0
   

The Brave Freedom Fighters

 
 
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 08:59 am
27 killed in Baghdad suicide blast

Police: Most of dead were children getting treats from U.S. troops

Wednesday, July 13, 2005; Posted: 9:56 a.m. EDT (13:56 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide bomber blew up a vehicle Wednesday near a U.S. military convoy and large group of Iraqi children in Baghdad, killing 27 people, Iraqi police and hospital officials said.

Iraqi police said most of the dead were children. The attack also left 20 people wounded.

The U.S. military said at least seven children and a U.S. soldier died in the attack. Three U.S. soldiers were wounded.

The soldiers were handing out treats to the children when the bomb went off, police said.

The attack -- which happened around 10:50 a.m. (2:50 a.m.ET) in the eastern Baghdad neighborhood of al-Jaddeda -- also set a nearby house on fire, police said.

"The car bomber made a deliberate decision to attack one of our vehicles as the soldiers were engaged in a peaceful operation with Iraqi citizens," Maj. Russ Goemaere said in the statement. "The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

Since the start of the war, 1,756 U.S. troops have died in Iraq.

In another suicide attack, a bomber detonated himself late Tuesday inside the al-Kebir Sunni Mosque in the ethnically mixed city of Jalawlah, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southeast of Baquba, killing two people and wounding 16 others, police said.

According to a police official, the bomber was wearing an explosives-packed vest.

Jalawlah is a mixed town of Kurds and Arabs.

Insurgents launched three separate attacks on Iraqi police in western Baghdad neighborhoods Wednesday, police said.

One member of the Quick Reaction Team was killed by gunmen in Ameri on his way to work, police said.

About 30 minutes later, a gunmen opened fire on a police patrol in Mansur, wounding one, police said. Later, at about 10 a.m., two police officers and three civilians were wounded in a gunfight in Nafaq al Shurta.

On Tuesday, gunmen killed Ali Younis al-Shama, the head of the International Organization of Iraqi Human Rights, and three others in his office.

Other developments

A man described as a "significant operative" in the network of Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was captured Monday in Baghdad, U.S. military officials told CNN. The man, identified as Abu Abd al-Aziz, is believed to be the leader of al-Zarqawi's organization in Baghdad, the military officials said. No further details of the capture were provided.


Two Iraqi civilians were killed and another seven wounded when a parked car bomb exploded Tuesday at 11 a.m. in Kirkuk's northern industrial neighborhood, said Kirkuk's police chief Brig. Gen. Shirko Shakir Hakeem.


One Iraqi civilian was killed and another nine were wounded in a terrorist attack in Tal Afar near the Syrian border Tuesday, the U.S. military said.


SOURCE
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,586 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 11:28 am
These attacks can not be stopped by our military.

When will the Iraqi Muslim leadership strongly rally the citizens to get behind their efforts to stop this?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 12:42 pm
There is such an effort?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 01:34 am
My point was that these people are nothing more than murdering swine, and it's good we're fighting them, because people who purposely, deliberately blow civilians to shreds need to be opposed in the world.
0 Replies
 
Mirriwinni
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 02:16 am
Sad, stupid, and unforgivable...but, had no US soldiers been in Iraq, do you think the killer would have bombed these children anyway..?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:16 am
Mirriwinni wrote:
Sad, stupid, and unforgivable...but, had no US soldiers been in Iraq, do you think the killer would have bombed these children anyway..?

I think that you're trying to justify the brutal, deliberate murder of innocents. You ought to be ashamed.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:19 am
Mirriwinni wrote:
Sad, stupid, and unforgivable...but, had no US soldiers been in Iraq, do you think the killer would have bombed these children anyway..?


This has been going on for hundreds of year. What makes you think that coalition troops are the cause?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:38 pm
woiyo wrote:
Mirriwinni wrote:
Sad, stupid, and unforgivable...but, had no US soldiers been in Iraq, do you think the killer would have bombed these children anyway..?


This has been going on for hundreds of year. What makes you think that coalition troops are the cause?


Blame America first!
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:38 pm
Brandon:

The insurgents were never our intended target in this war, neither were terrorists. It was Saddam Hussein and his army. We used WMD's and a few other reasons for invading. To use 'killing terrorists' as good reasons for invading Iraq is ad hoc at best.

