Suicide bomber strikes restaurant in northern Iraq, killing 55

Our presence isn't going to stop this kind of terrorism. Iraqis are going to have to police themselves now.

Bring our troops out of Iraq now, swiftly and safely. < :-)

Here we go. As soon as that Obama fool is elected it's massacres and carnage in Iraq.

Strewth, don't America ever learn or nuffink? The suicide bombers and their mates is gonna take over the country when the Yanks leave. Mark my word, you'll see.

Alf; Suicide bombers is a bit of misnomer, by the very definition of their name, they are incapable of taking over anything.

The suicide bombers and their mates is gonna take over the country when the Yanks leave.

Where were they before the Yanks came I wonder?

Should we tout the fact that Iraqis are now free enough to go suicide bombing?

I also wonder how many surges its going to take to win.

If and when all the combat troops are out by 2011, and this sort of thing still goes on, all the warheads will say we just needed another six months, even though they have been making projections to victory in terms of months since day one.

All too late now. We let the war hungry ijits and the war profiteers have control. And every single day is a victory for them.

Should we tout the fact that Iraqis are now free enough to go suicide bombing?

Not when you can come right out and say that you believe both Iraqis and Kurds were better off under Saddam Hussein's Nazi-inspired Baathist regime.

Why hold back?

No end in sight. No wonder the UK is getting their rear ends out of that mess.

Bring the troops home.

Reports are al-Maliki is fast losing the Kurds' confidence. Al Qaeda finds a willing martyr and sends him in.

I found this quote encouraging:

'“I do not know how a group like al-Qaida claiming to be Islamic plans to attack and kill people on sacred days like Eid,” said Awad al-Jubouri, 53, one of the tribal leaders at the luncheon.'

After Mumbai maybe ordinary Muslims have seen enough of this barbaric idiocy.

rjd: No end in sight.

This is a great example of the type of mindset terrorists depend on from Western liberals. Violence in Iraq has fallen dramatically over the last couple of years, and down another 80% since March. But a high profile attack will cause people like rjd to push the play button in his mind and spit out the pre-recorded "no end in sight" message.

That's why they do high profile attacks. They know people will ignore the overall numbers regarding attacks/deaths when they're looking at an article showing a massive car bomb. It's because of people like rjd that groups like Al Queda carry out such high profile attacks. They depend on him for their perception of success.

By the way....when was the last time JT printed an article about monthly death totals in Iraq? Was it a conscious choice to stop printing the numbers when they fell below a certain point?

Not when you can come right out and say that you believe both Iraqis and Kurds were better off under Saddam Hussein's Nazi-inspired Baathist regime.

Why hold back?

I am not. In the short run, the Iraqis would have been better off under Saddam as the situation stood in 2003. He had not gassed anyone in a long time. Most of the suffering at the time of the invasion had to do with sanctions. In the long run they might be better off for the invasion, maybe. Or they might go from the bad government of Saddam, to the weak government of today, straight back to somebody potentially worse than Saddam, and yes that is possible. (Just look at what we did to Iran).

How about you don't hold back and admit the ball has been completely fumbled? How about you admit that destroying Iraqi infrastructure and not sending enough troops to keep the peace was a collosal mistake that made things worse than they would have been under Saddam.

I am just doing the math and calculating the lesser of two evils. The half-cocked cowboy approach just did not make the cut. But I am sure your calculations are going to differ from mine. I am sure that you are the type who only counts post invasion civilian deaths if they make it the newspaper and are noted by IBC. (Not sure if they noticed that the body count here seems to have jumped since I first read the article). And I am sure that you will accept any estimate of Saddam's murders no matter how wild they be.

Saddam was murderous tyrant. But he was basically under control. Repeated suicide bombings is a clear indicator of a lack of control. Admit it.

They depend on him for their perception of success.

More like perception of failure. I do not think anyone here views a successful suicide bombing as a genuine success. Its just proof that the ball has been fumbled.

Reports are al-Maliki is fast losing the Kurds' confidence.

We should have created a Kurdistan and told the Turks to stuff it. There is only one way one Iraq can have three bitter enemies live in peace in the short run and that is to have strong man. Doing that in the long run another way is not worth the price, not in lives nor in our American dollars.

It sounds to me that these latest suicide bombings have shown how little control that Iraq has over it's own people. This type of action never happened when Saddam was in control.

Since the United States attacked Iraq pre-emptively, 10% of the population has been killed, murdered, turned into refuges and millions of children are parentless.

Yeah, we have freed a nation, at what cost?

And tomorrow or the next day there will be another suicide bombing, more people will die and Iraq is so much worse off now, then befire Shock and Aw. < :-)

They know people will ignore the overall numbers regarding attacks/deaths when they're looking at an article showing a massive car bomb. It's because of people like rjd that groups like Al Queda carry out such high profile attacks. They depend on him for their perception of success.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I give you, the 2008 double-standard post of the year.

Take a bow, superlib.

Taka

The USA's 'ally' Saudia Arabia attacks New York on 9/11. Bush responds by attacking a completely unrelated secular Arab state (admittedly run by a genocidal crackpot dictator) thus giving Muslims the world over a clear excuse to say they're at war with west. If a state of war is accepted as a fact, it's hard for any theologans, Muslim or otherwise, to argue that jihad (=terrorism) is not justified in the Koran. And Saudia Arabia continues to fuel the jihad while the west continues to both suck up to it and ignore its intolerant, misogynistic, anti-democratic and violent Islamic teachings in western mosques. The jihadists are winning at a canter.

"The terrorists are going to take over the nation after the Yanks leave!"

Way to go, Sherlock! We've been saying that since the illegal invasion began. The US has a history of supporting/directly aiding in regime change followed by disastrous results. 'Staying the course' only guarantees a more embattled and determined enemy, with higher numbers of recruits or people that want to join the ranks. Saddam was an awful man, to be sure, but it's going to be even worse than when he was in power in a few years. Once again, history repeats itself and the likes of bush and co. refuse to learn from past US mistakes. They helped install the government of Iran, etc. Mission accomplished.

