Wave Of Violence Across Iraq Kills More Than 100, Injures Hundreds

[News_Editor]

Wave of violence across Iraq kills more than 100, injures hundreds < br />

2012-07-24 08:22:42 GMT+7 (ICT)

BAGHDAD, IRAQ (BNO NEWS) -- A coordinated wave of bomb and shooting attacks targeted Shiite Muslims across Iraq on Monday, killing more than 100 people and injuring nearly 300 others during the Ramadan, local authorities said. It was the deadliest day in the country in more than two years.

A string of violent attacks ripped through at least fifteen different cities, among them the capital Baghdad, in six provinces across the country. The attacks included car bombings, motorcycle bombings, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and armed attacks, most of them targeting security forces and Shiite Muslims.

The deadliest attack was carried out in Taji, north of Baghdad, where at least 30 people died and dozens more were injured when several bomb blasts struck a residential complex. Among those killed were many civilians, but police officers and service members were also among the casualties.

In all, authorities said at least 109 people were killed across the country while more than 275 others were injured. Many of the injured remained in a critical condition on late Monday, raising fears the death toll is likely to rise. Most of the attacks happened in the morning, but attacks continued in the afternoon and evening.

Such levels of violence as witnessed on Monday have not been seen in Iraq for more than 2.5 years, but the coordinated attacks come just a day after three car bombs killed at least 20 people and injured more than 80 others in two towns south of Baghdad and in the city of Najaf.

The United Nations (UN) Secretary-General's Deputy Special Representative, Gyorgy Busztin, strongly condemned what he described as 'senseless violence and bloodshed' across the country. "The scale and brutality of the attacks are appalling - especially now, when Iraqis are not only celebrating the holy month of Ramadan, with its messages of peace and reconciliation, but are also welcoming thousands of returnees who have fled the ongoing violence in Syria," he said.

On June 13, at least 93 people were killed in another wave of bomb and shooting attacks targeting Shiite Muslims who were marking the anniversary of the death of Imam Musa Kadhim, a great-grandson of the prophet Mohammad and a revered imam. More than 300 others were injured.

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 2012-07-24

[coma]

Good to see the western democracy model enforced upon these people is working well for them.

Edited July 24, 2012 by coma

[Credo]

The culture of the region is steeped in a long tradition of violence.

[midas]

The culture of the region is steeped in a long tradition of violence.

..... the previous leader seemed to understand the nature of this and kept law and order until he was invaded

[Credo]

You might want to check out the Al-Anfal campaign for an example of how he controlled the population.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Credo

[Seismic]

Well at least they dont have all those WMD's to use.......................

[Steely Dan]

I thought Ramadan was the time for peaceful reflection, but then again perhaps I'm wrong.

[maidu]

Good to see the western democracy model enforced upon these people is working well for them.

Perhaps the US should have found another hardline strongman with antifreeze coursing through his veins - to take the reins in that God-forsaken part of the world. He could execute 50 people a day, and things would be back to normal in Iraq.

The psychology in that part of the world must be very troubled. Visitors from another planet would marvel at a species which systematically and violently destroyed each other for no apparent reason.

[coma]

Good to see the western democracy model enforced upon these people is working well for them.

Perhaps the US should have found another hardline strongman with antifreeze coursing through his veins - to take the reins in that God-forsaken part of the world. He could execute 50 people a day, and things would be back to normal in Iraq.

The psychology in that part of the world must be very troubled. Visitors from another planet would marvel at a species which systematically and violently destroyed each other for no apparent reason.

They should have left things as they were.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. The topic is about Iraq.

Edit: Another off-topic post has been removed.

[Morch]

Good to see the western democracy model enforced upon these people is working well for them.

Perhaps the US should have found another hardline strongman with antifreeze coursing through his veins - to take the reins in that God-forsaken part of the world. He could execute 50 people a day, and things would be back to normal in Iraq.

The psychology in that part of the world must be very troubled. Visitors from another planet would marvel at a species which systematically and violently destroyed each other for no apparent reason.

