Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iraqi officials: 6 killed in bombings, assassinations in Baghdad

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Iraqi officials: 6 killed in bombings, assassinations in Baghdad


www.cnn.com

Six Iraqis were killed in Baghdad and four others wounded in a burst of assassinations and explosions around the capital on Sunday, officials with Iraq's interior ministry said.

The victims included several peopled tied to Iraq's current ruling government, plus one who had been a military leader under former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
gulfnews.com
online.wsj.com
www.bloomberg.com
www.nytimes.com
edit on 10-4-2011 by Jakes51 because: Removed duplicate source, and replaced with another.
edit on Mon Apr 11 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: attempt to fix link




posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
A wave of political assassinations have struck the Iraqi capital, and removing quite a few significant individuals. I am not here to fear monger, and although the casualties seem small in comparison to others previously. However, in this case a serious assault took place on the current Iraqi government.

This attack happened shortly after Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, surprise visit when he highlighted the possibility of a renewed presence of US forces past the official deadline of complete withdrawal by December 31, 2011. He stressed that any renewed presence would be at the request of the Iraqi government. Down the road, that could be a sticky issue?

In addition to the visit by the US Secretary of Defense to Iraq, a massive protest took place orchestrated by Shiite Cleric, Moqtada Al-Sadr. Tens of thousands of protesters demanded that the US pull out at the end of the year as planned. All this and the recent wave of political assassinations leads me to believe, that the Iraqi government may very well seek a renewed cooperation with the US military to continue advising and assisting the Iraqi Army and security services? Perhaps, a more profound role will be included if the situation continues to deteriorate? Something like the US acting as mediator between the warring sects, tribes, and political factions.

In my humble opinion, and from what I have found out about the current situation, Iraq continues to make progress. A coalition government is now seated, improvements to services are scheduled, the Iraq armed forces seem to be handling the security situation with a newly found zeal and dedication, and Iraqi Kurdistan is shaping up to be a pearl of the region in the future. To me, Iraq seems to be on the cusp of success, and the apparent lack of attention by the MSM is quite perplexing? We hear so much about the Arab Spring, Libya, Afghanistan, but yet Iraq is reported so sparingly? I thought I would throw this out there for discussion, because the political assassinations and recent remarks by US government officials about a renewed presence of US forces past the deadline seems troubling to me.


www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 10-4-2011 by Jakes51 because: Added some text and fixed typos.



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I only got 2 words to say

Muslim Brotherhood !!!



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Funny the western news had a complete blackout on whats happening in Iraq until someone gets killed then they release some form of news, if you ask me Baghdad is a prison now
edit on 10-4-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
The US withdrawal deadline is approaching, expect more violence to justify the continuation of the occupation.

That is my take on this story.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 




This attack happened shortly after Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, surprise visit when he highlighted the possibility of a renewed presence of US forces past the official deadline of complete withdrawal by December 31, 2011. He stressed that any renewed presence would be at the request of the Iraqi government


This pretty much sums it up in my opinion -



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
I'm currently at a facility outside of Mosul, overlooking the city. I see and hear constant explosions and attacks there on a daily basis. Alot of it is due to the ethnic mixture of the area and some due to the lack of effectiveness of Iraqi security forces. The security situation is degrading due to lack of US forces and Iraqi security forces unable to or unwilling to take over.

Heck, they have no concept of basic maintenance of the equipment and vehicles. But we expect then to adequately secure their country? Ain't gonna happen. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

When we eventually leave (we'll still be here in 2012) Iraq will just become an overt pawn of Iran as a hedge against the Sunni minority dominated Arab states in the region. Maliki is already sleeping with Iran's mullah's.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bg_socalif
 


Thanks for input! It is good to have incite from someone on the ground. Mosul remains one of the hot zones since US troops have changed their designation. Good thing you guys don't have to venture outside the wire as you have in the past. From what I have read, it seems attacks and bombings are a daily occurrence. The MSM continues to insist that violence is down. After reading your post and analyzing information on my own, perhaps; it is smoking mirrors? I have a feeling things are going to escalate out of control if the attacks and bombings continue, and it could very well be repeat of the horrendous security situation before the surge of 2007?

Like you, I think US forces will remain in country past the official deadline. Members of the Iraqi government and military have kicked around the idea since the date was established. I read somewhere, that US forces are acting as peace keepers in Kirkuk, because the situation is so bad. Is the friction between the Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens serious enough to warrant US Forces shedding their role as advisers? This seems to violate the new role of US forces in Iraq, because they seem to be in the field as they were in past?

Kirkuk Tensions Highlight Concerns Over U.S. Troop Exit


But just recently, to calm tensions in the northern part of the country near Kirkuk, the divided city whose control is disputed by three ethnic groups — Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen— a battalion of American forces has been patrolling and taking up positions on their own. “We went in as U.S., unilateral,” said Maj. Gen. David G. Perkins, commander of United States forces in northern Iraq, in an interview this week. He stressed that everything was done in coordination with the Iraqi Army and the pesh merga, the security forces from the semiautonomous Kurdish area in the north.


