Four suicide bombings kill 175 in Iraq »
Posted By JamesMarcus 1 year, 10 months ago in NewsFour suicide bombers hit a Kurdish Yazidi community in northwest Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least 175 people and wounding 200 others, the Iraqi military said. The bombs tore through communities near Qahataniya, 75 miles west of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
100 Views Share Story 71 Comments Report
Submitted By:
JamesMarcus
James Marcus is a writer, translator, critic, and editor. He is the author of Amazonia: Five Years at the Epicenter of the Dot-Com Juggernaut and ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 170 of 189 Comments (view all)
-
-
0%
quackpot1 year, 10 months ago
Just a start of what will come when the Iraqis are allowed to sort out their own affairs.
Reply -
0%
HistoricallyCorrect1 year, 10 months ago
This is all the peace that we're responsible for, right? I dunno about you guys, but I don't want our troops sent to this.
Reply -
0%
libsRfunny1 year, 10 months ago
"More great news from Iraq. Will this senseless killing never end?"
Yeah, when dems buck up and give our sodliers the support and tools necessary to help eradicate Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Reply -
-
0%
Varadinum1 year, 10 months ago
Iraq will be another Vietnam for US troops. Poor guys still fighting for The First Cowboy
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
quackpot1 year, 10 months ago
Since the bombings were not in Baghdad, where the surge is located, Bush will still claim that the surge is working well.
Reply -
0%
phleghem011 year, 10 months ago
This attack wasn't against Shiites, it wasn't against Sunnis, it wasn't even against Americans. What political statement was being made? How does this attack demonstrate anything besides the cold-blooded mindset of a group of people who value life at less than zero?
Reply-
0%
phleghem011 year, 10 months ago
So you're arguing that our presence in Iraq (which I agree with you is a bad idea) somehow caused this attack on a group of people that, as far as I can see, weren't involved in any fighting, and weren't allied with anyone. How did we provide justification for this attack? Please explain how there can possibly be any justification for this attack.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 10 months ago
Way past time for the Congress to grow some balls and get the f**k out of Iraq.
Reply -
-
0%
splitrch1 year, 10 months ago
"Saw a piece on TV recently ,talking about how the Kurdish were enjoying relative peace in the midst of all the madness."
That's part of why they were attacked. They have allot of oil up north and a burgeoning economy. By destroying the example of a better possibility for Iraq, the bastards who did this also destroy hope for those Iraqis not living in the Kurdish north. This is sickening on so many levels I think I need to vomit now.
Reply
-
-
0%
rosengj1 year, 10 months ago
Please help me get Cindy Sheehan nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize!
More info at:
Tell your friends!!!
Reply -
0%
NoWayMan1 year, 10 months ago
we need to be in iraq. after all...
they were responsible for 911 (oh wait, most of the hijackers came from saudi arabia)
they sold nuke tech to iran (oh wait, that was AQ Khan, from pakistan)
they are funding al qaeda operations worldwide (oh wait, a good portion of that money comes from saudi arabia)
they're hiding osama (oh wait, saddam hated osama, who is most likely in pakistan)
wait, so why did we invade iraq?
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny1 year, 10 months ago
No, the US had nothing to do with saddam's rise to power, but leave it to a lefty to lie and say we did.
Reply -
0%
Antitax1 year, 10 months ago
You did! you bad boy. Why would you do that? Since I am not a liberal, I am not included in your collective "we." Shame for shame!
I sure as hell had nothing to do with putting him in power. So you screwed up big time.
Incidentally, the US had nothing to do with putting Saddam in power, although the US did back him in the war against Iran. Is that what you are referring to???
Reply -
-
-
0%
pantsrpants1 year, 10 months ago
Everytime I visit one of these discussions all I ever hear is how much everyone hates this war and how much we need to get out of it. Then, I hear that Americans want Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani or Hillary ******on as President. Obviously we don't want out of there that bad! Meanwhile, the candidates that want us out are viewed as "quacks" or "long shots". Can anyone explain this to me?
Reply-
-
0%
Antitax1 year, 10 months ago
Probably because they are quacks or long shots, maybe??? You think!
