Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dozens Dead in Triple Bombing in Baghdad
FoxNews.com ^ | June 23, 2011 | AP

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: baghdad; bombing; iraq

1 posted on 06/23/2011 11:26:08 AM PDT by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The fruit of islam.


2 posted on 06/23/2011 11:31:11 AM PDT by freedomson (Tagline comment removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The terrorists know that the U.S. (obummer) is about to cut and run which will open things up for a comeback.

FUBO & FAD


3 posted on 06/23/2011 11:40:24 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

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.


4 posted on 06/23/2011 1:22:01 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

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.


5 posted on 06/23/2011 2:41:13 PM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

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.


6 posted on 06/23/2011 2:46:38 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Ironically, by deposing the secularist Saddam and the anti-Iran Taliban GWB proved to Iran’s best friend.


7 posted on 06/24/2011 9:56:36 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

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.


8 posted on 06/24/2011 12:58:57 PM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

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.


9 posted on 06/24/2011 1:54:39 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

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?


10 posted on 06/24/2011 5:39:38 PM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
There is NO evidence of the a nuclear weapons program other than a bogus smoking laptop which was provided by a Iranian terrorist group. See here and here. The IAEA continues to confirm the non-diversion of material for weapons purposes. To even start building bombs, the Iranians would have to kick out the IAEA inspectors who as we speak are swarmning throughout that the country.

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.

11 posted on 06/25/2011 8:46:02 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
There is NO evidence of the a nuclear weapons program other than a bogus smoking laptop which was provided by a Iranian terrorist group. See here and here. The IAEA continues to confirm the non-diversion of material for weapons purposes. To even start building bombs, the Iranians would have to kick out the IAEA inspectors who as we speak are swarmning throughout that the country.

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.

12 posted on 06/25/2011 8:47:21 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
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?

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.

13 posted on 06/25/2011 12:31:51 PM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

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?


14 posted on 06/25/2011 1:53:14 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Did you believe that Saddam was building nuclear weapons...

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?

15 posted on 06/25/2011 2:04:56 PM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
No, but he did have a program to get started building them with lots of equipment and raw materials. That is established fact.

Please provide a citation for your claim that Saddam had a program to "get started" building nuclear weapons in 2001.

16 posted on 06/27/2011 8:54:34 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says

There you go. Even someone as dimwitted as you ought to be able to get the import of that. lol

17 posted on 06/27/2011 10:37:51 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Even someone as dimitted as you

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.

18 posted on 06/27/2011 11:42:50 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Notice the dates here. Even you can figure it out. In spite of your agenda.

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 2002–2005, 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."


19 posted on 06/27/2011 11:58:52 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Isn't it refreshing when your opponent refuses to take the low road and sticks to the facts?

The facts show you to be a DUmmy.

20 posted on 06/27/2011 12:00:52 PM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Even the Bush administration pretty much dropped the alumimum tubes rationale by 2004. See here for a point-by-point debuming: "On March 7, 2003, El Baradei reported the IAEA’s major findings on the aluminum tubes to the Security Council. After conducting a thorough investigation of Iraq's attempts to purchase large quantities of high-strength aluminum tubes, he said that extensive field investigation and document analysis failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81 millimeter tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets. He said that the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. The IAEA also did not find any evidence that any of the 160,000 tubes Iraq imported in the 1980’s had been diverted to centrifuges.

The IAEA assembled a specially qualified team of international centrifuge manufacturing experts from the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. This team concluded that Iraq's efforts to import these aluminum tubes “were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges and, moreover, that it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable re-design needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program.”

21 posted on 06/27/2011 3:42:38 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

It’s your right to be stupid if that’s what you want to be.


22 posted on 06/27/2011 7:12:23 PM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
It’s your right to be stupid if that’s what you want to be

Wow, you're a real sweatheart aren't you. Have a nice life.

23 posted on 06/28/2011 9:06:13 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
I'm afraid it's going to keep going this way.

Things were starting to work in '07 and '08.

But Bush caved in to the Democrats with the timetable garbage and then Obama came along to hasten the unraveling.

24 posted on 06/28/2011 9:09:46 AM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

If you want nice hire a therapist.


25 posted on 06/28/2011 9:11:45 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Spikes in your eyes.


26 posted on 06/28/2011 9:15:13 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950
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.

As of now and in accordance with the SOFA, the U.S. military should be out of Iraq by December 31 of this year.

The only way that would change is if Iraq asks a contingent to stay beyond that date.

The State Department intends to have a significant presence after December 31.

This could all change, but as of now, activities in Iraq are geared to base closures and troop reductions.

27 posted on 06/28/2011 9:29:53 AM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Spikes in your eyes.

The bloodthirsty sadists are out in force.

28 posted on 06/28/2011 11:20:32 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Spikes and lye and boiling water and piranha.
29 posted on 06/28/2011 11:41:37 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Ground glass in underwear.


30 posted on 06/28/2011 11:55:30 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Captain Kirk
And hundreds of WMDs in his shorts tew! lol

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Excerpt:

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

“We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons,” Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said:

“Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”

31 posted on 06/29/2011 12:30:13 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
I'd be happy to discuss chemical weapons with you but we left unfinished our odiscussion about whether Saddam was "getting started on" a nuclear program in 2001. This was the "scary" rationale (remember Condi's mushroom cloud?) after all for the war.

Let's finish this discussion. I provided counterevidence to your claim about the uranimum in barrels (e.g the original IAEA seals from the early 1990s were not broken) and the aluminum tubes (e.g the Department of Energy and other agencies concluded that they were unsuitable for nukes). Awaiting your refutation to these specific points.

32 posted on 06/29/2011 9:34:09 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
The IAEA isn't credible. Their assessment of Iran's programs alone is proof of that and is one of dozens of failures that show it to be useless. Let's look at a more credible assessment.

Iraq’s Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction (National Intelligence Council)
(from October 2002 NIE)

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed-December 1998.

- Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors-as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools-provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium per year.

Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate

High Confidence:

� Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

� We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

� Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.


33 posted on 06/29/2011 9:57:05 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson