It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Suicide blast in Baghdad kills at least 43

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Suicide blast in Baghdad kills at least 43


www.msnbc.msn.com

BAGHDAD — A suicide bomber targeting army soldiers and members of a government-backed militia lining up to receive their paychecks killed at least 43 people and wounded 46 on Sunday, Iraqi officials said.

Violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq in the past two years, but members of the security forces remain the target of repeated attacks blamed on militants trying to destabilize the country as the United States moves ahead with plans to reduce its forces.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Seems to be a trend showing up as suicide bombings are again on the rise all over the ME...in Iran, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq.

The article correlates the increase to reducing U.S. forces there, but that to me seems odd.

Why not wait until forces are reduced? I mean to imply that this is the reason might lead someone to think they want forces to stay.

Can someone explain this?



www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


They do. The master plan of Osama Bin Laden calls for US forces to stay and continually be attacked until military leadership is crippled by the inability to form a front line and fight an enemy they cannot see. The obvious end point of which is soldiers stressed with war that they cannot win, high civilian casualties in response to these uneased soldiers, and a massive embarrassment to the US war machine. Ultimately the US loses her allies, is not welcomed in the middle east, and angry Muslim men bring the fight to America. This then causes a response in stronger government policies, less freedom, and angry civilians. After that, the civilians copy the Muslims that attacked them and do the same to their government that is growing less free. Finally, the US can no longer fight a war afar and within. It leaves the middle east, starts a civil war, and America is consumed in hatred and violence.

The closest we got to this plan was near the end of Bush's presidency. Luckily there was enough realization of this plan inside the government that enough resistance grew to stop it. With Obama, the Osama policy is back in line and going perfectly according to plan.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
LOL-idiots still blowing themselves up. You cannot defeat this "mentality". Hope he got his 72 virgins.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I hope all 72 of them look like this:

celebmath.files.wordpress.com...




~meathead



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Even when something happens somewhere else, MSNBC, no matter what, will continue to push Obamas Agenda. How you ask?

"Violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq in the past two years".

Like they HAD to throw that part in there, as if Obama is making things better for them. If you ask me, violence seems to have increased over there since this moron took office.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

Why not wait until forces are reduced? I mean to imply that this is the reason might lead someone to think they want forces to stay.



Because of the danger any drop in violence might lead to foreign forces staying in Iraq because of the less political fall out resulting from fewer soldier deaths.

The objective of the insurgents is this:


Kill the collaborators of the occupation, as the article points out, those targetted were a government-sponsored militia.


Next, target the soldiers of the occupation.

If you target the first, you undermine the effectiveness of the second.


These insurgents in particular in relation to this attack are probably Sunni Iraqis. The Iraqi government itself has the influence of, and members in it's ranks who belong to the Shia Iraqi insurgency, who don't need to fight so much because they are now in control, and Al-Sadr is getting in the act once more as well to possibly support Allawi.

In short, the shia insurgents have largely achieved their aims: Fight the occupier, fight the collaborator, infiltrate the echelons of power and become so powerful politically and in terms of the strength of insurgency the US forces can no longer touch you because of the political and violence fallout.

The splintered Sunni insurgents have yet to infiltrate the echelons of power but contine fighting regardless, and fight the government which they see as a puppet government and controlled by a Shia dominated bloc.

Hence, the US has failed in Iraq. It's remedy of cramming as many soldiers into Iraq as possible and funding Sunni groups to fight Al Qaeda (when in reality it was bribing insurgents not to kill your soldiers) only lead to Sunni gunmen on the payroll with one face to taking the US dollar (as long as you stayed out of their neighbourhood) and the other face to the insurgency.


Those Sunni gunmen are no longer powerful, replaced by other Sunni insurgents who refuse to deal with what they see as invaders and are seen as more credible as insurgents.

In many ways, the situation is more complicated than Afghanistan, the ticking bomb exploded in Iraq long ago, and has been replaced by another ticking bomb of deals and double deals, of insurgents in positions of power and may well detonate if the US plays things wrong and stays.

The US in Iraq is very much in the cold and it is hoped, on the way out.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Regensturm]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Iraq is a done deal...If they are still killing themselves, forget about it no need to go back and waste our resources on it.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity


Seems to be a trend showing up as suicide bombings are again on the rise all over the ME...in Iran, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq.

The article correlates the increase to reducing U.S. forces there, but that to me seems odd.

Why not wait until forces are reduced? I mean to imply that this is the reason might lead someone to think they want forces to stay.

Can someone explain this?



www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Looks as though the Iraqi resistance was targeting collaborators / enemy assets.

Ever see "Red Dawn"?, great old flick.. recall the brave American HS kids, "The Wolverines" who took to the hills and went cong wreaking havoc killing 'commie' invaders?.. Even those civilized US white bread kids shot one of their own for collaborating with the enemy...



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Thanks for the perspective. I think I get it better now. Poor collaborators if we ever leave. Which we're not going to.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike Stivic
 


Hey be nice to Susan Boyle!! She can't help she has the voice of an angel but the face of an English bulldog. Sheesh


[edit on 20-7-2010 by DaMod]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join