Suicide bomber kills 31 at army base near Baghdad

Suicide bomber kills 31 at army base near Baghdad

ca.reuters.com

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber rammed his explosive-filled car into soldiers outside an army base near Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 31 people and injuring tens more in one of the worst attacks this year on the country's military.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The legacy of violence has continued with more and more violent attacks in Iraq. I reiterate the sentiment that has been common in many threads regarding the middle east; So much for peace and security that was supposed to be instituted as a justification for the West’s invasion.

Insurgents in Iraq have carried out at least one major attack a month since U.S. troops withdrew from the country in December last year. Now Iraqi officials worry Islamists may be gaining a moral and financial boost from the Syrian crisis.

Anywhere the West leaves its finger prints seems to erupt into violence. The US effectively has created a power vacuum in which all these subsets are vying for power.

How many more will have to die?


ca.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

See, since the dark controllers of the US and her minions decided to free the crap out of Afghanistan and then Iraq because of WMD's and freedom (also known as Oil and Money and greed and deception and control) they have fallen on their own sword.

"You reap what you sow"

Show me a bullet that kills an ideology and I'll show you an end to this.

No kill weapon that currently exists can stop this........it will literally take GOD him/her/itself to put an end to this.

Thanks for unleashing hell on Earth you bastards............

Originally posted by MDDoxs
The legacy of violence has continued with more and more violent attacks in Iraq. I reiterate the sentiment that has been common in many threads regarding the middle east; So much for peace and security that was supposed to be instituted as a justification for the West’s invasion.


Anywhere the West leaves its finger prints seems to erupt into violence. The US effectively has created a power vacuum in which all these subsets are vying for power.

How many more will have to die?

I dunno.

Why don't you ask the insurgence Iranian supporters who are pushing their shiite agenda in Iraq.....

reply to post by SLAYER69


I am not placing the blame on any one party, but the US forces withdrawal left the country with a large gap with regards to security and administration. Further, the US invasion and subsequent withdrawal, is the most public of instances were the result of their direct influence has spurred on violence and further insurrection.

I do not doubt the other third parties have been involved in facilitating acts of violence and bloodshed.

With your most recent Avatar of “Bill the Butcher” I am sure we can infer your stance on the matter merika?

In the best case scenario, you would think that upon the withdrawal of US forces peace and stability would resume in the country, however the opposite has happened in that it has created an environment susceptible to additional foreign influence and attack.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I am not placing the blame on any one party

Why not?

There are two involved.

Sunni and Shiite...

but the US forces withdrawal left the country with a large gap with regards to security and administration.

No

The Iraqi's were rebuilding their country and the Iranians and Saudis wanted to have a turf war over which would influence the new Government of Iraq more [Sunni or Shiite]

Further, the US invasion and subsequent withdrawal, is the most public of instances were the result of their direct influence has spurred on violence and further insurrection.

The Iraqi forces were defeated PERIOD. Iran and the Saudis both stirred the pot unnecessarily by supporting opposing insurgencies. Your posted article eludes the fact that after US forces left the sectarian violence lessened now, it's starting up again.

This time there is no Bush or Saddam...

I do not doubt the other third parties have been involved in facilitating acts of violence and bloodshed.

Third party Facilitating?

They were the main combatants. Didn't you read all those years worth of headlines :Mosque bombed, Market bombed, School bombed etc etc etc? The vast majority of those had nothing to do with coalition forces.

In the best case scenario, you would think that upon the withdrawal of US forces peace and stability would resume in the country, however the opposite has happened in that it has created an environment susceptible to additional foreign influence and attack.

One would think but you need to look at the very real fact that the Sunni and Shiites have been at each others throats going back over 1.500 years. Long before the US was even around.

reply to post by MDDoxs


So WHY are we hearing about this through a Canadian based publication? Where was this HUGE news when I forced myself to watch News last night on a hunch and found Ron Paul speaking on Hurricane Sandy?

Should be on the front page of every newspaper in America.

Merry Christmas and happy Holidays for the family, friends, now get on with the healing process and forget about them, Uncle Sam and the media has...

I admittedly do not have all the facts involved but in my opinion the worst thing the Bush administration did early in the Iraq war was to disband the Iraqi military.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Why not?

