Wave of bombings kill more than 70 in Iraq

[News_Editor]

Wave of bombings kill more than 70 in Iraq

2012-01-06 18:57:39 GMT+7 (ICT)

BAGHDAD, IRAQ (BNO NEWS) -- More than 70 people were killed on Thursday when a wave of bomb blasts hit the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and the southern city of Nasiriyah, officials said on Friday. Dozens more were injured.

The deadliest attack took place in Nasiriyah, the provincial capital of Dhi Qar, when a suicide bomber blew himself up at a rest stop where Shiite Muslims had gathered. The pilgrims were heading toward the holy city of Karbala for Arbaeen ceremonies, which commemorate Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Mohammed.

The attack in Nasiriyah left at least 45 people killed, according to police, while around 70 others were injured. It was the deadliest attack of the new year as political turmoil and sectarian violence has been on the rise following the pullout of the last U.S. soldiers in mid-December.

In other attacks on Thursday, police said at least 15 people were killed and more than 60 others were injured when two car bombs exploded at Aoroobah square and al-Zahra square in the Kadhimya area of northern Baghdad.

Another deadly attack took place in Sadr City, a suburb district in eastern Baghdad. Two improvised explosive devices (IEDs) there killed at least 10 people and injured more than 35 others, medics said.

On December 22, a wave of at least a dozen bomb attacks, involving numerous car bombs, roadside bombs and IEDs, were reported in several parts of Baghdad, killing at least 60 people while injuring nearly 200 others.

The attacks in December came just days after the last U.S. soldiers withdrew from the country, ending its nearly nine-year-long presence in the country. Analysts have feared a surge in political turmoil and sectarian violence following the departure of the last U.S. troops.

The attacks in December also took place as Iraq has been facing its most recent political crisis with political rivals comparing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to a dictator, as he has not appointed defense and interior ministers, allowing him to establish control of the country's armed forces.

In addition, the Iraqi Investigation Committee issued an arrest warrant in mid December against the country's First Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who is being accused of ordering attacks, including bombings, against government and security officials.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-01-06

[Exsexyman]

If this carries on the West will have to invade. Oh hang on a minute!

[GentlemanJim]

The War is over, we brought peace and democracy to Iraq, and only 6000 servicemen and women had to die. Iraq is now a better place than it was under Hussein.

[bangkokrick]

The War is over, we brought peace and democracy to Iraq, and only 6000 servicemen and women had to die. Iraq is now a better place than it was under Hussein.

This was inevitable when the Western forces left. The same is happening in Libya. These countries seem to need a tyrant to keep control!

[GentlemanJim]

The War is over, we brought peace and democracy to Iraq, and only 6000 servicemen and women had to die. Iraq is now a better place than it was under Hussein.

This was inevitable when the Western forces left. The same is happening in Libya. These countries seem to need a tyrant to keep control!

This was inevitable as the Western forces arrived! I am not sure these countries need a tyrant but what we need to understand is that there are many cultures cannot deal with an imposed form of Western Democracy.

[bangkokrick]

The War is over, we brought peace and democracy to Iraq, and only 6000 servicemen and women had to die. Iraq is now a better place than it was under Hussein.

This was inevitable when the Western forces left. The same is happening in Libya. These countries seem to need a tyrant to keep control!

This was inevitable as the Western forces arrived! I am not sure these countries need a tyrant but what we need to understand is that there are many cultures cannot deal with an imposed form of Western Democracy.

It it not just politics that affect the outcome religion is a major factor in my opinion Jim.

[GentlemanJim]

The War is over, we brought peace and democracy to Iraq, and only 6000 servicemen and women had to die. Iraq is now a better place than it was under Hussein.

This was inevitable when the Western forces left. The same is happening in Libya. These countries seem to need a tyrant to keep control!

This was inevitable as the Western forces arrived! I am not sure these countries need a tyrant but what we need to understand is that there are many cultures cannot deal with an imposed form of Western Democracy.

It it not just politics that affect the outcome religion is a major factor in my opinion Jim.

I agree, you're right that's why I said 'Cultures"

[Pedzie]

The War is over, we brought peace and democracy to Iraq, and only 6000 servicemen and women had to die. Iraq is now a better place than it was under Hussein.

This was inevitable when the Western forces left. The same is happening in Libya. These countries seem to need a tyrant to keep control!