As far as Maliki goes, I have my reservations about his candor? The stunt he pulled during last year's election crisis by stubbornly clenching power through backroom deals with other political blocks, and his frequent visits to Tehran brought about suspicion in me. He may very well be a lapdog for his masters in Tehran? I want to see them succeed, and I have seen what appears to be improvements in news.

I am not there like you, but at least the government is finally seated, the military continues to conduct their own ops, and their economy seems to be growing with foreign firms lining up to do business with Iraq.Time will tell if the improvements continue, but one thing is for certain the violence has got to stop. Thanks for the reply, and stay safe over there.
edit on 11-4-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
reply to post by bg_socalif
 


Thanks for input! It is good to have incite from someone on the ground. Mosul remains one of the hot zones since US troops have changed their designation. Good thing you guys don't have to venture outside the wire as you have in the past. From what I have read, it seems attacks and bombings are a daily occurrence. The MSM continues to insist that violence is down. After reading your post and analyzing information on my own, perhaps; it is smoking mirrors? I have a feeling things are going to escalate out of control if the attacks and bombings continue, and it could very well be repeat of the horrendous security situation before the surge of 2007?

Like you, I think US forces will remain in country past the official deadline. Members of the Iraqi government and military have kicked around the idea since the date was established. I read somewhere, that US forces are acting as peace keepers in Kirkuk, because the situation is so bad. Is the friction between the Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens serious enough to warrant US Forces shedding their role as advisers? This seems to violate the new role of US forces in Iraq, because they seem to be in the field as they were in past?

Kirkuk Tensions Highlight Concerns Over U.S. Troop Exit


But just recently, to calm tensions in the northern part of the country near Kirkuk, the divided city whose control is disputed by three ethnic groups — Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen— a battalion of American forces has been patrolling and taking up positions on their own. “We went in as U.S., unilateral,” said Maj. Gen. David G. Perkins, commander of United States forces in northern Iraq, in an interview this week. He stressed that everything was done in coordination with the Iraqi Army and the pesh merga, the security forces from the semiautonomous Kurdish area in the north.


As far as Maliki goes, I have my reservations about his candor? The stunt he pulled during last year's election crisis by stubbornly clenching power through backroom deals with other political blocks, and his frequent visits to Tehran brought about suspicion in me. He may very well be a lapdog for his masters in Tehran? I want to see them succeed, and I have seen what appears to be improvements in news.

I am not there like you, but at least the government is finally seated, the military continues to conduct their own ops, and their economy seems to be growing with foreign firms lining up to do business with Iraq.Time will tell if the improvements continue, but one thing is for certain the violence has got to stop. Thanks for the reply, and stay safe over there.
edit on 11-4-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)


Yes, the government is seated, however there is still no Minister of Defense or Ministry of Interior in place yet. Neither of which is helping matters any right now.

Violence is down, depending on how you view it. Down against US troops, that's a definite yes. Now Iraqi on Iraqi violence is down some as compared to the halcyon sectarian violence days of 2007 timeframe. But it's still a daily occurance in most cities at a high level. There are different factions, tribes, criminal element, etc, involved. I can easily see the sectarian violence flaring again. Especially with Kirkuk and Mosul having such diverse ethnicities involved. Not to mention the Kurds, they don't trust the Iraqi government at all.

The troops here are still outside the wire alot, just not as much as before. Many of them man joint US-Iraq checkpoints and Patrol bases. Or in the case of Kirkuk and some areas around Mosul, joint US-Iraq-Kurd checkpoints and Patrol bases. US troops have had to act as peacemaker between Iraqi's and Kurd forces, getting them to communicate and work together and building trust. Decades of mistrust is hard to overcome in a short period of time. Aside from SpecOps, there are no real combat missions now, unless Iraqi Army specifically requests assistance. So occasionally some US forces may get caught in the middle of something. It's mainly training and assistance now, from training them in basic target practice (Iraqi's love to shoot) to basic equipment maintenance and logistics (which Iraqi's despise) to battlefield tactics.

It's in their best interests to take the lead in providing security. There has been some progress towards that, whether it'll keep on going or be enough remains to be seen.

I believe when it's all said and done and we're out of here, Iraq will become a pawn or "protectorate" of Iran. The influence is just too strong with Maliki and then throw Moqtada Al-Sadr into the mix as well.

I just hope i'm wrong. But they need find their own destiny.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bg_socalif
Yes, the government is seated, however there is still no Minister of Defense or Ministry of Interior in place yet. Neither of which is helping matters any right now.

Violence is down, depending on how you view it. Down against US troops, that's a definite yes. Now Iraqi on Iraqi violence is down some as compared to the halcyon sectarian violence days of 2007 timeframe. But it's still a daily occurance in most cities at a high level. There are different factions, tribes, criminal element, etc, involved. I can easily see the sectarian violence flaring again. Especially with Kirkuk and Mosul having such diverse ethnicities involved. Not to mention the Kurds, they don't trust the Iraqi government at all.