There are two involved.

Sunni and Shiite...

Are you saying that coalition forces do not count? You have to admit that the invasion created a environment ripe with opportunities for groups such as the Sunni and Shiite to perpetrate violent acts, presuming they are the ones responsible of course.

No

The Iraqi's were rebuilding their country and the Iranians and Saudis wanted to have a turf war over which would influence the new Government of Iraq more [Sunni or Shiite]

So you are saying that the interim government imposed by the US run by US military officials and their eventual stepping down created no problems within government?

Man, my local city hall has trouble implementing new councilors without heated debate or confusion.

The Iraqi forces were defeated PERIOD. Iran and the Saudis both stirred the pot unnecessarily. Your posted article even mentions the fact that after US forces left the sectarian violence lessened then now it's starting up again....

I wont argue with this point to much as it could bring up a lot of unverifiable information, however I will say that instances such as those detailed in the OP were fewer. This can be debated of course because Saddam was a nut who incited violence through some of his acts.

Facilitating?

They were the main combatants. Didn't you read all those years worth of headlines :Mosque bombed, Market bombed, School bombed etc etc etc? The vast majority of those had nothing to do with coalition forces.

Yes I had the displeasure to reading all those horrible acts. I will agree they had nothing to do with the coalition forces, but the environment created by the presence of these forces certainly did.

One would think but you need to look at the very real fact that the Sunni and Shiites have been at each others throats going back over 1.500 years. Long before the US was even around.

Agreed, Violence between these groups is nothing new. I just feel that if the West had not got involved things would have been better, optimistically speaking and in relation to previous numbers of similar incidents

Thank you for the conversation Slayer. I will admit to that perhaps I have made this thread with to much of a US oriented focus. Just tired of all the bloodshed man.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Are you saying that coalition forces do not count? You have to admit that the invasion created a environment ripe with opportunities for groups such as the Sunni and Shiite to perpetrate violent acts, presuming they are the ones responsible of course.

Have you ever wondered why Saddam was so ruthlessly brutal to his people?

The Iraqi's were both then as now Sunni and Shiite. He ruled with an iron fist and brutally crushed them whenever there were acts of violence between the two but make no mistake this is nothing new...

So you are saying that the interim government imposed by the US run by US military officials and their eventual stepping down created no problems within government?

Iraq has never had anything other than ruthless dictators. I'm surprised you're surprise they are falling off their bike their first time out trying to create a Representative Government of all their people.

I wont argue with this point to much as it could bring up a lot of unverifiable information, however I will say that instances such as those detailed in the OP were fewer. This can be debated of course because Saddam was a nut who incited violence through some of his acts.

Saddam was a ruthless brutal bastard. One who was first supported by the Soviets. [ Everybody forgets where all those Russian made tanks, jet fighter, bombers, Choppers, AK-47s boots, Belt Buckles and socks came from ] Which the US swung back to the West side during the Cold War.

The Cold War is over
Saddam is gone.

Yes I had the displeasure to reading all those horrible acts. I will agree they had nothing to do with the coalition forces, but the environment created by the presence of these forces certainly did.

If you crap in your own back yard it's going to stink.
Thank the Iranians and Saudis for the stench

Agreed, Violence between these groups is nothing new. I just feel that if the West had not got involved things would have been better, optimistically speaking

and in relation to previous numbers of similar incidents

Arabs and Persians bad blood between the two
Bad ju-ju

Thank you for the conversation Slayer. I will admit to that perhaps I have made this thread with to much of a US oriented focus. Just tired of all the bloodshed man.

My personal opinion.
We should never have been in Iraq.
Afghanistan on the other hand, is a whole other beast.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Have you ever wondered why Saddam was so ruthlessly brutal to his people?

The Iraqi's were both then as now Sunni and Shiite. He ruled with an iron fist and brutally crushed them whenever there were acts of violence between the two but make no mistake this is nothing new...

So would it be fair to assume that you agree somewhat with my point in that if the west had not invaded and Saddam not been deposed, that he would have been able to prevent incidents like this through his brutal control over the nation?

