August 25, 2009 1:35 PM

Al Qaeda Claims Baghdad Bombings

By
CBSNews
(AP)  Al Qaeda's umbrella group in Iraq on Tuesday claimed responsibility for the bombings of government ministries in Baghdad last week that killed more than 100 people and left hundreds wounded.

The group, known as the Islamic State of Iraq, said in a statement posted on the Internet that "with God's grace," their "sons launched a new blessed attack at the heart of wounded Baghdad."

The attack, it said, meant to "wreck the bastions of infidelity" of what it describes as the pro-Iranian government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The statement listed targets al Qaeda claimed to have hit, including the finance, foreign and defense ministries in central Baghdad. The statement, posted on a Web site commonly used by terror groups, could not be independently verified.

The wave of explosions that ripped through Baghdad last Wednesday - with nearly simultaneous truck bombs hitting Iraq's Foreign and Finance ministries - killed at least 101 people and left more than 400 wounded. It was the deadliest day of coordinated bombings since Feb. 1, 2008, when two suicide bombers killed 109 people at pet markets in Baghdad.

The U.S. military said the attacks bore the hallmarks of al Qaeda, which is known for its high-profile vehicle bombs and simultaneous suicide attacks.

The al Qaeda front's statement said it sought to kill Iraqi government officials.

It said the explosions "shook the earth under their feet and tore apart their hearts of fear and horror proving to everyone the weakness of their government."

But it also expressed regret "for those innocent people who were killed" because they were accidentally at the targeted sites and wished the wounded speedy recovery. It warned of more attacks, and urged people to "keep away from these places" of the "heretic" Iraqi establishment.

Al-Maliki blamed Sunni insurgents linked to al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is part of the Islamic State in Iraq, for the attacks and said security measures must be reassessed.

The prime ministers and other Shiite politicians also linked Saddam Hussein loyalists to the explosions. Such allegations are not new, and hard-line Shiite politicians have been increasingly mentioning the Baathists as partners with al Qaeda.

However, a branch of Saddam's former Baath party, now based in Syria, issued a statement denouncing the attacks.

Al Qaeda signature attacks until now have mostly seemed designed to fuel sectarian tensions and push the country back to the Sunni-Shiite violence of 2006 and 2007 that nearly led to civil war.

Wednesday's bombings differed because they hit symbols of state authority and appeared aimed at having a far-reaching political impact, further undermining the government and casting fresh doubt on the ability of Iraqi security forces following the departure of U.S. forces from major cities on June 30.

AP
Add a Comment See all 26 Comments
by underdogus09 August 25, 2009 5:58 PM EDT
A catch-22 is a no-win situation. So long as one remains in the situation, one cannot win, no matter what one does. Such is the case in Iraq.
Reply to this comment
by underdogus09 August 25, 2009 5:54 PM EDT
"Bush had things under control" by the_majesty... really? me think you're smoking some good sin-semilla...
Reply to this comment
by Sloughfoot August 25, 2009 2:37 PM EDT
Damn I wish we hadn't hung him for I bet Ol' Saddam Hussein could bring peace and quiet to this country in 4-6 weeks. For a couple of million bucks I'll bet he could have brought us Bin Laden's head on a stick. I wonder how many tanks and jets he would have needed to quell the turmoil in Iran. Ol' Hussein where are you when we needed you?
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 August 25, 2009 2:14 PM EDT
by fedup12 August 25, 2009 1:47 PM EDT
AND DONT FORGET TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE YOUR POINT

I don't normally type in all caps, but I did for this so dimwits like you wouldn't miss it. : )
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 August 25, 2009 2:12 PM EDT
by Newster1 August 25, 2009 1:40 PM EDT
No, this is how the new software is designed, like it or leave. The "reply to this post" button is to reply to a specific comment, use it.
Use "add a comment" to respond to the article iteself.


Do you have any idea of what I am talking about?

So you are saying that when you reply in the "reply to comment", it is meant to be repeated throughout the rest of the pages over and over?

You can reply to a comment one page three and that reply will show up on pages one and two, also. That's normal? Give me a break.
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 August 25, 2009 1:06 PM EDT
EVERYBODY LISTEN UP!

KNOW HOW THE POSTS REPEAT? TRY NOT REPLYING IN THE "REPLY TO COMMENT" SECTION. IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ALWAYS REPEATED. GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY OF COPYING AND PASTING THE COMMENTS INTO A WHOLE NEW POST. TRY IT AND SEE IF IT STOPS DOING IT.
Reply to this comment
by fedup12 August 25, 2009 1:47 PM EDT
AND DONT FORGET TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE YOUR POINT
by SkirtLifter August 25, 2009 11:07 AM EDT
by slownewsday_5 August 25, 2009 10:06 AM EDT
Bush NEVER had things under control!!
We should have never been in Iraq in the first place - that was the first place Bush lost control.
_________________
Halliburton board members disagree. Kellogg too.
*********************************************************
by the_majesty August 25, 2009 9:46 AM EDT
The Truth is Obama is pulling out to soon.
_________________
too...it's too soon. "Pulling out too soon" jokes are too easy...
Reply to this comment
by jsf14 August 25, 2009 9:24 AM EDT
Trying to figure out why they'd proudly claim responsibility for such bloodshed. But maybe it's like trumpeting bodycount. They seem to hate "heretics" as much as Americans. Mostly I think they like the feeling of power: "I can kill you."
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday_5 August 25, 2009 9:42 AM EDT
The last paragraph of the article speculates on that as well.
by jsf14 August 25, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
Yes, in a political sense. But I think the feeling is as much visceral and personal as political.
by slownewsday_5 August 25, 2009 9:13 AM EDT
We should never have been in Iraq - Bush should have kept his eye on the ball and taken out Bin Laden, and taken down Al Qaeda.

Bush's lack of responsibility led to Al Qaeda regaining strength.


.
Reply to this comment
by the_majesty August 25, 2009 9:46 AM EDT
The Truth is Obama is pulling out to soon.
Bush had things under control.
Iraq needs just a little more time
to be able to protect itself.
Obama strikes again..........
by slownewsday_5 August 25, 2009 10:06 AM EDT
Bush NEVER had things under control!!

And it "needs a little more time"??? Dumb and Dumber claimed the war would take 6 weeks - MAYBE. And seven years later we're still there???

We should have never been in Iraq in the first place - that was the first place Bush lost control.


.
See all 13 Replies
See all 26 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook