give you fodder for the hate? Do you believe, somehow, that with every death, the President becomes more and more a legitimate target for your partisan hate? It is backwards thinking, kidrocks.

Wars have been a reality of civilization throughout time. Where enemies exist, we have always risen to the challenge. President Bush doesn't care about your phoney baloney concern over war and peace. Let me ask you a question. Why do you stay in a country that you hate so much? Because for certain, there will be more wars in the future and some will even be entered into by leaders that you support.

And please, please stop calling me your friend.

all this story shows me is that some Iraqis are deserving of our support, and that we should not cut and run as the cowardly left would have us do

they were already hit
the came to mark the anniversary KNOWING FULL WELLL they could be attacked again
if that isnt Iraqis standing up i dont know what is

CurrentAffairs said:

Now, tell us why you celebrate these deaths.

Click to expand...

No one is celebrating. These are the tragic consequences of the war Bush waged on lies which you continue to support. You can close your eyes, cover your ears and chant, "la la la celebrate la la la," but the facts won't go away. You have to deal with it.

Chanda said:

No one is celebrating. These are the tragic consequences of the war Bush waged on lies which you continue to support. You can close your eyes, cover your ears and chant, "la la la celebrate la la la," but the facts won't go away. You have to deal with it.

Click to expand...

Your continual trumpeting of Bush lies doesn't make it so, Ms. Streisand. Like I do with kidrocks, I find your thrill in these deaths disgusting.

Chanda said:

No one is celebrating. These are the tragic consequences of the war Bush waged on lies which you continue to support. You can close your eyes, cover your ears and chant, "la la la celebrate la la la," but the facts won't go away. You have to deal with it.

Click to expand...

You and kiddocks are really something..........:cuckoo:


This has nothing to do with the US government or any members of the US Military in Iraq. This has everything to do with the HOLY WAR the sunni and shia are waging.........

KidRocks said:

Your precious President Bush is responsible for theirs and our troops deaths and you my friend have blood on your hands as well for supporting the slaughter of our troops by way of supporting President Bush at any cost!

Click to expand...

If you get your way and we leave Iraq are you then going to continue to keep track of the violence that happens over there? If the death tolls actually rise even higher after we've abandoned the country who will you blame then? Or will your silence at that point be deafening?

CurrentAffairs said:

Now we're getting down to it. At least you are not trying to derail your own thread, as you were earlier, with talk of Hillary and the midterms. Now, tell us why you celebrate these deaths. What about the deaths of our troops and those dying at the hands of terrorists give you such a thrill? How, in your mind, are you able to "use" an American death as a way of further showing your hate for the President? Does a death give you fodder for the hate? Do you believe, somehow, that with every death, the President becomes more and more a legitimate target for your partisan hate? It is backwards thinking, kidrocks.

Wars have been a reality of civilization throughout time. Where enemies exist, we have always risen to the challenge. President Bush doesn't care about your phoney baloney concern over war and peace. Let me ask you a question. Why do you stay in a country that you hate so much? Because for certain, there will be more wars in the future and some will even be entered into by leaders that you support.

And please, please stop calling me your friend.

Click to expand...

Well, my friend, why do YOU keep supporting President Bush and the deaths of our brave troops at any cost?

Why do you insist on belittling and demeaning our brave troops deaths by insisting on 'staying the course' when you have been clearly shown that that losing policy is Presidents Bush's greatest 'mistake'?

The thing is that you will keep on supporting 'failure' in Iraq as long as President Bush in office just to quench your politically-correct, r-wing agenda even while our troops needlessly die, day in and day out!

Why do you insist on rationalizing away our troops deaths by claiming that "Wars have been a reality of civilization throughout time. Where enemies exist, we have always risen to the challenge." ? That cop-out doesn't excuse our invading Iraq and it especially doesn't justify our presense in Iraq much longer.

Shame on you for politicizing the war in Iraq, shame on you for supporting President Bush at any cost, including supporting the needless deaths of our brave troops in Iraq!

talloulou said:

If you get your way and we leave Iraq are you then going to continue to keep track of the violence that happens over there? If the death tolls actually rise even higher after we've abandoned the country who will you blame then? Or will your silence at that point be deafening?

Click to expand...

What is your exit strategy?

