TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs A US troop "surge" has not stopped insurgent attacks Nearly 200 people have been killed in a string of attacks in Iraq's capital, Baghdad - the worst day of violence since a US security operation began. In one of the deadliest attacks of the last four years, some 140 people were killed in a car bombing in a food market in Sadriya district. A witness said the area had been turned into "a swimming pool of blood". The attacks came as PM Nouri Maliki said Iraqi forces would take control of security across Iraq by the year's end. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the attacks were "a horrifying thing," but said insurgents would not derail the ongoing security drive in Baghdad. 'Burned alive' The bomb in Shia-dominated Sadriya was reportedly left in a parked car and exploded at about 1600 (1200 GMT) in the middle of a crowd of workers and shoppers. The market was being rebuilt after it was destroyed by a bombing in February which killed more than 130 people. The powerful bomb started a fire which swept over cars and minibuses parked nearby, burning many people and sending a large plume of smoke over Baghdad. BAGHDAD ATTACKS Sadriya: Car bomb kills 140 at market Sadr City: Car bomb kills at least 35 at checkpoint Karrada: Car bomb near private hospital kills at least 11 Al-Shurja: Minibus bomb kills at least two people Two other attacks kill about 11 more people Bombs mar handover plan In pictures: Baghdad carnage Television pictures showed a blasted scene littered with blackened and twisted wreckage. One witness told the Reuters news agency that many of the victims were women and children. "I saw dozens of dead bodies," the man said. "Some people were burned alive inside minibuses. Nobody could reach them after the explosion. "There were pieces of flesh all over the place." Ahmed Hameed, a shopkeeper in the area said: "The street was transformed into a swimming pool of blood." About an hour earlier, a suicide car bomb attack on a police checkpoint in Sadr City killed 35 people. Another parked car bomb killed at least 11 people near a hospital in the Karrada district of Baghdad, while in al-Shurja district at least two people were killed by a bomb left on a minibus. Two other attacks in the capital killed and wounded about 11 more people. Hospitals in Baghdad were inundated with more than 200 injured people, many of them with serious burns from the bomb at the Sadriya market. As the number of people killed in the Sadriya market bombing continued to climb, Prime Minister Maliki ordered the detention of the Iraqi army commander responsible for security in that area. Car and suicide bombings have occurred almost daily in Baghdad in recent months, despite a US-led security crackdown since February. The bombers are proving that they can slip through the tightened security net and defy the clampdown, says the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad. Security handover Most of the attacks have been in Shia areas, increasing pressure for the Shia militias to step up their campaign of reprisal killings against the Sunni community in which the insurgents are based, says our correspondent. As Baghdad was rocked by explosions, security in Maysan province to the south was transferred from British to Iraqi control. MAJOR ATTACKS 6 March 2007: 90 killed in double suicide bombing in Hilla 3 Feb 2007: 130 killed in lorry bomb in a Baghdad market in mainly Shia area 2 Dec 2006: More than 50 killed in car bombs in same Baghdad market 23 Nov 2006: 200 killed in wave of car bombings and mortar blasts in Baghdad's Shia Sadr City 7 April 2006: 85 killed in triple suicide bombing at Shia mosque in Baghdad Maysan is the fourth of the country's 18 provinces to be handed over to Iraqi security control. Iraq's national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said the three provinces of the autonomous Kurdish region would be next. "Then it will be province by province until we achieve [the complete transfer] before the end of the year," he said in a speech at the handover ceremony delivered on behalf of Prime Minister Maliki. On Monday, the Iraqi parliament bloc loyal to radical cleric Moqtada Sadr withdrew from the cabinet, demanding Mr Maliki set a timetable for a US troop withdrawal. But foreign troops are likely to remain in Iraq for some time. Analysts say that even if Iraqi forces take the lead in providing security across the country, they will need support from US and other coalition troops. The attacks in Baghdad came as officials from more than 60 countries attended a UN conference in Geneva on the plight of Iraqi refugees. The UN estimates up to 50,000 people flee the violence in Iraq each month. |
Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by star-traveller Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs I'm wondering does the US care AT ALL about the situation overthere? When will they withdraw their occupation forces out of the Iraqi soil? |
Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Would it matter even if they did leave? I'll bet you not. Remember the States are there trying to keep the damn place from turning into one big blood bath since they've obviously never resolved their cultural differences amoungst themselves... |
Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Would it matter even if they did leave? I'll bet you not. Remember the States are there trying to keep the damn place from turning into one big blood bath since they've obviously never resolved their cultural differences amoungst themselves... |
Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by star-traveller Today it's now like a cliche saying "The States are trying to keep Iraq in peace". Nobody gives any shit on elaborating this. |
Man, I noticed that long time ago, all you can do when you don't have any arguments is to switch on personalities.
Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium First, there was no such bloodbath before the invasion |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium ... secondly, at this pace, it will keep getting worse or being bad like it is. You dont care if 100 innocent people get bombed every day? Whats the government doing aboout it? Its hapless. Weak. Incompetent. If US withdraws, much sooner a real government will develop to stabilize the country. Americans have failed and are still failing and will continue failing. And even if Americans are withdrawn innocent people will continue to die, but sooner a real government with strong ends come to power and put this crap to an end. Current leadership is failing big time. |
Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium First, there was no such bloodbath before the invasion ... |
| quote: |
secondly, at this pace, it will keep getting worse or being bad like it is. You dont care if 100 innocent people get bombed every day? Whats the government doing aboout it? Its hapless. Weak. Incompetent. If US withdraws, much sooner a real government will develop to stabilize the country. Americans have failed and are still failing and will continue failing. And even if Americans are withdrawn innocent people will continue to die, but sooner a real government with strong ends come to power and put this crap to an end. Current leadership is failing big time. |
| quote: |
Americans should start co-operating more with the spiritual leaders of the religious groups, the groups that have power and influence, and not install puppets who can barely patrol their own offices on their own. This way Americans can manipulate these spiritual leaders from the distance and make treaties to achieve better stability in Iraq. Or it will be cheaper to buy them off instead of paying for the war. Aren't Americans the world experts at manipulating government and overthrowing leaders? |
Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Would it matter even if they did leave? I'll bet you not. Remember the States are there trying to keep the damn place from turning into one big blood bath since they've obviously never resolved their cultural differences amoungst themselves... |
Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, man you're fucking retarded! |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Am I? Why did the Dems vote to keep the troops there then huh? I'm sure you have a logical explaination, so spill it oh wiseman |
I am really begening to think Firestarter really belives all this shit that has says on this board.Like fuck, are you that brainwashed that you cant even admit that this Iraq war is a fuckin lost cause?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer I am really begening to think Firestarter really belives all this shit that has says on this board.Like fuck, are you that brainwashed that you cant even admit that this Iraq war is a fuckin lost cause? |
^^^^
edit: my bad, our troops are now on 15 month rotations. Go Dubya!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ResonantDrag There's a difference between admitting that the US has no business (sorry about the pun) being in Iraq and advocating abandoning Iraq to whatever total chaos would ensue without a military presence. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
Alright, according to you guys then (neo-cons and occupational supporters), its OK that hundred+ innocent Iraqi civilians are killed every day. And according to you, we should leave things the way they are because these people's lives matter little because you think the current regime is the best solution to the appalling disaster in Iraq, both cultural and political. So whats the plan for solving the growing political crisis in Iraq? You guys are that naive to believe things in Iraq will not be getting worse as long as Americans are running the country? I am not saying we should just give a dictator another reign of power. Someone else, one of the powerful clerics Americans should reach after to bring together a better plan that is backed by more than just a puppet regime that can't do anything on its own. A compromise of sorts - democracy to Iraq, but fundamental/religious platform of the cleric or something like that. There are powerful groups in Iraq that I am sure would be interested. But US has other plans.
International politics isn't about one person or even 100 people. It's about entire nations. Excuse me for sounding pretty cold hearted here, but what's 100 lives when we have 7 billion more as a species? If any government needed to care it's the one in Iraq and they can't see past their differences in foot washing and so forth to care that their people are doing this to each other. What makes anyone else think another government is going to care if it's not their people? The entire idea of government is to keep certain people in power at all costs, and the current debacle just happens to be a "cost" as far as those in power are concerned.
It's a very rare thing indeed when a leader(s) comes along that genuinely serves their people. Iraq's only hope at this point is that a leader like that comes along and people begin to genuinely care for the good of their people regardless of who they are or happens with our military. The violence will continue whether we stay or go until enough decent people in Iraq start to realize it's up to them to stop it.
