Bloody attacks with suspected IS links mark end of Ramadan

It's about time Saudi feels the impact of what they created. Maybe they'll reconsider their reckless policy of funding radicals around the world.

Some people celebrate holidays with fireworks - these knuckle-draggers celebrate with bombs.

The Taliban said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press that the blast was a “gruesome act.”

This, coming from a bunch of knuckle draggers who employ "bacha bazi".

insurgency killed 175 people as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan

See everyone. ISIS is on the rise, not on the run. The US needs to begin the temp ban from muslims traveling into the US from there. Stop the applications of islamic refugees from US entry.

No other time in modern history have seen terrorism escalate at this alarming pace.

White House National Security spokesman Ned Price said the intent of the Saudi attack was “to sow division and fear.”

Our (American) officials spread so much lies and untruths. This is a pure and simple act of killing people that are not extreme muslims. Who don't follow the extremist ideologies. And they don't care about collateral damage. And how does any white houes person know what is in the minds of the fanatics? BS to be sure.

And how does any white houes person know what is in the minds of the fanatics? BS to be sure.

Exactly. We don't employ waterboarding anymore to extract vital information. The incumbent administration is too soft.

No other time in modern history have seen terrorism escalate at this alarming pace

Clusterduck™

...ducking any memory, acknowledgement of, or responsibility for the massive state terrorism event begun in 2003, opening the Pandora's Box still spewing murderous chaos and extremism over the world.

I remember 2003 fine. About as vividly as when the twin towers collapsed.

In 2003 were gay nightclub, concertgoers, Parisian diners being mowed down by terrorists? Was Brussels hit? Tunisia? Instanbul airport, Bangladesh, Muhammad's birthlace hit by terrorists? No, they weren't.

The war in Iraq was an invasion, liberation from Saddam. Bush even gave Saddam an ultimatum to step down. It wasn't terrorism.

It was up to the iraqis under Maliki to get their act together. Obviously they didn't.

The war in Iraq was an invasion, liberation from Saddam. Bush even gave Saddam an ultimatum to step down. It wasn't terrorism.

Nope. The war in Iraq was an invasion, based on lies about WMDs, not about liberation from Saddam. Sorry, you can't re-write history because it turns out your country was completely, absolutely, and utterly wrong wrong wrong.

And if unilaterally invading a country that has not attacked you, based on lies, is not terrorism, then how can you call any of ISIS' actions terrorism?

The only difference is that the invasion of Iraq was terrorism by a country, whereas ISIS is terrorism by rebel groups.

Blinkered much?

Sizeable portions of the populations in NATO & Friends™ even (not to mention the majority rest of this beautiful planet of ours) see 2003 for what it was and remains. War crimes on an industrial scale.

No-one's expecting a conversion on the road to Damascus, but it's a bit rich flinging the product of one's own moral dysentery around as if it's someone else's.

Anthony Zinni, a retired Marine general and chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, said keeping the Iraqi army intact was always part of U.S. strategy. “The plan was that the army would be the foundation of rebuilding the Iraqi military,” he says.

The decision to dissolve the Iraqi army robbed Baghdad’s post-invasion military of some of its best commanders and troops. Combined with sectarian strains that persist 12 years later, it also drove many of the suddenly out-of-work Sunni warriors into alliances with a Sunni insurgency that would eventually mutate into ISIS.

“Not reorganizing the army and police immediately were huge strategic mistakes,” said Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chief of staff and architect of the “surge” of 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007

the decision made by Bremer actually came from Vice President Dick Cheney. (“It may have been a mistake,” Cheney said in 2011 without confirming it was his decision.)

All of this was predicted in the run-up to the war, by MANY.

Here's what Ron Paul had to say back in 11/2002

Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950's was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970's – a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There's no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability. Promoting democracy, as it's said we're doing, is a farce.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul55.html

It was up to the iraqis under Maliki to get their act together. Obviously they didn't.

The lonely quacking of the (thankfully endangered) Clusterduck™

Nope. The war in Iraq was an invasion, based on lies about WMDs, not about liberation from Saddam.

You're right again. It was a lie, but still many political circles bought it & supported it. Unfinished business from 1st gulf war.

But it certainly wasn't terrorism. Marines weren't driving truck bombs into civilians. They weren't shouting "god is great" and blowing themselves up w suicide vests. They weren't chopping off heads or rounding up young girls. No. They were killing saddams forces.

You're right again. It was a lie, but still many political circles bought it & supported it.

Thank you for your candour, Robert.

Elsewhere on the planet, the UK's Chilcot seven-year, two million word report on the war was published today. Respected news anchor Jon Snow tweeted:

Blair at last looks shocked,not by Iraq's destruction, but by the devastating Chilcot report hammering his reputation firmly into the ground

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-36714717

As for terrorism or not and the defence that...

Marines weren't driving truck bombs into civilians... They were killing saddams forces...

Abu Ghraib was Disneyland, the Mahmudiyah rape and killings was a bachelor party, and the Haditha killings (Iraq's very own My Lai massacre), was just some marines blowing off steam.

Stuff happens, as Donald Rumsfeld shrugged, but who cares? They ain't us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/08/donald-rumsfeld-book-misstatements-wmd

Thank you for your candour, Robert

You're welcome pal.

Stuff happens, as Donald Rumsfeld shrugged, but who cares? They ain't us.

Heh --HRC was on that ship too. What? Does she get special dispensation because she's a (D)? Or because she's running for POTUS against Trump?

I swear. You libs are soooo- 1-sided.

The only difference is that the invasion of Iraq was terrorism by a country, whereas ISIS is terrorism by rebel groups.

You've really got to learn not to twist the meanings of specific words. Terrorism and invasion are two different things. One is meant to take control of something, and the other is meant to just destroy something without regard for anything even without any purpose whatsoever. It's the same difference as attacking a military camp for enemy combatants, and attacking a shopping district/market for regular citizens.

Instead of rehashing the past, we're dealing with the present. No point in crying over spilt milk with the exception of learning from it. Which we both probably agree that the politicians in the US haven't learned a damned thing from the past actions of themselves or others.

The only difference is that the invasion of Iraq was terrorism by a country, whereas ISIS is terrorism by rebel groups.

"If" the invasion is terrorism by the USA (as you say) then so be it. But please -be fair- charge the rest of coalition who went in gunning- with terrorism as well.

The US was going "in" unilaterally. We persuaded (lied) to our allies about WMD. But we didn't hold a gun to their head making them squeeze their triggers in the Sunni Triangle.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but I'm sure he (Saddam) was quaking in his boots when the towers collapsed. He knew something was going down. The Palestinians were cheering al Qaida. The Iraqis were cheering al Qaida.

Fight fire with fire. The US must show these regimes and extremists that we refuse to live in fear. And that virtue is its own reward. Heck. . . the US just celebrated freedom a few days ago, 4th July weekend. What were the knuckle draggers doing?