That's what happens when one plays with matches near highly flammable gas or liquids. Unfortunately, G.W did just that. To make it worse, not even his own brigade can put it off.

SuperLib - I think the bombing attack reports can be likened to things like molestation reports in Japan. They are so frequent that people just glance at them and don't pay much attention anyway as they are so common. It's sad, but people become immune to the bad news over time. If you're told every month that a certain number of people died, then it starts to become less of a story unless a huge number of people above the previously reported figures die.

Tdo high profile attacks because it causes the most panic, kills the most people, affects the most people and gets in most headlines. It's partly a war of propaganda, and one that al Qaeda compare very well with in relative to Bush and the current US government.

It appeared, however, that the target was a reconciliation meeting between Arab tribal leaders and officials of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Kurdish party of President Jalal Talabani, on ways to defuse tension among Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen in the Kirkuk area.

I guess many posters here and A.Q seem to have the same target in mind. They both hope the reconcilation talks fail to further their point to prove how much a failure the invasion has been.

"The USA's 'ally' Saudia Arabia attacks New York on 9/11."

Muchakucha, get your facts right before posting any comment. I completely disagree with you here. Do yourself some serious reasearch and find out who was behind 9/11.

muchakucha has written:

The USA's 'ally' Saudia Arabia attacks New York on 9/11.

Osama was exiled from Saudi - the spiritual home of Islam. Like nearly all who belong to or follow the Muslim Brotherhood he believes the House of Saud has ro right to rule and act as stewards of Mecca.

What better way to get back at them by recruiting disaffected Saudi nationals for a suicide mission directed at the heart and brains of the most powerful nation in the world?

Bush responds by attacking a completely unrelated secular Arab state

Bush stated clearly in the 2000 presidential debates that he wanted regime change in Iraq.

Where's the double standard? Terrorist groups like Al Queda plan high profile attacks since they know they'll get 10 times the media coverage than smaller attacks that might kill far more people over the long run. That way even when violence is falling there is a perception that violence is increasing since each act of violence is magnified.

The classic example is school violence which has actually been falling for the last 15 years. If you asked the average person if school violence had been rising or falling I'm betting 90% of them would say rising. The incidents haven't been rising, the media coverage of the incidents has.

Think about it, Taka. When was the last time JT ran a story about monthly death tolls from Iraq? Maybe 12 months ago? When the numbers started falling the media simply stopped reporting them. It's bad news or no news from Iraq. Now we have an incident that kills 55 people and without the constant reminders about how violence is falling people think nothing's changed. Or, as some people put it, "no end in sight."

Superlib is right. AQ relies on the overwhelmingly lefty media in America and Europe to act as force multiplier. Even worse, they know they can also count on the media to play up the numbers killed and maimed but limit any graphic display of the barbarism, as the NY Times and the major networks did on 9-11.

There are published studies on this sad state of affairs:

It's a macabre example of win-win in what economists call a "common-interest game," say Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich and Dominic Rohner of Cambridge University. "Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."

The researchers counted direct references to terrorism between 1998 and 2005 in the New York Times and Neue Zuercher Zeitung, a respected Swiss newspaper. They also collected data on terrorist attacks around the world during that period. Using a statistical procedure called the Granger Causality Test, they attempted to determine whether more coverage directly led to more attacks.

[...]

The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402025.html

Osama was exiled from Saudi - the spiritual home of Islam. Like nearly all who belong to or follow the Muslim Brotherhood he believes the House of Saud has ro right to rule and act as stewards of Mecca.

What he believes is that they've forfeited that right through the decadent lifestyle of many of its members the stories are legendary. Moreover, it's all underwritten by oil sales to the US.

This is a danger when your authority is based on moral claims, as is that of the House of Saud, some may feel you've betrayed them.

Moreover, it's all underwritten by oil sales to the US.

Why so selective? Saudi is the largest exporter in the region. Exports to the US peaked in 02. China and India have picked up the slack.

I guess many posters here and A.Q seem to have the same target in mind. They both hope the reconcilation talks fail to further their point to prove how much a failure the invasion has been.

Oh come off it. Nobody supports terror here. Everybody here supports talks that bring peace. What some of us do not support is a continuation of the policies that brought about the need for peace talks and the suicide bombings that interrupt them.

But I personally do not believe our leaders actually want peace in the middle east. They want a continuation of the cycle while trying to put the brakes on the symptoms, like terrorism.

Funny how the blind pro war crowd thinks everything exists according to their set standards and notions. Surely ALL suicide bombings and the like MUST be the work of al qaeda. Why? Because the U.S. officials said so. Never mind that the kurds and arabs have no love lost in that region, and tensions have always existed there.

Funny how the blind pro war crowd suit everything to their own agendas. They accuse those disagreeing with this insanity of gloating over news like this, just so that they can say they were right. How sick is that? That's about as disgusting as ignoring the pain of 17 Iraqi civilians brutally murdered by out of control cowboys.

Those against this insanity in iraq do not gloat over news like these. We would gladly have been proven wrong about the course of the war in iraq (even if we did feel it was illegal), had Iraq been stable YEARS ago, just to spare the lives of U.S. troops, coalition forces, and Iraqi lives. We express our disgust over attacks like this because it constantly gives fuel to the blind pro war crowd to cry about how bad things still are in iraq, about how US presence is still needed, etc. etc. etc. Now correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they crowing about how great the surge went a mere few months ago?

It must be nice trying to conduct war from the safety and warmth of a sofa. Tell the parent of a child that was killed by an IED, or horrifically disfigured and maimed by a suicide bomber, that the U.S. should continue to stay the course in this insanity. Thank allah they finally voted for an endpoint to moving U.S. troops out of major cities and ultimately OUT of the country. Enough is enough, why have so many American and coalition lives, not to mention Iraqi's, been lost because the iraqi government and "military" have been dragging their rear ends. That it's taken this long to train any human being how to conduct patrols and secure their own neighborhoods is beyond comprehension, it is something that a grade school child can learn in months.

