U.S. military blames al-Qaida in Iraq for double suicide bombing

Sad beyond comprehension, there was another post in another thread which stated that le surge's success was measured by the fact of a stable government, not necessarily reduction in violence. I thought that odd because le surge was in fact a response to the rising levels of violence in Iraq not too long ago. As soon as the experts were crowing and patting themselves on the back for the success of le surge, here we are now, the deadliest month of April for U.S. troops in 7 months, even deadlier for Iraqi civilians.

To quote from one of the most memorable movies of all time:

Madness, Madness...

I don't think any of us will ever understand what would possess two people to blow themselves up and kill others while waiting for a wedding. It's not something that any of us could ever make sense from. There's just no rational way to explain why two people would do this except to say that they simply were no longer human beings before they did it. Their minds literally left reality and went into pure insanity.

I think its probably true that some suicide bombers are out of touch with reality and quite mad.

This was a very human action--not a humane one, but human. However, if we can understand why suicide is acceptable, I don't think it is such a great leap to understand how a person might wish to take others with them or to make a statement with their suicides. Human beings are not pleasant animals.

Tragic, sick stuff.

What kind of "religion" could make killing others a sacrament?And how in hell could they carry this out on their co-religionists, celebrating what nearly all cultures regard as the sacrament of marriage?

I don't think we are dealing with anything that makes killing others a "sacrament". That seems like a poor choice of words.

Islam, at any rate, does not make it a sacrament. Alternatively, I don't think there is any religion who hasn't had practitioners who were quite willing to kill in the name of their god.

This is not a religious problem.

redacted,

One of SuperLib's points was that no rational person could perpetrate a suicide bombing.

My point is that this is not true. It may be comforting to believe that this is so, but I have not seen any evidence to that effect. You can be as mad as a hatter, but as long as you manage to stay under the radar your friends and neighbors will accuse you of sanity. There is no essential relationship between sanity and action.

"The Sadr City clashes sharply increased last month’s death toll among Iraqis, which totaled 1,073 people, according to government ministries. They included 966 civilians, 69 police and 38 soldiers."

Sorry, but this represents a sharp decline in the violence, if we use as a metric the loudly-trumpeted, oft-cited Lancet figguhs (figures) produced, by pure coincidence, weeks before the US presidential election of 2004.

SezWho2:

" Islam, at any rate, does not make it a sacrament. Alternatively, I don't think there is any religion who hasn't had practitioners who were quite willing to kill in the name of their god. This is not a religious problem. "

Not so. Islam is the only religion that promises paradise (and a very graphic paradise) for the act of killing and getting killed in the name of fighting for god. Your wishing to relativize that is understandable, but it is wrong. You do not find Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist suicide bombers, that is a fact.

You can be sure that the motives of the people who blew up the wedding party in Balad Ruz are mainly selfish; they are looking forward to the paradise and the virgins. If you don`t believe that, look at the typical jihadist "martyr" farewell messages and celebrations. Typically, they are advance marriage celebrations for marriage with the huris (the virgins in paradise).

That is a fact, if you like it or not.

redacted:

" Tragic, sick stuff. What kind of "religion" could make killing others a sacrament? "

Islam does. But you knew that.

" And how in hell could they carry this out on their co-religionists, celebrating what nearly all cultures regard as the sacrament of marriage? "

There is no problem there. Sunnis regard Shiites as heretics, and vice versa. So, they are not killing co-religionists but enemies. This internal dispute has been going on for 1400 years, and it is not going to stop in "liberated" Iray. But I guess you knew that too.

Shiite militiamen, mainly from Sadr’s Mahdi Army, have fought fierce street battles with U.S. and Iraqi forces since late March in the Sadr City district of Baghdad.

And they are getting their butts kicked. What is so difficult about admitting this?

This is not a religious problem.

It never ceases to amaze me how we see this phenomenon of Muslim suicide bombers occurring all over the world, and yet there are those who still say it has nothing to do with religion. I don't understand how people can live in such denial.

Militiamen being killed is nothing to gloat about, especially when American troops and military continue to do the bulk of the fighting. And using military airstrikes, as has been happening in Sadr City lately, has been producing collateral damage when American forces can least afford to. Basically, it's creating even more animosity towards American forces.

Over 5 years after this fiasco started, the fact that American troops continue to die, continue to be the targets of militias and others in Iraq, is heartbreaking.

Let the Iraqis fight and die for their country, not American or coalition forces.

Basically, it's creating even more animosity towards American forces.

Heresay and balderdash (and six o'clock MSM news 30-second sound bites). It is simply not true.

"Not so. Islam is the only religion that promises paradise (and a very graphic paradise) for the act of killing and getting killed in the name of fighting for god. Your wishing to relativize that is understandable, but it is wrong. You do not find Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist suicide bombers, that is a fact."

Islam may be the only one that promises paradise, but I know a religion that will offer the sacrament to a mass murderer before he/she dies so that he/she can get into 'heaven' (or paradise, if you will), and each and every sin, including said sick mass murders or whatever, are simply 'washed away' and the person can sit at god's side for eternity. Doesn't sound one whole hell of a lot different, save that the Christians are usually too scared to blow themselves up in all their mayhem.

Unless you count the countless murderers who walk into schools and start blasting people to pieces. I bet the majority of them were baptized Christian, if not ALL of them. Oh, but wait.... they may not BELIEVE in their religion! Well we all know for a fact that it's Islam making these people kill others, and cannot possibly be that they are against American occupation and aggression in Iraq!! (that's sarcarsm... which is to say, the aims of all the suicide bombers in war zones and or otherwise are not necessarily grounded in religion, regardless of how much others may trumpet that it is).

Anyway, it still cracks me up when people come on this site and say, to the effect, "Islam is the source of all evil and hatred in the world; LET'S KILL THEM ALL!"

Helter: "It never ceases to amaze me how we see this phenomenon of Muslim suicide bombers occurring all over the world, and yet there are those who still say it has nothing to do with religion. I don't understand how people can live in such denial."

It never ceases to amaze ME the hypocrisy in the thinking of others. I suppose Christianity is the 'religion of peace', and yet you defend a president -- a die hard Christian, I might add -- who actually and seriously desires to be known as 'the war president', and trumpets the death of other human beings as 'victory', while making heaps of money on the side to send his country-people to their deaths. Of course, GWB and the like are way to chicken-$$$$ to blow themselves up, but that doesn't make their suicidal tendencies any worse than the 'religion of hate' you speak of.

Anyone who condemns a religion -- ANY religion -- based solely on a few bad apples and the ignorance of those condemning makes them no better than that in which they hate.

You guys all ought to practice what you preach, so to speak, and stop being such hypocrites.

"but I know a religion that will offer the sacrament to a mass murderer before he/she dies so that he/she can get into 'heaven' (or paradise, if you will), and each and every sin, including said sick mass murders or whatever, are simply 'washed away' and the person can sit at god's side for eternity."

Whatever. You may know of it, but you don't know it.

"Doesn't sound one whole hell of a lot different, save that the Christians are usually too scared to blow themselves up in all their mayhem."

Usually? This is nonsense. Find and post here links to even one vid of a Xtian blowing himself up as he shrieks "God is Great,Christ was the Prince of Peace!"

I'd wager at least a few of these nutjob AQ types in Iraq, in pious and demented imitation of their "brothers" in "Palestine" have left video sendoffs to console/cheer their friends and families.

My challenge to smith - find and post links to a Tim McVeigh type - the Left's favorite "Christian," informing his pastor or the Pope that he took the latest sermon to heart and acted on it.

It's no longer even humorous watching the Left's jihadi exonerators and enablers twist themselves into amoral grotesqueries.

and yet you defend a president

When you show me where I defend the president, I'll read the rest of your post.

Zaphod,

You may wish to characterize Islam as something that it is not. It sure would make thinking more easy if it were true, kind of like the turn of the 20th century Indiana legislator wanting to mandate pi equal to 3. But your characterization is false. And that is a fact.

