Political Crossfire Forums

[beachbum bob]

worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/24/iraq.main/index.html

Bombs kill more than 200 in Baghdad's Sadr City
POSTED: 5:54 a.m. EST, November 24, 2006


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The death toll from a brutal string of car bomb attacks in Baghdad's Sadr City has risen to more than 200 dead and more than 250 wounded, an Iraqi Health Ministry official said Friday after an updated count from local hospitals.

Thursday's bloodshed represented the single deadliest coordinated attack in Iraq since the start of the war in March 2003.

Police reported three car bombings and a mortar attack over a 30-minute period. Later, Health Minister Ali Shummari said there were six car bombs and a missile fired.

The attacks were part of a frightening spasm of violence on Thursday that coursed through two bastions of support for Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Attacks were coordinated northeast of Baghdad in Sadr City and at the Health Ministry compound, which is controlled by the cleric's political movement. (Watch flames, chaos in Sadr City Video)

The situation was fluid and officials offered different numbers for those killed and wounded throughout the day.

The Health Ministry said officials plan to tour hospitals Friday afternoon to gain more detailed information on the number of casualties.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, speaking on state Iraqi TV, condemned the attack, offering his condolences to families, calling for national unity and urging calm.

But the incident -- which might have sparked retaliatory mortar fire in a Sunni section of northern Baghdad later in the day -- portends even more chaos in a country rife with violence.

It comes a day after a U.N. bimonthly report about Iraq that underscored the unbridled sectarian violence harming Iraq.

[Heinz]

Quote: worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result

Any idiot with 2 brain cells and a common knowledge on the history of Islam knows that the Sunnis and the Shia have been fighting since Muhhamed's body went cold. Salaldin tried to mend the ties, but to no avail.

This is bigger than Bush.

To blame violence that existed long before Bush and that will exist long after Bush on the man himself is quite ridiqulous.

[Trajan]

How many Sunnis died from Shia action before the Bush adventure?

[Heinz]

Trajan wrote: How many Sunnis died from Shia action before the Bush adventure?

Quite a lot actually if you're referring to the overall struggle between the 2 sects.

In Iraq? Not so much.

But then again, Hitler never had a "Jewish" problem.

Hard for Shias to kill others in Iraq if they are being "ecthnically cleansed."

[Swampfox.f]

Heinz wrote: Quote: worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result

Any idiot with 2 brain cells and a common knowledge on the history of Islam knows that the Sunnis and the Shia have been fighting since Muhhamed's body went cold. Salaldin tried to mend the ties, but to no avail.

This is bigger than Bush.

To blame violence that existed long before Bush and that will exist long after Bush on the man himself is quite ridiqulous.


But Bush was going to bring democracy with violence and it would end the struggle right?

[beachbum bob]

Swampfox.f wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result

Any idiot with 2 brain cells and a common knowledge on the history of Islam knows that the Sunnis and the Shia have been fighting since Muhhamed's body went cold. Salaldin tried to mend the ties, but to no avail.

This is bigger than Bush.

To blame violence that existed long before Bush and that will exist long after Bush on the man himself is quite ridiqulous.


But Bush was going to bring democracy with violence and it would end the struggle right?

yep..I thought the idea of old glory riding to the iraqi rescue would bring a thousand years of peace and love....

must have been one of those "new math" miscaladimilations agin 8:) 8:)

and its good to know that many still feel bushco has no responsibility for what he does....
why should he??? never been accountable to date yet

[agentkgb]

Heinz wrote: Quote: worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result

Any idiot with 2 brain cells and a common knowledge on the history of Islam knows that the Sunnis and the Shia have been fighting since Muhhamed's body went cold. Salaldin tried to mend the ties, but to no avail.

This is bigger than Bush.

To blame violence that existed long before Bush and that will exist long after Bush on the man himself is quite ridiqulous.
Many of the terrorists in Iraq currently came from outside the country when the US invaded. Sure there were problems before, but they're definitely worse now.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Heinz wrote: Quote: worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result

Any idiot with 2 brain cells and a common knowledge on the history of Islam knows that the Sunnis and the Shia have been fighting since Muhhamed's body went cold. Salaldin tried to mend the ties, but to no avail.