So us enlightened folk say, no end in sight, because we understand that American and coalition forces have done their share. Have done their share YEARS ago, and the time has long come to pass on the torch and leave the country. Let the IRAQI's fight and die for their country. How many times, I repeat, how many times must I repeat this most basic of concepts? Yea the US should never have invaded iraq but coulda shoulda woulda, get the troops out of their now, no way would I want my sons and daughters continue risking their lives for something so meaningless and hopeless. They have done enough already, if the troops leave and things go to hell so be it, that is original sin and deal with that later. There's always growing pains, and holding the hands of the iraqis for years will not make things any better.

TooFarGone: "Bush stated clearly in the 2000 presidential debates that he wanted regime change in Iraq."

And yet bush tries to make up the excuse that they were acting on the intelligence given to them, and it was not a personal vendetta and what not. Either way, he admits to regretting the illegal invasion, etc.

sailwind: "I guess many posters here and A.Q seem to have the same target in mind. They both hope the reconcilation talks fail to further their point to prove how much a failure the invasion has been."

Pretty screwed up logic, my friend. Saying it was going to be a failure from before Iraq was illegally invaded is not at all the same thing as 'hoping' talks fail to prove a point. In fact, we were 100% for talks while you were being weaned on GWBs teat and were duped into thinking there were WMDs there, and just couldn't WAIT until and invasion that would cut off any and all chance of talks. In fact, the opposite of what you claim is true: you guys are desperate for 'victory' in Iraq, at ANY cost, simply so that you can say that you were right. If you need more proof of this, just look at the fact that most of the very few people who still support the war are amongst the same people who claim that Muslims are the source of the world's problem. If that's the case, you cannot truly want the people of Iraq to be free and safe, for they are for the most part Muslim. You just want to be able to say, "See? It wasn't a mistake after all," and, "The end justifies the means", etc.

Again, though, what's happening is exactly what we said would. I think most people who agree on this would actually be happier if they weren't right, but as usual we are, and the whole mess just should have been avoided in the first place.

That it's taken this long to train any human being how to conduct patrols and secure their own neighborhoods is beyond comprehension, it is something that a grade school child can learn in months.

That must be it the Iraqi's are untrainable children......Pretentious doesn't even cover what I really want to write with that blurb from "us enlightened folk", but I'll just let those words speak for themselves on that one.

FACT: The surge was to restore security and order in the Haditha, Ramadi, Baghdad and Basra eviron's first. The triangle of death. After security was established in these vital areas, then the focus would be on Kirkuk and Mosul. As the surge planners knew this would be the areas that A.Q would have to run to, as they were fast running out of other real estate which to operate from.

The battle has shifted to these areas at the great shock of no one that actually looked at the surge strategy when implemented. They were forced there and there they will be confronted or slaughtered, and that is why the battle has shifted to those areas IT WAS PLANNED THAT WAY.

FACT: A.Q and their allies are LOSING. The mere fact that are trying to stop these reconciliation talks by this desperate act, shows how far they have lost. They don't want this to happen, it means the death of them. They know it and it's why they are doing all they can to prevent it. I suggest to all those who think this is some sort of prove that Iraq is falling apart again, take a real close look at who A.Q and the insurgents TARGETED here. They see the writing on the wall, other posters might want to start seeing the writing also.

They are LOSING and badly. In the great cosmic scheme of things that is the only thing that really matters.

Back to the rants now.

Its amazing how we are still saying the same things and continue to for years on end. Some say we can still achieve near perfect victory and others say there is not really jack we can do and the Iraqis need to take the crash course in taking care of themselves. I said this would be another Vietnam and man it seems that prediction just gets more vindicated all the time. And just like Vietnam, I guarantee there will be those who, after we pull out, just keep muttering "If we only had more time..." right up until the day they die.

Vizzini: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... (dies)

The Princess Bride 1987

Well, Vizzini was right on one count.

I suggest to all those who think this is some sort of prove that Iraq is falling apart again

Actually, I was taking it as proof that Iraq has not been much together since security collapsed post-invasion.

Since you seem to be up on things concerning 20/20 hindsight, I will ask you point blank: Is this it? Is this the insurgency's last gasp? Will we not see this shift to somewhere else, of course, as part of the master plan? Is this the last step? The last nail in the coffin? If not, what is next?

I hope I do not have to hound you for answers to those questions.

likeetis: I said this would be another Vietnam and man it seems that prediction just gets more vindicated all the time

Yet another perfect example. Violence has fallen to a shadow of what it once was. A plan to remove the troops has been agreed on and the Iraqi government will take over.

What's the analysis from this guy?

"I said this would be another Vietnam and man it seems that prediction just gets more vindicated all the time"

Utterly, utterly classic.

Likeitis

the Iraqis would have been better off under Saddam as the situation stood in 2003

I agree. Islamic nations are best run by brutal dictators who rule with an iron fist. As we've seen, these nations are incapable of supporting freedom and democracy like civilized nations. Attempting to inject democracy into them is futile. The primary concern regarding Islamic nations is whether or not they have WMD's. Since Iraq didn't, there was no need to invade them.

After the US leaves Iraq, and the sooner the better, these suicide attacks will certainly continue. The only difference is, without a US presence, we simply won't hear about them anymore. It will no longer serve the media and leftist's political agenda.

Nobody supports terror here.

Sure they do. Certainly you must know about the alliance between radical Islam and Western leftists by now.

smithinjapan: you were duped into thinking there were WMDs there

Please show proof that predates the invasion showing Saddam had verified all of his WMDs had been destroyed. Sorry smith, but that's one lie I don't let the radical left slip by me. Every time you try to change history I'll be there to correct you. You can be against the invasion, hate Bush, anything you want....but I won't let the radical left turn this lie into truth.

Moderator: Stay on topic please. Saddam and WMDs are not relevant to this discussion.

Violence has fallen to a shadow of what it once was.

55 people are now shadows of what they once were. Together they form quite a shadow.

