43 die in blasts at Baghdad bus station

[nodehopper]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A pair of car bombs exploded Wednesday morning at a bus station in central Baghdad, killing at least 43 people and wounding 88, Iraqi police said.

A third explosion was reported near al-Kindi Hospital, where the casualties from the first two bombings were taken.

The explosions occurred about 10 minutes apart, starting at 7:45 a.m. (11:45 p.m. ET), at the al-Nahda bus terminal, which provides service to southern Iraq.

Video from the scene showed the smoldering wreckage of a vehicle near two buses, but black smoke obscured much of the view. Iraqi police said 22 vehicles were damaged.

/snip

more: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/17/iraq.violence/index.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. last throes takes on a horrific meaning here

with 6 US soldiers also killed yesterday.

[Newsjock]

2. We are all Iraqis today

8/17/05 changed everything. Never forget. (etc.)

[uppityperson]

7. You sound as cynical as I am

On a realistic note, we are all world citizens. damn

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. except we have a few illegals, mainly elected officials in office

would that the world deal with their illegal status.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. This bombing seems pointless

As awkward as it as an American is to ask this, why aren't the insurgents killing foreign troops? An attack on a bus station would only kill mostly Iraqis. An idiot could figure that out.

Even granting that some insurgents think some Iraqis (Sunni Arabs) are better than others (especially Shia), there is nothing in this report that would indicate that even a particular group of Iraqis were targeted.

This makes no sense. On whose side are these people?

[brentspeak]

4. You mean you're just finally figuring this out?

The insurgants have never been on the Iraqi people's side. They are bloodthirsty killers who are trying to cause as much chaos as possible. Their ultimate goal is to force the troops out so they then can try for their own power grab.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. No, I'm not just figuring that out

It only makes sense if this is regarded less as an anti-colonial resistance and more as a civil war that the imperialists have been unable to prevent.

It seems the participants in this civil war regard the imperialists as irrelevant.

[geek tragedy]

16. You're exactly right--the end game for the various players in Iraq

is post-occupation Iraq. Everyone knows that the Americans will leave eventually--what happens then is the entire ballgame.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Bush leaving is problematic

Of course, Bush leaving would be the sensible thing to do, but never, never assume Bush will do the sensible thing.

As one of the cynics who believe that Bush and his pals knew very well that the reasons provided for the invasion were false and that the real reasons were to provide business opportunities for war profiteers and to bring Iraq's resources under the control of western transnational corporations, I don't believe they really want to leave any time soon.

[geek tragedy]

32. Politically, a long-term occupation is untenable. They'll have to leave

or the people will elect someone who will.

[Darranar]

43. There is no civil war...

The ethnic/religious divisions between the Shiites and the Sunnis are currently being exploited by the United States to divide the Iraqi people. How much basis these tensions actually have in fact is unclear.

The Sunnis have accepted Shiite leaders before. The majority of them do not seem particularly fond of Shiites who happen to be puppets of the colonial authorities, however, even if some of the Shiite religious authorities are willing to ignore this fact as long as their particular interpretation of Islam is imbedded into Iraqi law.

The imperialists are trying to play the Shiites against the Sunnis, because the Shiites are the majority and are for the most part, quite understandably, somewhat fearful of a renewal of Sunni control of the country. The idea is to get a colonial government with the support of a large portion of the Shiites, to ensure that it is not easily overthrown by those opposed to US domination of the country. Whether or not that will succeed is unclear; certainly it is far less than the invaders hoped when they originally invaded.

The people who would benefit most from increased religious strife are the occupiers, because it would inflame the tensions they are already exploiting. Some of what they have already done has I think had the intention of provoking such strife, especially the way the elections went, with a large portion of the Sunnis boycotting.

As for who launched this bombing, the cynical, conspiracy theorist part of me says it was the colonial authorities, probably through their Iraqi proxies. They are the only ones with the motive - spreading fear and increasing tensions aimlessly - and they certainly have the means. On the other hand, they have been effective enough at simply killing people without veiling it, so perhaps not.

The truth is not likely to ever come out about this particular incident.

[Gregorian]

9. After all of my time here, I actually did not know that.

And I guarantee almost no Americans know that. This is partly why we are in such trouble. We assume everyone should know. And we never make it simple enough for people to understand. You just did that. Thank you.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Most Americans don't know that

Most Americans don't know that because our corporate media keeps framing these attacks as anti-American.

Anti-American? How many Americans were killed in this one? Americans weren't even being targeted today.

[geek tragedy]

17. Ironically, both rightwingers and leftwingers fail to see this

as a civil war instead of rebellion.

The car bombings in Beirut were not aimed at Israel. Ditto here.

The insurgents are not so much concerned with whether the US withdraws, but rather the manner and the conditions under which the US does withdraw.

[barb162]

26. There have been many many attacks in tbe news of Iraqis

being assassinated (7 MDs last week getting into a vehicle, lots of women intellectuals, car bombs going off in village squares,etc) and there are no soldiers around. The attack today is another in a long string of examples of innocent Iraqis being targeted and killed

[primavera]

20. I daresay they don't see it that way

I imagine they probably have a different vision for the direction Iraq ought to go, they sense that for it to happen, the US and prodemocracy movements need to be eliminated and discredited, and the inability of the US to restore order and a sense of peaceful security for the Iraqi people achieves that goal. That obviously doesn't excuse their behavior, but I don't believe we contribute anything towards a solution by dismissing them simply as "bloodthirsty killers" - that's akin to the shrub's idiotic dismissal that everyone simply "hates us for our freedoms." Whether or not you share their priorities is immaterial; what matters is that these people are making what they, at least, and, more importantly, a steadily growing number of their fellows, perceive to be a wholly rational choice.

[barb162]

28. I see them as bloodthirsty killers, sickass terrorists

But I certainly am not dismissive of them. I think their aim is to take over the country despite what the Iraqis want, who they vote for, the working out of a valid constitution, etc. Whether these people are foreign based or Iraqi, they are trying to disrupt that country from going forward in its attempts to govern themselves as a republic.

[primavera]

30. So what are you going to do about them?

Just kill 'em all since they're evil bastards who don't deserve to live? See, that's kind of the pitfall in black and white, moralistic, absolutist interpretations of others: once you conclude that they're just plain evil, what else is there to do except kill them? Yet if you kill them and the causes which gave rise to their presence in the first place still exist, you only make martyrs out of them, ensuring that, for every one you kill, ten more rise to take their place. I hope you're good at killing, because you're going to have to do a whole lot of it.

[barb162]

33. Please do not figuratively put words in my mouth

You and I have no idea of the numbers of these people, who is backing these people and if in fact ten more will spring up in their place. The suicide bombers are possibly/probably foreign- based but the non-suicide bombers are possibly ex-baathists or others who want to gain political control? Political types like the ones who held power before typically won't kill themselves to make a point because they want to live and regain the power they had before. The religious extremists will kill themselves or send others out to kill themselves. Do you seriously think that if today's bombings were caused by baathist types or some old Saddam loyalists, ten more will spring up? I am not so sure at all. In fact, I have no idea (and neither do you) who did this and whether it was religious or political or a combination or even whether it was foreign-based. What I can deduce though is that it was nothing other than an attempt to destabilize the country for their own ends and that they will kill innocent people by the scores to get their way. Now if you want to give these bloodthirsty killers a break by saying I shouldn't be judgemental about them, I would say that you should go sing that silly tune to the relatives of the people who were blown up in Iraq today.

[primavera]

36. Yeah, I seriously think that

Call it a trite cliche if you will, but what I've learned from reading my history is that violence does in fact beget more violence. The whole of the Middle East, and Iraq in particular, has been fertile soil for violent anti-Americanism and resentment towards us westernizing their cultures and arrogantly imposing upon them our belief systems. The more we attempt to do precisely that, the more we fuel that fire. Extremists, be they political or religious or both, get a lot of their base of support by fanning flames of anti-Americanism and charging that democracy and western instutitions will not protect them from the evil Americans. We come along and start talking about crusades against evil, shooting everything that moves, and we play right into their hands, we become the greatest recruitment poster extremism ever had. And if you'll look around, I think you'll find that the recent studies done by terrorism experts around the world seem to be confirming that we simply are not killing terrorists fast enough to outpace the growth of terrorist organizations, who are indeed getting a huge boost in their memberships thanks to US policies in the Middle East.

I'm not suggesting that the behavior of terrorists is excusable, nor that they should be beyond unfavorable judgements. I do suggest that we are actively making the problem worse by choosing to look on these people as intrinsically evil, motivated purely by malice. You can rest assured that the problem is a whole lot more complex than that and oversimplifying it only makes it worse.

