Suicide bombers kill over 110 in Iraqi cities

[Disinterested]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060105/ts_nm/iraq_dc

KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - Two suicide bombers killed at least 110 people and wounded more than 200 in the Iraqi cities of Kerbala and Ramadi on Thursday, the second consecutive day of concerted insurgent attacks. Another three bombs exploded in Baghdad, two of them detonated by suicide bombers, and a roadside bomb targeted a U.S convoy near the southern Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, destroying a Humvee and killing at least two civilians. Coming a day after 58 people died in a wave of bombings and shootings, the latest bloodshed appeared certain to ratchet up tension between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims after December's election. Kerbala is one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest cities while Ramadi is a Sunni Arab stronghold and a hotbed of insurgency. The bombs shattered hope that Iraq might start 2006 on a more peaceful footing. In all, violence has killed more than 225 people and wounded more than 280 in the five days since the New Year started, a death toll comparable with some of the nation's bloodiest weeks since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. "These groups of dark terror will not succeed through these cowardly acts in dissuading Iraqis in their bid to form a government of national unity," President Jalal Talabani said in response to the attacks.

"Bring 'em on!"

[RickSp]

And lest we forget, seven more American soldiers died as well.

The U.S. military, meanwhile, said a roadside bomb killed five American soldiers patrolling in the Baghdad area. Earlier, Iraqi police Capt. Rahim Slaho said a U.S. convoy was heading for Karbala when it was attacked 15 miles south of the city, and that five soldiers were killed. Another two U.S. soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb near the southern Iraqi city of Najaf, Iraqi police said. The bomb also killed two civilians and wounded seven people, including three U.S. soldiers.

130 Iraqis, 7 U.S. soldiers killed in bombings

Glad things are going so well in Operation Iraqi Quagmire.

[kalel29]

Which goes to show one thing. They can't defeat us, so they are targeting the civilian population. One word for them: Cowards.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: kalel29 Which goes to show one thing. They can't defeat us, so they are targeting the civilian population. One word for them: Cowards.

I think you mean you dislike them and want to call them names, kal.

Civilians have been targets since early in the twentieth century.

It is immoral to target civilians, but in what way is it "cowardly?"

A coward is one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity. These suiciders, on the contrary, seem quite FEARLESS.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Yup. Cowardly would be to bomb a civilian hospital that you know cant shoot back.

[kalel29]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I think you mean you dislike them and want to call them names, kal. Civilians have been targets since early in the twentieth century. It is immoral to target civilians, but in what way is it "cowardly?" A coward is one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity. These suiciders, on the contrary, seem quite FEARLESS.

Blowing up people at a funeral, or blowing up people who are attending services at their mosque is not my idea of "fearless." It's rather cowardly to me, being that those civilians are unarmed. Therefore, it's cowardly. They know they can't defeat the U.S. in a straight up fight, nor can they defeat us in a M.O.U.T., therefore, they have to resort to cowardly tactics of targeting civlians.

[PatrickHenry]

You are mixing up the terms immoral and cowardly, kal. I am not defending suiciders who blow themselves up and take innocent people with them. They are killers, but not cowards.

Reason? They aren't afraid to die. Fear is the hallmark of the coward. They choose not to stand and fight a force more powerful than they are. Military doctrine doesn't call for that either. Is it cowardice not to engage an enemy's strength with your weakness?

[RickSp]

Quote by: kalel29 Which goes to show one thing. They can't defeat us, so they are targeting the civilian population. One word for them: Cowards.

They have already defeated us. They have demonstrated that the most powerful nation in the world cannot provide security even at some of Islam's holiest's sites. They have proven our weakness. The insurgency remains deadly and more Americans and Iraqis die. And your name calling does nothing at all.

[tinybear]

Way to go, Rick. Bring out the white flags.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: tinybear Way to go, Rick. Bring out the white flags.

He's committing to troop withdrawal against the wishes of his boss, Bush, who wants to "stay the course."

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear Way to go, Rick. Bring out the white flags.

Insulting and content free. Always happy to let other people die. Good morning tiny.

