The Iraq thread 4

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ](not including beheadings and bombings of civilians of course)

Why...

Quote[/b] ]It ought to be worrying though that they are able to conduct a rocket strike in the middle of a major US base. Especially when there are 22 casualties instead of the ordinary couple of wounded.

The dining hall was just a large tent....lack of protection....

[kerosene 0]

That and the fact that they are alive and well shows the world that resisting the coalition of the willing's fierce "war on terror" in Iraq - led by USA and Britain  - actually makes a difference.

Sometimes.  They've killed plenty of people from anti-war/indifferent countries, usually there just from poor countries so we dont hear much, thoses Nepalese workers who were murdered, I felt was espically pointless.

Has that base been mentioned in news articles before?

I remember reading about a U.S base where they said their were "regular attacks" on the canteen as Iraqi fighters knew they congregated there and also apparently had a good idea of their schedule.

[bn880 5]

A Year On, Iraq's Rebels Unfazed by Saddam Capture

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD (Reuters) - What a difference a year makes. Or then again, maybe not.

Last December, a haggard-looking Saddam Hussein was pulled from a hole in the ground not far from his ancestral home of Tikrit and taken into custody by jubilant U.S. troops.

President Bush hailed it as a breakthrough, saying he expected his arch foe to be tried, convicted and put to death -- adding that would be up to the Iraqi courts.

"In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over," Bush declared in a television address the day after the capture on Dec. 13.

"A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq."

A year on, twice as many U.S. soldiers have been killed by insurgents since Saddam's capture than in the period before, and thousands of Iraqis have died. There are fears elections on Jan. 30 could be derailed by the mayhem.

And Bush's hoped-for trial of Saddam appears no nearer to happening, despite repeated pledges from Iraqi officials.

It all looked rosier when Paul Bremer, then U.S. governor of Iraq, declared: "Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him!" It was believed then that Saddam's capture would put a damper on the insurgency, depriving it of a figurehead and financier.

"HUGE BLOW"

General John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said Saddam's detention had dealt the insurgency "a huge psychological blow" that would "pay great benefits over time."

In the weeks that followed, evidence did seem to suggest the guerrillas may have been set back. Attacks on U.S. forces dropped to around 17 a day from as many as 50 before.

Commanders grew confident that they were making headway.

In January, Major General Ray Odierno, the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, whose troops got credit for snatching the "Ace of Spades," declared the insurgency to be "on its knees" and only a "sporadic threat."

"I believe within six months, I think you're going to see some normalcy," he told the Pentagon press corps.

The confidence was infectious.

"Systematically we have captured or killed the individuals directing the insurgency," said Major General Charles Swannack, the commander of the 82nd Airborne, in March.

He was responsible for the volatile western region of Iraq, including the cities of Falluja and Ramadi. A month after he spoke, Falluja fell into the hands of guerrillas and was only wrested back following a massive U.S. offensive last month. Fighting continues.

The insurgency has broadened and strengthened, attracting fresh recruits and finding new ways of striking U.S. troops and their Iraqi security force allies.

TRYING TO TRY SADDAM

Even in the capital, hardly a day has gone by without a car bomb or guerrilla attack. Some areas, including central Haifa Street, are insurgent strongholds.

Meanwhile, what has become of Saddam?

Iraqi officials said they thought he could be convicted and even executed by July. Saddam did appear in court that month and was informed of the general charges against him.

But since then little progress appears to have been made. The head of the special tribunal set up to try him, Salem Chalabi, has been replaced. Investigators are only beginning to sift through the evidence.

Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said in August he wanted proceedings sped up and said trials against Saddam and his senior henchmen should begin by the end of the year.

Officials at the special tribunal could not be reached for comment on Saturday, but a U.S. embassy official said he would be urging Iraqi authorities to prepare a statement for the anniversary of Saddam's capture on the status of his trial. It was not clear when that statement would be made.

It's been a long year.

Just to add to a otherwise self-explenatory article the back of the insurgency has also been broken as of last month.Judging by how things are going on today in Iraq,I will just have to wait and see jubilant commanders claiming that it hands have been tied up,head squished and it's torso ripped apart and then just maybe we'll see some actual progress with no reverse effects.

You are being sarcastic? This is not true, no resistance back is broken...

[denoir 0]

The dining hall was just a large tent....lack of protection....

That's the most amazing part. According to the BBC there have been 40 previous failed attacks on that very mess-hall. It's difficult to understand why they didn't reinforce it or move it into a proper building.

Anyway, those killed were just soldiers. The bombing two days ago that killed 60+ civilians was a much bigger tragedy.

Personally, I have stopped caring though. It's all the same, over and over again. It's not getting better in any way, and nothing is changing. These days, I simply ignore and filter out Iraq news.

