WAR: Iraqis killed in market attacks

At least 15 people have been killed in two bombings at a market in Baghdad. This occurred near a Mosque in the Shia area of Baghdad.
At least 57 more were wounded in another explosion near the Ahl al-Beit mosque in Shula which is situated in the North of Baghdad.
These attacks have occurred during a week when other bombings have taken place in and around the Capital area.



It seems that the increasing trend in suicide bombings is going to continue to rise.
We are hearing more and more about these cases each day.
I'm not sure how the coalition forces can stop this happening, but something drastically needs sorting out before this gets way out of hand.
It sounds that the more the coalition tries to wind things down a bit, and try to get some stability in the area , the terrorists just continue to try to undermine what has been achieved.
The different news links that covered this story have slightly different views, but the resulting stories boil down to exactly what is going on over in Iraq.



Related News Links:
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.sky.com

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

I think this shows the desperation of the "insurgent" terrorists. As military targets become more and more hardened, they are turning to killing civilians to foment disenchantment with the new government and perhaps even civil war.

Im not sure if its desperation, maybe its just the Saddam die hards who think that these kinds of attacks will make the coalition go away.

Well both of your oppinions might be right. But both come down to the same conclusion:The coalition winning. If they are acting in desparation (I believe they are) they can not win using that tactic. If it's the Saddam die hards they will eventually die off or realize it's a lost cause when Saddam gets the ultimate punishment.

If these militants were just a little more diplomatic, they could achieve their goal a lot easier and without using violence. My observation is that the majority of Iraqis want the US out. The US isn't going to leave until they feel the country can take care of its self, ie stable. If there was a poetic leader among the Iraqis would could unite them, whoever it may be, then the US will leave faster. I don't think these militants realize that the only reason the US is staying is because they keep bombing and shooting stuff. It's just a cycle.

But, I still have that nagging suspicion that the US may somehow be behind this. After all, the US has instigated militant uprisings in the past. But hey, if I went with that theory, I'd just start a bunch of mudslinging. I still realize it as a possibility though.

Not trying to start that "mudslinging" with this question... but what leads you to belive that the U.S. is behind it? I just want to understand your reasoning behind that statement.

The problem with the attacks is that the more attacks that happen...the more time the coalitions has to spend there....they are there to bring stability to the region as soon as that is achieved they can leave....as long as they idiots keep attacking the coalition'll have to stick around....

It's things like this that make me believe there's nothing to be done about the Middle East. Always with horrific violence, directed at the civilian population...always with some sort of hare-brained justification about religion or politics.

Ghandi was able to create an uprising tha removed the entire British Empire. Without a single suicide bomber. Plenty of people willing to give their lives for freedom, and many did as "examples" under British rifles. All this without a sympathetic, all encompassing Media. And without international financing and weapons.

If the Middle East, radical Islam, and others truly were interested in sacrificing everything for peace and freedom, they should first start with their personal power, money, and pride. Instead of being so willing to sacrifice others.

Because they all know, under no circumstances, would worldwide oil-funded Media allow American firing squads to kill hundreds of Iraqis for simply sitting in their homes and refusing to do anything. Not accepting handouts, not being human shields at checkpoints, not protesting. Doing nothing.

But that doesn't increase the power base of thugs and mullahs, nor is it exciting and newsworthy, nor is it violent and satisfying. And such a movement is dangerous to all leaders, whether they be foreign or domestic. Shahs, ayatollahs, mullahs and Saudi royalty, all could lose bigtime if the majority of the people truly wanted freedom regardless of the cost.