[Samildanach]

Fact is America has already lost this war. 'Staying the course' means....we stay in Iraq until my term is up and my successor has to clean up the situation because I don't have any viable exit plan due to my monumental fuck up of a decision to attack in the first place, however my oil buddies love me because it made them billions in profit from hiked oil prices of which I will get a slice in the future behind the scenes once I am out of the limelight.

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp They have already defeated us.

Who is "us"......you got a mouse in yer pocket?

The jihadi doucebags haven't even defeated the Iraqis, how can you say they have beaten us?

Oh wait.......you must be referring to the anti-American, media-indoctrinated enemy within, who will contend that any victory is non-existent, so that they may claim defeat at the first sign of any resistance whatsoever.

Walter Cronkite did so after Tet, and present-day "journalists" are following closely in his pinko footsteps---for he is their Yoda, their guru, and their Mother Superior.

Not so, you say? Prove it. Regale us with your historical proof......show but one case, where the invading Army captured all the major cities and the country's leader, and yet victory was not declared!!!

They have demonstrated that the most powerful nation in the world cannot provide security even at some of Islam's holiest's sites.

"Even"? Why should a holy site be more secured than, say, a hospital, which the jd's (jihadi doucebags) have blown up with car bombs, or an Iraqi police station, which have been attacked lots of times?

They have proven our weakness. The insurgency remains deadly and more Americans and Iraqis die. And your name calling does nothing at all.

They have proven only that a person wearing bedsheets may easily hide a bomb belt and walk among the innocent with impunity......as if that needed proof, or indicated something about the "weakness" of anyone.

Quote by: Patrick Henry You are mixing up the terms immoral and cowardly, kal. I am not defending suiciders who blow themselves up and take innocent people with them. They are killers, but not cowards.

The fact of blowing oneself up on a busfull of women and children says nothing at all about the courage of our enemy, when that enemy is kidnapping family members and threatening to kill them if the father does not carry out his "mission".......or when they install a bomb in a car while it's in the shop for repairs, and then blow it up by remote control as the unknowing driver goes happily to work in the Green Zone. Or when they hide a bomb under a piece of trash near the highway and simply wait for the next convoy to go by.

Those who send the suicide bombers are definitely cowards, or they would take one of the "holy missions" themselves.



Carry on,
Dennis

[Samildanach]

"Even"? Why should a holy site be more secured than, say, a hospital, which the jd's (jihadi doucebags) have blown up with car bombs, or an Iraqi police station, which have been attacked lots of times?

This should be obvious. The holy sites are some of the most important places to the civilian population in Iraq. What is the point in preserving the people of Iraq when the things that they live for and are most important to them are gone? Security should be higher around more Iraqi specified important targets. Of course in true neocon fashion Bush has spared pretty much all security for the oil wells and classed anything else including the Iraqi population as unimportant.

They have proven only that a person wearing bedsheets may easily hide a bomb belt and walk among the innocent with impunity......as if that needed proof, or indicated something about the "weakness" of anyone.

They have done a lot more than that. They have proven that a single person can kill over 100 other humans with a reasonable specificity if they target the right area, a one hundred to one kill ratio. They have shown that they can target others at will and there is nothing any security forces can do to stop it ie they have repeatedly demonstrated the weakness of the enemy.

The fact of blowing oneself up on a busfull of women and children says nothing at all about the courage of our enemy, when that enemy is kidnapping family members and threatening to kill them if the father does not carry out his "mission"

Pure conjecture, however this still takes a lot of guts to pull the trigger. If you think it doesn't I suggest you wrap yourself in explosive and walk to a place where you won't hurt anyone and try it.

.......or when they install a bomb in a car while it's in the shop for repairs, and then blow it up by remote control as the unknowing driver goes happily to work in the Green Zone. Or when they hide a bomb under a piece of trash near the highway and simply wait for the next convoy to go by. Those who send the suicide bombers are definitely cowards, or they would take one of the "holy missions" themselves.

What is comes down to is the forces fighting america are being FORCED to resort to tactics that CAN win. The tactics that can win are the guerilla tactics they are using, wear the enemy down one bit at a time and grind down the people until they are sick of the bombing and just want it to stop.
You think the people don't know that the bombings will stop once America has left?
Effectively the Americans just by occupying Iraq are indirectly endorsing these killings as they could leave and the bombings would stop, except Bush would no longer have control of the oil wells which is unacceptable to American business interests.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I think you mean you dislike them and want to call them names, kal. Civilians have been targets since early in the twentieth century. It is immoral to target civilians, but in what way is it "cowardly?" A coward is one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity. These suiciders, on the contrary, seem quite FEARLESS.