This was inevitable as the Western forces arrived! I am not sure these countries need a tyrant but what we need to understand is that there are many cultures cannot deal with an imposed form of Western Democracy.

+1

Iraq will end up divided country, civil war will happen very soon.

[bangkokrick]

Jim,

Agree, but there are also many cultures within one culture in the Middle East. Tribes etc.

[GentlemanJim]

Jim,

Agree, but there are also many cultures within one culture in the Middle East. Tribes etc.

Rick

Sure it is an incredibly complex situation. I just used the term 'cultures' as a broad-brush overarching term describing the differences in people, race, skin, religion, tribes, sub religion, ideology, prejudice etc etc. The truth is the lid on Pandora's box is open, and now for electioneering reasons, everybody who is necessary leaves. The snowball is rolling and I think the months ahead will disclose problems far bigger than ever existed with Hussein. But we got rid of him for WMD's, I think we need step in now for regime change.....doh!

[bangkokrick]

Jim,

Agree, but there are also many cultures within one culture in the Middle East. Tribes etc.

Rick

Sure it is an incredibly complex situation. I just used the term 'cultures' as a broad-brush overarching term describing the differences in people, race, skin, religion, tribes, sub religion, ideology, prejudice etc etc. The truth is the lid on Pandora's box is open, and now for electioneering reasons, everybody who is necessary leaves. The snowball is rolling and I think the months ahead will disclose problems far bigger than ever existed with Hussein. But we got rid of him for WMD's, I think we need step in now for regime change.....doh!

Agree on all points Jim. This will never end.

[koheesti]

I'm disappointed. I thought for sure after the invaders left that Iraq would return to its peaceful kite-flying days which Michael Moore showed us. Instead, they learned very well the barbarism taught to them by the evil crusaders. If only the CIA, Bush, Haliburton, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of Satan's soldiers had not corrupted the "religion of peace" over the past decade! Oh, what joy would reign across the region!!

[GentlemanJim]

I'm disappointed. I thought for sure after the invaders left that Iraq would return to its peaceful kite-flying days which Michael Moore showed us. Instead, they learned very well the barbarism taught to them by the evil crusaders. If only the CIA, Bush, Haliburton, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of Satan's soldiers had not corrupted the "religion of peace" over the past decade! Oh, what joy would reign across the region!!

You know what Koheesti

With all the men and women that died for the CIA, Bush, Haliburton, Rumsfeld and Cheney, I am not sure that that is the least bit funny. Perhaps the objective should have been honestly stated as to achieve the square root of <deleted> all.....Mission Accomplished!! I wonder if they all sleep well at night?

Edited January 6, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Scott]

Ignorance is bliss and the ignorance that reigned around the Iraqi situation was astounding. I am sure those in charge have no problem sleeping. It's the people in Iraq who probably don't sleep well.

It wasn't a particularly peaceful country before and nothing was done or could have been done to make it a peaceful country after the invasion.

I wonder how the country would have fared with the Arab Spring uprisings, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

[Steely Dan]

The War is over, we brought peace and democracy to Iraq, and only 6000 servicemen and women had to die. Iraq is now a better place than it was under Hussein.

This was inevitable when the Western forces left. The same is happening in Libya. These countries seem to need a tyrant to keep control!

I have always thought this, a tyrant is preferable to civil war and the inevitable ethnic cleansing that results, and if they are very lucky an Ataturk will come along who uses an iron rule benevolently to force through a secular constitution and given a platform for democracy to develop. The big problem is the religion of peace has yet to go through a reformation in the way Christianity did, though whether it can actually be reformed is another question entirely, as a sad post script it was the military in Turkey who were charged with upholding the secular constitution, a military who have had their top brass locked up by Erdogan.

[koheesti]

Ignorance is bliss and the ignorance that reigned around the Iraqi situation was astounding. I am sure those in charge have no problem sleeping. It's the people in Iraq who probably don't sleep well.

Saddam went to extremes to make his enemies - both foreign and domestic - to believe he had WMDs. A huge miscalculation on his part that cost many thousands of lives all around. He should have taken the Saudis up on their offer of asylum when he had the chance. Or France probably would have taken him in.

It wasn't a particularly peaceful country before and nothing was done or could have been done to make it a peaceful country after the invasion.

