Triple Car Bomb Rocks Baghdad Market

At Least 51 Killed, 90 Wounded; Prominent Shiite Heads To Washington

(AP)  A triple car bombing struck a food market in a predominantly Shiite area in central Baghdad on Saturday, killing at least 51 people a day after a U.S.-Iraqi raid against Sunni insurgents in a nearby neighborhood.

Three parked cars blew up nearly simultaneously as shoppers were buying fruit, vegetables, meat and other items for dinner in the busy al-Sadriyah district.

The blast sent clouds of black smoke over concrete high-rises in the area, which has narrow alleys that made it difficult for ambulances and fire trucks to navigate. At least 51 people were killed and 90 wounded, according to police Lt. Mohammed Khayoun and hospital officials.

Nobody claimed responsibility for the attack, but it followed a raid on Friday by Iraqi forces backed by U.S. helicopters targeting Sunni insurgents in al-Fadhil, less than half a mile away.

A bombing and mortar attack also killed 215 people and wounded more than 200 in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad on Nov. 23 as sectarian tensions increase.

The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq condemned the al-Fadhil raid in a statement Saturday, alleging that six people were killed and 13 detained.

Iraqi police said Friday that one Iraqi soldier and two civilians were killed in the fighting, and the U.S. military said 28 people were detained.

Separately, U.S. and Iraqi forces began an offensive operation in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, where fighting has raged for a week between Sunni insurgents and police, the U.S. command said.

At least 36 suspected militants were detained during one pre-dawn raid in Baqouba, police said. Later in the day, state-run Iraqiya television said one al Qaeda in Iraq insurgent was killed and 43 detained, including two foreigners.

Saturday's operation was launched two days after the U.S. military said Baqouba was fully operational, despite media reports that fighting had cleared its streets of cars and pedestrians.

Clashes also broke out Saturday between insurgents and U.S troops in the predominantly Sunni city of Duluiyah 45 miles north of Baghdad, police Capt. Qassim Mohammed said.

A truck driving at high speed slammed into a bus stop in al-Wahada, 22 miles south of Baghdad, killing about 20 people, wounding 15 and crushing several cars, police said. Police Lt. Muhammed Al-Shemari said the crash did not appear to be accidental because the truck, an empty fuel tanker, had no obvious mechanical problems.

A U.S. Army soldier also was killed in fighting in the volatile Anbar province on Friday, the military said, raising to at least 2,887 the number of service members who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003.

Eight other people were killed in attacks nationwide, including a driver and his assistant who were shot to death as they were delivering soft drinks to stores in Baghdad's volatile Sunni neighborhood of Dora. Iraqi police also found at least 13 bodies in Baghdad and two others south of the capital — apparently victims of sectarian death squads.

The last of Italy's troops in Iraq returned to Rome on Saturday, a few weeks earlier than the date promised by Italian Premier Romano Prodi. Italy at one point was Washington's second largest coalition partner in Iraq, after Britain, during reconstruction efforts after Saddam Hussein was ousted more than three years ago.

Continued

• 1
• 2
• Next

©MMVI, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Share:

• Share
• Yahoo! Buzz
• Twitter
• Mixx

More From Iraq After Saddam

• Chief Pentagon Auditor Forced from Post
• AP: Military Contractor Oversight Too Lax
• Top Saddam Aide Gets Second Conviction
• Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
• Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
• Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
• Celebration, Carnage Mark Handover in Iraq

• 

  PhotosExplosions Rock Baghdad

• 

  PhotosIraq Photos:July 13?July 19

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next

See all 64 Comments

by shayetet December 3, 2006 8:51 PM EST

inarguable, i was amazed you wasted your time with Patrotic9 this long, but have to appauld your efforts (seriously). I have learned a hell of alot reading your posts here my man, and hope you keep it up, because you have more understanding of this whole issue in your pinkie finger than most people here do in their whole bodies! I took your earlier posts about Iraq and actually emailed them to my family and friends, because sadly, alot of people form concrete opinions about this whole subject but cant actually show they can back those opinions up with facts, or show that they really have a "foundational base of knowledge" (as you put it, LOL) to justify having such a close-minded and immovable viewpoint. There hatred of Bush combines with their ignorences of what is really going on, and they love to whine and preach, but dont like to back it up with anything. To really get it obviously takes some serious study and intelligence, and you clearly have that in spades. I hope you keep it up! Thanx!

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 8:36 PM EST

Dude, i am seriously not going to bother wasting my time responding to you anymore. Your posts and arguments have become rather non-sensical and are so convoluted that systematically dissecting them to explain why you do not appreciate or possess a true foundational base of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter is proving to be a pointless waste of my time. Your thinking is utterly simplistic in its depth, and your absolutist (and primarily incorrect) arguments display a clear ignorance and inability to recognize or admit that you lack the substratum of understanding and the open-mindedness to learn about something. You are already 100% positive you are correct, but your statements have yet to truly cohesively demonstrate that you can match that absolutist viewpoint with anything more than grossly myopic and incredibly simplistic argument methodology. You are clearly stuck "in the box" with your thinking, and are frankly coming across as kind of nutty!

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 8:20 PM EST

Patriotic9 - Why do you consistently keep bringing up sexual innuendo, promiscuity, and homosexuality in your posts, when it has nothing to do with the topic on hand?

