Monday, July 26, 2010

Sectarian violence continues in Iraq

"Two car bomb blasts near the Shi'ite shrine city of Karbala in southern Iraq have killed at least 20 people and wounded more than 50 others.

Iraqi officials say the attacks targeted Shi'ite pilgrims heading to Karbala for an important Sh'ite holiday this week.

Earlier Monday, another car bomb exploded in front of the Baghdad offices of Al-Arabiya television, killing at least four people and wounding 16 others. Al-Arabiya staffers said the explosion badly damaged the building and left a huge crater. Iraqi officials had previously warned the network about the threat of an insurgent attack.

Monday's bombing was not the first time Al-Arabiya has been targeted in Iraq. The network's Baghdad bureau chief escaped harm in 2008 after a bomb was found strapped to his car. The Arabic-language station is owned by Saudi Arabia and based in Dubai."

40 comments :

Bruno said...

American strategy:

"This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity... But this is exactly where we want to fight them. ...This will prevent the American people from having to go through their attacks back in the United States"

Maury said...

You obviously think you're onto something Bruno, since you're repeating yourself several times daily. I suppose South Africans prefer terrorists attack civilian, rather than military targets. Only those evil amreekans expect their soldiers to take risks like that. What else could your point possibly be?

Unless you're suggesting Bush invaded Iraq just to fight Al Qaida. Is that what you're suggesting Bruno?

Bruno said...

What I'm suggesting is that American generals would rather attract terrorists to Iraq and get Iraqis killed than Americans.

If you manage to understand that, Maury, then I will give you a strawberry-flavoured lollipop.

Aton said...

Bruno, why terrorists murder innocent women and children shopping in Iraqi markets ?

Because of American strategy?

You're spinning in circles my man.

Maury said...

Aton is right Bruno. You're spinning in circles. The quote from Sanchez wasn't about some grand "strategy" on our part. Al Qaida decided to put all their marbles in Iraq. That wasn't our decision or choice to make.

Sanchez was just stating the obvious. Keep in mind that the media was reporting a daily tally on casualties, which they only do with Republican Presidents btw. It was worth reminding Americans that while we lost 4000 soldiers in 5 years in Iraq, we also lost 3000 civilians in a single day. Difference being, the soldiers volunteered for the job, knew the risks, and were willing and able to fight back.

Maury said...

Aton is right Bruno. You're spinning in circles. The quote from Sanchez wasn't about some grand "strategy" on our part. Al Qaida decided to put all their marbles in Iraq. That wasn't our decision or choice to make.

Sanchez was just stating the obvious. Keep in mind that the media was reporting a daily tally on casualties, which they only do with Republican Presidents btw. It was worth reminding Americans that while we lost 4000 soldiers in 5 years in Iraq, we also lost 3000 civilians in a single day. Difference being, the soldiers volunteered for the job, knew the risks, and were willing and able to fight back.

Dolly said...

The U.S. went after random Iraqis in Iraq, whereas Al-Qa3eda are people like Marwan Shehhi (UAE).

But sickos attacked Iraq because they wanted revenge against a race of people.


Here's the worst thing about the war: the Crusaders destroyed a people who were already poor and tortured by the sanctions for 13 years.

It's more evil to hurt those who are already weak and impoverished, than to hurt those who have a good life.
That's why I would have sacrificed the entire country of Bahrain to save a few weak Iraqis.

However for a bloodthristy demon like Bush, the IDEAL candidate for torture is he who is weak. Hence, his destruction of the Iraqi people.

To this day, unrepentant heart-dead animals who vote for Palin can't see the severity of their monstrous crime in Iraq.

Maury said...

You've always been loopy Dolly, but now you're flying miles over the cuckoo's nest.

"The U.S. went after random Iraqis in Iraq, whereas Al-Qa3eda are people like Marwan Shehhi (UAE)."

The sky is green, whereas blue is a color. I'm sure that makes sense to you......LOL.

Bruno said...

[aton] Bruno, why terrorists murder innocent women and children shopping in Iraqi markets ? Because of American strategy?"

Aton, why do Americans want to attract terrorists that murder innocent women and children, to Iraq?

Oh, yeah, because:

[sanchez] "This will prevent the American people from having to go through their attacks back in the United States""

[maury] "The quote from Sanchez wasn't about some grand "strategy" on our part."