I will ask you point blank: Is this it? No

Is this the insurgency's last gasp? No we'll see more "spectaculars" like this one before this recedes.

Will we not see this shift to somewhere else, of course, as part of the master plan? Already has, you've been keeping up with events in Pakistan I hope. The place Obama has even said must be the focus now.

Is this the last step? No

The last nail in the coffin? No

If not, what is next? Iraq continues on the path toward being a Nation welcomed into the international community and no longer a threat to her neighbors. And follows her own path in deciding her future, a future free from terrorism.

Didn't take much hounding on your part for my answers I might add.

Attempting to inject democracy into them is futile.

Disagree. There are many ways to try, and violence from outside is the worst option.

And I would not lump "them" all together. I have more hope for Iraq than I do Afghanistan. I would have had even more had we not bombed out their infrastructure for the purpose of Halliburton to make hundreds of millions off reconstruction projects.

I will not say that establishing democracy in Iraq is impossible. I will just say that it is not worth the price, and that was obvious years ago.

Certainly you must know about the alliance between radical Islam and Western leftists by now.

People here support moderate Islam. Many have yet to admit that Islam has inherent flaws that lends it to terrorism and violence just as you have yet to admit that you exaggerate that tendency greatly.

Already has, you've been keeping up with events in Pakistan I hope.

Oh, so this suicide bombing did not actually happen then? And Mumbai is unrelated?

So, can you give us a time frame that there where will be no more suicide bombings, etc, in Iraq and it will all move to Pakistan? Surely this was allowed for in the plan for the surge? But I note that you are saying that these things won't break out again elsewhere in Iraq, so long as we are there, and we have until 2011. Is that enough?

If not, what is next? Iraq continues on the path toward being a Nation welcomed into the international community and no longer a threat to her neighbors. And follows her own path in deciding her future, a future free from terrorism.

I thought it was "the violence all moves to Pakistan". I will just remind you now that Pakistan is right next to Afghanistan.

likeitis

I will not say that establishing democracy in Iraq is impossible.

I will. In about a decade, we'll see who's right.

People here support moderate Islam.

Try again. Leftists here support the enemies of America. Radical Islam is one of them. We all know what I'm talking about, so no need to cover for them.

just as you have yet to admit that you exaggerate that tendency greatly

Pfft. I read the news everyday. I don't have to exaggerate, it's in black and white. Perhaps it's you who needs to open his eyes and start dealing with reality.

I will. In about a decade, we'll see who's right.

Supposedly there is something of a democracy right now. I don't think it will last. I am not betting against you on that.

Pfft. I read the news everyday. I don't have to exaggerate, it's in black and white. Perhaps it's you who needs to open his eyes and start dealing with reality.

Just because Muslims are doing it does not mean they do it because they are Muslims. There are other factors at work. And you have heard this number before: 1.4 billion. You have not read anywhere near that number of Islamic terrorist articles in your life, even counting redundancy.

Try again. Leftists here support the enemies of America. Radical Islam is one of them. We all know what I'm talking about, so no need to cover for them.

I feel its as worthy to comment on that as if you had just declared an alien spacecraft landed on your lawn last night! I am speechless!

likeitis: 55 people are now shadows of what they once were. Together they form quite a shadow.

Go to Northern Iraq yourself and ask them there how they feel about the invasion. Remind them about that 55 number. When they remind you about the 100,000+ killed by Saddam, be sure to turn the volume on the iPod to 10. When the song's over turn the volume down and start talking about Halliburton. Should be a nice day overall.

Go to Northern Iraq yourself and ask them there how they feel about the invasion.

I assume you are not talking about the dead 55 or the dead that would not have died without the invasion.

Look, I would like to know what Iraqis in general think. I would like to see results for the poll neither of us have seen, the one that asks: Which is better? a) Iraq being invaded and occupied in 2003 and all the good and bad that came with it or b) Saddam Hussein being left in power in 2003 and all the good and bad that you imagine would come with it. Especially I want to know how those who had the priviledge of dying for all this would answer.

We won't see any of those. So, knowing what I know, I find that the Iraqis would be better off with Saddam still in power, and, of course, some of the more ridiculous sanctions lifted. Its going to take a lot to change my mind on that. Its going to take stats and figures and polls and a lot of other things too, and I have seen a lot up to this point already.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic and do not rehash the old arguments about what if Saddam were still in power. Focus your comments on what is in the story.

Just wanted to confirm that you believe the people in northern Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power...

Helter_Skelter: "After the US leaves Iraq, and the sooner the better, these suicide attacks will certainly continue. The only difference is, without a US presence, we simply won't hear about them anymore. It will no longer serve the media and leftist's political agenda."

You mean all the suicide bombings we never heard about before the invasion, right? Oh wait... they never existed then.

Helter: "Pfft. I read the news everyday. I don't have to exaggerate, it's in black and white. Perhaps it's you who needs to open his eyes and start dealing with reality."

HAHAHahahaha! Funniest post all day, my friend. Thanks. This is coming from the guy who said the US should be more like Switzerland with gun control, and that those who support bush (hated by Muslims) are against AQ and those who hate bush are for them, but supporting Obama when he's hated by AQ also support AQ while those who don't support Obama are against AQ (who is against Obama). If that's your idea of 'dealing with reality', you are in that land all by your lonesome, my friend.

SuperLib: "When they remind you about the 100,000+ killed by Saddam, be sure to turn the volume on the iPod to 10."

Yes, do ask them about the 55... then ask them about the hundreds of thousands of others killed since the US invasion began... or is it up to more now. Hell, why not just ask the dead? Ah wait, you guys only ever choose to ask a select few who have benefitted, while the millions of others who have not -- who have no infrastructure or jobs, and who worry about maniacs like the one who killed these 55 -- you simply don't care about whatsoever, and certainly never listen to.