[barb162]

37. You know I haven't got past your first sentence and I already have to

respond here. We didn't force our western values on anyone. Does somebody in Washington or Hollywood make other people in other countries go to the theater to watch our movies or something? Is someone standing there with a gun saying you have to pay money to watch that USA made movie? To listen to our music? To buy this or that book? To wear our style of clothes? To think our way? Perhaps if a society is so insular or perhaps backward looking or religion based or whatever that it cannot accept people in its society to try other ways, maybe there is something wrong with that society? If a society or certain segments of its population is so backward that it cannot accept a woman speaking her mind, is there something wrong with the woman or with the society or those segments of the society?

This reminds me of the civil rights movement in a way,in that was there something wrong with US society or with the black who wanted to vote. In my view it was US society. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and say there is something wrong with a society that cannot seem to accept other ideas. The forces of "looking backward" are very powerful in some societies. What is the difference between a woman in Iraq wanting equal rights and a black in the 60s in the US wanting equal rights. None. What's the chance that a woman in Iraq will get equal rights compared to a black in the US? The answer to that question is the SOCIETY. Why are "uppity" Iraqi women getting bullets in their heads. When somebody would rather kill you than let you have rights, I would conclude there is something sick to the fucking core in that society and culture (or the segments that are doing these murders of innocent people)

[primavera]

40. For someone living in a glass house...

... you sure do chuck a lot of stones.

You talk about backward looking societies which cannot accept other ideas. Would that be anything like a country which is doing its damndest to have creationism taught in lieu of evolution in its public schools? How well have you embraced the "other ideas" espoused by Islam with respect to women? Right. Well, they think the same thing about you. Yes, yes, I know, but you're in the right! By a strange coincidence, they think they are too, go figure, huh?

But this isn't my point, really, I agree with you that these societies would be a hell of a lot better off if they were to reorient their priorities a bit. But, strangely, they haven't asked for my opinion on the subject and, even more bizarre, they seem to be under the impression that it's their country and they ought to be able to live however they see fit. Just nuts, isn't it?

If you really don't understand why the rest of the world finds us intolerably arrogant, go back and re-read your posts. Black and white interpretations of how other cultures conduct themselves which depict you as 100% right and them as 100% wrong tend to come across as arrogant. And it's kind of hard to convince anyone of the merit of your views when your audience is pissed off at you and closed to what you have to say.

[barb162]

46. I hate to tell you

but you are living in the glass house. Here's why:

Back to my example of a black in the 60s. They got equal rights.
Women in Iraq want equal rights, they are half the population for pete's sake. Do you think they will get equal rights or the "robes" forced on them. It's already happening. Why are intellectuals and professionals getting shot again? Why are they leaving? Because they see what's coming? An Islamic theocracy of some sort? Will that be good for half the population? Perhaps you should write less about arrogance and more about facts.

[primavera]

47. Damn straight

I do live in a glass house, which is precisely why I am less ready to throw stones at others. What gives us the moral authority to preach to others how they should live their lives when we're fast marching down the road to totalitarianism?

Barb, you keep trying to talk about facts and to justify your positions and, believe it or not, but you're preaching to the choir. At no point have I suggested that Islamic society couldn't stand some reforms. But that isn't my point, which is why facts don't really enter into this discussion. I'm not interested in the rights or lack thereof enjoyed by the population - you don't need to convince me that they leave a whole lot of room for improvement. My sole concern here is how are you going to bring about change in these societies? And I put it to you that wildly lashing out at them as evildoers - regardless of whether the term fits or not - is not going to win friends and influence people, it's only going to galvanize people around the very institutions you're trying to change. So what's more important to you? Venting your indignation at injustice or changing it?

[barb162]

49. We are having a philosophical "issue" here

I think there's a point where a person should not have such moral relativism where he excuses the wrongs of others.

I am sure the BTK killer had a rough childhood. That does not mean the murders he committed are excused, right?

The Thirteen colonies were ruled by Britain for a long time but that doesn't mean 200 plus years later we still do car bombs over there, right?

Japan was bombed by the US and the Japanese bombed the US (Pearl Harbor, etc). That does not mean both peoples of the two countries go around car bombing each other for the next thousand years. Right?

