Baghdad Car Bomber Attacks Shi'Ite Offices, Killing 25

[News_Editor]

Baghdad car bomber attacks Shi'ite offices, killing 25 < br />

2012-06-05 05:32:37 GMT+7 (ICT)

BAGHDAD, IRAQ (BNO NEWS) -- A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-laden car outside a Shi'ite Muslim office in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad on late Monday morning, killing at least 25 people and injuring more than 150 others, police and doctors said.

The attack occurred at around 11 a.m. local time outside the Shi'ite Endowment Department in the Bab al-Mu'dham District of central Baghdad. The religious affairs office is in charge of operating Shi'ite mosques and religious properties in the country, which has witnessed a series of deadly attacks in recent months.

A police source said the powerful explosion, which destroyed parts of the office building, torched several vehicles and damaged nearby buildings, killed at least 25 people and injured more than 150 others. The death toll could still rise as dozens of people remained in a serious or critical condition on late Monday, the source said.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani strongly condemned the attack, saying such acts attempt to provoke sectarian violence and undermine stability and security in the country. He called on the security agencies to arrest those who attempt to carry out terrorist attacks and find those who organize them.

United Nations (UN) Special Representative for Iraq Martin Kobler also condemned the attack and reiterated the need for all Iraqis to remain steadfast in the face of violence. "These atrocious crimes against the Iraqi people need to stop and the perpetrators should be brought to justice," he said. "I urge Iraqi people from all walks of life and religious backgrounds to rise above past divisions and unite for a peaceful future."

It was not immediately clear who was behind Monday's attack, although some officials claimed preliminary evidence points toward the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), an armed insurgent group affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). The group frequently uses suicide bombers to carry out its attacks.

Although violence in Iraq has declined dramatically since its peak in 2006 and 2007, political turmoil and sectarian violence has been on the rise following the pullout of the last U.S. soldiers in mid-December 2011. At least 36 people were killed in mid-April when a series of bomb attacks hit cities and towns across the country.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-06-05

[Colin Yai]

Only 25 blown to smithereens ,hardly worth a mention these days is it!.

[Yunla]

Is it too late to get a refund on my "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" T-shirt that I bought from GW Bush's website?

[Colin Yai]

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

[Yunla]

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

Because countries sometimes make the leader and not the other way round. In intensely feudal tribal societies the leadership inevitably falls to a "strongman" who keeps order by heavyhanded ruthlessness. The same was true in Europe centuries ago, if you had removed the leadership and air-dropped some democratic voting-booths into the country the people would have used them for firewood and then got busy killing eachother along tribal lines. Democracy arrives slowly and by consensus. Also in Iraqs case there is the geographical factor of competing influences from its neighbours who are using the lawlessness in Iraq today for their own agendas. A lot of people in the ME want democracy but more people want supremacy for their tribe and for their faith group, until the vast majority stop fighting there can never be rule of law and without law no democracy. Saddam knew this, Bush knew this too its just he didn't care and was looking further ahead. Blair didn't know this, but that is no surprise.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Yunla

[Scott]

I lived in Iraq during the rule of Saddam. He was a ruthless person, who held the country together with fear. There were many, many bad things about the rule of Saddam, but there was also a sense of security--as long as you didn't oppose, weren't seen as opposing him and weren't a member of some of the minority groups (such as the Kurds).

He did not tolerate religious extremism well. Those Imam's who got out of hand found themselves in a shallow grave rather quickly.

[folium]

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

Well, apart from the Anfal campaign, the Iran-Iraq war, the 1st Gulf War, & the post 1st Gulf War Shia uprising (to name just the big ticket items and which together killed approximately 1.3 million people), what did Saddam ever do wrong for Iraq and the region??

[Yunla]

It is so true that Saddam's secularism allowed bookshops and videostores to stock western literature and movies, which were later all burned down by extremists after he was removed, in truly shameful book-burning scenes. Also hundreds or possibly thousands of barbers and hairdressers have been executed in Iraq since the invasion, for unislamic shaving of beards.http://www.guardian....notabetterplace . Any country that murders hairdressers for giving a man a shave when requested to do so, is in trouble IMO. Women are often afraid to go outside in many places and always go 'covered'. Many hospitals and educational establishments in Iraq pre-invasion were superior to many of their European counterparts, now not so.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Yunla

[Colin Yai]

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

Because countries sometimes make the leader and not the other way round. In intensely feudal tribal societies the leadership inevitably falls to a "strongman" who keeps order by heavyhanded ruthlessness. The same was true in Europe centuries ago, if you had removed the leadership and air-dropped some democratic voting-booths into the country the people would have used them for firewood and then got busy killing eachother along tribal lines. Democracy arrives slowly and by consensus. Also in Iraqs case there is the geographical factor of competing influences from its neighbours who are using the lawlessness in Iraq today for their own agendas. A lot of people in the ME want democracy but more people want supremacy for their tribe and for their faith group, until the vast majority stop fighting there can never be rule of law and without law no democracy. Saddam knew this, Bush knew this too its just he didn't care and was looking further ahead. Blair didn't know this, but that is no surprise.

Of Course Yunla you give the perfect answer which dovetails with my opinion ,I was just "fishing around" as one does from time to time

[folium]

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

Because countries sometimes make the leader and not the other way round. In intensely feudal tribal societies the leadership inevitably falls to a "strongman" who keeps order by heavyhanded ruthlessness. The same was true in Europe centuries ago, if you had removed the leadership and air-dropped some democratic voting-booths into the country the people would have used them for firewood and then got busy killing eachother along tribal lines. Democracy arrives slowly and by consensus. Also in Iraqs case there is the geographical factor of competing influences from its neighbours who are using the lawlessness in Iraq today for their own agendas. A lot of people in the ME want democracy but more people want supremacy for their tribe and for their faith group, until the vast majority stop fighting there can never be rule of law and without law no democracy. Saddam knew this, Bush knew this too its just he didn't care and was looking further ahead. Blair didn't know this, but that is no surprise.

Of Course Yunla you give the perfect answer which dovetails with my opinion ,I was just "fishing around" as one does from time to time

So that's trawling rather than trolling?

[Yunla]

Of Course Yunla you give the perfect answer which dovetails with my opinion ,I was just "fishing around" as one does from time to time

I warn you I'm loaded with mercury and other hazardous maritime pollutants.

[Colin Yai]

I wonder why there was never this acute problem when Saddam was ruling the roost?

Because countries sometimes make the leader and not the other way round. In intensely feudal tribal societies the leadership inevitably falls to a "strongman" who keeps order by heavyhanded ruthlessness. The same was true in Europe centuries ago, if you had removed the leadership and air-dropped some democratic voting-booths into the country the people would have used them for firewood and then got busy killing eachother along tribal lines. Democracy arrives slowly and by consensus. Also in Iraqs case there is the geographical factor of competing influences from its neighbours who are using the lawlessness in Iraq today for their own agendas. A lot of people in the ME want democracy but more people want supremacy for their tribe and for their faith group, until the vast majority stop fighting there can never be rule of law and without law no democracy. Saddam knew this, Bush knew this too its just he didn't care and was looking further ahead. Blair didn't know this, but that is no surprise.

Of Course Yunla you give the perfect answer which dovetails with my opinion ,I was just "fishing around" as one does from time to time

So that's trawling rather than trolling?

Trawling Eh!,like it ,like it

[Scott]

Since this topic is nothing more than a fishing expedition by a few posters headed in their normal direction, I will close it now.

Troll elsewhere. I will be watching, however.