Skip to comments.Dozens Dead in Triple Bombing in Baghdad
Posted on 06/23/2011 11:26:07 AM PDT by ColdOne
BAGHDAD -- Iraqi officials say the death toll from a string of blasts in a Shiite neighborhood in southwestern Baghdad has jumped to 34.
Two police officials said the bombs targeted a Shiite mosque as well as a market Thursday evening.
The officials said that 82 people were also injured in the explosions.
Officials from the hospitals where the dead and injured were taken confirmed the casualty figures.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The fruit of islam.
The terrorists know that the U.S. (obummer) is about to cut and run which will open things up for a comeback.
FUBO & FAD
Unfortunately, Obama is not “cutting and running” from the eternal quagmire. As we speak, he is strong-arming Maliki to keep the troops past the end of the deadline.
With the economy and his anti-war supporters going south on him it wouldn’t suprise me to see him do a big pullout before the election. Anyway, he is sending that message to the scumbags so they will press to test whenever they can.
It doesn’t matter how long we stay there. We haven’t done anything to contain Iran and as soon as we leave Iran will take over.
Ironically, by deposing the secularist Saddam and the anti-Iran Taliban GWB proved to Iran’s best friend.
There are no perfect choices or solutions for the ME. Saddam and the Taliban needed to go. The mistake, IMO, was to not backhand Iran when they interfered in Iraq and get right in their face about their nukes.
What nukes? The IAEA continues to certify the non-diversion of material for weapons purposes and Iran would have to kick out all the inspectors to even start. As to interfering in Iraq, that would pretty much inevitable once we allowed the Iraqis to freely vote in the current Shi’ite fundamentalist, pro-Iran regime.
I was talking about the terrorist interference that has been going on almost from the time we went in. No nuke program in Iran? Wanna buy some ocean front property in CO?
I'm not interested in your beachfront property, but I have a question for you? Did you believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons and did you support the war on that basis? If so, can we say fooled you once, and fooled you again? BTW, Iran hasn't started a war in hundreds of years and, though attacked by the U.S. Saddam, did not use chemical or biological weapons in response? Maybe, just maybe, you've been sold a bill of goods.
I'm not interested in your beachfront property, but I have a question for you? Did you believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons and did you support the war on that basis? If so, can we say fooled you once, and fooled you again? BTW, Iran hasn't started a war in hundreds of years and, though attacked by the U.S. aided Saddam, did not use chemical or biological weapons in response? Maybe, just maybe, you've been sold a bill of goods.
No and no one ever said they did.
...though attacked by the U.S. Saddam, did not use chemical or biological weapons in response? Maybe, just maybe, you've been sold a bill of goods.
You would love the ocean breezes here.
Let’s put it another way. Did you believe that Saddam was building nuclear weapons and did you support the war for that reason? I note that you provided no links (or commented/tried to refute my links) for you apparent claim that Iran has nukes and/or is building them. On what basis do you support this claim?
No, but he did have a program to get started building them with lots of equipment and raw materials. That is established fact.
... and did you support the war for that reason?
There were a lot of reasons to support going in and taking Saddam and his armies out. WMDs were one but not at all limited to nuclear material.
Do you have any links on proof that we never landed on the moon? On your desktop most likely?
Please provide a citation for your claim that Saddam had a program to "get started" building nuclear weapons in 2001.
There you go. Even someone as dimwitted as you ought to be able to get the import of that. lol
Isn't it refreshing when your opponent refuses to take the low road and sticks to the facts? BTW, I love you too!
The article of the uranium you cited did not have anythign new or surprising. The uranium transported by the Pentagon was stored in drums which dated from Saddam's earlier nuclear program which had been defunct for a decade. In fact, the IAEA inspectors had seen and reported on this material in 1993. See here for its official report.
Nobody (including Hans Blix) disputes that Saddam had a nuclear program that he shut down in the early 1990s. The question is whether he still had it in 2001. The fact that seals on these drums were NOT broken when transported by the Pentagon only demonstrates that he was not "working on" or "getting started" on a new program at that time.
Iraqi aluminum tubes
French intelligence assessments
A June 4, 2003 article in the Financial Times reported that "French intelligence had seized a separate shipment of tubes to the US, and tested their tolerance by spinning them to 98,000 revolutions per minute, concluding they were too sophisticated to have alternative uses." The Times also reported that Secretary of State Colin Powell was denied permission by French political authorities from using this information in his February 5, 2003 speech before the U.N. Security Council.
In a speech before the New American Foundation American Strategy Program Policy Forum on October 19, 2005, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.), a former Chief of Staff for the State Department from 20022005, commented on this. According to Wilkerson, "The French came in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by god, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments? We were wrong. We were wrong."
The facts show you to be a DUmmy.