China was brutally occupied by the Japanese in the 1930s and 40s and they killed millions of innocent Chinese. Is China car bombing and attacking Japan every chance they get?

Middle East: Somebody gets it in his head that he doesn't like American troops (you know, infidels) in Saudi Arabia, the "land of the two holy cities" so he decides some buildings should get some planes crashed into them. Later that day, scenes of people in the Middle East cheering wildly and shooting guns in the air. Now if one continues that "logic" if there are Moslems in the land of the Vatican, should Italy crash planes....

What I am talking about is not evil per se as I prefer staying away from religious connotations, but about archaic, backward-looking religion-based systems that seem not only incapable of improving their societies, but are hell-bent on blaming others, usually the West, for their problems. In fact the West had very little to do with the Middle East until the mid 1950s. Every time I start hearing talk about the Crusades 800-900 years ago, I wonder if everyone on this planet should then talk about what some group did to someone's ancestors in 1120AD and then use it as excuses for their present day behavior. Maybe we should all do that, huh? Hey, maybe Spain should start bombing Morocco because the Moors occupied Spain for a few hundred years up to 1492. Maybe India should start war with Britain because Britain occupied India for over a hudred years up to about 1948. Maybe Holocaust survivors should start bombing Germany for payback. If you would find that inexcusable, that would be totally understandable. It is inexcusable. At some point, I think people have to stop making these damned excuses for terrorists and the societies which breed them.

[primavera]

51. To an extent, but it's also fairly pragmatic...

... because what I'm really driving at is how do you remedy the problem?

Consider, if you will, a liquor store clerk shot dead by an assailant. Was the assailant a homocidal maniac who just enjoyed killing store clerks? Or was it a drug addict who was robbing the place to support his/her habit? Or maybe it was a third time felon who wanted to make sure there were no witnesses left alive to testify against him/her in court in a three strikes trial. Agreed, from the point of view of the dead store clerk, none of that makes any difference - s/he's equally dead regardless of what the motivations behind the attack were. Agreed, in no instance is is excusable behavior. However, if our goal is to ensure that tomorrow there won't be another store clerk lying dead somewhere, understanding what motivated the killing is of crucial importance.

Homocides have increased fantastically where three strikes laws were passed, precisely because criminals didn't want to risk having their victims come back and testify against them. Homocides increase dramatically whenever the state shuts down mental health clinics. In Edinborough, the state created clinics where drug addicts could legally get free drugs and drug-related crime all but disappeared overnight. All of these public policies have the potential to influence homocide rates. You're standing over the corpse of another dead store clerk and you want to do whatever you can to ensure that it doesn't happen again. How are you going to know whether your efforts should be directed towards improving mental health facilities, repealing a three strikes law, or expanding drug rehab programs if you don't know why this particular clerk was killed?

I submit that the same holds true for terrorists. No, their actions are not excusable, but simply telling them that their behavior is inappropriate isn't going to accomplish anything. Before you can take responsible policy steps, you need to know why they're doing what they're doing.

[barb162]

50. and look at this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/inpakistanspublicschoolsjihadstillpartoflessonplan

(reference my last sentence of the previous post on societies that breed terrorism)

[Darranar]

44. The Iraqi Resistance is composed of Iraqi people...

and as a result is firmly on "their side." They are hardly monolithic enough to try for their own power grab. The only thing they share is a desire not to have their country dominated by the United States, and the will and the means to use violence to achieve that objective.

As for the Sunni or Shiite extremists likely responsible for the non-US massacres of Iraqi civilians, they are principally on their own side, and probably meet your description of "bloodthirsty killers."

[Jack Rabbit]

48. So what is to be done about it?

Interestingly, one of the best-known Sunni extremists isn't Iraqi; he's Jordanian. What dog does he have in this fight? Zarqawi has no more business telling Iraqis how to run their country than Bush does.

Where in your description do some of the followers of Moqtaba al-Sadr fit? Are they members of the Iraqi resistance when they oppose the US presence and Shiite extremists when they threaten barbers for shaving men's beards?

[Darranar]

54. He wants to see his fantasy of an Arab empire according to his ideology...

and he wants to see Americans killed.

He has no right at all to do what he is doing, that is quite so.

I do not think the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr have engaged in terrorist attacks against innocent Iraqis, at least not of this sort. (Some of the actions they have taken against secularists probably qualify, though.) They are members of the Iraqi resistance, and some of them are also Shi'ite extremists.