They should have left things as they were.

Yep, the good ol' times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

Things were so much better back then, weren't they?

[Scott]

Several off-topic posts have been removed. Please stay on-topic.

[QualityTouristNumberOne]

Good to see the western democracy model enforced upon these people is working well for them.

Perhaps the US should have found another hardline strongman with antifreeze coursing through his veins - to take the reins in that God-forsaken part of the world. He could execute 50 people a day, and things would be back to normal in Iraq.

The psychology in that part of the world must be very troubled. Visitors from another planet would marvel at a species which systematically and violently destroyed each other for no apparent reason.

They should have left things as they were.

Yep, the good ol' times:

http://en.wikipedia....-Anfal_Campaign

http://en.wikipedia...._Hussein's_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia....Iranâ¤"Iraq_War

Things were so much better back then, weren't they?

Just to keep things "Fair and balanced" here's a by no means conclusive list of some of the dodgy activities of US forces in Iraq...

This list doesn't even include evidence about the mercenary companies who committed mass atrocities while immune to prosecution.

I'm not an America basher by nature by the way man,

but your "Faux News" type backlash needs to be addressed.

EDIT...

also condemned by your own link!

"Writer Joost R. Hiltermann has said the United States government and US State Department was particularly important in helping their then ally the Saddam Hussein government in avoiding any serious censure for the campaign and in particular the attack on rebels and civilians in the city of Halabja. Hiltermann writes; "The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam."

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln&us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_specific_issues=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_human_rights

Edited July 25, 2012 by QualityTouristNumberOne

[Morch]

Just to keep things "Fair and balanced" here's a by no means conclusive list of some of the dodgy activities of US forces in Iraq...

This list doesn't even include evidence about the mercenary companies who committed mass atrocities while immune to prosecution.

I'm not an America basher by nature by the way man,

but your "Faux News" type backlash needs to be addressed.

EDIT...

also condemned by your own link!

"Writer Joost R. Hiltermann has said the United States government and US State Department was particularly important in helping their then ally the Saddam Hussein government in avoiding any serious censure for the campaign and in particular the attack on rebels and civilians in the city of Halabja. Hiltermann writes; "The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam."

http://www.historyco...ln_human_rights

Wow, both "need to be addressed" and "condemned" at the same post? I must have been bad.

Not exactly sure what was your point - my post was a response to a simplistic statement that implied the situation in Iraq was somehow okish in the past. Nowhere did I say that things after the USA direct involvement were rosy. They were not, and they remain so. If the situation post-Saddam is worse or not, is something that is hard to judge (what is the criteria?).

As for "condemned by your own post", how so? I was pointing out that some pretty bad things happened during Saddam's reign. Is leaving "things as they were", with USA consent/involvement/support to some of his actions included, really desirable?

I think that for some of Iraq's people things were harder then, for some things are worse now. Not sure all would be glad to go back in time and re-run history. Guess that for the USA/coalition forces (as opposed to governments) involved the choice would be easier.

[Exsexyman]

For anyone really interested in Iraq i recommend the book, 'Fiasco, the American adventure in Iraq'.by Thomas E Ricks. It lays bare the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq by G W Bush, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, and Paul Wolfowitz, Chickenhawks to a man. Against all advice from the Military they went ahead, didn't have a clue, all based on lies.Of course the soldiers on the ground paid the price. All of these gung ho advocates for war were draft dodgers when they had their chance to show what they were made of during the Vietnam war. President Bush's Daddy got him a posting, where he spent his time drinking beer and making sure the skies over Texas were safe! No wonder he is held in such contempt.

[maidu]

If the situation post-Saddam is worse or not, is something that is hard to judge (what is the criteria?).

is good point. here are some criteria that could be used:

>>>> are there more people per day being killed?

>>>> are more people depressed and miserable now, or when Saddam was in charge?

>>>> is there more sectarian violence between Muslim factions?

>>>> are there more people incarcerated.