They fight without honor and should be opposed - but invading a country that was crippled by sanctions in the name of removing WMD's that they did not have and then after the fact attempt to make a link to terrorism that only exists after the former infastructure was removed is not sound logic.

TTF
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:54 pm
Saddam was involved with terrorism before Iraq fell. That was one of the reasons for invading, to remove him from the game of supporting terrorists.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:57 pm
Bullshit, Baldimo. That was NOT one of the reasons for invading, according to the piece of **** in chief.

By the way, Brandon, I too feel that people who target civilians are f*cking scum. I hope that makes you feel better.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:05 pm
kickycan wrote:
Bullshit, Baldimo. That was NOT one of the reasons for invading, according to the piece of **** in chief.

By the way, Brandon, I too feel that people who target civilians are f*cking scum. I hope that makes you feel better.


You are a blind partison. You should reread his speechs on the matter. Including the State of the Union address. Are you of those that only thinks we went there for WMD's only? Let me guess you think we went there because Saddam was involved in 9/11?

I smell something. I think it is coming from the bottom of your shoe.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:06 pm
Yeah, it must be the pile of bullshit I stepped in that you just posted.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:33 pm
kickycan wrote:
Yeah, it must be the pile of bullshit I stepped in that you just posted.


"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)"

State of the Union Speech 2003.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-22.html
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:39 pm
You know, the funny thing about this administration is that they made up so many bullshit reasons to go to Iraq that now you blind partisans can look back and cherry pick whichever one best suits your argument.

You should watch out or you'll step in your own steaming pile of dung.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:51 pm
kickycan wrote:
You know, the funny thing about this administration is that they made up so many bullshit reasons to go to Iraq that now you blind partisans can look back and cherry pick whichever one best suits your argument.

You should watch out or you'll step in your own steaming pile of dung.


It was all laid out at the same time. I can't help it that you don't pay attention. Should I place your poo in a paper bag and place it back on your front door step?

You don't like to be bested do you? What a sore debater.

This is for kicky.

I'm taking my ball and I'm going home.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:55 pm
Hehehe...this was fun. Let's argue again soon.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:59 pm
George Bush 2003 state of the union speech, in the section immediately following what Baldimo quoted
Quote:
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the


As the wingnuts stated"he onlystrung together 16 words about nuclear weapons fuel in his speech" I was always curious about all the other WMD crap hed spewn that night. Right after his BS about medical bennies for old folks he started right in on this ****. Cmon, you cant spin crap like this and maintain any credibility. Anyone can find and paste up what Bush said (and we still have Cheneys speeches and Powells miserable speech to the UN all about WMD and the "fear Factor" employed by George
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:02 pm
The fact remains that it was stated.

Besides it was a state of the Union address, not a WMD speech.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:05 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:
Brandon:

The insurgents were never our intended target in this war, neither were terrorists. It was Saddam Hussein and his army. We used WMD's and a few other reasons for invading. To use 'killing terrorists' as good reasons for invading Iraq is ad hoc at best.

They fight without honor and should be opposed - but invading a country that was crippled by sanctions in the name of removing WMD's that they did not have and then after the fact attempt to make a link to terrorism that only exists after the former infastructure was removed is not sound logic.

TTF

Nor is it my logic, but you misunderstand everything else, so why not this too? I am only mentioning the true fact that these insurgents are murdering swine, who purposely target babies, and it just so happens that they absolutely must be opposed in the world. There was no attempt whatever by me to give that as an original reason for invading Iraq. However, the fact they we are opposing murderers of this sort is a good thing.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq were a consequence of its invasion of its peaceful neighbor Kuwait, and would not have caused the hardship they did, had Hussein not been siphoning off the money for his personal enrichment.

As for Iraq not having WMD, we quite properly worked with a probability based on incomplete evidence. Iraq had indeed possessed WMD, the only question is how recently. If Hussein did destroy his WMD, had he wanted to, he could have easily arranged convincing proof of such destruction, as he had sworn to do, but evidently he didn't feel like it. One single WMD attack on a population center could leave hundred of thousands dead, and therefore, even a moderate probability of their existence by a madman must be absolutely resolved. Your logic sucks on all counts.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Brave Freedom Fighters
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 11:42:59