Reply
-
-
0%
KnightsDragon21 year, 10 months ago
well i didn't hear were any americans were killed in this expolsion. but i didn't see any coment about that. Would you be happer if our guys had been between the explosion and the ones killed?i love the compassion showen for the iraqies shows you have a soul. to bad you can't be compasionate about our people getting killed. to bad there are no sad feelings for our people . allways the poor iraqies . Well, i say better them then our guys. so what if they blow up thier own people . these are kill crazy people they just want to kill doesn't matter who or why just so they are killing its the only thing that make them happy. i'm not compationate enuff or Christion enuff to care . These people from birth are taught to hate Jews and Americans, if they kill each other off works for me . Bring our people home and let them have at it .
Reply-
0%
TJefferson1 year, 10 months ago
"to bad you can't be compasionate about our people getting killed"
I believe that the primary reason that opponents of the war ARE opponents of the war is due to the fact that close to 4,000 AMERICANS have been killed for no good reason. I don't believe that showing revulsion for the utter chaos that has been unleashed against Iraqis because of a war based utterly on lies shows any less compassion towards American soldiers.
Reply -
xyzzComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
saneman1 year, 10 months ago
As long as there is oil in Iraq, the US will not leave. The US oil companies are reaping billions and billions of dollars of profits off that oil even though very little of that oil gets to the US, because the US oil companies sell the oil around the world. The US only gets less than 11% of that oil and the rest is sold to non-US users.
Reply -
-
0%
Antitax1 year, 10 months ago
If you read the artice, it was not US troops that killed these people. It is not reasonab;le that the US simply leaving would prevent more of the same. Use your head for something other than a liberal mouthpiece. Your breath stinks!
Reply -
-
-
0%
TJefferson1 year, 10 months ago
Another sign of "progress". Now the military is claiming that major attacks against US troops are down 50% since the surge began. If this is the case it is irrelevant because apparently the insurgents are becoming more efficient in their attacks. Check out the month to month comparison in American casualties in 2007, since the surge began, compared to the same months in 2006.
Jan-2006 62 Jan-2007 84
Feb-2006 55 Feb-2007 81
Mar-2006 31 Mar-2007 81
Apr-2006 76 Apr-2007 104
May-2006 69 May-2007 126
Jun-2006 61 Jun-2007 101
Jul-2006 43 Jul-2007 79
Aug-2006 65 Aug-2007 41 (projected 91 [41 dead after 14 days = 2.92/day * 31 days = 90.78 casualties])
total casualties Jan-Aug (2006) = 462
total casualties Jan-Aug (2007) = 697 (to date) and 739 (projected)
source http://icasualties.org/oif/
Reply-
0%
blinkers1 year, 10 months ago
The statistics indeed paint a grim picture, TJefferson. Good post. By Neo-Con logic more US troop deaths indicate greater success in hunting down and killing "the enemy" (take your pick who that might be: Al Sadr Shi'ites, AQ in Iraq, Sunni death squads, Baathist malcontents, or just an ordinary guy who's had his family butchered by one faction or another and just wants a potshot at a readily-indentifiable occupier).
You can be sure that comparable figures for "enemy deaths" show the same trends. Trouble is, where is "victory" in all this killing?
Reply -
0%
joeblowe1 year, 10 months ago
Although your numbers may be accurate, the Army command has explained it this way:
We have MORE troops in a combat zone, and we are more aggressively seeking armed terrorists. It is reasonable to assume we are going to suffer more casualties.
Not that this EXPLANATION is a sufficient EXCUSE, but it does make sense.
Reply
-
-
0%
NelsonR1 year, 10 months ago
Bush/Cheney/Petraeus, come September they will request more time for Iraq and our Representative will cave into a prolonged and endless war we cannot win. Hillary has said as much, she does not want to immediately withdraw and my question, if you are against this war, do not give me a lunatic answer for staying. She and others say we can not expeditiously withdraw without risking casualties, B.S. and we all know it. You have air cover and retreat in an orderly manner. Call me for information since our leaders and Generals use this lame excuse for staying.
Now we have done all we can, the Sunni's are armed and ready by America, the Shia's are armed and ready by Iran. It is now up to them to settle the matter.