The only clear answer to above questions is the last one above. There are less people incarcerated. There are also less people fearful of speaking up nowadays than during Saddam's time. There is more money in Iraq, because anywhere the US goes, it dumps truckloads of money. But like any place with corrupt leaders, the money just stays with the people who first come in contact with it. It doesn't trickle down to places where it's needed.

Most 'dune' countries in that part of the world, with highly restrictive Muslim traditions, are content if they don't have daily bloodshed. It's a different yardstick (for measuring contentment) than countries with fair-minded people and forests and water and children frolicking joyfully.

[simple1]

For anyone really interested in Iraq i recommend the book, 'Fiasco, the American adventure in Iraq'.by Thomas E Ricks. It lays bare the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq by G W Bush, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, and Paul Wolfowitz, Chickenhawks to a man. Against all advice from the Military they went ahead, didn't have a clue, all based on lies.Of course the soldiers on the ground paid the price. All of these gung ho advocates for war were draft dodgers when they had their chance to show what they were made of during the Vietnam war. President Bush's Daddy got him a posting, where he spent his time drinking beer and making sure the skies over Texas were safe! No wonder he is held in such contempt.

+1 very informative reading. A good idea not to forget the terrible wave of killing of civilians unleashed by poor policy decisions by Bremer & co.

EDIT: Plus more than one million Iraqi refugees just in Syria that many people in Western countries ignore or forget.

Edited July 26, 2012 by simple1

[coma]

For anyone really interested in Iraq i recommend the book, 'Fiasco, the American adventure in Iraq'.by Thomas E Ricks. It lays bare the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq by G W Bush, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, and Paul Wolfowitz, Chickenhawks to a man. Against all advice from the Military they went ahead, didn't have a clue, all based on lies.Of course the soldiers on the ground paid the price. All of these gung ho advocates for war were draft dodgers when they had their chance to show what they were made of during the Vietnam war. President Bush's Daddy got him a posting, where he spent his time drinking beer and making sure the skies over Texas were safe! No wonder he is held in such contempt.

Hahahaha. That sums it right up in one single word. Fiasco.

Michael Moore's movie Farenhiet 9/11 is another good example of how well Iraq was doing before the 2003 invasion and how fuc#$ed up it was and is post invasion.

[simple1]

For anyone really interested in Iraq i recommend the book, 'Fiasco, the American adventure in Iraq'.by Thomas E Ricks. It lays bare the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq by G W Bush, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, and Paul Wolfowitz, Chickenhawks to a man. Against all advice from the Military they went ahead, didn't have a clue, all based on lies.Of course the soldiers on the ground paid the price. All of these gung ho advocates for war were draft dodgers when they had their chance to show what they were made of during the Vietnam war. President Bush's Daddy got him a posting, where he spent his time drinking beer and making sure the skies over Texas were safe! No wonder he is held in such contempt.

Hahahaha. That sums it right up in one single word. Fiasco.

Michael Moore's movie Farenhiet 9/11 is another good example of how well Iraq was doing before the 2003 invasion and how fuc#$ed up it was and is post invasion.

I don't believe the majority of Iraqis (comprised of Shiites, as well as Kurds) would agree on how well they were doing during Saddam Hussein's rule. Some reports say more than 600,000 Iraqis dies during his dictatorship, if you include the Iraq/Iran war that was initiated by him

[coma]

For anyone really interested in Iraq i recommend the book, 'Fiasco, the American adventure in Iraq'.by Thomas E Ricks. It lays bare the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq by G W Bush, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, and Paul Wolfowitz, Chickenhawks to a man. Against all advice from the Military they went ahead, didn't have a clue, all based on lies.Of course the soldiers on the ground paid the price. All of these gung ho advocates for war were draft dodgers when they had their chance to show what they were made of during the Vietnam war. President Bush's Daddy got him a posting, where he spent his time drinking beer and making sure the skies over Texas were safe! No wonder he is held in such contempt.

Hahahaha. That sums it right up in one single word. Fiasco.