Also, if you do not think that allowing control over females plays a MASSIVE role in an organized religion's ability to control males of the population to help quell widespread internal revolt, then you do not understand the deep design makeup of theocratically based cultural-control techniques that our species has exercised for millenia.
You mention you dont care "unless they want to impose their culture on us" - which is EXACTLY the threat we are facing! The unequivocal stated goal of radical Islam (Sheik bin Laden et.al) is to give infidels and apostates a clear option - either accept the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad and adhere to them inerrantly, or in the alternative, face annihilation. If you dont think we are fighting for OUR very way of life in this conflict, you simply do not understand what we are up against. The threat of radical Islam is naked and overt, but many in the west simply lack the understanding of their culture and their ignorant ideological goals to recognize it yet. Sadly, it is going to take a mushroom cloud over Manhattan to wake most people up to the true dangers we face from this enemy.

Reply to this comment

by patriotic9 December 3, 2006 8:16 PM EST

This is not 2nd world war and the people we are fighting are not employees of a govt.This is a different type of war which we suppose to take completely differently.Firts of all we need to understand who is our enemy and who is our friend.We don't have and we will never have any friend in any muslim country period as long as our govt support and protect israel.King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has once said to Gen.Tommy Franks"America could have many friedns in the muslim world but ISrael divides us".If you think that Iraqi people will become our friend in the near future or near cuntury,I am sorry to tell you,you are not dreaming you are severly hallucinating.We need to find secular people among them and made them their leaders.that's the only way for us to survive and that won't happen with democracy.Democracy in Saudi Arabia will result in Bin Laden to be elected,in Egypt will result in Zawahiri to be elected like in Iraq power was given to Maliki and in Palestine,Hamas got the power.

Reply to this comment

by patriotic9 December 3, 2006 8:09 PM EST

InarguabLE
I am not myopic but I am sorry to say that you and other people are not atking the threat posed by the RADICAL ISLAM the way we should.Iraq didn't have weapons of MASS DEsTRUCTION and we invaded Iraq,whereas North Korea which was claiming herself to build NUKES was ignored and BUSH ADMINISTRATION called her claim bluffing.Now North Korea has built the BUCLEAR BOMBS which they will definately sell to OSAMA BEEN FORGOTTEN as we know they have built it for business reason.It would be so much smart if we would have used a SECULAR PERSON like SADDAM against BEEN FORGOTTEN who we let escaped from TORA BORA because of not having enough boots on the ground since BUSH wanted to save troops for IRAQ INVASION AS IT'S EVIDENT form the book written by GEN.Tommy Franks.You are telling me to wait and see till the IRAQI radical will beome pro western and elect a pro western leader after couple of hundreds years.Come on OSAMA BEEN FORGOTTEN is still free because of the NON-SENSE WAR started in IRAQ which has made him relaxed and plan for the next future attack.Should we wait to see change in the IRAQI mentality in couple of hundreds years and in few years OSAMA BEEN FORGOTTEN use the mukes sold to him by NORTH KOREA in our major cities in simultaneous bombings all over the UNITED STATES,we don't even have enough NATIONAL GUARD troops to help us in USA.I know the way you are talking is the same way our TERRORISM expert think which is not practical in this new UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE.

Reply to this comment

by patriotic9 December 3, 2006 7:56 PM EST

It's not our problem at all how many wives a muslim man can have but it's our problem if a CATHOLIC PREIST in our country is not allowed to have a single wife and he ends us pulling down the pant of that little young AMERICAN BOY in the church and to tear his ANAL SPHNICTAR and to make him suffer his entire life with the PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA he goes through by that HOLY FATHER who can't have a single wife.
Muslim concept of marrying a woman is not about how many women a man can control.Men are supposed to be FINANCIAL and SOCIAL CARE TAKER of his wife.A wife has right on all of her husbands money even if she doesnt inform her husband about taking his money at all.A husband doesnt have a right on any of his wife's money even on that money he himself has made and given to his wife once.If a man has enough money to take care of more then one women,then it's consider better for him in that culture to have more then one wives so that all the women get husbands and women won't need to loose their virginity by a stranger who has not taken care of her financially or socially.That is their culture and that's their lifestyle which is none of my business unless they impose their culture on us.Our real issue is those CATHOLIC NUNS who can't even fufil their very natural feminine desires or demand of their bodies even by marriage.

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 7:56 PM EST

Patriotic9 - and i am simply saying that not everybody lives, or wants to live in that perfect little world you (and I) would love to see, where we all hold hands and sing kumbaya. We are an evil, warring species - always have been, always will be. Your problem as i see it is that you are being myopic in your thinking. Yes, there very well may be leadership elected initially in these nations that we do not agree with, and are abhorrent in their behaviour. the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as my long multipart post of last night stated, is designed to effect positive change in the LONG-TERM, decades from now. Short-term, things are going to be bad, and in fact it will get alot worse before it gets better. By your logic, we should just sit back and do nothing, and ANY expert in the field will tell you that that will simply allow radical Islam to propagate unchecked, growing in strength immeasurably, and let both nation states and terror groups acquire the nuclear trump card arsenal. The problem is you seem to want positive results immediately, and when we are attempting to dramatically morph a fiercely fundamentalist ideology into a more free and moderated way of thinking, history PROVES time and time again that it will require a multi-generational struggle to do so. You are being to short-sighted in your thinking of this issue.