[jokerman93]

52. I wonder

No offence intended here but -

Did you "figure this out" or can you site sources for your position? The reason I ask this is that there are a number of other plausible explanations for what may be going on here with the recent increase in the potency and sophistication of the attacks -- as well as their seemingly indiscriminate targeting.

Forward deployed Iranian provocateurs with more sophisticated technology would be another speculation about what we're seeing. Certainly Iran would also have motive for disrupting Iraqi society and further debilitating the position of the U.S. politically and on the ground in Iraq. After all, it's no secret that the Bush administration is threatening imminent military action (including the "nukular" option).

I don't have sources for this idea either, but I'm just saying that your characterization of the "bloodthirsty insurgents" seems a bit broad - and reminds me a bit of right wing "O'Reilly-esque" rhetoric.

[LeftyElvis]

5. The insurgents

almost all Sunnis don't believe that the Shiites are true muslims, given their religious split and their tacit approval of the imperial occupation by bush. In addition, the radical elements of their religion believes that a non-muslim life has no value and that means not only Jews, Christians and Hindus but also Shiites. They do not have a concept of "civilians" and military; any non-Sunni therefore is a target given the non-value of their life whether it is a woman, child or man. This was explained to my by a muslim friend of mine who immgrated from Jordan.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I've asked this question before, so I'll ask again

Would Iraq actually be better off if it were partitioned into three independent states?

The borders of Iraq were drawn by British imperialists about 1920. As usual, those borders reflected the needs of the imperialists and did not necessarily reflect any local realities.

Civil strife in artificially constructed nations whose boundaries were inherited from the colonial era has been a theme of the late twentieth/early twenty-first century.

[Roland99]

11. No, that would just make it worse

Reading Tariq Ali and Riverbend it seems the normal, average Iraqi doesn't care about Sunni/Shiite/Kurd. It's only the militias and the "firebrand" clerics that want to push federalism and autonomy.

[ConcernedCanuk]

14. Another question - would Iraq be better off with Saddam?

.
.
.

wonder how a vote from ONLY the Iraqi WOMEN would answer that one . . .

[Jack Rabbit]

15. In the long run, No

However, one could make a ood argument that civil strife we are now seeing in Iraq is what we would have seen, although without involving US troops, when Saddam passed the scene.

[ConcernedCanuk]

19. I'll have to reserve judgment to see how "long" the USA's "run" is

.
.
.

I'm afraid the repercussions from Bush's invasion of Iraq may affect the whole world,

and not in a way that we will remember with gratitude

(sigh)

[Jack Rabbit]

21. I'm not going to dispute that the Iraqis would be better off without Bush

Of course, so would everybody else.

Your right about the whole world; your original question was specifically about the Iraqi people.

Were I an Iraqi, I would regard a choice between living under Saddam's tyranny and living under the tyranny of Bush's colonial occupation a choice between being shot or hanged.

[barb162]

31. I am not an Iraqi

but if I had a choice between a Saddam dictatorship and Sharia law, I'd take Saddam. Hey, one's really bad but the latter is worse. As I read stories of the women now havng to cover up before they go outside, women intellectuals being killed, women having to meet in secret, women being intimidated if they open their mouths about civil rights,etc., well, I have no words.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. I agree that an Islamic republic is not a democratic state

That's a judgment that can be made even before getting to the issue of women's rights.

Democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

In Iran, the model Islamic republic, the level of a citizen's participation in civic affairs is apportioned by his adherence to somebody idea of what Islam is. A council of twelve stuffy old men determine who is fit to run for public office even before the voters pass judgment.

Nevertheless, it is quite possible to argue that a woman will have more rights under such a state than under Saddam. Under Saddam, nobody had any more rights at any given moment than Saddam said that person had. At least Sharia has some codification so that one would be expected to have an idea where one stands in relation to the law at any given moment.

[ConcernedCanuk]

42. I'd like to expand on that a little also

.
.
.

Not that I in any way suggest that brutality of any sort is acceptable

But under Saddam, most knew how to stay out of his "sights" so to speak

If they "toed the line", behaved as Saddam wished, then their lives went on undisturbed in most cases.

Now, ANYONE is a target, or at least "in harms way".