Reply -
-
0%
SixWishes1 year, 10 months ago
Every report, every word of every news story, everything we are fed is shaped, moulded, altered, spun, sexed up, filtered and squashed to produce a message that supports a universal goal by those shaping them.
I don't want to go all "tinfoil hat" on everyone, but just be aware that you are going to take notice of everything that supports your argument in regards to Iraq, and discredit others that do not conform to your view. A view, which is highly likely, to have been ingrained by someone higher up the food chain than you.
Doesn't feel nice to be manipulated, does it?
As for me, I have one view on Iraq - and that is that anyone innocent that dies is sad and not right. Anyone that makes conscious decisions to kill deserves anything they get, though.
Reply-
0%
patnmeril1 year, 10 months ago
Umm I would have to believe that declaring war on another country would be a "concious decision to kill". taking that thought a step further would say that supporting a war would also be a conscious decision to kill.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Raiderwall1 year, 10 months ago
Iraq is a mess, a right fine mess.
I'd like to thank Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush for doing one of the greatest hack jobs of all time. Good going guys, way to not run a war.
If we stay there's the constant drip, drip, kaboom, of violence and mayhem.
If we leave it's a failed state and an even bigger breeding ground for terrorists than it already is. Good going guys, way to not run an occupat... er liberation.
The surge is working. Anywhere the troops go they're effective. So, we need to surge the whole country. Shut down the borders, round up the bad guys, and deal with them.
But we don't have enough troops. The Military's stretched thin.
Well, where are all the able bodied Bush supporters from 04, the people who want to stay and fight. 60 million votes for Bush in 04. Surely, there are enough fit folks in that crowd, the army could use to clamp down on the bad guys in Iraq.
STEP UP! Your country needs you for the fight of the century. If not now, when? If not you, Who?
Reply -
0%
cheif1 year, 10 months ago
You got it right about the Surge...that's why the religious idiots went north to where there's no Sunni/Shiite problem they can exploit...these people were actually getting along - it was determined all the bombers were from out of town, so to speak - I wouldn't be surprised if all of the Iraqi citizens get so fed up with these idiots (Islamics killing Islamics in the name of their little idiot god) - how does that make sense to anyone? Everyone knows who did it and why, do they actually thing the Kurds are going to blame the Americans?
Slowly they're disenfranchising themselves through their own stupidity - they should have waited for the Democrats to get in power and run from the place and hand it over to them without any more bloodshed from the Islamic crowd...they're wasting good bombs on good people for nothing....
Reply-
0%
Obaku1 year, 10 months ago
You seem confused.
Let me help.
Al Qaeda's objective has always been - since before 2001 - to get the U.S. involved in a prolonged and bloody conflict in a Muslim country. Osama bin Laden saw what it did to the Soviets, and thinks it can work on the U.S. (How can I know that, you ask? Why, because Osama has said so himself, publicly, for the record, on multiple occasions.)
They wanted Afghanistan, but the Shrub and the neocons gave him the gift of Iraq. Their theory, and 'strategery' is based on a fantasy, bin Laden's is based on a detailed understanding of the culture and the history of the Middle East.
So, beyond the "sectarian conflict" in Iraq, Al Qaeda has only to de-stabilize. If it makes Iraqis fearful, fine. If it increases the Shia-Sunni conflict, fine. The only essential goal is that the U.S. continue to stay, to lose men, to spend money, and that Muslims feel angry about the U.S.
So George Bush wants to "stay the course", and so does Osama.
Reply -
0%
Daylight1 year, 10 months ago
cheif
(Islamics killing Islamics in the name of their little idiot god)
You talk like an A*Hole, nobody kills anybody in the name of any idiot god, if at all that idiot is god that idiot is Bush, people are being killed in the name of Democracy that is the American religion, your constitution is your holy book, your congress is the church which authorised these invasion which is now calming both Iraqis and American lives, while Bush and Chaney enjoy their wine.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jerryskid11 year, 10 months ago
The RepubliCANTS have it all under control. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" - W
Reply -
-
0%
cherev1 year, 10 months ago
More dead Americans....how that must bring a smile to the lips of "American" liberals, democrats, and leftists.
Reply -
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.