Reply to this comment

by patriotic9 December 3, 2006 7:29 PM EST

Again being an American it's none of my business how SHAI and SUNNI sects were formed 1400 years ago and about whether Abu Bakr was suitable to be a ruler or Ali.What really makes me sad as an American is when my tax payed money and my fellow citizen's lives,limbs and body parts are used to remove a SECULAR LEADER and BRING those RADICAL ISLAMIST into power who takes our TAX PAYED MONEY to build an EXTREMIST ISLAMIC EMPIRE based on our HATRED use weapons given by us to use against our soldiers.It's much more important for us to know the SHIA BELEIF of the 2nd coming of their final messiah,the 12th IMAM MEHDI who will kill all the jews,christian and rest of the UNBELIEVERS then to know about the dispute between Ali and ABU bakr thousands of years ago in which we have no benifit in wasting time.If we would have concentrated on the issue of the 2nd coming of their MESSIAH,we would not send our thousands of soldiers to die and loose their limbs to remove a SECUALR DICATATOR in Iraq and on the name of democracy,to bring a RADICAL SHIA into power so that he would form an ISLAMIC EMPIRE from IRAN in the EAST to LEBANON in the WEST and kill all the JEWS,CHRISTAINS and every other UNBELIEVER according to their faith to well come the 2nd coming of IMAM MEHDI.You have not answered or replied a single poit I have raised so far.Please be practical and practically think what benifits USA and what benifits the RADICAL ISLAM.

Reply to this comment

by patriotic9 December 3, 2006 7:08 PM EST

Inarguable You probaly didn't understand what I was saying.I am an American and care about American interests.I really don't care how muslims treat their women and how many wives a man can have in Saudi Arabia and what rights their women got or they don't have any right at all.I care whether invading Iraq was a good decision for United States or bad.It's really none of our business how their culture is different from our's in family or social lives.I won't like to see my soldiers or my fellow Americans to spill their blood for changing their culture or way of lives.It's non of our business at all period just like no other country has a right to INVADE or BOMB UNITED STATES for the LIBERATION of those YOUNG,INNOCENT AMERICAN BOYS who have been SEXUALLY MOLESTED and SODOMIZED by the AMERICAN PEDOPHILE PREISTS in the AMERICAN CHURCHES.Our business was to take care of our fellow citizens in NEW ORLEANS after HURRICAN KATRINA in whcih we as a NATION and our govt as an administration failed shamefully because our money tax money was going to build schools in Iraq and our NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS were working as INTERNATIONAL GUARD in IRAQ.

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 6:25 PM EST

NYNATIVE-Just to clarify about Sunni and Shi'a, as many don't understand the difference - (and I am being rather basic here) Unlike Christianity, which has seen many major branches and denominational families sprout over the centuries, Islam really has only 2 major branches, the Sunni and the Shi%u2019a (Shiite). These two branches and their competing versions of Islam split the religion apart when the Prophet Muhammad died in 632 A.D. Because he had left no declared successor, the final Prophet%u2019s blood relatives fought for control of the faith with a man named Abu Bakr, who, while not related genetically to Muhammad, had been duly elected by other Muslim elders as the one to fill his place as the Caliph (%u201CSuccessor%u201D to the Prophet Mohammad). It was here, in the earliest days of Islam almost 1400 years ago, that these two branches formed and divided the faith into two major schools of thought. (CONT.BELOW)

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 6:25 PM EST

(CONT) The Sunni followers (85% of the faith today), believe their Imam, or %u201CLeader%u201D, should be chosen by taking a consensus of the community, a quasi-democratic vote if you will. Those following the Shi%u2019a faith on the other hand believe that their leader must have a bloodline that can be traced directly to Ali ibn Abi Talib (one of Abu Bakr%u2019s successors, who was claimed by the Shi%u2019a to have been born in the Kaaba), who apparently committed to his descendants the gift of infallibility, and thus any decisions an Imam should hand down are felt by the Shi%u2019a to carry more weight than those coming from someone without the genetic link. Over the centuries, these two groups themselves have had sects of the faith sprout off as well, such as the Khariji%u2019i, and Muwahhidun (Sunni), or the Imami, Ismaili, and Alawite (Shi%u2019a) to name a few, each with their subtle or pronounced variances in Islamic beliefs.

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 6:12 PM EST

NYNATIVE - regarding Islam's treatment of women. This comes down to control issues. When dealing with a religious faith that is followed adherently and exercises ABSOLUTE control over its followers, that essentially means that the average citizen has very little in their own life that they can maintain control and free will over. Because historically, men have ALWAYS been the ones who will take up arms against an oppressor (be it religious or secular dictatorial), Islam was specifically designed and modified (as most organized religions are) to allow males to have ABSOLUTE control over their women, even going so far as to afford them up to four wives. Giving men total control over their sexual urges in the home like that is a placative measure designed to let them rule the roost while the religion rules just about EVERYTHING else. In Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist ideology for example, male children are LEGALLY considered heirs to the estate, whereas female children can be LEGALLY considered CHATTEL of the estate. I am surprised EVERY feminist in the western world does not demand that we invade the kingdom of Saud tomorrow, for nothing else than to free fully 50% of the population that was unfortunate enough to be born with two XX chromosomes and lives in literal religious and cultural enslavement.

Reply to this comment

by nynative1340 December 3, 2006 5:37 PM EST

Good rebuttal, inarguable. I have to agree with most of your fundamentalism argument. We've seen examples of that mentality very recently in the Mormon history, especially in marrying multiple young women. However, having multiple wives was not part of the "fundamental" Mormon religion; it was a change that Smith later added.

On the other hand, Muhammad's wife was a merchant and so I find it hard to understand that treating women the way they do is part of the Quran. In addition, "death to infidels..." refers to persons who don't believe in God, including Muslems who don't believe in Allah. In the early years of the religion, many confused Muslems worshipped Christ almost as fervently as they did Allah, and they were considered infidels. Christ is a prophet in Islam.