Sadly, that's true. But an attempt at least has been made and if by some miracle it worked/works, it just might be worth it. But to simply believe the people are "animals" incapable of treating each other humanely therefore they should have been left alone isn't such a good thing either.

I wonder how the country would have fared with the Arab Spring uprisings, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

If history of Saddam's Iraq was any indication we can guess with almost certainly how it would have ended. He was a much more brutal dictator than Mubarak, Assad and Qaddafi combined. He would have killed as many of his people as it took to stay in power.

[Scott]

First, I lived and worked in Iraq for several years and still have very good friends from and in the country. They are not, nor were they ever, animals.

I think the country would be less like Egypt and more like Syria, IMO. Under the best of conditions, it is a divided nation: Kurds vs. Arab; Sunni vs <deleted> and various combinations. Add to that the Christians and the Turkomen.

Only history will tell whether anything was accomplished in the Iraqi invasion.

[geriatrickid]

First, I lived and worked in Iraq for several years and still have very good friends from and in the country. They are not, nor were they ever, animals.

I think the country would be less like Egypt and more like Syria, IMO. Under the best of conditions, it is a divided nation: Kurds vs. Arab; Sunni vs <deleted> and various combinations. Add to that the Christians and the Turkomen.

Only history will tell whether anything was accomplished in the Iraqi invasion.

There was also a portion of the population that was somewhat secular. Their political affiliations or sentiments may not have been appetizing, but uneducated or uncultured they were not. In our haste to affix the labels of good guys/bad guys we often lose sight that there are also regular shmos everywhere that just want a chance at living a decent life, to have a chance to love and to be loved. They do not deserve to be blown up by bombs or to be terrorized by secret police or religious zealots or political extremists. I have arab colleagues at work and although we have opposing views on many subjects we coexist in an amicable manner and also have a shared view on many subjects. Even when we disagree, I would not wish them to suffer the fate of the victims of these bomb blasts. Your point hopefully reminds us all that there are decent people that are often stuck in places where bad people run amuck.

[GentlemanJim]

If history of Saddam's Iraq was any indication we can guess with almost certainly how it would have ended. He was a much more brutal dictator than Mubarak, Assad and Qaddafi combined. He would have killed as many of his people as it took to stay in power.

Mubarak is a very interesting case.

Mubarak has been the friend of the US for decades, and the US have always been grateful of his support. It was always very easy getting rendition flights in and out of Egypt, but during the uprisings, it seems the CIA couldn't get a flight in there to get him out. Another world leader past his expiry date, who once favoured court with the US, left to the crows when he is of no further use to a changing foreign policy. Mubarak should have learned from Hussein,, who once also courted the same favoured relationship of friend and ally to the US. To believe all of this rubbish about regime change is nonesense. Our governments foster and nurture these tyrants and Dictators,. Our Governments often even put them in place, and train and equip them, leaving them as Dictatorial caretaker to subjugate the people and do all the dirty work until the timing and circumstances dictate that the tyrants be moved from the mount of the favoured to the heap of the despots that have been thrown there before them from other locations around the world. All this done by the henchmen dressed in suits that we the people elect to do our bidding.

Edited January 7, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[koheesti]

Mubarak should have learned from Hussein,, who once also courted the same favoured relationship of friend and ally to the US.

The lesson he should have learned was to bolt the country with a suitcase full of cash when things started to get rough. Mubarak, Saddam and Qaddafi could be living the high life in Monaco if their egos hadn't gotten in the way. Imagine having those three as neighbors.

The US helped Saddam in the 80's, sure. ANYONE fighting a war against the Iranians (while we were in the middle of the hostage crisis) would have gotten nearly unanimous support in the US at the time. That doesn't give them carte blanche for eternity. Iraq isn't the UK afterall.

Edited January 7, 2012 by koheesti

[GentlemanJim]

Mubarak should have learned from Hussein,, who once also courted the same favoured relationship of friend and ally to the US.

The lesson he should have learned was to bolt the country with a suitcase full of cash when things started to get rough. Mubarak, Saddam and Qaddafi could be living the high life in Monaco if their egos hadn't gotten in the way. Imagine having those three as neighbors.

