Baghdad Market Bombings Kill 46 and Wound 200

New York Times ^ | March 12, 2006 | EDWARD WONG and ROBERT F. WORTH

[JBGUSA]

Six car bombs exploded at dusk on Sunday in four crowded markets in a Shiite area of eastern Baghdad, and an Interior Ministry official and witnesses said the bombs killed at least 46 people, wounded more than 200 others and spurred Shiite militiamen to take to the streets.

The powerful blasts set vehicles aflame in the Sadr City neighborhood and scattered body parts across city blocks. In the gathering darkness, with ambulances wailing through the streets, black-clad militiamen loyal to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr raced among the debris and set up checkpoints. Firemen aimed their hoses at charred metal hulks, the arcs of water shooting past dazed people stumbling from the wreckage of market stalls.

"I heard a loud boom; I was inside a bathhouse at the time," said Jafar Thamer Nahee, 25, a metalworker. "I saw tens of people being taken away by ambulances. The police and Mahdi Army surrounded the area. There were Mahdi Army checkpoints all around, and they were carrying weapons."

*snip*

The Iraqi Islamic Party, a conservative Sunni Arab group, quickly released a statement condemning the latest bombings, apparently sensing the potential for deadly anti-Sunni reprisals and, quite possibly, another slide toward civil war. "Every time the political groups try to start negotiations to reach common opinions among them, we are surprised by a bloody incident aimed at destroying the political process and inflicting more damage among our people," the party said.

*snip*

[JBGUSA]

What is wrong with these people? For G-d's sake, what military value does a marketplace have? And remember, these aren't even Hebrews they're butchering. Our politicians, even Harper and Bush, don't seem to be able to lay it out like it is. This conduct is uncivilized and unacceptable, under any code of morality.

Apparently, killing for the sake of killing is the order of the day.

[DannyTN]

It's probably Iran and Syria. They would start a civil war just to embarrass us.

[Names Ash Housewares]

"What is wrong with these people?"

They worship death.

[jmc1969]

No, it isn't killing for the sake of killing.

It is killing for the sake of trying to effect the political process and get Sunnis and Shia to kill each other so Iraq will become an ungovernable destabilized mess.

[Southack]

This particular market bombing caused Al-Sadr to call for Zarqawi to be declared an unbeliever.

Al Qaeda's tactics haven't worked out too well for them...

[Hank Rearden]

So how much longer to we have to stay, spending lives and tax dollars, to babysit these morons?

How do we know when we've "won"? Some politician says so after running private polls?

[Echo Talon]

If we want peace in Iraq maybe we need regime change in Syria and Iran.

[JBGUSA]

Echo Talon wrote: If we want peace in Iraq maybe we need regime change in Syria and Iran.

My views too.

[monkeyshine]

The precedent is Syria over Lebanon. After 10 years of fomented violence in Lebanon, Reagan withdrew and agreed to allow Syria to govern it.

Following the precedent, if Iran and Syria can get Iraq to be a bloody mess, they think the US will agree to let Syrian and Iranians take over --- willfully or not. The US keeps up the pressure on Iran and Syria, today the US froze two Syrian banks while near war rhetoric is aimed at Iran.

Unfortunately it looks like a bigger clash is ahead. The US got Europe and the UN to agree to demand Syria leave Lebanon, and investigate political murders. Because of that precedent (and the physical and strategic resources, of course) the US, and by implication Europe, cannot allow them to take Iraq.

[Echo Talon]

seems like Syria and Iran are the problem in Iraq, kinda like how Pakistan was a problem for the Russians in Afghanistan

[boycottliberalhollywood.com]

How do we know when we've "won"? Some politician says so after running private polls?

Well, consider what they consider victory. Imagine a planet full of dead people. To them, yeah, that would be victory. So how do we determine victory? Pulling out, that isn't victory. But what is? Well, at the most extreme, if we turned the Middle-East into a glowing glass parking lot, yeah, that'd do the trick, but, well, that ain't exactly our style. We aren't the butchers, they are. So then what, hah, how about we ask for a diplomatic meeting in some snooty european city like Brussels? Riiiiiight. Yeah, that'll stop everything.

Truth is, there is no way to define victory in acceptable terms.

[Canard]

" This particular market bombing caused Al-Sadr to call for Zarqawi to be declared an unbeliever.

Al Qaeda's tactics haven't worked out too well for them..."

Depends what you think their goal is. If their goal is to provoke a civil war between Sunni and Shia, then Sadr denouncing them isn't a negative thing for them at all.

[luvbach1]

It's called terrorism.

[zarf]

So how much longer to we have to stay, spending lives and tax dollars, to babysit these morons?

Good questions. Yet, I think this blood letting might be a blessing. Perhaps there is a threshold of violence and gore that these Arabs cannot stand. Maybe then will they say "enough".

Let them keep blowing themselves to smithereens. If we're lucky, it may be the monkeys might want ot join civilized humanity if it gets bad enough.

[Southack]

"Depends what you think their goal is. If their goal is to provoke a civil war between Sunni and Shia, then Sadr denouncing them isn't a negative thing for them at all."

Nonsense. Wild-eyed claims of "civil war" in Iraq are just so much noise, and having Al-Sadr call for calm (along with having Zarqawi declared an unbeliever) rather than ordering direct retaliation is far from provoking such a thing.