Somewhere in time the religion has split (hence the Sunnis and Shias) and somehow those changes have become the "fundamental" religions we know today.

I'm not nearly as verbose as you; I don't have the time. You obviously have a lot of insight in the Muslem culture and their religion. I only know what I read and am lucky if I can remember a fraction of that.

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 4:38 PM EST

NYNATIVE- First off, excellent analogizing to the Northern Ireland/PIRA situation. While i agree that sensitive diplomacy is without question a requirement, in order for diplomacy and mediation to truly be effective, there has to be room for movement on BOTH sides of the aisle, and the sad fact is that it is notoriously difficult (in many cases impossible) to engage in peaceful, fruitful negotiations with a huge portion of the fundamentalist Islamic world. Fundamentalism, by its very definition, believes itself to be inarguable and immovable. For true rigid adherents to Islam, they believe ABSOLUTELY that the Holy Quran, Hadiths, and Sharia offer the ONLY answers, and any thought processes challenging that "inerrant" dogma brands one an infidel or apostate deserving of death (this penalty is stated unequivocally in the texts). The Islamic scriptures are clear and ABSOLUTE in this case, and if the faith is followed and adhered to fundamentally (as it still is by literally tens of millions throughout the Islamic world today), there is NO room for negotiation or appeasement. They believe ANY and ALL answers are and MUST BE found within the scriptures, and it is typically IMPOSSIBLE to negotiate peacefully with this level of ignorance. Remember, it literally took CENTURIES for the western world to throw off the shackles of fundamentalist Christianity, with millions of lives lost in the process. (CONT.)

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 4:37 PM EST

(CONT) For a grossly simplistic analogy here, one has to appreciate that in many respects, the fundamentalist Islamic world today in the Mid East/Arab world behaves and thinks very much the way fundamentalist Christianity did back in the 16th and 17th Centuries. They are essentially 400 years behind us in cultural and religious evolution and pragmatic thinking. Imagine trying to convince the fundamentalist Catholic Church in 1610, during the days of the Inquisition, that their dogma was grievously flawed and required change. Ask Galileo how that worked out! That absolutist style of mindset is hyper-prevalent amongst the ignorant, largely uneducated, masses in the Middle East today. This problem is further enhanced by the clear-cut differences in design between the religions of Islam and Christianity. Christianity has a definitive %u201Ccommand and control%u201D structure in place (Deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, Pontiff), whereas Islam has NOTHING in the way of a true doctrinal hierarchy or vetting process built-in. Simply look at the administering of the Fatwa proclamations in Islam and you will see what I mean. Islam%u2019s structure, by its very design, is HIGHLY corruptible, even more so than Christianity was and is. The Holy Quran, Hadiths, and Sharia are laced with hypocrisy and obscurity, which allows for incredibly varying levels of diametric interpretation if one chooses. (CONT.)

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 4:37 PM EST

(CONT) This allows radical adherents to EASILY and ACCURATELY religiously justify their violent actions in the name of the faith. Islam also offers PLENTY of scriptural content that openly provides a justification for violence (Jihad al-Akhbar and Jihad al-Asgar) against infidels and apostates. I could go on and on, and while it is not politically correct for me to say all this, it is FACTUALLY correct. I have sat across the table from these fundamentalists when I lived in the Middle East and discussed this with many people over there, and what was most stunning was the incredible level of ignorance and the immovable mindset they carry that has them convinced Islam is the ONLY answer. This is further made more dangerous when the large portions of the clerical body of Islam preaches the doctrinal position (also supported by the scriptures) that Islam is destined to rule the world and that it is a Muslim%u2019s duty to spread and defend the faith, with many taking a %u201Cby any means necessary%u201D mindset. EVERYONE in the free world should read the Holy Quran, Hadiths, and Sharia, and they will begin to appreciate how easily the structure and scriptures of the faith allows for violent interpretation and corruptibility to be exploited.

Reply to this comment

by nynative1340 December 3, 2006 7:54 AM EST

inarguable, your login name says it all...

...I'd hate to have to read the long version...

Reply to this comment

by nynative1340 December 3, 2006 7:50 AM EST

How long can this civil/religious war go on? Well, the "recent" Catholic/Protestant war in Northern Ireland lasted over 30 years and killed over 3600 people, mostly innocent civilians. So I believe the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq will go on killing each other for another 25 years, with tens of thousands of mortal casualties, mostly innocent civilians.

There are so many similiarities. The Protestants are a majority in N. Ireland, backed by a Protestant England, but surrounded by a majority of Catholics in all of Ireland.

The Shias are a majority in Iraq, backed by a Shia Iran, but the Shias constitute only 20 percent of the world's Muslems.

All the world's Catholics and Protestants, and Christians in general, had little or no influence in tiny Northern Ireland. Since our leaders have created so much hatred towards and distrust of Americans, Muslems have not been willing to step up and help put and end to this mess. Nor could they. Only recently has the King of Jordan spoken out.

Some sensitive diplomacy is needed but our leader doesn't have the intelligence or know-how to employ diplomacy. Like Teddy, he can only carry a "big stick." Well, big stick diplomacy doesn't work in today's world. As the leader of the free world, Bush should have known that.