Correct! I wonder what happens to the billions in numbered accounts that now lie anonymously in Switzerland, whose owners thought themselves indestructible. Sweet irony i guess. I think the dictators you quote all started from a position of poverty, spent decades ensuring they robbed from their people to keep the population in poverty, and then through greed and ego they themselves end their days with nothing, all their efforts doing nothing more now than ensuring a healthy return for an unknown bank in Switzerland.

[Scott]

There was also a portion of the population that was somewhat secular.

In my post I didn't mean to imply that it was a very religious country. It was not...at least I didn't see any extremism or fundamentalism in the country at that time. In the northern part of the country, women were often seen out and about without being covered.

When stress occurs, the cracks in the fabric of the country begin to appear.

At the time I was there, politics trumped everything in importance. Religion was just an undercurrent which started bubbling to the surface later.

[Steely Dan]

If history of Saddam's Iraq was any indication we can guess with almost certainly how it would have ended. He was a much more brutal dictator than Mubarak, Assad and Qaddafi combined. He would have killed as many of his people as it took to stay in power.

Mubarak is a very interesting case.

Mubarak has been the friend of the US for decades, and the US have always been grateful of his support. It was always very easy getting rendition flights in and out of Egypt, but during the uprisings, it seems the CIA couldn't get a flight in there to get him out. Another world leader past his expiry date, who once favoured court with the US, left to the crows when he is of no further use to a changing foreign policy. Mubarak should have learned from Hussein,, who once also courted the same favoured relationship of friend and ally to the US. To believe all of this rubbish about regime change is nonesense. Our governments foster and nurture these tyrants and Dictators,. Our Governments often even put them in place, and train and equip them, leaving them as Dictatorial caretaker to subjugate the people and do all the dirty work until the timing and circumstances dictate that the tyrants be moved from the mount of the favoured to the heap of the despots that have been thrown there before them from other locations around the world. All this done by the henchmen dressed in suits that we the people elect to do our bidding.

I largely agree, the strategy has been used for ages and more trouble seems to come when the despot is removed, as was the case with the Shah of Iran. This makes the decision to cut Mubarak loose all the more inexplicable, how have Obama's advisers got the whole thing so disastrously wrong? Tunisia, Egypt, Libya will all likely end up as Islamic theocracies. The old strategy may have been cynical but it was at least grounded in pragmatism - the current outreach policy seems to lead to sectarian bloodletting and religious totalitarianism.

[koheesti]

If history of Saddam's Iraq was any indication we can guess with almost certainly how it would have ended. He was a much more brutal dictator than Mubarak, Assad and Qaddafi combined. He would have killed as many of his people as it took to stay in power.

Mubarak is a very interesting case.

Mubarak has been the friend of the US for decades, and the US have always been grateful of his support. It was always very easy getting rendition flights in and out of Egypt, but during the uprisings, it seems the CIA couldn't get a flight in there to get him out. Another world leader past his expiry date, who once favoured court with the US, left to the crows when he is of no further use to a changing foreign policy. Mubarak should have learned from Hussein,, who once also courted the same favoured relationship of friend and ally to the US. To believe all of this rubbish about regime change is nonesense. Our governments foster and nurture these tyrants and Dictators,. Our Governments often even put them in place, and train and equip them, leaving them as Dictatorial caretaker to subjugate the people and do all the dirty work until the timing and circumstances dictate that the tyrants be moved from the mount of the favoured to the heap of the despots that have been thrown there before them from other locations around the world. All this done by the henchmen dressed in suits that we the people elect to do our bidding.

I largely agree, the strategy has been used for ages and more trouble seems to come when the despot is removed, as was the case with the Shah of Iran. This makes the decision to cut Mubarak loose all the more inexplicable, how have Obama's advisers got the whole thing so disastrously wrong? Tunisia, Egypt, Libya will all likely end up as Islamic theocracies. The old strategy may have been cynical but it was at least grounded in pragmatism - the current outreach policy seems to lead to sectarian bloodletting and religious totalitarianism.