[bn880 5]

I do it for the most part as well Denoir... it was not good on morale here. Heck, I can even play OFP these days once I accept what is happening and that the cause is at the top, not on the ground.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Personally, I have stopped caring though. It's all the same, over and over again. It's not getting better in any way, and nothing is changing. These days, I simply ignore and filter out Iraq news.

in other words, international affairs are like Playboy centerfold of the month. After interest is gone it's not worth looking at right?

Don't get me wrong, since I see both sides now don't give much care about the situation any how. So much for caring people of Iraq...

Heck, I can even play OFP these days once I accept what is happening and that the cause is at the top, not on the ground.

your coop players give you inadequate air support?

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sometimes.  They've killed plenty of people from anti-war/indifferent countries, usually there just from poor countries so we dont hear much, thoses Nepalese workers who were murdered, I felt was espically pointless.

I can't say I know about this incident, but in general I'd say anyone taking part in the coalition occupying Iraq is a legitimate target. There are shades of grey here such as nations taking part in "rebuilding" civilian infrastructure such as the norwegian soldiers (back in Norway now) but I still think they're legitimate targets as long as they did not go as a result of a UN decision.

Quote[/b] ]Has that base been mentioned in news articles before?

I remember reading about a U.S base where they said their were "regular attacks" on the canteen as Iraqi fighters knew they congregated there and also apparently had a good idea of their schedule.

........when you mention it I wonder if this hasn't been discussed in one of the former "iraq threads" ?

[brgnorway 0]

A picture like this says more than a thousand words.........

at least when you think about US soldiers complaints about the lack of armoured vehicles..........

It's not going to make Rummybummy Mr. Popular of the year!

[denoir 0]

Personally, I have stopped caring though. It's all the same, over and over again. It's not getting better in any way, and nothing is changing. These days, I simply ignore and filter out Iraq news.

in other words, international affairs are like Playboy centerfold of the month. After interest is gone it's not worth looking at right?

Don't get me wrong, since I see both sides now don't give much care about the situation any how. So much for caring people of Iraq...

Something like that, but it's not about what is interesting, but about the human capacity of caring.

One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is statistics.

Day in, day out people are getting slaugtered in Iraq. It's simply not within my capabilities to care and to feel for all of them. And their number is constantly growing. You get numb.

There is even no point any more of pointing out how the war was a grave error etc I've done that already, before the war and after the war and it did not change anything and it did not make me feel better. So why bother?

60 dead civilians - apart from on a very abstract intellectual level, I don't care. I wouldn't feel any different if it was 120 of them or 30 of them. It's just a regular day in Iraq. It was such a day yesterday, and there will be one tomorrow as well. And since I don't feel much for Iraqi civilians, you can imagine how litte I care about US soldiers getting blown up.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I've not really cared about anybody dying in Iraq since the whole thing began; civilian, military or otherwise. Deaths were inevitable and at the end of the day are just another statistic in respect to my life. I admire the bravery of everyone engaged in the conflict but I'm not at a loss when they fall and while their death is tragic, my sympathy is extended to the families of the dead, but it's not my place to share their grief when I can't fathom what exactly that person meant to them. It's just pointless sentiment to be saddened or angered by it.

I believe I'm better off not mourning someone I've never met, who died thousands of miles away. Of course things would be different in the case of someone I knew who had died over there.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I still think they're legitimate targets as long as they did not go as a result of a UN decision.

You just confused the hell out me. So, you believe they are legitimate targets if they are not under the UN flag. However, they would be doing the same job has if they were. The UN would be still occupying Iraq...would they be considered legitimate targets (i.e. UN bombing)?

[denoir 0]

The UN would be still occupying Iraq...would they be considered legitimate targets (i.e. UN bombing)?

If it has a UN mandate then it has the backing of the world community and is therefor a legal intervention. So from the point of view of international law and agreements attacks on such units would not be justifiable.

If you want an analogy - it's similar to the difference between a legal police action and illegal vigilante action. There's a difference if a cop shoots a person who the law considers to be a criminal and between a regular citizen shooting another person who he considers is a criminal. Both actions involve the shooting of another person, but there is a clear legal distinction between those cases.

UN military interventions exist for the same reason that police action exists. International law exists for the same reason regular law exists.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]You just confused the hell out me. So, you believe they are legitimate targets if they are not under the UN flag. However, they would be doing the same job has if they were. The UN would be still occupying Iraq...would they be considered legitimate targets (i.e. UN bombing)?

Read Denoirs post above - it answers your question well!

Another aspect of sending soldiers on "a peacefull mission" to Iraq is that it undermines the integrity of the UN. It's sort of a silly thing to do when Norway historically have been one of the staunchest supporters of the UN system.

[Pukko 0]

I believe I'm better off not mourning someone I've never met, who died thousands of miles away. Of course things would be different in the case of someone I knew who had died over there.