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 2:44 AM EST

(START) Ok, this is a REALLY LONG multi-part post, but the fact is that it has to be as this is NOT a simplistic question that can be answered in a few lines. If you want to ignore it all, be my guest, and I apologize for taking up the space. It is primarily to answer PATRIOTIC9%u2019s query, and explains what the Bush Administration was (and is) trying to achieve by invading Iraq in 2003. Whether you think they were right in doing so is entirely up to you, but this 2000 word post will at least partially explain the long-term game plan the Bush Admin was pursuing with the invasion. I work in the terrorism analysis field for a living, and am not pulling this out of my butt or anything. This is the real deal. To really get into the explanation would take me 10,000 words at least, so this is the short version. Now, to start with, the major problem I see many have with understanding the truth of what we are hoping to achieve behind the invasion of Iraq is classic human short-sightedness. Most people in our society tend to be willing to adequately analyze events no more than two years or so in advance. This myopic thinking is a classic human evolutionary survival trait, but to understand Iraq, one MUST think in multi-decade terms. We are attempting to render impotent a fundamentalist religious ideology here, and that will take many decades to achieve, just as it took several hundred years to largely nullify fundamentalist Christianity. (CONT. BELOW)

Reply to this comment

by inarguable December 3, 2006 2:44 AM EST

(CONT)With that in mind, the sad fact is that we are going to HAVE to use violence against radical Islam, particularly in the near and mid term, as they have made it clear that they are going to violently pursue their aspirations of creating a global Caliphate devoid of western infidelic ideology. In this age of nuclear weapon proliferation, we are indeed fighting for our very way of life, and I for one will take freedom, democracy, and capitalism over following an absolutist version of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad every time. Realizing that this was going to be a long conflict from day one (day one being 9/11 for the sake of this argument), the Bush Administration evidently did not take long to realize that the two largest concerns were to keep the fires of Islamo-fascism from being able to build unchecked in the Middle East region, while at the same time being very cognizant of trying to mitigate the issue of America being recognized as attacking fundamentalist Islam in the Arab world while doing so. After the nation of Afghanistan was somewhat stabilized and the %u201CWar on Terror%u201D (as it was then-called) and its steamrolling influence was searching for another target to crush, Bush%u2019s advisors realized that they had to look far into the future when planning their next move, and I do not mean a year or two either. (CONT)

Reply to this comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next

See all 64 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[shayetet]

inarguable, i was amazed you wasted your time with Patrotic9 this long, but have to appauld your efforts (seriously). I have learned a hell of alot reading your posts here my man, and hope you keep it up, because you have more understanding of this whole issue in your pinkie finger than most people here do in their whole bodies! I took your earlier posts about Iraq and actually emailed them to my family and friends, because sadly, alot of people form concrete opinions about this whole subject but cant actually show they can back those opinions up with facts, or show that they really have a "foundational base of knowledge" (as you put it, LOL) to justify having such a close-minded and immovable viewpoint. There hatred of Bush combines with their ignorences of what is really going on, and they love to whine and preach, but dont like to back it up with anything. To really get it obviously takes some serious study and intelligence, and you clearly have that in spades. I hope you keep it up! Thanx!

[inarguable]

Dude, i am seriously not going to bother wasting my time responding to you anymore. Your posts and arguments have become rather non-sensical and are so convoluted that systematically dissecting them to explain why you do not appreciate or possess a true foundational base of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter is proving to be a pointless waste of my time. Your thinking is utterly simplistic in its depth, and your absolutist (and primarily incorrect) arguments display a clear ignorance and inability to recognize or admit that you lack the substratum of understanding and the open-mindedness to learn about something. You are already 100% positive you are correct, but your statements have yet to truly cohesively demonstrate that you can match that absolutist viewpoint with anything more than grossly myopic and incredibly simplistic argument methodology. You are clearly stuck "in the box" with your thinking, and are frankly coming across as kind of nutty!

[inarguable]

Patriotic9 - Why do you consistently keep bringing up sexual innuendo, promiscuity, and homosexuality in your posts, when it has nothing to do with the topic on hand?

Also, if you do not think that allowing control over females plays a MASSIVE role in an organized religion's ability to control males of the population to help quell widespread internal revolt, then you do not understand the deep design makeup of theocratically based cultural-control techniques that our species has exercised for millenia.
You mention you dont care "unless they want to impose their culture on us" - which is EXACTLY the threat we are facing! The unequivocal stated goal of radical Islam (Sheik bin Laden et.al) is to give infidels and apostates a clear option - either accept the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad and adhere to them inerrantly, or in the alternative, face annihilation. If you dont think we are fighting for OUR very way of life in this conflict, you simply do not understand what we are up against. The threat of radical Islam is naked and overt, but many in the west simply lack the understanding of their culture and their ignorant ideological goals to recognize it yet. Sadly, it is going to take a mushroom cloud over Manhattan to wake most people up to the true dangers we face from this enemy.

[patriotic9]

This is not 2nd world war and the people we are fighting are not employees of a govt.This is a different type of war which we suppose to take completely differently.Firts of all we need to understand who is our enemy and who is our friend.We don't have and we will never have any friend in any muslim country period as long as our govt support and protect israel.King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has once said to Gen.Tommy Franks"America could have many friedns in the muslim world but ISrael divides us".If you think that Iraqi people will become our friend in the near future or near cuntury,I am sorry to tell you,you are not dreaming you are severly hallucinating.We need to find secular people among them and made them their leaders.that's the only way for us to survive and that won't happen with democracy.Democracy in Saudi Arabia will result in Bin Laden to be elected,in Egypt will result in Zawahiri to be elected like in Iraq power was given to Maliki and in Palestine,Hamas got the power.

