Over 50 killed in Iraqi Funeral bombing
One word that Gen. Petraeus used to describe the state of Iraq is "fragile." This is bad news:
A suicide bomber blew up a funeral gathering for the nephews of a prominent local American-backed Sunni chieftain in northern Iraq on Thursday, killing 40 people and wounding six others, according to the local police.
The attacker struck inside a tent full of mourners for the funeral of the two nephews of the chieftain, Sheik Ibrahim Arif al-Azawi, who were slain by unidentified attackers this week. Police said the chieftain was a local organizer of the Sunni Awakening Council, a group of largely Sunni militias that with American help have turned against Sunni extremists in Iraq. It was unclear whether he was among the victims of the suicide attack, but another senior chieftain, Sheik Jasim Wihaib al-Azawi, was killed, the police said...read on
I'm surprised the intellectual authors (neocons) of this debacle haven't started blaming Bush.
I'd like to hear these warmongers define victory in Iraq and how to get there. For that matter, I'd like Hillary and Obama to say how to get there. What is this oh-so-nebulous "victory?"
General_Rennenkampf @ 2:
why are you not curious by mcfuckhead has to say on getting to victory?
or are you a repub and already know that he wants to spend all his
holidays for eternity there?
dadams @ 3:
No. I am a person who hears this term floated around called "victory" applying to an occupation that borders on genocide in a place called "Iraq," and I'd like to know what in the hell is defined as "victory." BTW, dude, that grammar hurts my eyes. Learn proper English and get back to me before calling me a McCainiac.
Could somebody answer my damn question? What in the seven blistering and freezing Hells (actually, that's quite comfortable when you think about it) is victory in Mesopotamia, and how would Soviet America get there?
Oh, and McCain falls under the "warmonger" category. Sorry for the double post.
General_Rennenkampf @ 2:
I once asked this of a fellow on a local message board. He described victory in the war on terror as not getting nuked here in the U.S.
If that's the case, then there are two ways to look at this: 1) Since we haven't been hit with a nuke since starting the war, we can declare victory and get the hell out of Iraq, or 2) We can never declare victory because unless we and our coalition of the willing (yawn) eliminate every terrorist and terrorist wannabe from this planet, there will always be the threat of a nuclear attack.
Yet all the presidential candidates, including that [alleged] agent of hope and change, continue to vote to fund the occupation, thus ensuring that the inflammatory presence of the United States will be the main reason why so much of the violence is occurring in the Middle East.
WC @ 6:
I'm surprised he didn't say "Kill em all and let Jayzus sort 'em out."
General_Rennenkampf:
Oh, and remember that Bush once said, in a rare (the only???) moment of truthfulness, that the war on terror cannot be won.
A day or so later, as I recall, he expanded upon that and said that it could not be won in a conventional way (i.e. there will be no surrender signing ceremonies on a ship, such as we had in WWII).
If not a conventional way, then what way?
General_Rennenkampf @ 8:
:)
General_Rennenkampf @ 4:
I hear ya. Bandied about by both sides, "victory" becomes tiresome.
As far as defining it, I don't even know if that's possible anymore, the terms of victory have changed so many times where would one even begin?
I guess we must be winning.
WC @ 9:
So...this is a perpetual low-grade conflict. Yeah, that worked really well when Rome tried that. What the hell possessed this country to elect him twice, again? Bush is not only stupid, but he's going to eventually create true American fascism (Nazism is the German version, I'm thinking something like a 21st Century update of the KKK on steroids) and we're just what....letting this happen?
This nation cannot afford these wars. Our descendants will be paying for this when we've evolved into a new species, and Bush has no plan to win?
Last throes.
Ash"Hussy"Williams @ 11:
Well, from what I hear in the Heartland, victory is one of three things: Israel gets recognized by Arabs through Alien Space Bats that magic an invasion of Iraq into happiness and sunshine between Israel and the Arabs they displaced (Muslim and Christian), or Iraq somehow becomes an American plantation in the 18th Century sense of a transportation of American society into the Middle East (which failed when England and France tried it, big time) or the aforementioned democide Native American-style.
if more people are dying ...it means the surge is working
if fewer people are dying ...it means the surge is working
damn, i wish i had a racket like that going on and could claim success even if i was fucking up well below and beside the definition of "competent"
Getting blown up at a funeral...very sad. I can't imagine what it is like to live there right now.
...the yet beat goes on...
I'm convinced this IS "success" -
Kissinger's remark about the Iran-Iraq War: "Too bad they can't both lose."
"We" are funding one militia after another, making sure they are all well-armed, and setting them to killing each other.
And the whole Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex is making money hands over fist while the rest of us are being shoved out of the LifeBoat.
That's their plan, that's what they are doing and to believe otherwise is to live in a Fool's Paradise.
MountainMan23 @ 18:
Watch what happens when this attempt collapses due to the constant rate of printing money eventually tipping over the abyss it's running towards in headlong speed....
That MIC complex would turn on itself when that happens.
Last throws, people.
LAST THROWS!
Cue highly inappropriate Jackie Martling laughter HERE, Fred.
One wonders if the timing of this is a genuine collapse of what remained of Iraq society or if it's a timed "surge" designed for the benefit of US voters, a la the Viet Cong shows of yore.
But yeah, arming the Sunnis is going to prove to be a heckuva good idea...
if someone or some intelligence agency was planting bombs within the iraqi populace as a means to perpetually foment chaos, in an effort to break the will of their people, to subject them to american imperialist aims...
...would any of you dweebs be able to figure it out and prove it to the world from your coffee shop laptops?
We need to kill the brown people over there so they don't follow us home and make more brown babies.
And how many more at their funerals?
Ahh...nothing like the smell of a surge's success!
XuYu @ 20:
Yes, throwing chunks.
Bonkers Hussein @ 17:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU10TZs1ow0
Comments are closed on this entry