I think you will find in the Qu'ran verses which promise rewards to those who die defending the faith. But I don't think that Islamic faith centers around these verses or practices them as a tenet of faith and it certainly not embody them as a sacrament. Can Islam be perverted? Yes, of course it can and so can any other religion. What you see in Islam is a religion that is now being perverted. It does not also need to be maligned.

I don't think you can demonstrate that suicide bombers truly believe in the promises that are represented to them. I think they believe in the efficacy of their undertaking and in that I think they may be wrong. The scary thing is that they may be right. The promises are a battle cry, something to hold on to, kind of like "Remember the Alamo!"

As far as I know, the Shinto promises to the kamikaze pilots were something for them to hold on to as they did their duty--quite apart from any fundamental belief in the godliness of the emperor or the satisfaction of enshrinement of their souls. The Tamil Tigers are largely Hindu and operate from a sense of mission but I'm reasonably sure that they do not believe themselves to be acting against the tenets of their faith. I think that in similar circumstances you would in fact find Christians, Jews and Buddhists doing the same things but that is a thought experiment that cannot be duplicated in reality at present.

HelterSkelter,

Who said this has nothing to do with religion? I said it is not a religious problem. The fundamental problem here is a problem of unequal force.

This is not a religious problem." Change the wording a bit, religion is not the only problem, but it is the BIGGEST problem. When Humanity decides to move away from an order of religion, grasp technology and science, only then will the world start getting on the right track. After religion, I have to say cultures and traditions need to be condensed into a one world spectrum.

Sez who - why do you deny Islamic supremacists the subjective validity of their warped beliefs?

As I posted above, they frequently leave videotaped manifestos detailing the Koranic verses that inspired them or likewise the deeds of the illiterate brigand who founded their religion that they seek to emulate.

In your own way, in trying to explain away conduct which is both religious and political (Islam, for these types in particular, is a single polity) do you not exhibit the sort of Euro-centric demonizing or dehumanizing of 'The Other' that Lefty icons like Edward Said fought against?

I mean, what's up? Why you gotta be like that, huh man?

skipthesong,

Religion may be a problem without suicide bombing being a religious problem.

redacted,

I don't think I'm denying the subjective validity of Islamic supremacists. I think I'm addressing the subjective validity of the beliefs of those who hold that Islam is the problem and who claim to understand the subjective validity of those they seem to despise.

The leaving behind of manifestos does not prove that suicide bombers believe that they will have have virgins in heaven or whatever it is you believe that they believe. Some might believe it. Others might find it a convenient metaphor. And even the virgins wouldn't begin to explain why women would volunteer for the task. And it certainly does not prove that the problem is with Islam as opposed to, say, those who pervert it.

As far as Edward Said and Euro-centric dehumanization is concerned, my short answer is, "no". I am saying that suicide bombers have a human face and that those who dismiss them as being insane are the ones who are doing the dehumanizing. It seems to me that you are making this personal and what's up with that?

"The leaving behind of manifestos does not prove that suicide bombers believe that they will have have virgins in heaven or whatever it is you believe that they believe. Some might believe it. Others might find it a convenient metaphor. And even the virgins wouldn't begin to explain why women would volunteer for the task. And it certainly does not prove that the problem is with Islam as opposed to, say, those who pervert it."

You're making me laugh.

Sarge - "What I do want is for the Islamic extremists, you know, the ones who would torture and kill or enslave you, to be captured or if necessary, killed."

Only last month you were backing George Bush's policy on torture - that was bad enough.

But now you're advocating outright murder of Islamists?

What will you back next?????

It never ceases to amaze me how we see this phenomenon of Muslim suicide bombers occurring all over the world, and yet there are those who still say it has nothing to do with religion. I don't understand how people can live in such denial.

Because Islam didn't create these terrorists. Osama Bin Laden did. Being Muslim isn't the requirement. Being part of Al Queda is.