[patriotic9]

InarguabLE
I am not myopic but I am sorry to say that you and other people are not atking the threat posed by the RADICAL ISLAM the way we should.Iraq didn't have weapons of MASS DEsTRUCTION and we invaded Iraq,whereas North Korea which was claiming herself to build NUKES was ignored and BUSH ADMINISTRATION called her claim bluffing.Now North Korea has built the BUCLEAR BOMBS which they will definately sell to OSAMA BEEN FORGOTTEN as we know they have built it for business reason.It would be so much smart if we would have used a SECULAR PERSON like SADDAM against BEEN FORGOTTEN who we let escaped from TORA BORA because of not having enough boots on the ground since BUSH wanted to save troops for IRAQ INVASION AS IT'S EVIDENT form the book written by GEN.Tommy Franks.You are telling me to wait and see till the IRAQI radical will beome pro western and elect a pro western leader after couple of hundreds years.Come on OSAMA BEEN FORGOTTEN is still free because of the NON-SENSE WAR started in IRAQ which has made him relaxed and plan for the next future attack.Should we wait to see change in the IRAQI mentality in couple of hundreds years and in few years OSAMA BEEN FORGOTTEN use the mukes sold to him by NORTH KOREA in our major cities in simultaneous bombings all over the UNITED STATES,we don't even have enough NATIONAL GUARD troops to help us in USA.I know the way you are talking is the same way our TERRORISM expert think which is not practical in this new UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE.

[patriotic9]

It's not our problem at all how many wives a muslim man can have but it's our problem if a CATHOLIC PREIST in our country is not allowed to have a single wife and he ends us pulling down the pant of that little young AMERICAN BOY in the church and to tear his ANAL SPHNICTAR and to make him suffer his entire life with the PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA he goes through by that HOLY FATHER who can't have a single wife.
Muslim concept of marrying a woman is not about how many women a man can control.Men are supposed to be FINANCIAL and SOCIAL CARE TAKER of his wife.A wife has right on all of her husbands money even if she doesnt inform her husband about taking his money at all.A husband doesnt have a right on any of his wife's money even on that money he himself has made and given to his wife once.If a man has enough money to take care of more then one women,then it's consider better for him in that culture to have more then one wives so that all the women get husbands and women won't need to loose their virginity by a stranger who has not taken care of her financially or socially.That is their culture and that's their lifestyle which is none of my business unless they impose their culture on us.Our real issue is those CATHOLIC NUNS who can't even fufil their very natural feminine desires or demand of their bodies even by marriage.

[inarguable]

Patriotic9 - and i am simply saying that not everybody lives, or wants to live in that perfect little world you (and I) would love to see, where we all hold hands and sing kumbaya. We are an evil, warring species - always have been, always will be. Your problem as i see it is that you are being myopic in your thinking. Yes, there very well may be leadership elected initially in these nations that we do not agree with, and are abhorrent in their behaviour. the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as my long multipart post of last night stated, is designed to effect positive change in the LONG-TERM, decades from now. Short-term, things are going to be bad, and in fact it will get alot worse before it gets better. By your logic, we should just sit back and do nothing, and ANY expert in the field will tell you that that will simply allow radical Islam to propagate unchecked, growing in strength immeasurably, and let both nation states and terror groups acquire the nuclear trump card arsenal. The problem is you seem to want positive results immediately, and when we are attempting to dramatically morph a fiercely fundamentalist ideology into a more free and moderated way of thinking, history PROVES time and time again that it will require a multi-generational struggle to do so. You are being to short-sighted in your thinking of this issue.

[patriotic9]

Again being an American it's none of my business how SHAI and SUNNI sects were formed 1400 years ago and about whether Abu Bakr was suitable to be a ruler or Ali.What really makes me sad as an American is when my tax payed money and my fellow citizen's lives,limbs and body parts are used to remove a SECULAR LEADER and BRING those RADICAL ISLAMIST into power who takes our TAX PAYED MONEY to build an EXTREMIST ISLAMIC EMPIRE based on our HATRED use weapons given by us to use against our soldiers.It's much more important for us to know the SHIA BELEIF of the 2nd coming of their final messiah,the 12th IMAM MEHDI who will kill all the jews,christian and rest of the UNBELIEVERS then to know about the dispute between Ali and ABU bakr thousands of years ago in which we have no benifit in wasting time.If we would have concentrated on the issue of the 2nd coming of their MESSIAH,we would not send our thousands of soldiers to die and loose their limbs to remove a SECUALR DICATATOR in Iraq and on the name of democracy,to bring a RADICAL SHIA into power so that he would form an ISLAMIC EMPIRE from IRAN in the EAST to LEBANON in the WEST and kill all the JEWS,CHRISTAINS and every other UNBELIEVER according to their faith to well come the 2nd coming of IMAM MEHDI.You have not answered or replied a single poit I have raised so far.Please be practical and practically think what benifits USA and what benifits the RADICAL ISLAM.

[patriotic9]

Inarguable You probaly didn't understand what I was saying.I am an American and care about American interests.I really don't care how muslims treat their women and how many wives a man can have in Saudi Arabia and what rights their women got or they don't have any right at all.I care whether invading Iraq was a good decision for United States or bad.It's really none of our business how their culture is different from our's in family or social lives.I won't like to see my soldiers or my fellow Americans to spill their blood for changing their culture or way of lives.It's non of our business at all period just like no other country has a right to INVADE or BOMB UNITED STATES for the LIBERATION of those YOUNG,INNOCENT AMERICAN BOYS who have been SEXUALLY MOLESTED and SODOMIZED by the AMERICAN PEDOPHILE PREISTS in the AMERICAN CHURCHES.Our business was to take care of our fellow citizens in NEW ORLEANS after HURRICAN KATRINA in whcih we as a NATION and our govt as an administration failed shamefully because our money tax money was going to build schools in Iraq and our NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS were working as INTERNATIONAL GUARD in IRAQ.