I'm not one to defend Obama but I think it was a losing situation no matter what the US did. Back Mubarak and the Arab world sees the US as backing dictators against the people wanting freedom. Turn your back on the dictator and risk anti-American religious nutjobs taking over. Or in Iran's case last year, back the people and it makes them look bad having the "Great Satan" on their side. The US wasn't popular being in Iraq but now that they are gone the death tolls are starting to skyrocket again due to the new violence. The same will surely happen in Afghanistan. People were dying unnecessarily before the US & the coalition came, while they were there, and after leaving as well. Except for the UAE & Qatar, the region is screwed.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not one to defend Obama but I think it was a losing situation no matter what the US did. Back Mubarak and the Arab world sees the US as backing dictators against the people wanting freedom. Turn your back on the dictator and risk anti-American religious nutjobs taking over.

Agreed. Obama did not have much of a choice here.

[Steely Dan]

I'm not one to defend Obama but I think it was a losing situation no matter what the US did. Back Mubarak and the Arab world sees the US as backing dictators against the people wanting freedom. Turn your back on the dictator and risk anti-American religious nutjobs taking over.

Agreed. Obama did not have much of a choice here.

Yes, who would be POTUS. However to be frank there are no friends of the U.S in the Arab world, only short term tactical accommodations where common cause can be found. Yes the U.S would have risked the ire of some by backing Mubarak, but they certainly annoyed the Saudis in cutting Mubarak loose. Now they have the prospect of the Muslim brotherhood tearing up the Camp David agreement, an agreement the U.S and E.U underwrote, so what would then happen, do the Israelis take back Sinai as a buffer zone?

But I digress, this is Iraq and the biggest winners of the Iraq invasion are indeed Iran.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/iraqs-maliki-supports-iran-backed-shiite-group-that-waged-jihad-against-americans.html

The dust has scarcely settled since the U.S departure and look at the company Maliki is keeping.

[Scott]

This topic is already straying from the OP, however, if you keep it civil and informative I'll overlook it.

We have posters with a wealth of knowledge and insight about the region. When threads keep from getting personal, there is a lot to be learned from many.

[GentlemanJim]

I'm not one to defend Obama but I think it was a losing situation no matter what the US did. Back Mubarak and the Arab world sees the US as backing dictators against the people wanting freedom. Turn your back on the dictator and risk anti-American religious nutjobs taking over.

Agreed. Obama did not have much of a choice here.

Yes, who would be POTUS. However to be frank there are no friends of the U.S in the Arab world, only short term tactical accommodations where common cause can be found. Yes the U.S would have risked the ire of some by backing Mubarak, but they certainly annoyed the Saudis in cutting Mubarak loose. Now they have the prospect of the Muslim brotherhood tearing up the Camp David agreement, an agreement the U.S and E.U underwrote, so what would then happen, do the Israelis take back Sinai as a buffer zone?

But I digress, this is Iraq and the biggest winners of the Iraq invasion are indeed Iran.

http://www.jihadwatc...-americans.html

The dust has scarcely settled since the U.S departure and look at the company Maliki is keeping.

You raise a very valid point concerning Egypt and what could be described as the 'relatively stable state of instability' in the area. Egypt, wrong Mubarak was a lynchpin in trying to maintain the status quo with the Israeli's on the Palestinian border. I know there was a lot of underground (literally) smuggling going on (still is) via tunnels crossing into the Egyptian border but the Egyptians were proactive in preventing and policing that. I am sure that once the Muslim Brotherhood are established in Government a blind eye will be turned and the situation could rapidly deteriorate out of hand as arms are smuggled into Palestine. The thing is, Iraq is done now and the clock cannot be turned back. In order to make sure that all those members of the armed forces and the innocent civilians did not die in vain we MUST learn the lessons from Iraq and apply them.

[cdnvic]

I removed a troll post and replies. Try to back up your claims with citations rather than just dreamt up hyperbole. It makes for a more intelligent discussion.

[Steely Dan]

Mods feel free to delete if too O/T but with respect to U.S middle east policy in general the following looks very important and very scary.

http://disasteremergencysupplies.com/snafu/2012/01/drumbeats-of-war-us-troops-deploy-in-israel/

Today, the first word about Austere Challenge 12 came to global consciousness. It is the United States and Israel’s biggest joint exercise ever. It will be an air defense exercise. It will test Israel’s Arrow system and our THADD system. But this time the U.S. Navy will ante up a frontline aircraft carrier (which carrier it will be has not been announced) and at least 9,000 military personnel, according to news today from Israeli sources with Mossad and military connections. Same sources say the first elements of the 9,000 have already been flown into Israel, and are bivouacking as this post is being written.