Michael Moore's movie Farenhiet 9/11 is another good example of how well Iraq was doing before the 2003 invasion and how fuc#$ed up it was and is post invasion.

I don't believe the majority of Iraqis (comprised of Shiites, as well as Kurds) would agree on how well they were doing during Saddam Hussein's rule. Some reports say more than 600,000 Iraqis dies during his dictatorship, if you include the Iraq/Iran war that was initiated by him

Being on the streets during the occuption there wasn't too many Iraqis I spoke to that would agree with that statement. Nor did they give two shits about the Kurds [sad]. All they wanted was the US out, followed by food,electricity and running water. None of which they had at that time. And for a very long time.

Had the US retained the Iraqi army I believe the situation would have been and would now be a hell of a lot better with a lot less bloodshed then and now and in the future.Therefore having a much more peaceful and lasting Iraq. But NO.

Edited July 26, 2012 by coma

[simple1]

For anyone really interested in Iraq i recommend the book, 'Fiasco, the American adventure in Iraq'.by Thomas E Ricks. It lays bare the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq by G W Bush, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, and Paul Wolfowitz, Chickenhawks to a man. Against all advice from the Military they went ahead, didn't have a clue, all based on lies.Of course the soldiers on the ground paid the price. All of these gung ho advocates for war were draft dodgers when they had their chance to show what they were made of during the Vietnam war. President Bush's Daddy got him a posting, where he spent his time drinking beer and making sure the skies over Texas were safe! No wonder he is held in such contempt.

Hahahaha. That sums it right up in one single word. Fiasco.

Michael Moore's movie Farenhiet 9/11 is another good example of how well Iraq was doing before the 2003 invasion and how fuc#$ed up it was and is post invasion.

I don't believe the majority of Iraqis (comprised of Shiites, as well as Kurds) would agree on how well they were doing during Saddam Hussein's rule. Some reports say more than 600,000 Iraqis dies during his dictatorship, if you include the Iraq/Iran war that was initiated by him

Being on the streets during the occuption there wasn't too many Iraqis I spoke to that would agree with that statement. Nor did they give two shits about the Kurds [sad]. All they wanted was the US out, followed by food,electricity and running water. None of which they had at that time. And for a very long time.

Had the US retained the Iraqi army I believe the situation would have been and would now be a hell of a lot better with a lot less bloodshed then and now and in the future.Therefore having a much more peaceful and lasting Iraq. But NO.

Agree re army - lets not forget the disbandment of the Ba'ath party. Unfortunately the US didn't implement the successful Allied policy for the denazification of Germany at the end of WW11.

EDIT: a huge unknown would have been the potential of ongoing suppression of the Shiite majority and their response, after the promises of support from the US government.

Edited July 26, 2012 by simple1

[Morch]

If the situation post-Saddam is worse or not, is something that is hard to judge (what is the criteria?).

is good point. here are some criteria that could be used:

>>>> are there more people per day being killed?

>>>> are more people depressed and miserable now, or when Saddam was in charge?

>>>> is there more sectarian violence between Muslim factions?

>>>> are there more people incarcerated.

The only clear answer to above questions is the last one above. There are less people incarcerated. There are also less people fearful of speaking up nowadays than during Saddam's time. There is more money in Iraq, because anywhere the US goes, it dumps truckloads of money. But like any place with corrupt leaders, the money just stays with the people who first come in contact with it. It doesn't trickle down to places where it's needed.

Most 'dune' countries in that part of the world, with highly restrictive Muslim traditions, are content if they don't have daily bloodshed. It's a different yardstick (for measuring contentment) than countries with fair-minded people and forests and water and children frolicking joyfully.

I'm not really sure if there's more money in Iraq nowadays, as a major oil producer there was a lot pouring in even before the USA & Co. invaded. Of course, most of it went to the guys on top and their cronies, so not much difference on that front.

"Content" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I agree that from a Western (and some neighboring countries) utilitarian point of view, a strong arm dictator makes things easier to handle. Probably works for some of the population, if they are from the right ethnic group etc.