The troops here are still outside the wire alot, just not as much as before. Many of them man joint US-Iraq checkpoints and Patrol bases. Or in the case of Kirkuk and some areas around Mosul, joint US-Iraq-Kurd checkpoints and Patrol bases. US troops have had to act as peacemaker between Iraqi's and Kurd forces, getting them to communicate and work together and building trust. Decades of mistrust is hard to overcome in a short period of time. Aside from SpecOps, there are no real combat missions now, unless Iraqi Army specifically requests assistance. So occasionally some US forces may get caught in the middle of something. It's mainly training and assistance now, from training them in basic target practice (Iraqi's love to shoot) to basic equipment maintenance and logistics (which Iraqi's despise) to battlefield tactics.

It's in their best interests to take the lead in providing security. There has been some progress towards that, whether it'll keep on going or be enough remains to be seen.

I believe when it's all said and done and we're out of here, Iraq will become a pawn or "protectorate" of Iran. The influence is just too strong with Maliki and then throw Moqtada Al-Sadr into the mix as well.

I just hope i'm wrong. But they need find their own destiny.


It sounds like if Iraq is going to survive, it will take place in Kirkuk and Mosul? You can sum up most of the countries problems with those two cities? All the ethnic groups, factions, and sects are living side by side in those two cities. If relative calm, stability, and trust cannot be established there; the idea of Iraq as a multi-ethnic democracy is doomed to fail. The approach being taken by you guys to encourage each side to communicate, man checkpoints, and do patrols together is the right move. Hopefully, if they can work out their differences in the military and security services, that relationship will trickle down to the residents of the two embattled cities, and elsewhere?

It is good to read that you believe they are making progress, and are showing a willingness to take the lead at some time. Still, if those two important cabinet positions remain vacant with the Iraqi Interior Minister and Minister of Defense, any gains being made by the military and security forces will be for naught, because there is no direction or consolidation within the chain-of-command. Furthermore, who is setting budgets, procuring weapons and materials, etcetera? It would be in everyone's best interests if the politicians would set aside their sectarian differences and make earnest attempts toward filling those crucial positions.

Sectarianism Stalls Key Iraqi Cabinet Appointments


The negotiations have been dragged out by an unofficial sectarian quota system that was created to support national unity but could threaten Iraq’s fragile democracy, officials maintain.

“The current government is being formed based on a sectarian quota agreement, and this is why we have a dispute over the [security] ministries,” said Hamid al-Mutlaq, a lawmaker from the Sunni-backed Iraqiya list, an assertion made by several officials interviewed by IWPR.

Iraq’s constitution does not set aside government posts for sects or ethnic groups. However, in order to maintain the delicate balance of power between Iraq’s various communities, the president, the prime minister, the speaker and most ministerial posts are unofficially allocated along sectarian and ethnic lines.


If there is going to be any unity among the people, the politicians have got to set the standard and shed their sectarian allegiances. An Iraq first policy or something? This government cannot move forward if it continues to operate in a vacuum.

Since you keep mentioning Prime Minister, Nuri Al-Maliki. I followed the parliamentary election crisis from last year, and his actions speak louder than words. He thwarted the will of the people by not conceding power as the election results dictated. Looking back on the results, the Iraqiya party won a narrow majority in the parliamentary elections.

With those results, that particular party should have been able to appoint the prime minister, lead the negotiations in convening the government, and appoint ministry positions. However, Maliki did not like the results and chose to dig his heals in, and make deals with the other political blocs to ensure his position as prime minister after the election. The government was at a stalemate for almost a year. Then throw in his frequent visits to Tehran, and how Sadr was allowed to re-enter the country from his self imposed exile in Iran without so much as a peep by the Iraqi government. That ought to bring his allegiances into contention among the Sunnis and other groups in Iraqi? Another serious concern would be his complete control of the Iraqi Special Forces.

In Iraq, U.S. Special Forces gearing up to leave


Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s direct command of the elite forces has prompted fears among some Iraqi political parties and factions that the units will turn into a private militia. Maliki has denied that he maintains a security force outside the regular chains of command, but the United States has pushed for the force to be placed under a conventional chain of command, overseen by the Defense Ministry.


Highly trained soldiers under one man's thumb seems like a recipe for disaster to those who may be in the opposition to that person? Oh yes, how can I forget about the firebrand cleric who continues to threaten and intimidate the central government with his militia. Sadr is a menace and should be in jail or forced into indefinite exile, yet this man walks free after numerous occasions of using his own private army in the Mahdi Militia to raise hell, and thwart efforts by the Iraqi government and Coalition Forces to stabilize Iraq. I have to agree with you, it seems Iran is stacking the deck in its favor, and is poised to kick it up notch in terms of the influence over Iraq when the US pulls out. Hopefully, the conundrum that is Iraq can be resolved and the country remains intact. That remains to be seen? Thanks for the reply!
edit on 12-4-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join