Iraq violence up under Obama regime. April deadliest month since September.

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
What happens when you have a coward at America's helm who would rather run than fight?

SOURCE

April brings highest Iraq death toll in seven months

1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AFP) — April saw 355 people killed in Iraq, making it the deadliest month since September, official figures showed Friday, but the US military insisted that recent attacks have not reignited sectarian fighting.

Statistics compiled by the defence, interior and health ministries showed that 290 civilians, 24 soldiers and 41 policemen were killed in violent attacks across the country last month, and that 747 people were wounded.

The death toll was 40 percent higher than in March because of a wave of attacks, including six car bombs that rocked the Iraqi capital at rush hour on April 29, killing more than 50 people and wounding dozens more.

The deadliest attacks targeted busy markets in Baghdad's sprawling eastern slum of Sadr City, where three car bombs exploded late afternoon as residents including women and children made their way home.

The synchronised bombings recalled attacks on crowded Shiite areas at the height of Iraq's sectarian fighting in 2006, which provoked the revenge killing of thousands of Sunni men by Shiite death squads.

The US military, however, denied such a link, saying recent violence was due to Al-Qaeda's efforts to concentrate attacks around Baghdad and other hotspots, such as the northern city of Mosul, due to its overall diminished capacity.

"The purpose (of such attacks) is to generate ethno-sectarian violence, because ethno-sectarian violence is generally what escalates it to an out-of-control situation," Major General David Perkins told reporters.

"(Al-Qaeda) may have accomplished their task, which is to kill lots of innocent civilians, but the purpose... so far has not occurred."

At around the time he spoke a suicide bomber struck a cafe north of Mosul, killing five people and wounding another six, according to police.

The area in and around Iraq's second largest city still sees frequent attacks despite improvements in security elsewhere in the country, in part due to Kurdish-Arab ethnic tensions and local tribal rivalries.

Last week at least 140 people were killed in just 24 hours as suicide attackers targeted areas packed with civilians in Baghdad and a restaurant full of Iranian pilgrims northeast of the capital.

In the deadliest attack this year, two female suicide bombers struck a major Shiite shrine in Baghdad, killing at least 65 people, on April 25. Another suicide bomber killed 28 people who had been receiving food aid in the city.

A day earlier a suicide bomber massacred 56 people, including 52 Iranian pilgrims, at the restaurant in restive Diyala province.

The brutal spike in attacks comes two months before US troops are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, under a military accord between Baghdad and Washington that will see American soldiers leave Iraq completely by 2011. (As predicted if we turned tail and ran away. - j)

The attacks have raised security fears of a resurgence in violence as the Iraqi army has moved to decapitate militant groups, including loyalists to the defunct regime of Saddam Hussein who it says are linked to Al-Qaeda.

Last week the military announced the arrest of the elusive Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, said to be the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The government said that April 29's coordinated attacks came in response to his arrest.

The US military has not yet confirmed his capture.

"The detainee that the Iraqis are calling Baghdadi is in the custody of the Iraqi security forces and we have not had any access to him," Perkins said. "We are getting out of the detainee business."

The government's figures showed that 831 Iraqis were arrested last month.

Since the beginning of the year 1,056 people have been killed nationwide, mostly civilians. Nevertheless, the monthly toll for April was significantly lower than last September when 440 Iraqis were killed.

Security has improved dramatically since 2007, when Iraqi and US forces launched offensives against Al-Qaeda with the help of local US-financed and trained militias.

In January 2007 alone, 1,992 civilians, 40 soldiers and 55 police were killed. In 2008, 6,772 Iraqis were killed countrywide.

Eighteen US soldiers also died last month, the highest toll since September, bringing to 4,281 the number of American losses since the invasion, according to an AFP count based on the independent website icasualties.org.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
 
fill in the blank neocon said:
Yeah Jim, what we need to do is just deed the entire left coast to China so we can have a few trillion more to blow trying to force those Arabs not to be Arabs! We;ll turn the whole middle east to glass!

Then we'll be considered tough!
Click to expand...

Obama probably has more guts in his little finger than ten of you would Jim!
 
From the mind of the "high IQ"...

Originally Posted by fill in the black neocon
Yeah Jim, what we need to do is just deed the entire left coast to China so we can have a few trillion more to blow trying to force those Arabs not to be Arabs! We;ll turn the whole middle east to glass!
Click to expand...

Pity you have to resort to such tactics to make a non-point.
 
jimpeel said:
What happens when you have a coward at America's helm who would rather run than fight?
Click to expand...


Harry Reid stands at a podium and states "Thanks to this so-called president every one of our troops has a bull's eye on his back."

53qni2treid.jpg
 
Gato_Solo said:
From the mind of the "high IQ"...



Pity you have to resort to such tactics to make a non-point.
Click to expand...

We all know when it comes to Iraq you are just as clueless as Jim. You'd rather spend trillions of borrowed money to try and likely fail to accomplish anything that will benefit the American people. And you insult my intelligence?
 
Yeah, I think Gato might have a certain perspective on Iraq that the rest of us don't have... unless, of course, you've done more tours of duty there than he has.
 
Inkara1 said:
Yeah, I think Gato might have a certain perspective on Iraq that the rest of us don't have... unless, of course, you've done more tours of duty there than he has.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's up for debate. Sure he may know more about Iraq and it's conditions than anyone else here, but as to actually knowing whether we should be there or not, his judgment is no more objective than Jim's. I'd expect 9 of 10 soldiers to be more behind staying in Iraq, just for the simple fact, that nobody wants to feel that their efforts are in vain. If he was a commanding general, I might put a little more weight on his opinion, but if not than perhaps he is more biased, based on personal beliefs, that have little or nothing to do with the reality of the whole war from a political and strategic perspective than even Jim.

But I guess maybe he isn't as clueless as Jim, but clueless in different ways perhaps.
 
randomJACKASS said:
I'd say that's up for debate. Sure he may know more about Iraq and it's conditions than anyone else here, but as to actually knowing whether we should be there or not, his judgment is no more objective than Jim's. I'd expect 9 of 10 soldiers to be more behind staying in Iraq, just for the simple fact, that nobody wants to feel that their efforts are in vain. If he was a commanding general, I might put a little more weight on his opinion, but if not than perhaps he is more biased, based on personal beliefs, that have little or nothing to do with the reality of the whole war from a political and strategic perspective than even Jim.

But I guess maybe he isn't as clueless as Jim, but clueless in different ways perhaps.
Click to expand...

Yes, Gato is totally clueless. He even believes that terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC buildings!!
 
randomJACKASS said:
I'd say that's up for debate. Sure he may know more about Iraq and it's conditions than anyone else here, but as to actually knowing whether we should be there or not, his judgment is no more objective than Jim's. I'd expect 9 of 10 soldiers to be more behind staying in Iraq, just for the simple fact, that nobody wants to feel that their efforts are in vain. If he was a commanding general, I might put a little more weight on his opinion, but if not than perhaps he is more biased, based on personal beliefs, that have little or nothing to do with the reality of the whole war from a political and strategic perspective than even Jim.

But I guess maybe he isn't as clueless as Jim, but clueless in different ways perhaps.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have a very unique perspective that you cannot fathom. Its about doing the right thing. We, as a nation, invaded a country and destroyed its infrastructure based on intel that was later proven to be faulty. We have a responsibility to fix that infrastructure before we leave. As for the rest of your ignorant comments, I'll give no reply because your opinions have no weight at all. You think I want to spend six months a year away from my family in harms way just so you can second-guess everything that is going on? Your name says it all...especially the 'random' part.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Actually, I have a very unique perspective that you cannot fathom. Its about doing the right thing. We, as a nation, invaded a country and destroyed its infrastructure based on intel that was later proven to be faulty. We have a responsibility to fix that infrastructure before we leave. As for the rest of your ignorant comments, I'll give no reply because your opinions have no weight at all....
Click to expand...

Guess what dude? Your opinion holds no more weight than mine does (we each have one vote every election day)! I will not argue that you have been in Iraq and understand it in particular better, and I can even agree to some extent about the red part, but at the expense it is costing us?

The perspective is not unique and not something I can't fathom, so don't be so damn full of yourself! It was a bad war, and yes we have some responsibility, but at some point, when they keep destroying what we try to help them with, is there not a point when it's time to cut losses?

I apologize for sounding harsh, I don't mean to be, and I respect what you do and am grateful you are willing to do it. My only point is that I disagree with how we have tried to fix things in Iraq and the expense to our people.

The soldier comment was somewhat unfair, because many aren't like I alluded to, but I suppose it sticks in my craw more than most folks because I know a few civilians who worked in Iraq in the past few years and how they feel about it. The hard part though is I know a guy who was my friend most of my life (since I was three years old). He was a high level NCO, and spent a lot of time there, he was even wounded more than once. He used to at least think about his politics, now he is just in lock step with GWB, and any foreign policy that has us involved in military action, and the only thing I can really chalk it up to is what he did over there was so bad, that the only way he can live with it is to be 100% behind shit he knows isn't right, deep down.
 
randomJACKASS said:
Guess what dude? Your opinion holds no more weight than mine does (we each have one vote every election day)! I will not argue that you have been in Iraq and understand it in particular better, and I can even agree to some extent about the red part, but at the expense it is costing us?
Click to expand...

So what would the alternative be? Letting Iraq turn into another Afghanistan like we did in the 1980's with Bin Laden?

rj said:
The perspective is not unique and not something I can't fathom, so don't be so damn full of yourself! It was a bad war, and yes we have some responsibility, but at some point, when they keep destroying what we try to help them with, is there not a point when it's time to cut losses?


I apologize for sounding harsh, I don't mean to be, and I respect what you do and am grateful you are willing to do it. My only point is that I disagree with how we have tried to fix things in Iraq and the expense to our people.
Click to expand...

Then how should we go about fixing those things? It can't be done from a distance, and it sure as heck can't be done without risk to life. As for being willing, I do not like being here. I do it because I signed a contract knowing what could happen, and I stick by my words.

rj said:
The soldier comment was somewhat unfair, because many aren't like I alluded to, but I suppose it sticks in my craw more than most folks because I know a few civilians who worked in Iraq in the past few years and how they feel about it. The hard part though is I know a guy who was my friend most of my life (since I was three years old). He was a high level NCO, and spent a lot of time there, he was even wounded more than once. He used to at least think about his politics, now he is just in lock step with GWB, and any foreign policy that has us involved in military action, and the only thing I can really chalk it up to is what he did over there was so bad, that the only way he can live with it is to be 100% behind shit he knows isn't right, deep down.
Click to expand...

I really hate to bring this up...yet again...but GWB is not the boogeyman you'd like to believe. He couldn't have involved the US in any action without the consent of Congress...and a great majority of those folks voted to start the actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As for military action...when its authorized by the US it had damned well better be in 'lock step' else you risk exactly what we're dealing with now...once the shooting starts, the time for politics-as-usual should be over. Right or wrong, the phrase that needs to be repeated is "Shut up and soldier".

One more thing...and this is entirely the fault of Congress...if they were so sure that military action was necessary, then why didn't they formally declare a war instead of this bs we're in now?
 
Gato_Solo said:
I really hate to bring this up...yet again...but GWB is not the boogeyman you'd like to believe. He couldn't have involved the US in any action without the consent of Congress...
Click to expand...

other than the fact that him and his boys went apeshit on the idea of invading iraq and constructed and vigorously pushed forward a case for invasion based on comic book assertions they presented as facts. no real WMD program, no real relationship with AQ ("but there must be, they's muslims!!!"). oh, yeah, and as uberkommandants they are the ones that put too few and under-resourced soldiers over there. so, yes, there is plenty of reason to criticize bush for how the war was progated and limp-wristed.
 
2minkey said:
other than the fact that .....
Click to expand...


I'm sure Prez Coward will just say:

"I am sooooo so sorry. You and your friends will never, ever, ever have to worry about uuuuuuhhh 'merica sticking it's nose in business where it doesn't belong again. And, uunnhhhh, as a way to prove my sincerity, as a way of reparation, if you will, aaahhhhhh, here, just look what I'm doing to the U.S. of A. I'm destroying it. Pretty cool, huh?"

and straighten everything right out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top