Face it, SuperLib... you don't care about the people there, nor do you even actually care about democracy (if you did, you certainly never would have supported a forced democracy, which is contradictory, nor the 'democracy' that put it there), all you want to be able to do is say you were right in supporting the fool-hardy venture that was Iraq. It's quite sad, really... particularly given that you guys will come on here for years to come claiming that, "If we had never left we would have won", and the like, when in reality it was lost as soon as you decided to go against all the pleadings of other nations not to rush in until things had been verified and time was given to actually try and find WMDs and what not. Nope... didn't want that.

Don't peopel understand? Strewth, America made these bombers becuase they treat them like sub humans.

Iraq will end in more chaos becase of America and its soldiers who kill without caring.

"oil-rich region"

Kuwait is also an oil-rich region, yet you don't see suicide bombers causing trouble there.

You don't see much of a democracy there either.

If America didn't go around the world blowing people up and ruining their countries, these bombing wouldn't happen.

C'mon now, dont lose the faith of change and hope, all will be made new and miraculous on January 20, just be patient. You will see an immediate peace sweep over the world. Stories like this will be history, the Christian will lie with Muslim, and we will practice war no more.

Sarcasm Off

Heh, it's the anti-invasion crowds fault there are suicide bombings in Iraq....

Truly, Super, take two bows.

Likeitis

Just because Muslims are doing it does not mean they do it because they are Muslims.

Yeah, it does.

smithinjapan:

"...then ask them about the hundreds of thousands of others killed since the US invasion began... or is it up to more now."

Inflated casualty figures and willful disregard for the findings of native Iraqi organizations is a dead giveaway with anyone who 'protests' the war/liberation of Iraq as much as smith does.

No one can simultaneously argue that (1) they 'care' about Iraqis and (2) that violent radical Islam is a non-threat, and then turn around and insist hundreds of thousands - millions even - have died in Iraq since 03.

Why do you need to believe in such outrageous amounts of carnage and misery?

Those who claim attention from the "liberal media" encourages such attacks never spell out exactly what should be done. State censorship? An agreement to report only happy news? Having lived in countries where such standards prevail, I don't think that's the direction we want to go in.

Nor do I think that's the motivation of suicide bombers. Rather they seek to sow division between the various ethnic groups and empower extremists, of whom there are no shortage, who will be relied upon to provide for group safety since the government is obviously not up to the task.

Just because Muslims are doing it does not mean they do it because they are Muslims.

Yeah, it does.

I suppose an argument can be made for that. I should have said "It does not mean they do it only because they are Muslims."

But the interpretations of a clear minority do not speak for the whole religion. If that were true then David Koresh WAS the new Christian messiah martyred by the ATF. Also, all Christians must believe the same as the Mormons.

I would blame Middle Eastern culture, inequity, factional emnity, and inherent instability imparted by seemingly random lines drawn in the sand by the British as much or more as Islam for suicide bombings by Middle Easterners.

Naturally in this case, we can add bungling the occupation of Iraq. People in desperate situations do desperate things. And they fight with the weapons they have, not the weapons they wish they had.

Madverts: Heh, it's the anti-invasion crowds fault there are suicide bombings in Iraq....

But it wouldn't be the fault of the radical Left if Saddam were in power today and committing crimes, now would it? You believe my choice has consequences whereas your does not. That's not a fair assessment of two choices.

People in desperate situations do desperate things.

What utter nonsense. It really shows a lack of understanding on your part of the situation. Thoughout history people have suffered immeasurable poverty and oppression, yet they haven't strapped on suicide belts and murdered innocent women and children. In fact, many of those guilty of the worst terrorism have had plenty of access to money. Time to lay down the British colonization excuse and recognize this is an Islamic phenomenon that's occurring world-wide.

It's about Islam and the teachings of the Koran. It's about violence directed against the Infidel as well as sectarian violence within. The sooner you recognize it, the less time you'll spend conjuring up arguments that make little sense. David Koresh? Gimme a break. :-D

Thoughout history people have suffered immeasurable poverty and oppression, yet they haven't strapped on suicide belts and murdered innocent women and children.

There are some reasons for that. Dynamite or any other practical means of doing this was not invented until 1866. Also most people being adverse to suicide. (I will grant you that some people have managed to twist Islam to make it look like suicide is ok though. If you are going to argue with that, then please show us the passage of the Koran that encourages suicide bombing. Then I will you show how it is subject to interpretation and remind you that 1.4 billion apparently bad Muslims have yet to blow themselves up.)

But the reaction to poverty and oppression throught the ages has been extreme, and that is all over the globe. The fact that so many have tolerated it before launching into extremism is hardly a grounds to attack Islam as Muslims are hardly alone in this reaction when it happens. And it also is not like Muslims have been suicide bombing throughout history, as you seem to want to believe.

this is an Islamic phenomenon that's occurring world-wide.

Every once in a while you say something true and inarguable. I just wish you would not exaggerate it by applying it to all Muslims and their religion. Why can you not see the factor of culture I have mentioned? It can be seen as sort of a vogue right now, though more so in spirit than actual action among Muslim cultures.

It's about Islam and the teachings of the Koran.

No its not. Its about interpretation of the Koran and all the other factors I have mentioned too.

Some Muslims are being mislead for a variety of reasons and a combination of them. Attacking Islam in general is not only dead wrong, it is also not going to lead to any practical solutions. Find some ways to keep the peace or stop wasting our time condemning the word of Islam as the sole factor in suicide bombings.

that most terrorists, at least those who are in charge come from solid, middle-class backgrounds:

Yes, and I have acknowledged that in previous posts. The masterminds of terrorism are a mixed bag, with a lot of nuts in there. I never denied that. But here I have been mostly concerned about the people who actually do the dirty the work, especially the ones who blow themselves up, and they are most definitely at the bottom of the totem-pole. Without them, the masterminds would be handicapped.

Those who spread the “root cause” lie

Actually, by failing to pluralize "cause", among other things, this is not representative of my position at all. There are different causes (plural) for the masterminds and different causes (plural) for the actual perpetrators.

They cannot imagine, from the vantage point of their privilege, that poor people living under despotic governments cannot recognize that it is wrong to murder innocent people.