Have you ever heard of a person studying Islam on their own, then going out on a suicide attack? It never happens. They are always part of a group. It's the group that creates the mindset that terrorism is acceptable, not the religion.

Islam isn't responsible for terrorism any more than Christianity is responsible for that cult in Texas. Being Christian didn't make them that way, being at that ranch did. Religion was the tool they used, but it sure as hell wasn't the same religion that everyone else was studying or else the numbers would be the exact opposite, meaning a vast majority of Muslims would be terrorists and a vast majority of Christians would be like that group in Texas.

To me, saying Islam is the cause of terrorism is just as absurd as saying foreign policy or injustice is the cause of terrorism. Those things alone do not create terrorists. Something else must be added in order for terrorism to occur.

SushiSake3 - I'm advocating the capture or killing of the scumbags who would torure and kill you or me without hesitation or remorse.

SArge - Don't you have any better cliches than the one you've been repeating incessantly since 2003?

redacted,

Why are you laughing? You don't seem to offer anything in the way of a refutation and it's difficult to respond to simple derision.

Is it that you think that religion has no metaphorical value or power? Or is it that you think that suicide bombers cannot partake of it? What exactly is your point about the convenience of metaphor?

once again the discussion on JT has devolved to mudslinging and namecalling.

Does anybody care that these creeps blew up a wedding? And this is a "liberation" movement? The whole thing is sick.

ca1ic0cat,

I don't particularly care that they blew up a wedding. I don't think there's any particularly good time to be the victim of a seemingly random act of violence.

I think that part of the point here is that there are people who are willing to sacrifice others--or themselves and others--in order to achieve their objectives. And the other part of that point seems to be that we do not know--and maybe no one knows--the best way to make all of that stop.

Calling the perpetrators creeps would seem to be just another exercise in name-calling. It does not solve the problem of why, after 5 years, al-Qaeda (if it was al-Qaeda) is still able to recruit people to effect these kinds of deeds.

Sezwho:

" I think you will find in the Qu'ran verses which promise rewards to those who die defending the faith. But I don't think that Islamic faith centers around these verses or practices them as a tenet of faith and it certainly not embody them as a sacrament. "

I suggest you read up on islamic doctrine, and in particular about the concept of abrogation. You will find all sorts of things in the Koran, but later, violent verses superseed the earlier, more peaceful ones.

Is it possible to preach a moderate islam? Probably; but the radical schools like the Wahabis have a very strong theological foundation (plus the support of Saudi oil money...), and your kuffar opinion is worth the pixels on the screen.

Again: The people who blew up the wedding party are acting on a strong religious basis. Like the 9/11 and 7/7 bombers, they are convinced that they will be rewarded with eternal paradise with virgins. And if you like that or not is spectacularly irrelevant.

Superlib:

" Because Islam didn't create these terrorists. Osama Bin Laden did. Being Muslim isn't the requirement. "

How do you want to separate Bin Ladin from islam? Every single one of his sermons is carefully argued with islamic teaching, and solidly based in the Koran and Haddiths. Suicide bombers do not die shouting "Bin Ladin", their last words are always "Allah Akbar". And yes, they are all muslim. You won`t find any Christians, Jews or Buddhists in Al Quaida.

And btw, it does not take a Bin Ladin. Shiite clerics in Iran are also grooming suicide bombers; in fact Ahmedinejad brags having tens of thousands of them.

The U.S. military on Friday blamed al-Qaida in Iraq for a double suicide bombing that killed at least 35 people during a wedding procession through a crowd of people cheering the bride and groom in a town northeast of Baghdad.

Is the MSM saying that OBL did not issue a video claiming responsibility for this heinous act?

Zaphod,

May I also then point out that whether you think that to be true or not is spectacularly irrelevant. You simply do not know what was going on in the mind of the bombers and you are substituting your prejudice for fact.

Your suggestion that I read up on Islamic doctrine is noted, as is the underlying assumption that you know about Islamic doctrine and I do not. Any anonymous person on the Internet can lay claim to expertise.

sezeho:"May I also then point out that whether you think that to be true or not is spectacularly irrelevant. You simply do not know what was going on in the mind of the bombers and you are substituting your prejudice for fact."