Are we to remain there for 'as long as it takes'?

How many more troops have to die before we say enough?

How many years in Iraq? Is ten years enough?

If this troop 'surge' does not work then what?

If the Iraqi army does not stand-up, then what?

In your opinion, what constitutes 'victory' in Iraq?

Can we turn this war over to the United Nations?

You know my exit stragety, at least I have one!

Well?

KidRocks said:

What is your exit strategy?

Click to expand...

I don't pretend to be qualified to have one.

Are we to remain there for 'as long as it takes'?

Click to expand...

Obviously if we reach a point where it is clear that our presence there is pointless and achieves nothing than I would support leaving. However it is my current understanding that while things may not be getting better as quick as we like there seems to be a universal agreement that things will get worse if we abandon the country in a reckless manner. If some of our soldiers die while keeping the death toll overall in the country lower than it would be if we up and left right now than I would say it would be very irresponsible to the citizens of Iraq to abandon them too early.

How many more troops have to die before we say enough?

Click to expand...

Well it depends on your outlook. There are plenty of would be terrorists being kept quite busy in Iraq. What would they be up to if we up and left Iraq? Seems to me it's convenient to have a large number of them fighting in one place. Secondly if there is hope for the Iraqi government and only more time is needed to give them a better chance at keeping control of their country once we leave then I say we owe them the time. If you have abandoned all hope then I suppose you just throw the Iraqi citizens to the wolves and wash your hands of the situation. I don't believe we are at that point just yet.

How many years in Iraq? Is ten years enough?

Click to expand...

I imagine we will probably have at least a presence there for at least that long.

If this troop 'surge' does not work then what?

Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know.

If the Iraqi army does not stand-up, then what?

Click to expand...

The Iraqi army is currently standing up.

In your opinion, what constitutes 'victory' in Iraq?

Click to expand...

Leaving once the country is stable enough that you know terrorists aren't going to immediately take over control of everything the moment we've gone and replace the new democracy with a wretched dictator.

Can we turn this war over to the United Nations?

Click to expand...

The United Nations has disappointed me time and time again on numerous global issues. I look to them for nothing.

You know my exit stragety, at least I have one!

Well?

Click to expand...

If you really cared about the citizens of Iraq then you would at least take a look at the question of whether or not they are better off the quicker we abandon them. If you only care about American life than an immediate withdrawl would seem best but even then you have to look towards the future and ask if Americans are better off with an Iraq that has a chance vs. an Iraq that we washed our hands of and left to fall the hell apart. We are responsible for what is going on over there to some degree and in my mind we owe them the time it takes to achieve stability in the region.

CurrentAffairs said:

I find your thrill in these deaths disgusting.

Click to expand...

Don't you think if I were thrilled by these deaths, I wouldn't want Bush's disastrous war to end? You, on the other hand...

Chanda said:

Don't you think if I were thrilled by these deaths, I wouldn't want Bush's disastrous war to end? You, on the other hand...

Click to expand...

Good answer, they just can't comprehend that can they.

talloulou said:

I don't pretend to be qualified to have one.

Obviously if we reach a point where it is clear that our presence there is pointless and achieves nothing than I would support leaving. However it is my current understanding that while things may not be getting better as quick as we like there seems to be a universal agreement that things will get worse if we abandon the country in a reckless manner. If some of our soldiers die while keeping the death toll overall in the country lower than it would be if we up and left right now than I would say it would be very irresponsible to the citizens of Iraq to abandon them too early.

Well it depends on your outlook. There are plenty of would be terrorists being kept quite busy in Iraq. What would they be up to if we up and left Iraq? Seems to me it's convenient to have a large number of them fighting in one place. Secondly if there is hope for the Iraqi government and only more time is needed to give them a better chance at keeping control of their country once we leave then I say we owe them the time. If you have abandoned all hope then I suppose you just throw the Iraqi citizens to the wolves and wash your hands of the situation. I don't believe we are at that point just yet.

I imagine we will probably have at least a presence there for at least that long.

I don't pretend to know.

The Iraqi army is currently standing up.

Leaving once the country is stable enough that you know terrorists aren't going to immediately take over control of everything the moment we've gone and replace the new democracy with a wretched dictator.

The United Nations has disappointed me time and time again on numerous global issues. I look to them for nothing.