This is bigger than Bush.

To blame violence that existed long before Bush and that will exist long after Bush on the man himself is quite ridiqulous.

This is bigger than Bush. You are absolutely right !
Problem is, Bush should never have been allowed to think HE could change that Historic battle.
Spreading Democracy ? Yeah, like Islam has room for Democracy. :gdgf:

Quote: In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
"Verily we have honored the children of Adam" (Qur'an 17:70)
We the sons of Mesopotamia, declare that, we are in the land of the prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic: on our land, the first law put in place by mankind was written; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed, the philosophers and the scientists theorized and the writers and poets created.

~snip~

Islam is the national religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws; however, freedom of religion is upheld.
~snip~
The country is part of the Islamic world and its Arab citizens are part of the Arab nation.
~snip~
No law may be passed that contradicts the constitution, the undisputed laws of Islam

Bush never understood the deep struggle or the Social and Civic hold Islam plays in their society.
Frankly, I don't believe he cared about the Iraqi people one iota.
He wanted a strangle hold on the center of the Middle East from which He could project his Christian values from.

[Trajan]

Heinz wrote: Trajan wrote: How many Sunnis died from Shia action before the Bush adventure?

Quite a lot actually if you're referring to the overall struggle between the 2 sects.

In Iraq? Not so much.

But then again, Hitler never had a "Jewish" problem.

Hard for Shias to kill others in Iraq if they are being "ecthnically cleansed."

Not interested in what the two sects do outside of Iraq. Only in what took place before the Bush adventure in Iraq.
And how Goodwin of you.................

[Kilo Tango]

Trajan wrote: How many Sunnis died from Shia action before the Bush adventure? And how many shiites dies from sunni action before?

Merry-go-round and round.

[Trajan]

Kilo Tango wrote: Trajan wrote: How many Sunnis died from Shia action before the Bush adventure? And how many shiites dies from sunni action before?

Merry-go-round and round.

I don't really care. How a foreign country handles it's internal affairs is not my concern.

[Kilo Tango]

beachbum bob wrote: Swampfox.f wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result

Any idiot with 2 brain cells and a common knowledge on the history of Islam knows that the Sunnis and the Shia have been fighting since Muhhamed's body went cold. Salaldin tried to mend the ties, but to no avail.

This is bigger than Bush.

To blame violence that existed long before Bush and that will exist long after Bush on the man himself is quite ridiqulous.


But Bush was going to bring democracy with violence and it would end the struggle right?

yep..I thought the idea of old glory riding to the iraqi rescue would bring a thousand years of peace and love....

must have been one of those "new math" miscaladimilations agin 8:) 8:)

and its good to know that many still feel bushco has no responsibility for what he does....
why should he??? never been accountable to date yet It's nice to see that so many still feel the Iraqis killing each other aren't to blame.

It wasn't "bushco" that went to Iraq, it was this entire country. To suggest that ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator and providing the country with an opportunity to live under a federal democarcy wasn't a noble cause is slighting all of the soldiers serving, fighting, and dying in Iraq - ours and theirs.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Swampfox.f wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result

Any idiot with 2 brain cells and a common knowledge on the history of Islam knows that the Sunnis and the Shia have been fighting since Muhhamed's body went cold. Salaldin tried to mend the ties, but to no avail.

This is bigger than Bush.

To blame violence that existed long before Bush and that will exist long after Bush on the man himself is quite ridiqulous.


But Bush was going to bring democracy with violence and it would end the struggle right?

yep..I thought the idea of old glory riding to the iraqi rescue would bring a thousand years of peace and love....

must have been one of those "new math" miscaladimilations agin 8:) 8:)

and its good to know that many still feel bushco has no responsibility for what he does....
why should he??? never been accountable to date yet It's nice to see that so many still feel the Iraqis killing each other aren't to blame.

It wasn't "bushco" that went to Iraq, it was this entire country. To suggest that ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator and providing the country with an opportunity to live under a federal democarcy wasn't a noble cause is slighting all of the soldiers serving, fighting, and dying in Iraq - ours and theirs.

To a large segment of the population on this planet, the Crusades were a Noble Cause too !
The problems arose in the application of those goals.