Abandoning the Convenient Metaphor Theory so soon?

Most of these insurgents were created by the United States.

Knowing that Al-Quaeda never entered and established itself as an ally between Saddam/Iraq; after the pre-emptive attack by george bush, this attack on Iraq created citizens that fight against the occuping force. This is just a no-brainer.

So all these Al-Quaeda claims are B/S.

Let me see, if you lined up Al-Quaeda and simple Iraqi citizens together in a line. Who can pick out Al-Quaeda. (Won't happen.)

So when they, die do they wear a special patch that says Al-Quadea? Is there a special headdress that says Al-Quaeda?

It's just another care of we'll tell you. You just believe what we tell you. We would never ever lie to you.

Now it's Al Qaeda of Iraq huh? Total insanity.

And Madverts blames the Bush admimistration for allowing al-Qaida to actually be in Iraq.

How do you want to separate Bin Ladin from islam? Every single one of his sermons is carefully argued with islamic teaching, and solidly based in the Koran and Haddiths. Suicide bombers do not die shouting "Bin Ladin", their last words are always "Allah Akbar". And yes, they are all muslim. You won`t find any Christians, Jews or Buddhists in Al Quaida.

But like I said there is no such thing as a suicide bomber who isn't part of a group like Al Queda, Hamas, etc. And suicide bombers follow a familiar pattern in terms of age and personal history. Why? Because they are recruited and then made to be suicide bombers. It's not something that happens naturally with Islam.

I know what you're saying, tho, which is that suicide bombings follow one religion. I don't think I'm really going to be able to explain how my mind makes the separation. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Muslims include their faith as part of their everyday lives to a much greater extent than other religions. Maybe it's partially due to the fact that Islam seems to focus more on giving yourself entirely to the religion, more so than Christianity. Maybe people who follow Islam are more open to be controlled by others who use a perverted form of Islam to gain control.

Let's not forget that Al Queda killed Muslims at the wedding, not Christians, not Americans, not Jews. Even in their own minds the terrorists make a separation between who is a follower and who is not, and just being Muslim doesn't spare you. You're essentially attacking the religion of the victims today, not the killers.

And Madverts blames the Bush admimistration for allowing al-Qaida to actually be in Iraq.

But your alternative is to allow a dictator to control the country. Is your position in any way burdened by that reality?

And who let Al Queda into Europe?

Most of these insurgents were created by the United States.

The insurgents and Al Queda are two completely different things. Al Queda's disastrous showing in Iraq is actually a direct result of the insurgents handing their asses to them, plus you have Al Queda acting as a unifying force between the US and the insurgents.

“Al-Qaida in Iraq continues their malicious tactics against the people of Iraq and their way of life,” the military said in a statement. “They seek violence and chaos in Iraq.”

Ah remember the good Ole days when they weren't.

By the way who is to decide which dictator is better than the next. Sarge and Co. simply believe that if dubya has a list then that's the definite answer. Funny I believe the Kim regime in NK out did Saddam. Don't give me the "he gassed his own people" That doesnt fly when you compare how many have died at the hands of the Kim family.

By the way how many of you have actually read the Koran. Really after reading it did it make you wanna suit up and go to Starbucks or do you just like posting the sound bites your fearless leader preaches to you.

After 9/11 and this government aided at getting Saudi citizens out of the country, I wouldn't doubt it.

I'd have to consider that more of a possibily than an outside chance.

The attack Thursday evening came amid heightened worries that al-Qaida militants are regrouping, despite recent security gains by U.S.-led forces.

When the surge started and the violence started to subside, we said as soon as the surge was over, insurgents would be ready to restart operations. That is now happening.

But then there were these pro-war posters, we'll kick the crap out of them. They'll think twice about... right.

So now that we had to reduce numbers or increase their tours to 18 or 24 months, there aren't the troops to keep that kind of pressure on.

But with the draft we could have those troops levels that we need.