If you really cared about the citizens of Iraq then you would at least take a look at the question of whether or not they are better off the quicker we abandon them. If you only care about American life than an immediate withdrawl would seem best but even then you have to look towards the future and ask if Americans are better off with an Iraq that has a chance vs. an Iraq that we washed our hands of and left to fall the hell apart. We are responsible for what is going on over there to some degree and in my mind we owe them the time it takes to achieve stability in the region.

Click to expand...

Thanks talloulou for your honest and quick response to my queries. I'm not so sure things would get worse in Iraq if we left, if they did then maybe we could possibly get the UN involved not to mention many ME countries who might want to see a peaceful resolve in Iraq also.

KidRocks said:

Thanks talloulou for your honest and quick response to my queries. I'm not so sure things would get worse in Iraq if we left, if they did then maybe we could possibly get the UN involved not to mention many ME countries who might want to see a peaceful resolve in Iraq also.

Click to expand...

the UN or other ME countries
:2rofll:
are you serious
oops, forget i asked
i forgot whom i was speaking to :doh

KidRocks said:

Good answer, they just can't comprehend that can they.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Salon's Blog Report explains it so well:

"I find this rash of posts (by Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, MilBlog Blackfive, et al) suggesting that anti-war activists "celebrate" the deaths of American soldiers to be both tragic and telling.

Tragic, because it represents a descent into depraved, gutter-level slander as a form of argumentation, and it is a profoundly un-American approach to a most American of activities: dissent. Telling, because it means these bloggers have nothing left to justify the deaths of Americans in Iraq but desperate and transparent attacks on those who want our troops home."

Salon - The Blog Report - Synopsis

Chanda said:

suggesting that anti-war activists "celebrate" the deaths of American soldiers to be both tragic and telling.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be so tragic if it weren't so true. We can see right through your ilk. Every death helps you justify your jealous hate. Very telling, indeed. You and kidrock enjoy the celebration.

Chanda said:

Thanks. Salon's Blog Report explains it so well:

"I find this rash of posts (by Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, MilBlog Blackfive, et al) suggesting that anti-war activists "celebrate" the deaths of American soldiers to be both tragic and telling.

Tragic, because it represents a descent into depraved, gutter-level slander as a form of argumentation, and it is a profoundly un-American approach to a most American of activities: dissent. Telling, because it means these bloggers have nothing left to justify the deaths of Americans in Iraq but desperate and transparent attacks on those who want our troops home."

Salon - The Blog Report - Synopsis

Click to expand...

Let's say, in a hypothetical, that as of tomorrow all of the killing stopped in Iraq. All of the suicide bombings, all of the sectarian killings, etc. They just up and realized it was a bad idea, and all decided to sit down at the negotiation table together.

Let's say that this was used by politicians to justify Bush's pre-emptive war policy and to support the candidacy of Republican candidates in the future.

How would you view it?

A victory for Bush's policies?
A reason to support his policies in the future?
An abstract success, but one that weakened your political stance?
Or overall, as a negative?

RightatNYU said:

Let's say, in a hypothetical, that as of tomorrow all of the killing stopped in Iraq. All of the suicide bombings, all of the sectarian killings, etc. They just up and realized it was a bad idea, and all decided to sit down at the negotiation table together.

Let's say that this was used by politicians to justify Bush's pre-emptive war policy and to support the candidacy of Republican candidates in the future.

How would you view it?

A victory for Bush's policies?
A reason to support his policies in the future?
An abstract success, but one that weakened your political stance?
Or overall, as a negative?

Click to expand...

In the highly improbable event this hypothetical would occur, would Bush's invasion have brought about peace between the different factions? No, pre-invasion, the different factions were already coexisting in relative peace. So, what were the actual results of the invasion? The deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of American troops. The deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The destruction of a country that will take decades to rebuild. The monetary cost to American taxpayers: National Priorities Project - Cost of War which will burden our children and grandchildren for years to come. The undermining of US credibility abroad. The overthrow of Saddam's secular government for a "new kind of democracy" which is actually closer to a theocracy with close ties to Iran.

A victory for Bush's policies? No.
A reason to support his policies in the future? No.
An abstract success, but one that weakened your political stance? No.
Or overall, as a negative? A horrendous disaster.