Definitely not me. Its one of the reasons I prefer not to get involved. You cannot reason with these people. (and it would be far easier to call me a snob for that opinion.) I have little hope for Iraq, and none for Afghanistan, and its not the first time I have said so.

Their logic would lead us to believe that poverty causes theft.

It does, just not every theft, maybe not even a majority.

By this logic rich people would not steal.

If we were to fall into the fallacy that one behavior can have only one cause. It is this very fallacy I have been arguing against. Suicide bombing does not have one single root cause. It has many. And they often overlap. Even George W. Bush himself has acknowledged the role of poverty in suicide bombings! It just is not the end all be all single root cause and there isn't one. Even Islam is another cause and I have admitted that too.

Intellectual apologists looking for a 'root cause' is classic snobbery........Period.

Attempts to package everything into neat segments with "period" is foolhardiness. Attempts to detatch events from the web of cause and effect is intellectual laziness. You do that and all solutions become "bash it with a hammer".

But here I have been mostly concerned about the people who actually do the dirty the work, especially the ones who blow themselves up, and they are most definitely at the bottom of the totem-pole. Without them, the masterminds would be handicapped.

No offense but your just wrong on that assumption. It seems reasonable on the surface but it just isn't true. Study after study has shown that suicide bombers the foot soldiers of this evil as it were come from the most wealthy and well educated class of their respective countries. That is just the way it is, no amount of "progressive" thinking is going to change that fact.

Terrorists have higher educations and incomes than expected Although study is still limited, the evidence that there is no simple, direct line from poverty to terrorism is persuasive. Analyses of terrorist activities in the last two decades consistently reveal that individuals who support and commit terrorist acts are likely to be more highly educated and have higher incomes than others in their society.

Harvard public policy professor Alberto Abadie concluded poor countries do not experience more terrorism than wealthy countries, after he studied wealth, political liberty and other variables in relation to terrorism. He also concluded that political liberty is a better indicator than poverty of terrorist activity.

Similarly, Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova have proposed that : "a careful review of the evidence provides little reason for optimism that a reduction in poverty or an increase in educational attainment would, by themselves, meaningfully reduce international terrorism."

Krueger and Maleckova draw their conclusions from a variety of sources. Their examination of a December 2001 Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey research (PCPSR), public opinion poll revealed little economic or educational class difference among Palestinians who support for armed activity against Israeli targets, and those who don't.

Kreuger and Mileckova also speculate on evidence provided by Nasra Hassan about would-be Palestinian suicide bombers between 1996 and 1999. Hassan, now the Director of the United Nations Information Service in Vienna, has written about the fact that there are many more volunteers for "martyrdom operations" carried out by the Palestinian group Hamas, than there are planned operations: "Many were middle class and, unless they were fugitives, held paying jobs . . . Two were the sons of millionaires."

http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/TerrorPoverty.htm

you say something true and inarguable

So you agree it's an Islamic phenomenon that's occurring world-wide, yet don't agree it's about the religion. Sorry, I really can't help you here.

Attacking Islam in general is not only dead wrong, it is also not going to lead to any practical solutions.

On the contrary. One can only solve problems by understanding the truth. And the truth is that Islam is a problem. That's why Islamic terrorism is global, it's not a product of socioeconomics. All of your solutions will fail since you're unwilling to accept the truth.

It seems we owe the vogue of Middle East suicide bombings...

The Islamic term fedayeen mujahideen (holy warriors willing to sacrifice their lives) is centuries old and refers to the original Jihadists. It's hardly a new phenomenon.

The Islamic term fedayeen mujahideen (holy warriors willing to sacrifice their lives) is centuries old and refers to the original Jihadists. It's hardly a new phenomenon.

Well, this is quite a bit different than terrorism on innocents by means of blowing yourself to bits. Even several attacks by Alexander the Great leading right up in the vanguard could be termed suicidal.

I keep trying to post a link showing how suicide attacks stormed back into the consciouness of Middle Easterners in the modern age and took on this completely different mod of operation. Moddie has erased it twice.

A Jihadist of centuries ago is quite a different creature than a Muslim suicide bomber of today. Truly apples and oranges. Both you and they are doing some real serious mental yoga to make the connection.

So you agree it's an Islamic phenomenon that's occurring world-wide, yet don't agree it's about the religion. Sorry, I really can't help you here.

Blue jeans are a world-wide phenomenon from Christian countries. Does not make them about Christianity just because they spread through Christian countries? No. They are a product of Christian culture, not religion. (But that does not stop some people from making the connection. Some groups have banned western clothing on those totally ridiculous grounds.)

There is more tying Islam to Islamic terrorisism, I will give you that, and I have been giving that over and over. But it is not just that simple as you are trying to make out. A lot of things have been twisted to get this sort of thing more accepted among Muslims, and it is not the fault of Islam. This is a new phenomenon, and it is being driven by several factors, such as poverty fostering ignorance, and modern culture of the Middle East.

And the truth is that Islam is a problem.

You said "a problem" and not "the problem". There may be hope for you yet.

But its modern interpretations of Islam and not Islam itself that is one of those problems. Interpretations of the Christian bible can and have been used as cover for vile action also.

This is a new phenomenon, and it is being driven by several factors, such as poverty fostering ignorance, and modern culture of the Middle East.

And even some stupid short-sighted clerics. And even they do not have a monopoly on Islamic truth.

Sailwind, are you reading all of your links? Much of what they say goes hand in hand with what I am saying.

A sense of deprivation helps fuel terrorism Terrorism may be considered a politics of extreme frustration, which is the feeling that one wants to change a situation, but has no power to do so. Frustration is a useful concept because it resonates both with individuals' feelings about their own circumstances and opportunities, and on a socio-political plane. Frustration may be a response to material deprivation, but it may also be an answer to the long term deprivation of a group or society from what it perceives to be rightfully its own.

They cite multiple factors including poverty, I cite multiple factors including poverty.