Although infrastructure was failing, due to sanctions, and of course money that Saddam spent on his own wants rather than his peoples' needs, basic systems were much better than they are now - AND there was not the polluting Depleted Uranium around that is now, well some from Gulf War 1, but not like there is now.

Noone is safe in Iraq now, not even the people that belong there

This war is a complete failure, and a humanitarian disaster

Bush has succeeded in taking the "United" part out of the United Nations . . .

And old nuclear powers are aligning themselves to prepare for battle with the "West"

I forget who coined the phrase, but I fear we may see it developing - "WW3 will be nuclear, The next war will be fought with sticks and stones . . . "

(sigh)

[teknomanzer]

45. Your over looking one glaring thing...

The location of the resources... The oil is not located in the Sunni Triangle, its in the Kurdish north, and the Shia south. There is no way the country can be split without much more bloodshed.

[Teaser]

13. Assuming it was insurgents.

I mean, there's no one in Iraq that would benefit from popular rage against the insurgents, now, is there?

[barb162]

25. This is the question I keep asking

The way I understand this story is the first bomb went off inside and then a few minutes later as people were leaving the station the second blast occurred, killing someof the wounded people walking out of the station. Then the third blast occurred at the hospital where wounded were taken. None of it was targetting troops or Americans. To me it just means terrorists are trying to destabilize the country and take it over. I can come up with no other conclusion.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Exactly

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with opposition to American occupation.

The planting of the bombs is designed to kill as many people as possible. It reminds me of Eric Rudolf's modus operandi. He usually planted two bombs, with the second one timed to go off after the police and rescue workers arrive on the scene.

[barb162]

29. I have been following these many terrorist bombings targeting

the Iraqi people. These terrorists are going after Iraqis in crowded places where there isn't a US soldier within miles. A lot of the rich and intellectuals Iraqis have already gone to other countries. Iraqi professionals (7 MDs at one time?!) are getting bullets in their heads. What else is this except an attempt to totally destabilize the country and take it over.

[leesa]

35. Are we certain "insurgents" did it? There are many players here

who would love nothing more than to keep this war going on and on...Saudia Arabia, Israel, US neocons, etc. Don't always assume that what they say is the truth is the truth.

[geckosfeet]

18. But they died liberated from Saddam and governed by a democracy. nt

[VegasWolf]

23. "Bring 'em on!," screamed the chimpanzee! nt

[Az_lefty]

24. The Iraqi's have every right to be pissed at us...

we opened up a can of worms without having enough troops to keep things under control. It's not like idiot boy wasn't warned, he simply ignored the warnings like he ignored Al Qaeda's threats about attacking us. This has to be the most incompetent administration in our history.

[barb162]

34. He and Rummy just decided to fire the generals

who spoke facts about how many troops were actually needed. Between the phony Wmd claims and every other dumbass reason monkeyboy used to go in to that country, it's just a total disaster from the word go.

[deadparrot]

39. RIP.

...

[DrZeeLit]

41. Yep, more and more "just like Houston" every day, isn't Baghdad?

Wasn't that Delay who said it? He's the one who should be tied up next to a car bomb.
And I don't say stuff like that lightly.

Everybody has the blood of those Iraqis on his and her hands.
As this inane police action continues, the depths of my despair go further and further into the black.

Pray for peace.

[sintax]

53. Remote Control Bombings- Strategy of Tension

I am not going to pretend to know but this one reeks to me.
Gladio
Chaos


Baghdad hit by bloodiest bombings for month

Police say blasts that killed 38 were remotely detonated, marking change of tactics

Rory Carroll and agencies in Baghdad
Thursday August 18, 2005
The Guardian


Two car bombs turned a Baghdad bus station into a slaughterhouse yesterday and a third bomb ambushed emergency services, killing at least 38 people and wounding dozens.

The coordinated strikes during the morning rush hour shattered a relative lull in the violence and were intended to maximise sectarian tension as politicians resumed talks on a draft constitution.

The first bomb exploded just before 8am local time outside the Nahda bus station, a main transit point in central Baghdad, followed minutes later by an explosion at an open-air depot filled with coaches, minibuses and taxis.

More than a dozen vehicles were incinerated. Survivors scrambled through the smouldering wreckage, some trying to flee, others seeking friends and relatives. The station serviced southern cities such as Najaf and Basra, and most passengers were Shia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1551376,00.html