[Swampfox.f]

Kilo Tango wrote: It's nice to see that so many still feel the Iraqis killing each other aren't to blame.

It wasn't "bushco" that went to Iraq, it was this entire country. To suggest that ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator and providing the country with an opportunity to live under a federal democarcy wasn't a noble cause is slighting all of the soldiers serving, fighting, and dying in Iraq - ours and theirs.


So your rationale, like Bush's, is that we must believe in this cause no matter how unjust or illogical it is because we must "honor the soldiers"? Sorry that is a non sequitur, and you need to re-examine your line of reasoning.

[Kilo Tango]

Trajan wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: Trajan wrote: How many Sunnis died from Shia action before the Bush adventure? And how many shiites dies from sunni action before?

Merry-go-round and round.

I don't really care. How a foreign country handles it's internal affairs is not my concern. Then the sectarian killing now isn't your concern.

[Kilo Tango]

Swampfox.f wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: It's nice to see that so many still feel the Iraqis killing each other aren't to blame.

It wasn't "bushco" that went to Iraq, it was this entire country. To suggest that ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator and providing the country with an opportunity to live under a federal democarcy wasn't a noble cause is slighting all of the soldiers serving, fighting, and dying in Iraq - ours and theirs.


So your rationale, like Bush's, is that we must believe in this cause no matter how unjust or illogical it is because we must "honor the soldiers"? Sorry that is a non sequitur, and you need to re-examine your line of reasoning. That wasn't my point at all nor is it Bush's.

Do you think the majority of Iraqis are killing each other or rather a small minority?

[Swampfox.f]

Kilo Tango wrote: That wasn't my point at all nor is it Bush's.

Do you think the majority of Iraqis are killing each other or rather a small minority?


I wouldn't say a small minority at all. I believe the religous chasm is prevelent througout Iraq and creates a whirlwind of violenece. The removal of Saddam only added fuel to the flames. Iraq is not America, and Islam is not a religion that supports democracy.

Bush went in for personal reasons as did the rest of the neo-cons. It was a slight of hand from Afghanistan to Iraq, and there was hardly anything remotely noble about the move. I am just sad to see that America is so easily persuaded by the rich and venal.

[Impartial1]

Bush's cronies, the neoconservatives who devised the PNAC and who had ideas for regime change in Iraq years before it became an official organization which wrote this letter http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm , knew very damn well what would happen once Saddam was removed and the Iraqi army disbanded. Don't for one minute fool yourselves into thinking that this administration was simply grossly incompetent incapable of predicting the current situation in Iraq.

They wanted to create instability in Iraq which would warrant a long-lasting military occupation where war profiteering corporations, contractors and big oil could reap in huge profits.

[Kilo Tango]

Swampfox.f wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: That wasn't my point at all nor is it Bush's.

Do you think the majority of Iraqis are killing each other or rather a small minority?


I wouldn't say a small minority at all. I believe the religous chasm is prevelent througout Iraq and creates a whirlwind of violenece. The removal of Saddam only added fuel to the flames. Iraq is not America, and Islam is not a religion that supports democracy.

Bush went in for personal reasons as did the rest of the neo-cons. It was a slight of hand from Afghanistan to Iraq, and there was hardly anything remotely noble about the move. I am just sad to see that America is so easily persuaded by the rich and venal. The sectarian violence is being carried out by an extremely small minority of zealots operating under various motivations. The vast majority of Iraqis are not involved in sectarian violence.

No one went into Iraq for personal reasons.

[Swampfox.f]

Impartial1 wrote: Bush's cronies, the neoconservatives who devised the PNAC and who had ideas for regime change in Iraq years before it became an official organization which wrote this letter http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm , knew very damn well what would happen once Saddam was removed and the Iraqi army disbanded. Don't for one minute fool yourselves into thinking that this administration was simply grossly incompetent incapable of predicting the current situation in Iraq.

They wanted to create instability in Iraq which would warrant a long-lasting military occupation where war profiteering corporations, contractors and big oil could reap in huge profits.


Perpetual war creates perpetual profit. Needless to say the MIC has reaped in huge profits, as Halliburton has, and the oil companies have been posting record profits.

That is what you get when you let the MIC create policy.