[inarguable]

NYNATIVE-Just to clarify about Sunni and Shi'a, as many don't understand the difference - (and I am being rather basic here) Unlike Christianity, which has seen many major branches and denominational families sprout over the centuries, Islam really has only 2 major branches, the Sunni and the Shi%u2019a (Shiite). These two branches and their competing versions of Islam split the religion apart when the Prophet Muhammad died in 632 A.D. Because he had left no declared successor, the final Prophet%u2019s blood relatives fought for control of the faith with a man named Abu Bakr, who, while not related genetically to Muhammad, had been duly elected by other Muslim elders as the one to fill his place as the Caliph (%u201CSuccessor%u201D to the Prophet Mohammad). It was here, in the earliest days of Islam almost 1400 years ago, that these two branches formed and divided the faith into two major schools of thought. (CONT.BELOW)

[inarguable]

(CONT) The Sunni followers (85% of the faith today), believe their Imam, or %u201CLeader%u201D, should be chosen by taking a consensus of the community, a quasi-democratic vote if you will. Those following the Shi%u2019a faith on the other hand believe that their leader must have a bloodline that can be traced directly to Ali ibn Abi Talib (one of Abu Bakr%u2019s successors, who was claimed by the Shi%u2019a to have been born in the Kaaba), who apparently committed to his descendants the gift of infallibility, and thus any decisions an Imam should hand down are felt by the Shi%u2019a to carry more weight than those coming from someone without the genetic link. Over the centuries, these two groups themselves have had sects of the faith sprout off as well, such as the Khariji%u2019i, and Muwahhidun (Sunni), or the Imami, Ismaili, and Alawite (Shi%u2019a) to name a few, each with their subtle or pronounced variances in Islamic beliefs.

[inarguable]

NYNATIVE - regarding Islam's treatment of women. This comes down to control issues. When dealing with a religious faith that is followed adherently and exercises ABSOLUTE control over its followers, that essentially means that the average citizen has very little in their own life that they can maintain control and free will over. Because historically, men have ALWAYS been the ones who will take up arms against an oppressor (be it religious or secular dictatorial), Islam was specifically designed and modified (as most organized religions are) to allow males to have ABSOLUTE control over their women, even going so far as to afford them up to four wives. Giving men total control over their sexual urges in the home like that is a placative measure designed to let them rule the roost while the religion rules just about EVERYTHING else. In Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist ideology for example, male children are LEGALLY considered heirs to the estate, whereas female children can be LEGALLY considered CHATTEL of the estate. I am surprised EVERY feminist in the western world does not demand that we invade the kingdom of Saud tomorrow, for nothing else than to free fully 50% of the population that was unfortunate enough to be born with two XX chromosomes and lives in literal religious and cultural enslavement.

[nynative1340]

Good rebuttal, inarguable. I have to agree with most of your fundamentalism argument. We've seen examples of that mentality very recently in the Mormon history, especially in marrying multiple young women. However, having multiple wives was not part of the "fundamental" Mormon religion; it was a change that Smith later added.

On the other hand, Muhammad's wife was a merchant and so I find it hard to understand that treating women the way they do is part of the Quran. In addition, "death to infidels..." refers to persons who don't believe in God, including Muslems who don't believe in Allah. In the early years of the religion, many confused Muslems worshipped Christ almost as fervently as they did Allah, and they were considered infidels. Christ is a prophet in Islam.

Somewhere in time the religion has split (hence the Sunnis and Shias) and somehow those changes have become the "fundamental" religions we know today.

I'm not nearly as verbose as you; I don't have the time. You obviously have a lot of insight in the Muslem culture and their religion. I only know what I read and am lucky if I can remember a fraction of that.

[inarguable]

NYNATIVE- First off, excellent analogizing to the Northern Ireland/PIRA situation. While i agree that sensitive diplomacy is without question a requirement, in order for diplomacy and mediation to truly be effective, there has to be room for movement on BOTH sides of the aisle, and the sad fact is that it is notoriously difficult (in many cases impossible) to engage in peaceful, fruitful negotiations with a huge portion of the fundamentalist Islamic world. Fundamentalism, by its very definition, believes itself to be inarguable and immovable. For true rigid adherents to Islam, they believe ABSOLUTELY that the Holy Quran, Hadiths, and Sharia offer the ONLY answers, and any thought processes challenging that "inerrant" dogma brands one an infidel or apostate deserving of death (this penalty is stated unequivocally in the texts). The Islamic scriptures are clear and ABSOLUTE in this case, and if the faith is followed and adhered to fundamentally (as it still is by literally tens of millions throughout the Islamic world today), there is NO room for negotiation or appeasement. They believe ANY and ALL answers are and MUST BE found within the scriptures, and it is typically IMPOSSIBLE to negotiate peacefully with this level of ignorance. Remember, it literally took CENTURIES for the western world to throw off the shackles of fundamentalist Christianity, with millions of lives lost in the process. (CONT.)