The same can be said about all the screwed up shit going on here and anywhere else in the world. There are some problems like Darfur that are kind of hopeless at this point. Iraq is not one of them, yet. It's pretty close though.
Jesus Christ, cut the "savage sand******s don't even know how to live with one another" crap already. You guys are so fucking ignorant and eager to eat up media propaganda it's amazing. Not you WM2, you're cool, so my brutal honesty isn't directed at you. Here's something I posted earlier:
| quote: | ||||
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z So I orginally posted this here, but yesterday ended up deleting a whole bunch of my post and threads. Don't ask why. All I'm going to say is that I'm seriosuly considering leaving this place for good. Luckily, there's still a copy of this in a thread by Opus. So I'm posting it here once again: What I find interesting is the fact that all this sectarian violence didn't really start or atleast escalate (and was close to non-existant) before the burial site of Imam Hussein, his family, tribe, and companions was supposedly blown up by some crazy Sunnis according to the mainstream media (after the Iraq invasion began). It makes absolutely no sense for any sect, regardless of how fanatical and insane, to do that. Let me explain why by giving you a brief history of the Shia Sunni divide. When Muhammad was near his dead, he expressed his wish and will of Ali, the first young male converts to Islam, a close campanion, cousin, and son-in-law, to be his successor (Caliph i.e spiritual leader of the Muslim world). Now Umar ibn al-Khattāb, who was a prominent and powerful tribe leader before he converted to Islam (and also an important leitenant), didn't want this. He claimed that Muhammad was too old and ill for his decision (and will), of Ali being his succesor, to be taken seriously. [Backround knowledge: Muhammad's father died six months after his birth and his mother when he was only six years old. He was taken in and looked after by his uncle Abu Talib, the leader of the Hashim clan of the Quraish tribe, the most powerful in Mecca. He started preaching Islam while he was still alive but was left alone becuase of who his Uncle was, a feared and respeceted tribe leader of the most powerful clan of the Quraish tribe. Muhammad and early convert to Islam had to migrate from Mekkah to Medina in the early days of Islam due to ever increasing and severe presecution. It got to the point where torture, muredering new converts to Islam (who were mostly slaves and the poor), and assanination attempts on Muhammad by the pagan tribes of Mekkah became common place. What you have to know to make sense of this is the fact that paganism, tribal conflict (which usually didn't end for generations once started), slavery, burial of new born daughters, the status of women as mere property, theft, murder, and hedonistic excess was common in pre-Islamic Arabia. Mekkah, before Islam, was a center of pagan worship, as it contained the sacred well of Zamzam and a small ancient temple, the Ka'aba. The Ka'aba was filled with pagan idols at that point. All sorts of pagan ritutals, worship, sex orgies, sacrafice, and other pagan activity took place there. A hand full of few power tribes known as Banu Quraish owned the Kabbah, which at that point was a center of paganism. Pagan pilgirims from all over the Arab world came there to worship who payed large sums of money to them to be able to gain access to the Ka'aba. Their wealth, status, and power largely depended on the status quo, which was total paganism. Muhammad's preaching of the belief in one God and Islamic values was a threat to all of it. Muslims were heavily persecuted in early Islamic history and basically had to constantly be on the run from persecution and annihalation in order to practice their religion freely. ...skip a bunch... Later when Islam spread and Muhammad returned to Mekkah, he destroyed all of the idols in the Ka'aba and it became the most holy mosque in Islam, in the direction of which Muslims face when they pray. And it became the center of Muslim pilgramidge. In order to make things a little easier to follow for late and reference, these are some subclans of Banu Quraish:
After Muhammad's death, the differences that had previously lain dormant amongst the Meccan immigrants (the Muhajirun) and the Medinan converts (the Ansar), threatened to break out and split the Ummah (Muslim Nation). This sparked great controversy over who should be Muhammad's successor. Umar apparently lost it (wheater genuine or disingenuos) and became hysterical when Muhammad passed away, delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Calioh. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot) returned from some business trip or something. There was a huge controversy over who should become Caliph. Umar apparently lost it when Muhammad died and refused to allow his barial. He became hysterical (wheater genuine or disingenuos), delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Caliph. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot before converting to Islam) returned from some business trip or something. The Ansar met in Medina to discuss whom they would support as their new leader. When Abu Bakr was informed of the meeting, he, Umar and a few others rushed to prevent the Ansar from making a "premature decision." During the meeting Umar declared that Abu Bakr should be the new leader, and declared his allegiance to Abu Bakr. After the meeting at Saqifah, the Muslims who were not present had to be informed of the decision taken by the group. Many of them refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, as did Ali, as they (rightly) believed (in accordance with the Prophet's will) that Ali, was the obvious choice for leader. They became to be known as the Shi'at Ali (the party of Ali) by their enemies. It took six months of threat and pressure to force the refusers to submit to Abu Bakr. Umar roamed the streets of Medina with his warriors to coerce people into submission. Being a hothead, he even threatened to burn down Fatima's house (the Prophet's daughter and Ali's wife) unless Ali came out and submitted to Abu Bakr. Ali refused and requested his privacy to be respected. Umar pushed his way into the house. Fatima, who was heavily pregnant, and trying to prevent Umar from breaking in, was crushed behind the door. She miscarried her unborn son. At one point, there was even a civil war. Eventually Ali reluctantly gave in to prevent Muslims loyal to him and the Prophets will from being persecuted, and to not detroy the unity of the Ummah right after the Prophet passed away, pretty messed up state of affairs. So Abu Bakr became first Caliph, succeeded by Umar as second Caliph, Uthman as third, and finally Ali as forth. But Ali's caliphate only lasted five years, ended with his assasination and then the assaination of his eldest son, Hasan ibn Ali. So basically, this is what lead to the Shiia Sunni divide, although they didn't call themselves Shiia and Sunni at the time. Mu�āwīyah ibn Abī Sufyān, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs, engaged in a civil war against Ali and met with considerable military success, including the seizure of Egypt. He assumed the caliphate after Ali's assassination in 661 and reigned until 680. ...skip some more... His son Yazid succeded him in the line of the Umayyads dynasty of caliphs, who was also fairly tyranical and corrupt. The persecution of Shi'iat al Ali continued. At one point, it became so severe that they were basically being denied water (and it's pretty damn hard to survive in a desert without any). The divide between the two groups was intesified when he was opposed and criticized by the Ali's son, the Prophets grandson, Imam Husayn bin Ali. Yazid responded to criticism with force, killing many of his campanion, family members, and Muslims loyal to him. This started the battle of Karbala (which is in Iraq), where he Imam Husayn was martered, including lots of his friends, followers, and family. Him and his followers were burried there. The terms Shiia and Sunni as sectarian labels came in to use much later. The Shiias believe Ali to be the rightful successor of Muhammad and Yazid to an illegitimate tyrant responsible for murdering Imam Husayn. The Sunnis, on the other hand, are the passive masses submitting to power and accepting status quo. Sunnis condemn the killing of Imam Husayn, being the Prophets grandson and all, but still recoznige Yazid as a legitimate Caliph and make excuses like "he wasn't responsible for it, his generals were." ... Anyways, now that you know all that and understand the nature of the Shiia Sunni divide, which is basically political and not really religious, since Islam as a religion was already complete and fully revealed before Muhammad died, it makes absolutely no sense for any Sunni group or splinter sect, no matter how fanatical and crazy, to go desecrate the burial site of the Prophet's grandson. That's fairly sacreligious for them too. I guess it's analagous to Christians, Jews, or Muslims blowing up Jerusalem; not going to happen, it's a holy site to all of them. So my money on whoever was responsible for it are on the CIA/MI-5/6/other intel agency payroll, if not one of the groups themselves; a false flag opertaion to fuel endless sectarian violence, which is what's taking place rightnow. That gives an excuse to keep troops there and build permanent military bases. And it's not like false flag ops are anything new when it comes to how modern states such as Russia/former Soviet Union, the US etc. and their intelligence agencies. Before the Iraq war, no one cared if you were Shiia or Sunni. But now Shiia and Sunnis are getting shot and blown up at check point by militia men for belonging to the wrong sect, given away by their last name (which makes their tribal origin obvious, and hence if they're Shiia or Sunni). So, I hope that helped shed some light on the issue. But in case some of you don't know what a flase flag op is:
You can read more about those there. But here's just a few examples of false flag ops in recent history: 1953, Opertaion Ajax (CIA coupe in Iran workring in tandem with MI6): Overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadeq via multiple staged terrorist attacks on mosques (bombimg) & gunning down civilians, demonstrations, propaganda, and provocations branding Mossadeq as a communist, including a false flag op which where the home of a prominent Sheiks was bombed. The weirdest propanganda operation included handing out phony bills during while the choas ensued which read "Up with Mossadeq, Up with communism, Down with Allah." This ofcourse happened after Mossadeq attempted nationalized Iran's oil which British pertoleum wanted to monopolize. Then ofcourse we all know who came into power... that's right, the Shah, who was a brutal dictator with his secret police (SAVAK, again thanks to CIA) and torture chambers etc. 1943 - 1983, Operation Gladio, NATO's "stay behing operation" (funded mostly by CIA, a key figure being in Operation Gladio being the CIA founder Allen Dulles): This is really an umbrella name for multiple false flag ops in non just Italy, but around the world, including Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia, which was blamed on the communists during the 'Red Scare.' The target where mostly civilian and public areas, including trains, bubes, schools, school buses etc. A particularly bloody incident was the Bologna Massacre in Italy on August 2nd, 1980 after which some Italian official broke their silence about it. I'm sure many of you already know about he Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 where an American destroyer was attacked. Well, phone conversation tapes between President Lyndon Johnson and Defence Secretary Robert McNamara realeased by LBJ Presidential Library in 2001 reveal how they were openly discussing using it to expand the War in Vietman after which congress authorized the Tonkin Resolution. In 2005 the NSA declassified it's official history on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which revealed how CIA and intelligence agency officers deliberately falsified intel blaming Vietnamese partol boats for attacking the ship when in reality the didn't eventhough they where being fired on by US forces. October 6th, 1976 Cuban Flight 455 (passanger airliner planted with C4): Declassified CIA document reveal that the bombers of the flight were given US visas days before the bombing and were employed by guess who. Luis Posada Carriles, who was involved in the bombing, was a CIA agent. Those are the only ones that come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure you guys can dig up numerous more examples. Anyways, point is, false flag ops are standard procedure so I seriously doubt it wasn't a false flag op, as it makes absolutely no sense for any group, no matter how fanatical and extereme, to decesrate the Prophets grandson's and companions graves and bomb the mosque. No, I obviously can't prove this. Neigther were any of those examples known or proveable until years (more like decades) after when internal documents were declassified. EDIT: One decalssified document that some of you should be familiar with by now, Operation Northwoods discusses in great detail of conducting false flag ops in order to go to was with Cuba. Here's some of the content listed on wikipedia:
Guess why this didn't take place or go through, Kennedy objected and didn't allow it. |
The pities thing is that everybody suddenly got crazy about some guy who shot a bunch of people at the university. When I say everybody, I mean everybody, almost all news media.
But when 200 people just got died in some distance place like Iraq, nobody really gives a shit on that. Nobody asks any questions, like it should be going in this way all time.
I find it sick.
You're right, it is sick. It reflects the biases most people have. Obiously they don't think Arab blood is worth as much. Can you say "hypocrite?"
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Jesus Christ, cut the "savage sand******s don't even know how to live with one another" crap already. You guys are so fucking ignorant and eager to eat up media propaganda it's amazing. Not you WM2, you're cool, so my brutal honesty isn't directed at you. Here's something I posted earlier: You can read more about those there. But here's just a few examples of false flag ops in recent history: |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX If the American forces withdraw you can bet your ass another brutal dictator will rise to power in that country. |
| quote: |
| If we leave do you really think that people who are blowing themselves up in markets and killing civilians are going to sit down at a table and make nice and draw up a constitutional government? I think not. |
| quote: |
| Unfortunately we have opened up Pandora's Box in Iraq and I personally feel that no matter what the politicians say we will be there for years to come keeping that country from falling apart. |
| quote: |
| The American and Iraqi armies on Tuesday, August 15, started building a wall around Al-Dora, a neighborhood in southern Baghdad. Soldiers have erected prefabricated concrete walls in order to "prevent terrorists from entering," according to the American army. [...] The objective is to "clean Baghdad before Ramadan" at the end of September. http://www.watchingamerica.com/lemonde000096.shtml |
| quote: |
| A U.S. military brigade is constructing a three-mile-long concrete wall to cut off one of the capital's most restive Sunni Arab districts from the Shiite Muslim neighborhoods that surround it... The ambitious project is a sign of how far the U.S. military will go to end the non-stop bloodshed in Iraq. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines |
| quote: |
| Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces. Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said. . . . Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. . . . . . . U.S. officials don't say that the training formula - championed by Gen. John Abizaid when he was the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and by Gen. George Casey when he was the top U.S. general in Iraq - was doomed from the start. But they said that rising sectarian violence and the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to unite the country changed the conditions. . . . President Bush first announced the training strategy in the summer of 2005. "Our strategy can be summed up this way," Bush said. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Military leaders in Baghdad planned to train 325,000 Iraqi security forces. Once that was accomplished, those forces were to take control. Casey created military transition teams that would live side by side with their Iraqi counterparts to help them apply their training to real-world situations. Throughout 2006, Casey and top Bush administration leaders touted the training as a success, asserting that eight of Iraq's 10 divisions had taken the lead in confronting insurgents. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17104704.htm |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Alright, according to you guys then (neo-cons and occupational supporters), its OK that hundred+ innocent Iraqi civilians are killed every day. And according to you, we should leave things the way they are because these people's lives matter little because you think the current regime is the best solution to the appalling disaster in Iraq, both cultural and political. So whats the plan for solving the growing political crisis in Iraq? You guys are that naive to believe things in Iraq will not be getting worse as long as Americans are running the country? |
| quote: |
Someone else, one of the powerful clerics Americans should reach after to bring together a better plan that is backed by more than just a puppet regime that can't do anything on its own. A compromise of sorts - democracy to Iraq, but fundamental/religious platform of the cleric or something like that. There are powerful groups in Iraq that I am sure would be interested. But US has other plans. |
But instead of that they are building a wall like Nazi in Jewish ghetto.
| quote: |
| U.S. forces erect wall between Shiites, Sunnis U.S. forces erect wall between Shiites, Sunnis Three-mile barrier will divide Baghdad groups torn by sectarian hate Updated: 6:32 a.m. ET April 20, 2007 BAGHDAD - U.S. soldiers are building a three-mile wall to protect a Sunni Arab enclave surrounded by Shiite neighborhoods in a Baghdad area �trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation,� the military said. When the wall is finished, the minority Sunni community of Azamiyah, located on the eastern side of the Tigris River, will be completely gated, and traffic control points manned by Iraqi soldiers will provide the only means to enter it, the military said. �Shiites are coming in and hitting Sunnis, and Sunnis are retaliating across the street,� said Capt. Scott McLearn, of the U.S. 407th Brigade Support Battalion, which began the project April 10 and is working �almost nightly until the wall is complete,� the statement said. It said the concrete wall, including barriers as tall as 12 feet, �is one of the centerpieces of a new strategy by coalition and Iraqi forces to break the cycle of sectarian violence� in Baghdad. U.S. and Iraqi forces have long erected cement barriers around marketplaces and coalition bases and outposts in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities such as Ramadi in an effort to prevent attacks, including suicide car bombs. American forces also have constructed huge sand barriers around towns such as Tal Afar, an insurgent stronghold near the Syrian border, to limit access to them. 'Gated communities' The Wall Street Journal reported on April 5 that U.S. forces in the mostly Sunni area of Dora in southern Baghdad had erected massive concrete barriers to separate Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods in an effort to stop widespread sectarian violence there. And Britain�s Independent newspaper reported April 11 that U.S. forces are planning a counterinsurgency operation that would seal off large areas of Baghdad, using barricades to create �gated communities� that could only be entered with newly issued ID cards. Currently, the U.S. strategy for stabilizing Iraq involves getting Iraqis to reconcile and support the democratically elected Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, and a security plan in the capital that calls for 28,000 additional American troops and thousands of Iraqi soldiers. U.S. Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the top spokesman for coalition forces in Iraq, was quoted as saying Wednesday that he was unaware of any effort to build a wall dividing Shiite and Sunni enclaves in Baghdad and that such a tactic was not a policy of the Baghdad security plan. �We have no intent to build gated communities in Baghdad,� Stars and Stripes, the U.S. Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper, quoted Caldwell as saying. �Our goal is to unify Baghdad, not subdivide it into separate (enclaves).� |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ahh hell, do you honestly believe we're keeping that country from falling apart? Could you just maybe for once entertain the idea that our presence just might be part of the problem rather than part of the solution? I know such a daring thought completely escapes this ignorant President, but perhaps you might entertain it? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.