Islam is the only religion that promises paradise (and a very graphic paradise) for the act of killing and getting killed in the name of fighting for god.....

I don't think any of us will ever understand...

But some have insisted it's possible to turn this country into a stable democracy and ridiculed those who questioned whether Iraq could become "normal." So I scanned the posts eagerly looking for the ones which laid out a path to get from here to there. Specifically, how can freedom prevail over the afterworld "material incentives" of bedding virgins which it is claimed, in more than one post, motivate suicide bombers? But no post addressed the crux of the matter, what a surprise. So I guess we will continue to fork over USD 3 billion a week because if we pull out, the country will be taken over by terrorists.

redacted,

Thank you for your question. The answer would be, "no". It's difficult to elaborate in greater detail because you haven't really shown--except in tone--where your question is coming from.

I think that to say that we cannot know what these bombers actually believed is entirely consistent with the assertion that some people hold words literally and some people hold them metaphorically. Perhaps if you could be a little more straightforward I could answer your question in greater detail. Perhaps.

I swear, the only way out is to first get rid of all the media. then go about your business the way you would if they were not there. then you can win and only then.

By the way who is to decide which dictator is better than the next.

This is coming from a man who supports keeping dictators in power for as long as they wish.

Superlib,

With respect, how many more dead Iraqis will you need to see in this malestrom of chaos and instability caused by the invasion before admitting that perhaps in this case, letting Saddam be dictator for life kept a relative peace and stability, and more importantly, kept the religious nutters at bay?

As Iraq continues down the path of fundie feuding and ethnic rivalry and the cadavers continue to pile up, I´m guessing at some point in the next few years you´re going to be forced to join the rest of us on this side of the fence. My arms will be open when thery dayeth come.

letting Saddam be dictator for life kept a relative peace and stability, and more importantly, kept the religious nutters at bay?

Just wanted to confirm that this was your position.

Mad ( 5:57 PM )- The Kurds, the Kuwaitis and, yeah, even the Iranians would disagree with you that there was "relative peace and stability" under good ol' Saddam.

They shouldnt have been there in the first place, but if the US pulls out too soon, things will get a lot worse.

Superlib:

" Let's not forget that Al Queda killed Muslims at the wedding, not Christians, not Americans, not Jews. Even in their own minds the terrorists make a separation between who is a follower and who is not, and just being Muslim doesn't spare you. You're essentially attacking the religion of the victims today, not the killers. "

That is the one complaint that Al-Quaida is getting on islamic websited... that they are killing "innocents" (innocents being muslims, unbelievers like you and I are NOT considered "innocent").

For Al-Q, of course that is irrelevant, since they considere Shiites heretics (Takfir). So read up on the religion, before forming opinions on the basis of wishful thinking.

Al-Quaida`s jihadist doctrine is entirely well founded in their religious doctrine.

In order to demonstrate that the cave-dwellers' pronouncements have no influence over their supposed "followers", I rather hope this was AQ rather than a sectarian attack, but there seems to be a lot of room for doubt. It is very much in US interests to blame AQ for any and all attacks in Iraq to justify their continued involvement in the country. The enormous irony is that without Bush's foreign policy, AQ, with their deluded agenda, wouldn't be there killing innocent people in the first place.

Please remember this, flag-wavers

What or Who actually provoked 9/11 and when? After it happened it was mission payback time in Afghanistan because apparently it was Bin Laden and his men. Then how did the West manage to go from there to attacking Iraq in regards to 9/11? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or did the West get it wrong after a game of spin the bottle and it was actually Saddam after all.Change of story now..Saddam had weapons of mass distruction. War kicked off in Iraq which spawned these mad men that today still blow stuff up and cut heads off..not because of the presence of the west but because of religion. The brainwashed that are still brainwashed believe its Al Qaida that are doing this. The truth is, the U.S dont know what's going on anymore and its story after story about unravelling new speculation and pointing the blame finger. Not all of the truth..but some truth will come out when the U.S gets a new president. I feel sorry for the U.S military puppets on the front line I really do.