Fearless? Utter rubbish! Suicide is neither courageous or admirable. It is the cowards method of running from a life they are too weak to face. Murder is no a thing to praise.

A person whose belief system is so warped as to believe that the murder of unarmed, noncombatants, such mall shoppers, bus riders, and office workers, by means of an explosive device which will ensure the death of its user, thereby negating any possibility of bearing the responsibility of his murderous action, is in no way fearless. Indeed, he is the ultimate coward. Too pitifully frightened to take action in any open confrontation, he skulks amongst his defenseless victims, finally to seek to make something of his pathetic life by taking others with him as he commits the ultimate cowardice; suicide.

[PatrickHenry]

So, Apeman. How do you view the use of napalm and white phosphorus against the civilians of Fallujah by the US military? That's courage to you, huh?

[RickSp]

The right wingers feel better calling the insurgents names. Now, isn't that special? Calling a suicide bomber a coward is absurd, especially as compared to those who kill civilians by dropping bombs from the sky.

The guerillas win by demonstrating exactly how weak the occupiers are. In the last twenty four hours over 180 Iraqis and thirteen American soliders have died. They've proved their point. We aren't occupying territory if you can't provide security. When over 80% of the country wants us out and over 40% thinks attacks on the US troops are OK, we are losing the guerilla war. Wake up and smell the cordite.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: PatrickHenry So, Apeman. How do you view the use of napalm and white phosphorus against the civilians of Fallujah by the US military? That's courage to you, huh?

So, PatrickHenry, the US Military purposefully targeted civilians?

This comment is unworthy of further discussion.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp The right wingers feel better calling the insurgents names. Now, isn't that special? Calling a suicide bomber a coward is absurd, especially as compared to those who kill civilians by dropping bombs from the sky. The guerillas win by demonstrating exactly how weak the occupiers are. In the last twenty four hours over 180 Iraqis and thirteen American soliders have died. They've proved their point. We aren't occupying territory if you can't provide security. When over 80% of the country wants us out and over 40% thinks attacks on the US troops are OK, we are losing the guerilla war. Wake up and smell the cordite.

Rubbish! The only way these "guerillas" can win is if the knees of those like you knock so hard as to soften your spine.

Let me get this straight. A person straps a bomb to his gut and sneaks into a crowd of people; soldiers and civilians, children and adult, and detonates himself, and he is a righteous warrior? So if you are among the dead, killing indiscriminately is just fine?

You whine about the US killing civilians, but when they do it, it’s OK.

Right

[dilligras]

Quote by: Apeman81 Fearless? Utter rubbish! Suicide is neither courageous or admirable. It is the cowards method of running from a life they are too weak to face. Murder is no a thing to praise. A person whose belief system is so warped as to believe that the murder of unarmed, noncombatants, such mall shoppers, bus riders, and office workers, by means of an explosive device which will ensure the death of its user, thereby negating any possibility of bearing the responsibility of his murderous action, is in no way fearless. Indeed, he is the ultimate coward. Too pitifully frightened to take action in any open confrontation, he skulks amongst his defenseless victims, finally to seek to make something of his pathetic life by taking others with him as he commits the ultimate cowardice; suicide.

A most exellent post, masterfully rendered, and that bears repeating.
Couldn't have said it better myself, though some would contend, I fear, that I should be getting used to that by now.

Quote by: RickSp The right wingers feel better calling the insurgents names.

ROTFLMBFAO!!!
Has it escaped your finely tuned sense of irony that you have just called me a name while ridiculing me for calling jihadi doucebags by their appropriate nom de guerre?

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Calling a suicide bomber a coward is absurd, especially as compared to those who kill civilians by dropping bombs from the sky.

You should have said that calling a suicide bomber a coward is ONLY absurd as compared to those who kill civilians by dropping bombs from the sky........at least we agree that Clinton's tactics in Kosovo were less than courageous, oui?