[inarguable]

(CONT) For a grossly simplistic analogy here, one has to appreciate that in many respects, the fundamentalist Islamic world today in the Mid East/Arab world behaves and thinks very much the way fundamentalist Christianity did back in the 16th and 17th Centuries. They are essentially 400 years behind us in cultural and religious evolution and pragmatic thinking. Imagine trying to convince the fundamentalist Catholic Church in 1610, during the days of the Inquisition, that their dogma was grievously flawed and required change. Ask Galileo how that worked out! That absolutist style of mindset is hyper-prevalent amongst the ignorant, largely uneducated, masses in the Middle East today. This problem is further enhanced by the clear-cut differences in design between the religions of Islam and Christianity. Christianity has a definitive %u201Ccommand and control%u201D structure in place (Deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, Pontiff), whereas Islam has NOTHING in the way of a true doctrinal hierarchy or vetting process built-in. Simply look at the administering of the Fatwa proclamations in Islam and you will see what I mean. Islam%u2019s structure, by its very design, is HIGHLY corruptible, even more so than Christianity was and is. The Holy Quran, Hadiths, and Sharia are laced with hypocrisy and obscurity, which allows for incredibly varying levels of diametric interpretation if one chooses. (CONT.)

[inarguable]

(CONT) This allows radical adherents to EASILY and ACCURATELY religiously justify their violent actions in the name of the faith. Islam also offers PLENTY of scriptural content that openly provides a justification for violence (Jihad al-Akhbar and Jihad al-Asgar) against infidels and apostates. I could go on and on, and while it is not politically correct for me to say all this, it is FACTUALLY correct. I have sat across the table from these fundamentalists when I lived in the Middle East and discussed this with many people over there, and what was most stunning was the incredible level of ignorance and the immovable mindset they carry that has them convinced Islam is the ONLY answer. This is further made more dangerous when the large portions of the clerical body of Islam preaches the doctrinal position (also supported by the scriptures) that Islam is destined to rule the world and that it is a Muslim%u2019s duty to spread and defend the faith, with many taking a %u201Cby any means necessary%u201D mindset. EVERYONE in the free world should read the Holy Quran, Hadiths, and Sharia, and they will begin to appreciate how easily the structure and scriptures of the faith allows for violent interpretation and corruptibility to be exploited.

[nynative1340]

inarguable, your login name says it all...

...I'd hate to have to read the long version...

[nynative1340]

How long can this civil/religious war go on? Well, the "recent" Catholic/Protestant war in Northern Ireland lasted over 30 years and killed over 3600 people, mostly innocent civilians. So I believe the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq will go on killing each other for another 25 years, with tens of thousands of mortal casualties, mostly innocent civilians.

There are so many similiarities. The Protestants are a majority in N. Ireland, backed by a Protestant England, but surrounded by a majority of Catholics in all of Ireland.

The Shias are a majority in Iraq, backed by a Shia Iran, but the Shias constitute only 20 percent of the world's Muslems.

All the world's Catholics and Protestants, and Christians in general, had little or no influence in tiny Northern Ireland. Since our leaders have created so much hatred towards and distrust of Americans, Muslems have not been willing to step up and help put and end to this mess. Nor could they. Only recently has the King of Jordan spoken out.

Some sensitive diplomacy is needed but our leader doesn't have the intelligence or know-how to employ diplomacy. Like Teddy, he can only carry a "big stick." Well, big stick diplomacy doesn't work in today's world. As the leader of the free world, Bush should have known that.

[inarguable]

(START) Ok, this is a REALLY LONG multi-part post, but the fact is that it has to be as this is NOT a simplistic question that can be answered in a few lines. If you want to ignore it all, be my guest, and I apologize for taking up the space. It is primarily to answer PATRIOTIC9%u2019s query, and explains what the Bush Administration was (and is) trying to achieve by invading Iraq in 2003. Whether you think they were right in doing so is entirely up to you, but this 2000 word post will at least partially explain the long-term game plan the Bush Admin was pursuing with the invasion. I work in the terrorism analysis field for a living, and am not pulling this out of my butt or anything. This is the real deal. To really get into the explanation would take me 10,000 words at least, so this is the short version. Now, to start with, the major problem I see many have with understanding the truth of what we are hoping to achieve behind the invasion of Iraq is classic human short-sightedness. Most people in our society tend to be willing to adequately analyze events no more than two years or so in advance. This myopic thinking is a classic human evolutionary survival trait, but to understand Iraq, one MUST think in multi-decade terms. We are attempting to render impotent a fundamentalist religious ideology here, and that will take many decades to achieve, just as it took several hundred years to largely nullify fundamentalist Christianity. (CONT. BELOW)

[inarguable]

(CONT)With that in mind, the sad fact is that we are going to HAVE to use violence against radical Islam, particularly in the near and mid term, as they have made it clear that they are going to violently pursue their aspirations of creating a global Caliphate devoid of western infidelic ideology. In this age of nuclear weapon proliferation, we are indeed fighting for our very way of life, and I for one will take freedom, democracy, and capitalism over following an absolutist version of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad every time. Realizing that this was going to be a long conflict from day one (day one being 9/11 for the sake of this argument), the Bush Administration evidently did not take long to realize that the two largest concerns were to keep the fires of Islamo-fascism from being able to build unchecked in the Middle East region, while at the same time being very cognizant of trying to mitigate the issue of America being recognized as attacking fundamentalist Islam in the Arab world while doing so. After the nation of Afghanistan was somewhat stabilized and the %u201CWar on Terror%u201D (as it was then-called) and its steamrolling influence was searching for another target to crush, Bush%u2019s advisors realized that they had to look far into the future when planning their next move, and I do not mean a year or two either. (CONT)