Except for that:

[sanchez] ""This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity... But this is exactly where we want to fight them"

[maury] "Al Qaida decided to put all their marbles in Iraq. That wasn't our decision or choice to make. "

Except for that:

[abizaid] "If we leave, they will follow"

And yes, it WAS your decision to make. The invasion of Iraq was an American decision, and America was warned about the consequences:

"Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said on Monday the U.S.-led war on Iraq would produce "one hundred new bin Ladens", driving more Muslims to anti-Western militancy. "When it is over, if it is over, this war will have horrible consequences," Mubarak told Egyptian soldiers in the city of Suez. "Instead of having one (Osama) bin Laden, we will have 100 bin Ladens," he added. Osama bin Laden is the Saudi-born fugitive Islamic militant leader blamed by the United States for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0331-01.htm

Bruno said...

[dolly] "Here's the worst thing about the war: the Crusaders destroyed a people who were already poor and tortured by the sanctions for 13 years."

But that was the entire point! Picking on the strong, can be costly. It's hard to show how brave you are if you're running away, beaten.

American strategy relies on waiting until their enemies are half dead from hunger, and then bombing them by remote control. There's no better way to show how tough and manly they are!

韓秀美 said...

很不賴的分享!! 多謝啦!!◑0◐......................................................

Don Cox said...

"Al Qaida decided to put all their marbles in Iraq. "

The reason being that Baghdad is the traditional home of the Caliphate. If Al-Queda could take advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq after Saddam's downfall, they could set up a new Caliph and at least claim to rule all of Islam in one swoop. That would have been a major blow to the Saudi leadership.

Don Cox said...

"American strategy relies on waiting until their enemies are half dead from hunger, and then bombing them by remote control. There's no better way to show how tough and manly they are!"

The aim of a war is to defeat the enemy, not to show how manly you are. A siege followed by an attack on the (hopefully) weakened enemy is a well established strategy.

Bruno said...

[cox] The reason being that Baghdad is the traditional home of the Caliphate

Really? Funny that Hussein managed to do what the so-called "Coalition" never managed to do, and kept AQ out of its 'traditional home', then. No, I disagree.

The reason being: that with Iraqi security forces and the country thrown into chaos and disorder, and with Saddam Hussein (the man who hitherto kept Al Qaeda and its dogs out of Iraq) deposed, coupled with the presence of American troops in a hostile populace ... it was a target of self-evident and immense proportions for Al Qaeda to infiltrate.

[cox] "The aim of a war is to defeat the enemy, not to show how manly you are."

Oddly enough, American warmongers like to beat their chests and comb their chesthairs while declaiming their toughness. At least you have the commonsense to realise that the invasion of Iraq has less to do with American virility than with a superpower running over a starving third world country in a bid to assert regional dominance.

Maury said...

""This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity... But this is exactly where we want to fight them"

Nothing in that statement shows strategic planning or foresight. Sanchez was simply stating the obvious. Problem with your theory is, nobody saw it coming in 2003. The Bush administration was strongly against the "nation building" efforts Clinton went through. Its plan was to get in, get Sadman out, and clear out again.

If we wanted to create a magnet to draw in jihadi's, we could have just sent troops back to Saudi Arabia. Troops in KSA was bin Laden's excuse for starting Al Qaida in the first place. Saudi's make up 80% of al Qaida. They wouldn't travel halfway around the world if they could walk down the street to fight the Great Satan.

ChrisPineo said...

Hey folks, Iraqi Mojo does a great job giving us perspective on this issue. I think we should thank him. Even if some of us disagree, he still provides a great forum.

I'll go first. Thank you sir!

I live in the U.S., and your blog keeps me well informed on these issues. U.S. news coverage tends to simplify things as: there are two sides and only two sides to every issue. You give multifaceted perspective.

佩吳璇佩吳璇 said...

生命是一頓豐富的宴席,有人卻寧可挨餓................................................

劉士賢 said...

Learn wisdom by the follies of others.............................................................

胡維倫 said...

傻氣的人喜歡給心 雖然每次都被笑了卻得到了別人的心..................................................................

Aton said...

Aton, why do Americans want to attract terrorists that murder innocent women and children, to Iraq?

We don’t want to "attract terrorists". Why would anyone want to attract terrorist scum?

Anonymous said...

ChrisPineo said...
Hey folks, Iraqi Mojo does a great job giving us perspective on this issue.



lol

Bruno said...

"This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity... But this is exactly where we want to fight them"

[maury] "Nothing in that statement shows strategic planning or foresight. Sanchez was simply stating the obvious."

The obvious ... as in, let's get Iraqis killed instead of Americans? In that case, I'd agree that this is what he meant. Tell me, is Abizaid also stating the obvious when he said:

[abizaid] "If we leave, they will follow"

Choices, choices, eh?

[maury] "Problem with your theory is, nobody saw it coming in 2003."

Huh! Fancy that! I bet OBL also didn't foresee that many people would die if he crashed jets into skyscrapers. I mean, who could have predicted THAT?

Let's be serious: everybody except the die-hard warmongers and Americans with a boner for killing Arabs (who didn't care about the consequences anyway) foresaw the rampant disaster that the invasion would be. Especially the 'loony left', who harped on the consequences for some time, but then, who listens to them, right? Why, even your pet dictators warned y'all:

[mubarak] "When it is over, if it is over, this war will have horrible consequences," Mubarak told Egyptian soldiers in the city of Suez. "Instead of having one (Osama) bin Laden, we will have 100 bin Ladens," he added."

Here's another opinion - well known Aussies discussing on national radio the pros and cons of attacking Iraq:

"NICK GRIMM: So war in Iraq could play into Osama bin Laden's hands?

PAUL DIBB: Oh I think that's right. He will, and that's not to be critical of a decision to go to war in Iraq. It's just that bin Laden will seize on the opportunity to try and drum up the Arab street. Now whether it'll be successful in my view, I doubt, but, you know, he doesn't need to recruit many disaffected extreme Islamic terrorists for him to ginger up the threat.

NICK GRIMM: So does this amount to an argument against war in Iraq?

PAUL DIBB: I don't think it does"

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s786061.htm

Everybody saw it coming in 2003.

[maury] "Its plan was to get in, get Sadman out, and clear out again. "

Nah, not true. Neocon thinking foresaw long-term US presence in Iraq, and foresaw the invasion of Iran very soon after.

Bruno said...

[bruno] Aton, why do Americans want to attract terrorists that murder innocent women and children, to Iraq?
[aton] We don’t want to "attract terrorists". Why would anyone want to attract terrorist scum?"

AHA!

Yet more proof that ATON is a TRAITOR to the MISSION!

General SANCHEZ needs to boot Aton a good one for his ANTI AMERICAN stance, and make Aton GET WITH THE PROGRAM of attracting terrorists to Iraq as soon as possible, so as to "prevent the American people from having to go through their attacks back in the United States""

We can add to ATON'S CRIMES of expressing disbelief in the RECONSTRUCTION, wilful obstruction of THE MISSION.

Surely HOMELAND SECURITY needs to deal with this ASAP?

Maury said...

You're chomping at the wrong bit Bruno. Would we prefer jihadi's attack military, rather than civilian targets? Yes. Did we invade Iraq in order to attract terrorists? Of course not.

Last time I checked, we had military bases in 8 Middle East countries. Any one of them is a potential magnet for jihadi's. I don't think al Qaida even had intentions to fight over Iraq in '03 or '04. Zarqawi just happened to be in the right place at the right time. He only hooked up with bin Laden after some initial success in Anbar Province.

Bush was no military genius. Don't give him more credit than he deserves.

Aton said...

No, I think you and your terrorist buddies should leave Iraq and fuck off. Iraq is not your business.

Bruno said...

[maury] "Bush was no military genius. Don't give him more credit than he deserves."

So now it's "military genius" to attract terrorists to iraq so as to get Iraqis killed instead of Americans?

Maury, you are sick.

Bruno said...

It appears that Aton is talking about himself again. (Although who could truly tell, amidst his demented ramblings)

I agree, Aton, you should.

Aton said...

Your buddies, Dolly and Anonymous, cheer the murder of innocent women and children shopping in Iraqi markets every day. You are one sick fuck who trolls the web everyday celebrating the murder of Iraqis by AQ. You are too cowardly to even mention what your sick and demented beliefs actually are. Beyond your highly irrational hatred for America, who are you?

Bruno's Burning Anus said...

Bruno Terre Blanche is a bitter Afrikaner, who having lost power in his own country, sympathizes with the Sunni Arab minority which lost power in Iraq, even if it means making common cause with Dolly and other Al Qaeda psychos.

The Shias and Kurds who supported the overthrow of Saddam in 2003 are simply "kaffirs" in his eyes. He probably thinks the South African "blicks" were traitors for not supporting PW Botha (LOL!).

Bruno said...

I suspect that ATON cheered at the murders of Iraqi women and children in a fruit market today. Then, he switched on his computer and whacked off to the images of dead Iraqis burnt alive by US phosphorus bombs in Fallujah. Then he went to make himself a dozen burgers, ate them wih extra tomato sauce, and came back, insipired, and whacked off again to the pictures of the little Iraqi girl covered in the blood of her murdered parents, murdered at an American roadblock.

Finally satisfied, Aton went to a cosy divan, to have a snooze and dream about taunting thirsty Iraqi kids with icewater from the back of a hummer, just like his soldier heroes do.

Bruno said...

LMAO at the nullity that not only admits he is an asshole, but who styles his entire existence on the identity of another.

Aton said...

Oh no, Bruno has gone over the edge!

Why would anyone eat a hamburger with tomato sauce? Perhaps an Italian sausage sandwich would have marinara served on side.
You have one sick perverted mind.

Aton said...

Bruno,
It is you who has befriended and supported the men who purposely target and murder innocent women and children as part of their sick and demented strategy to oppress the Iraqi people. It is you who sided with the men who destroy infrastructure, water, electrical and oil supply lines as strategy to continue the suffering of the Iraqi people. It is you who has betrayed every descent man woman and child on earth with your demented celebration of Islamic war mongering. You are a disgrace and should hang your head in shame? It is sad to see a smart guy like you who wonders aimlessly deeper into the darkness. You are a lost and pathetic man and worthy of nothing but contempt.

Bruno said...

[aton] Why would anyone eat a hamburger with tomato sauce?"

Because that's the sort of sick thing you'd do. Oh, and the tomato sauce is a metaphor for blood, but I guess y'all didn't get that obvious analogy.

[aton] "It is you who has befriended and supported the men who [insert aimless rant]"

Aton, you clueless twit, progeny of clueless twits, the fact is that you know little to nothing about what has happened and is happening in Iraq unless and until your Pentagon newsmasters feed you the news that you need to swallow.

Somehow, you feel qualified to judge my stance on Iraq, which is the only moral stance, btw, that being that a people invaded by an invader has not only the right, but the duty to see off the invader in question.

YOU, however, not only take the opposite tack, but see fit to excuse and apologise for every atrocity the invader in question has perpetrated.

When Iraqi families are wiped out en masse at US checkpoints ... its the fault of the Iraqis.

When entire cities are levelled and savaged ... its the fault of the Iraqis.

When America throws a country upside down through a war based on lies, greed and deception, and inflicts a holocaust on its people ... the Iraqis are to blame.

When US strategy is spelt out as being "attract the terrorists to Iraq and let Iraqis die instead of Americans" ... it's the fault of the Iraqis.

I truly hope that I'm wrong about the afterlife, and that you spend the rest of eternity sucking the pustulent cocks of lepers, you shame to humanity.

Aton said...

Bruno, you are not a moral man, you are not even a decent man. You are an apologist to a mass murderer and you cheer the killing and oppression of ordinary Iraqis. You are a confused and lost soul who has wasted years of his life siding with terrorists. Blood is on your hands.

Aton said...

BTW your “metaphors” are dumb.

ChrisPineo said...

@Anonymous So, IraqiMojo does not do a good job? Your lol makes no sense.

Bruno said...

Aton, you are not a moral man, you are not even a decent man. You are an apologist to a mass murderer and you cheer the killing and oppression of ordinary Iraqis. You are a confused and lost soul who has wasted years of his life siding with terrorists. Blood is on your hands.

Bruno said...

BTW, you are exceptionally dumb not to understand such a basic metaphor.

I note that you were more outraged by tomato sauce on a burger than the masses of murdered Iraqis at US hands.

That is all we need to know.

Anonymous said...

It's the people you supported who mass-murdered Iraqis, Bruno. The "resistance" who sent suicide bombers into shopping malls. The Sadrist death squads that drilled holes in the heads of Iraqi civilians. You should hang your head in shame for siding with such evil men. The Iraqi people have voted for men like Allawi and Maliki who despise and fought against the savages you cheered on.