Fair-minded people in those wondrous forested land were butchering each other over religion, tradition, ethnic differences and whatnot way before Islam emerged. Religion-wise, they just had a head start on Islam on the road to mellowing down. The main difference is that nowadays they're not into having a go at each other, so much as blowing up people farther away.

[Morch]

For anyone really interested in Iraq i recommend the book, 'Fiasco, the American adventure in Iraq'.by Thomas E Ricks. It lays bare the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq by G W Bush, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, and Paul Wolfowitz, Chickenhawks to a man. Against all advice from the Military they went ahead, didn't have a clue, all based on lies.Of course the soldiers on the ground paid the price. All of these gung ho advocates for war were draft dodgers when they had their chance to show what they were made of during the Vietnam war. President Bush's Daddy got him a posting, where he spent his time drinking beer and making sure the skies over Texas were safe! No wonder he is held in such contempt.

Hahahaha. That sums it right up in one single word. Fiasco.

Michael Moore's movie Farenhiet 9/11 is another good example of how well Iraq was doing before the 2003 invasion and how fuc#$ed up it was and is post invasion.

The USA's involvement in Iraq was certainly no success story (unless looked at from some big industry point of view). That does not absolve Saddam from actions during his reign, nor makes the USA responsible for all of them.

As for Michael Moore - I liked that movie too, doesn't mean I gobbled up every detail: look again at links provided earlier, as those things DID happen. Michael Moore himself does not claim otherwise, by the way, just got a argument (of sorts) as to why this wasn't portrayed in the film:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,659914_4,00.html (bottom of page, a bit too long and a partial quote could turn into another argument, sorry).

[Morch]

For anyone really interested in Iraq i recommend the book, 'Fiasco, the American adventure in Iraq'.by Thomas E Ricks. It lays bare the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq by G W Bush, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, and Paul Wolfowitz, Chickenhawks to a man. Against all advice from the Military they went ahead, didn't have a clue, all based on lies.Of course the soldiers on the ground paid the price. All of these gung ho advocates for war were draft dodgers when they had their chance to show what they were made of during the Vietnam war. President Bush's Daddy got him a posting, where he spent his time drinking beer and making sure the skies over Texas were safe! No wonder he is held in such contempt.

Hahahaha. That sums it right up in one single word. Fiasco.

Michael Moore's movie Farenhiet 9/11 is another good example of how well Iraq was doing before the 2003 invasion and how fuc#$ed up it was and is post invasion.

I don't believe the majority of Iraqis (comprised of Shiites, as well as Kurds) would agree on how well they were doing during Saddam Hussein's rule. Some reports say more than 600,000 Iraqis dies during his dictatorship, if you include the Iraq/Iran war that was initiated by him

Being on the streets during the occuption there wasn't too many Iraqis I spoke to that would agree with that statement. Nor did they give two shits about the Kurds [sad]. All they wanted was the US out, followed by food,electricity and running water. None of which they had at that time. And for a very long time.

Had the US retained the Iraqi army I believe the situation would have been and would now be a hell of a lot better with a lot less bloodshed then and now and in the future.Therefore having a much more peaceful and lasting Iraq. But NO.

Some people had it better under Saddam, sure.

Some people don't give a toss what happens to minorities (or different ethnic groups) in their country, as long as they themselves are not involved, yes.

A lot of bad things happened during the invasion and even after Saddam was deposed, true.

Not so sure about the general bloodshed and body count before/after. Also has to do with the identity of groups effected.

Retaining the army as it was would have presented both a political issue (most high brass was identified with Saddam's regime) and a PR one (deposing a tyrant in the name of democracy and putting a new one in place is a hard sale).

[maidu]

People are a strange species. Most seem to be more content with an iron-fisted controller at the helm. Freedom of expression and making their own decisions, is too scary for most people.