Study after study has shown that suicide bombers the foot soldiers of this evil as it were come from the most wealthy and well educated class of their respective countries.

That is just silly. From your own link, from the bit you bolded all by yourself:

individuals who support and commit terrorist acts are likely to be more highly educated and have higher incomes than others in their society.

You are freely intermixing the terms "suicide bomber" with "terrorist". They are freely mixing those who support terror with those who commit terror. What a tangled mess!

How can we discuss anything with such wild and random use of terms?

"You believe my choice has consequences whereas your does not. That's not a fair assessment of two choices."

I've already refuted this argument as intellectualy dishonest. There was no need to invade Iraq on the invented grounds given - therefore there was no choice.

You can't blame people who are pissed off seeing the continued massacre and chaos in Iraq for the suicide bombings that the invasion created.

I know you're smarter than that.

And besides, Super, the choice wasn't yours to make. I'm sure at least a hundred thousand Iaqi's would be behind me 110%....if they weren't dead because of your "choice" that is.

You are freely intermixing the terms "suicide bomber" with "terrorist".

There is a difference??????????????????????????????????????

madverts:

I'm sure at least a hundred thousand Iaqi's would be behind me 110%....if they weren't dead because of your "choice" that is.

A hundred thousand Iraqis?

Who is the source here?

If it is all about numbers I have to ask:

How many lives saved because of the US intervention?

Saddam and his sons put out of business; a nationwide program administered by American forces aimed at inoculating all Iraqi children.

And don't forget - as much of Europe has - the incalculable price of freedom.

Do the math.

Tell us what you find...

it is being driven by several factors, such as poverty fostering ignorance, and modern culture of the Middle East

Some of the Islamic terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks were from England. Nothing to do with poverty, ignorance, or the modern culture of the Middle East. Try again.

it is not just that simple as you are trying to make out.

Yeah, it is. You're the one having to conjure up excuses and scenarios that don't hold water for something that is so obvious. But I'm enjoying watching your efforts.

Blue jeans are a world-wide phenomenon from Christian countries. Does not make them about Christianity...

LOL!

There is a difference??????????????????????????????????????

No. Bin Laden is/was a suicide bomber. The dudes in Mumbai were not actually shot, they blew themselves up. Go back to sleep.

Nothing to do with poverty, ignorance, or the modern culture of the Middle East. Try again.

It does not need be their own poverty. It does not even need be real. Plenty have moved throughout history because of the poverty and oppression of others, real and imagined. And anyone who does what the Mumbai attackers did is obviously either ignorant or stupid, take your pick. The modern culture of the Middle East is not confined to the Middle East. It travels with the people. Also, there are the plain old naturally homicidal, like the boys from Columbine, or were they Muslims too?

And there are more reasons why people do this: a desire for fame or acceptance of certain people, the simple rage that many young men naturally feel, brainwashing, insanity, promises of money for their families (a weakness of the poor). Islam has simply been sqeezed into a grease to lubricate all these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Amir

Read the guy's confession. He mentions a whole lot more than Allah and Islam. I would spell it out, but I am getting sick of this.

Some of the Islamic terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks were from England.

Keep reading your righty blogs. You seem to thrive on misinformation, like the way your righty blog forgot to tell you that 550 tons of yellowcake was locked up by the IAEA after the Gulf War and Saddam kept his hands off it ie. he complied with restrictions.

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that those guys were British, and plenty that they were from Pakistan. There were uncomfirmed reports that they were from Briton (your favorite kind as they fuel your conpiracy theory). Don't bother scratching the surface, because it might ruin the pretty worldview you feel compelled to cram into your head, the one that has a clear us and them where your violent fantasies can be entertained.

But I'm enjoying watching your efforts.

At least you are getting something out of all this. Perhaps if you were more dedicated to the truth rather than your own enjoyment you could back off of your overly simplisic Hollywood inspired worldview.

Perhaps if you were more dedicated to the truth rather than your own enjoyment you could back off of your overly simplisic Hollywood inspired worldview.

You need to pass that on to people like this and then look in the mirror.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=U9kOCxu0dvk&feature=related

I'll go back to sleep now.

You need to pass that on to people like this and then look in the mirror.

I could not see the video, but I think I can guess. I got no idea why I should have to look in the mirror after listening to a crazy cleric rant.

Again, I have to guess about what he said exactly, but my guess is that he represents all of Islam about as well as Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell and Jeremiah Wright represent all of Christendom. I will give you that Islam has more such nutjob religious leaders, but you have to realize that they never went through the religious reforms and upheavals Christians did, and I hope to God that terror attacks like these will spark similar reforms and reflection in Islam. Islam desperately needs it.

Trouble is Middle Easterners could actually become a force in the world again instead of intellectual backwaters surviving off nothing but oil sales. There are a lot of people on our side of the fence who actually don't want that. They prefer to keep the Middle East down, and the resulting terrorism can be lived with more than the "danger" of a secure and powerful Middle East actually having a real place on the world stage.

Likeit is:

" But the reaction to poverty and oppression throught the ages has been extreme, and that is all over the globe. "

False statement, and easy to disprove. There is no correlation between suicide bombers and poverty. There is a clear correlation between suicide bombers and fundamentalist islam. (And if you take out the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, who also have perfect this art, it is practically a 100% one.)

All of the suide bombers are devout muslims, and if you watch their farewell messages, you will they always celebrate their coming entry to paradise and the marriage to their 72 virgins. q.e.d.

Like it is:

" a crazy cleric rant. Again, I have to guess about what he said exactly, but my guess is that he represents all of Islam about as well as Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell and Jeremiah Wright represent all of Christendom. "

False statement. Muslim clerics like Ayatollha Khomeini and Yussuf al Quaradafi represent the highest authority in Shiite and Sunnis islam, respectively. And the they both advocate physical jihad.

Conversely, both Ahmediyya islam and Alevite Islam has renounced physical jihad. And there are no suidice bombers who are Ahmediyya or Alevite. Alas, both Shiites and Sunnis consider Ahmediyyas and Alevites as heretics. q.e.d.