Iraq has never had anything other than ruthless dictators. I'm surprised you're surprise they are falling off their bike their first time out trying to create a Representative Government of all their people.

True, but i feel there is a significant difference between the formation of government that must transition from a Saddam style government as opposed to a US militarily governed country.

The way the US sort of just dropped their pens and paper and walked out left an unprecedented "mess" in Iraq that i see as creating much political and civil turmoil.

Saddam was a ruthless brutal bastard. One who was first supported by the Soviets. [ Everybody forgets where all those Russian made tanks, jet fighter, bombers, Choppers, AK-47s boots, Belt Buckles and socks came from ] Which the US swung back to the West side during the Cold War.

The Cold War is over
Saddam is gone.

Agreed

If you crap in your own back yard it's going to stink.
Thank the Iranians and Saudis for the stench

The coalition forces "crap" they left behind certainly did not help and to say they didnt leave anything behind is denying fact.

Arabs and Persians bad blood between the two
Bad ju-ju

Hopefully they can resolve their differences within our life times, but I feel it will be a long and painful road.

My personal opinion.
We should never have been in Iraq.
Afghanistan on the other hand, is a whole other beast.

Agreed.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
So would it be fair to assume that you agree somewhat with my point in that if the west had not invaded and Saddam not been deposed, that he would have been able to prevent incidents like this through his brutal control over the nation?

Which would you prefer?
A Ruthless dictator or for the first time in Iraq's Very Long History a chance to have a Representative Government of All their people [Shiites and Sunni] included?

Third parties are not third parties when they are the two main combatants.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by MDDoxs
So would it be fair to assume that you agree somewhat with my point in that if the west had not invaded and Saddam not been deposed, that he would have been able to prevent incidents like this through his brutal control over the nation?

Which would you prefer?
A Ruthless dictator or for the first time in Iraq's Very Long History a chance to have a Representative Government of All their people [Shiites and Sunni] included?

Third parties are not third parties when they are the two main combatants.

Haha, i knew that was coming, i was considering editing my post to elaborate further, but figured you would catch that.

Its a "damned if you do or damned if you dont kind of situation. I will agree that violence was probably inevitable but I am under the mindset that these 30 dead incidents would have been minimalized. Grant it, the deaths related to Saddams crack downs if he remained in power would have been equal if not greater then all these acts combined, I just feel that innocents dying, losing loved ones, losing property, losing their lives would be reduced.

Edit: So would you still agree somewhat with my point about the vaccum left by the US?

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Edit: So would you still agree somewhat with my point about the vaccum left by the US?

Vacuum?

No.

Weakness?

Yes.

A weakness that the opposing sides would like to drive their wedges into to widen and expand their influence.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Weakness?

Yes.

A weakness that the opposing sides would like to drive their wedges into to widen and expand their influence.

Okay, thank you for agreeing with my original point as per below quote, i knew we would reach a point of agreement

Anywhere the West leaves its finger prints seems to erupt into violence. The US effectively has created a power vacuum in which all these subsets are vying for power.

I am sure we can also agree that we do not want to see conflict like this continue.

Always a pleasure conversing with you Slayer

Originally posted by MDDoxs
I am sure we can also agree that we do not want to see conflict like this continue.

Somebody get that word to Tehran....

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by MDDoxs
I am sure we can also agree that we do not want to see conflict like this continue.

Somebody get that word to Tehran....

Why limit it to just Tehran?, How about the whole globe

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Why limit it to just Tehran?, How about the whole globe

I agree with that whole heartily but we were discussing and focusing on Iraq.

Perhaps there are some cultures that require a dictatorship.

Perhaps there are some cultures that cannot accept a democratic-based society.

Perhaps the responsbilities that are associated with freedom are too much for some cultures.

Perhaps.

reply to post by beezzer


That’s a lot of hypotheticals, but you could very well be correct. Perhaps, a culture based on relatively ancient traditions and practices is no longer suitable and sustainable in our modern world.

I would like to think that all cultures/religions/race what have you, could one day hold hands in unity. However this seems very far from reality.

The really tricky ethical/practical question is at what point do other nations have to get involved to uphold the modern standard of living, or do we continue on pretending that terrible things, done in the name of a religion/dictators/beliefs/etc don’t happen?