I was reading a comparison of groups of people who hail from rain forests, compared to those who hail from open plains and deserts. Among the gems: Desert dwellers prevailed, historically. But more interesting, desert dwellers are monotheistic, sexually inhibited, controlling of women and of how people think, and more disciplinarian - than rain forest people.

Iraq/Mesopotamia has always been open plains and desert, and hosts some of the oldest cities anywhere. And, as we know, their culture harbors hyper-controlling immans, who would rather see a child raped than see someone make an unflattering gesture toward a holy book.

[Scott]

That's an interesting point, Maidu, and that's the reason that I usually refer to the cultural aspects of the situation rather than the religious ones. I very much doubt if they could all be converted to some other religion that violence would suddenly disappear.

[ttelise]

People are a strange species. Most seem to be more content with an iron-fisted controller at the helm. Freedom of exp<b></b>ression and making their own decisions, is too scary for most people.

I was reading a comparison of groups of people who hail from rain forests, compared to those who hail from open plains and deserts. Among the gems: Desert dwellers prevailed, historically. But more interesting, desert dwellers are monotheistic, sexually inhibited, controlling of women and of how people think, and more disciplinarian - than rain forest people.

Iraq/Mesopotamia has always been open plains and desert, and hosts some of the oldest cities anywhere. And, as we know, their culture harbors hyper-controlling immans, who would rather see a child raped than see someone make an unflattering gesture toward a holy book.

Your first paragraph describes Republicans in the US.

[maidu]

People are a strange species. Most seem to be more content with an iron-fisted controller at the helm. Freedom of expression and making their own decisions, is too scary for most people.

I was reading a comparison of groups of people who hail from rain forests, compared to those who hail from open plains and deserts. Among the gems: Desert dwellers prevailed, historically. But more interesting, desert dwellers are monotheistic, sexually inhibited, controlling of women and of how people think, and more disciplinarian - than rain forest people.

Iraq/Mesopotamia has always been open plains and desert, and hosts some of the oldest cities anywhere. And, as we know, their culture harbors hyper-controlling immans, who would rather see a child raped than see someone make an unflattering gesture toward a holy book.

Your first paragraph describes Republicans in the US.

....and if the Republican leader is borderline dunce, then so much the better (thinking of Reagan, Ford, and Bush II) - because then the hardliners can dance all around with their witch hunting chants.

[Morch]

People are a strange species. Most seem to be more content with an iron-fisted controller at the helm. Freedom of expression and making their own decisions, is too scary for most people.

I was reading a comparison of groups of people who hail from rain forests, compared to those who hail from open plains and deserts. Among the gems: Desert dwellers prevailed, historically. But more interesting, desert dwellers are monotheistic, sexually inhibited, controlling of women and of how people think, and more disciplinarian - than rain forest people.

Iraq/Mesopotamia has always been open plains and desert, and hosts some of the oldest cities anywhere. And, as we know, their culture harbors hyper-controlling immans, who would rather see a child raped than see someone make an unflattering gesture toward a holy book.

If I'm not mistaken, most pack animals (or hive, if that's a better example) follow a well defined hierarchical social order. Maybe we're not so strange, just that the hardwiring is still in place.

Not sure about desert "people" prevailing (but that would depend on definitions) - most of the economic/military/political clout nowadays rests with "people" that never set foot in a desert. Might have been the case in earlier times, though, to some extent.

As for cultural differences - living in an area of scarce resources makes sexual inhibition common sense, covering of exposed bodies goes with the territory. Harsher discipline might be connected with better chances of survival.

Monotheism and the desert - three of the major monotheistic religions come from an area which can be described as desert (or arid), yes. But one has polytheistic roots, once you dig around a bit, and the other two can be described as being offshoots (no disrespect meant) or inspired by it. Polytheism was there much earlier and persisted for quite a while.

Mesopotamia actually translates as "land between rivers" (or something quite close). In olden times it was renowned for its fertile land and hosted numerous empires which had very little to do with imams, monotheism or over-zealous persecution.

[folium]

The culture of the region is steeped in a long tradition of violence.

As is the culture of every region of this planet populated by humans.