NB: I recommend doing your homework before opining on the subject.

False statement, and easy to disprove. There is no correlation between suicide bombers and poverty.

That is not what the statement said though. Suicide bombing is a modern act. It was not done in the past largely because it was simply not possible. I was talking about extreme reaction to poverty throughout the ages, not specifically suicide bombing although I do think its a factor.

Extreme and even suicidal reactions to oppression and poverty have been happening throughout the ages, as have the murder of innocents. The combo using suicide belts is primarly a Middle Eastern thing, related to Islam because most people in the M.E. claim to be Muslim and because some have perverted Islam, which is not even fundamental Islam though they claim it is. In short it primarly a M.E. culture thing, facilitated by the twisting of Islam. (Maybe you can only fathom the shorthand of that statement?)

There is a clear correlation between suicide bombers and fundamentalist islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber

Various scholars and analysts, however, dispute the claim that Muslim suicide bombers are driven by religion.

If you truly believe this is a fundamental Islam thing, then it must date back to the time of Mohammad, yes? Please name and date the first Islamic suicide bombing on innocents.

Or would you like to revise this to suicide attack? Again, I ask when was the first Islamic suicide attack on innocents or done with reckless disregard of innocents?

All of the suide bombers are devout muslims, and if you watch their farewell messages, you will they always celebrate their coming entry to paradise and the marriage to their 72 virgins. q.e.d.

No. They only think they are devout. They are mistaken. But I will say this: The mistake is too easy made, and this problem must be corrected by the real devout Muslims who need to denounce that mistake loud and clear. This thinking is a stain on the image of Islam, but not Islam itself. (Frankly, its other things that stain Islam itself. Yes, I do have problems with Islam. But I will continue to believe what I believe about the relation of Islam and suicide bombing until you quote the bits of the Koran that condone suicide bombing of innocents).

As for the relation of poverty, I cannot find anything to support or deny it. But as I am not saying it the only correlation or even the primary one, or even something to focus on directly to find a solution, so I see no reason to go on about it. Either link us to proof I am wrong or drop it.

Likeitis:

" If you truly believe this is a fundamental Islam thing, then it must date back to the time of Mohammad, yes? Please name and date the first Islamic suicide bombing on innocents. "

Bombings of course need bombs. The concept of islamic martyrdom goes right back to the beginning of islam. Very early on, Mohammed promised paradise for those who die in the process of fighting for Allah. This is firmly embedded in the Koran and the Haddith.

Again, those who opine about these things would be well advised to their homework first.

Likeitis:

" No. They only think they are devout. They are mistaken. "

No. They are devout. That you, an unbelievers, disagree with their religious interpretation, is completely irrelevant to the topic. By definition, the Shahids (islamic martyrs) go to paradise (which is not assured at all to believers in islam -- martyring yourself is seen as one sure-fire way to get there).

I recommend reading up on the subject before opining.

WilliB, quote the Koran please.

As for the relation of poverty, I cannot find anything to support or deny it.

Duh. Actually I did find something to support it.

likeitis at 07:33 PM JST - 13th December

But I am still not saying its THE one lone cause and that the solution is there.

Likeitis:

" quote the Koran please "

You know very well that if we go off-topic by quoting religious texts here, the moderators will quickly step in. So I will just refer you to this article by Sheik Abdullah Bin Muhammad, which lays out the jihadist cause pretty well. Remember, this is mainstream teaching: http://islamworld.net/docs/jihad.html

You will not find any similar reasoning in Catholicism, Buddhism, or Ahmediyya islam, for that matter.

So again, I really recommend doing your homework before opining.

Moderator: Readers, you are starting to go around in circles. Please make sure that all future posts focus on the story.

It does not need be their own poverty. It does not even need be real.

You're just making it up as you go along.

They prefer to keep the Middle East down

The ME has the largest oil reserves in the world. We are seeing a transfer of wealth of historic proportions from the West to these ME oil-producing nations. So how exactly are "they" keeping the ME down? What really keeps these nations down are their own despotic rulers and governments. Most of the wealth goes to a select few, while the rest of the population lives in poverty. Place the blame where blame is due.

your overly simplisic Hollywood inspired worldview

Usually the simplest explanation is the right one. You're the one chasing zebras.

You know very well that if we go off-topic by quoting religious texts here, the moderators will quickly step in.

What I know is that you cannot find amble justification for this suicide bombing on innocents in the Koran.

If you can quote the Koran in a way that can be used to explain how the bomber could be compelled to do this suicide bombing, I am sure it will be allowed. I have quoted the bible before.

Quoting a real Hadith might even be something, but I am not interested in the interpretation of a single Sheik. In fact, I have been saying that interpretions are the problem all along!

Quote the Koran, because I cannot prove non-existence.

Moderator: Readers, no more debate on the Koran please. Focus your comments on the story.

Quote the Koran, because I cannot prove non-existence.

I also posted Koran quotes, and they were deleted by the mods. But I have a better idea. Read the Koran yourself. You'll learn something about the topic you claim to know so much about.

Moderator: Readers, please focus your comments on the story.

Likeitis:

" but I am not interested in the interpretation of a single Sheik. "

Read the reference I gave you. The Sheik supports his interpretation well with plenty of Koran and Haddith quotes. And this good Sheik is not an exception; to the contrary. Fundamentalist islam is preached everywhere where there are fundamentalist clerics, Iraq including.

You'll learn something about the topic you claim to know so much about.

I only claimed to know more than some, a certain some who cannot even post a passage number to defend their claims.

The big trouble with you lot is that you cannot differentiate between battlefields and marketplaces and soldiers and innocent people as written in the pages even to the links you post. That particular trouble with you is the same as with these suicide bombers who think they have some kind of justification for their indiscriminate attacks in the Koran.

It is truly too bad the moderator has let this go on so long but steps in right at the point the real proof is going to come out. (or not come out as it were because there is none for this misinterpretation of jihad.