<s>Maybe noone here has met him in person, but if I recall it right Pins-Da'Smoka (or how he spells his nick name) is stationed in Mosul... It was the first thing that came to my mind when reading about the 22 dead at the base.</s>

EDIT: I did a search for PiNs_Da_Smoka and found that he has written "No longer in Iraq....so....ya know....yay.... ;-) " in his signature

But otherwise I share the view of bn880 and denoir that it don't feels very 'rewarding' (personally or globally) to care much about the war in Iraq anymore. Especially not since the one ultimately responsible for the war recently got honoured with another 4 years (not because of hte Iraq war indeed - but due to great things like the 'war on terror' + abortion, homosex and stemcell-research phobia). My stance on Iraq these days has rather crossed the border to the lands of hopelessness and apathy, while it since late 2002 until Bush's reelection only were close to that border...

[brgnorway 0]

Yes, it would be hard to "mourn" the dead of Iraq. However, despite the ongoing tradgedy I don't cease to be shocked!

I was shocked yesterday when over 60 people were killed and I'll probably be shocked next time something of that scale happends.

I only mourn if family and friends, the rest I feel sorry for!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

brgnorway-

Quote[/b] ]I can't say I know about this incident, but in general I'd say anyone taking part in the coalition occupying Iraq is a legitimate target. There are shades of grey here such as nations taking part in "rebuilding" civilian infrastructure such as the norwegian soldiers (back in Norway now) but I still think they're legitimate targets as long as they did not go as a result of a UN decision.

I dont agree. Medics should not be targets within their capacity as medics, civilian and otherwise unarmed workers and contractors (and even soldiers) should not be targeted. In my opinion it is immoral to kill such people with knowledge of their state, and if the law makes it legal then the law is an ass, besides which as far as i am aware it does not.

If it is 'legitimate' to kill anyone giving help or aid to the enemy then this would legitimise coalition slaughter of Iraqis suspected of sypathising with insurgents (probably a large proportion of the population in many places) which seems unsupportable i think most would agree.

The UNs laws and 'international standards' are widely flouted throughout the world by UN member states and there is massive abuse in many states, yet no action is taken. So when you say:

Quote[/b] ](brgnorway)Another aspect of  sending soldiers on "a peacefull mission" to Iraq is that it undermines the integrity of the UN.

it seems somewhat to be missing the point. For Iraqis the UN doesnt have any integrity anyway. As far as i can tell most Iraqis dislike the UN at least as much as the US. And the opinion of many in the US on that institution is well known. In other words neither Iraqis or Americans have a natural respect for the UN (and this is perfectly understandable if you look at their respective histories) and so the only practical reason for a UN resolution would be to make europeans and a few others feel morally justified in going into Iraq and otherwise assisting. But seeing as noone significant seems very intent on doing that anyway, the whole practical purpose for a UN involvement seems to evaporate. Possibly the only thing that -could- improve the perceived integrity of the UN for Iraqis is peaceful intervention.

Plenty of conflicts on the part of supposed enforcers of order have taken place without official UN sanction, but the UN still tends to assist when and if it can. Whats different is that the US has militarily toppled a regime and obviously other governments dont like that. But so what. Being apathetic to instability in Iraq in order to 'punish' or pin down the US should be nothing to do with the UN. If there is a future invasion proposed by TBA (or any other government) it should be debated on and fought via other means than pointing to the disgusting oozing wound that we would let Iraq become.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]If you want an analogy - it's similar to the difference between a legal police action and illegal vigilante action. There's a difference if a cop shoots a person who the law considers to be a criminal and between a regular citizen shooting another person who he considers is a criminal. Both actions involve the shooting of another person, but there is a clear legal distinction between those cases.

Very good. But to make your analogy more realistic we should add that noone in government can agree on what the laws should be and the police headquarters is a corrupt bureaucratic nightmare that most often does not respond when you ring. In this country i would carry a pointy stick at all times.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]I dont agree. Medics should not be targets within their capacity as medics, civilian and otherwise unarmed workers and contractors (and even soldiers) should not be targeted. In my opinion it is immoral to kill such people with knowledge of their state, and if the law makes it legal then the law is an ass, besides which as far as i am aware it does not.

First of all I'd like to say that medics shouldn't be a target no matter what! I didn't focus on civilians but soldiers - good thing you brought it up though! While I in principle have to agree with you that unarmed civilians should not be targeted I have to say the picture of friend and foe is a bit blurred. What about armed civilian contractors associated with the armed forces (private security forces so popular in Iraq) . Legitimate targets? Sure as hell they are! How about the unarmed ones? Yes, I think so! If the Queen decided it's time to confiscate our oilplatforms in the North Sea I wouldn't hesitate one moment and I would not feel very guilty if a civilian British Petroleum employee got killed as a result of what I did!

Quote[/b] ]If it is 'legitimate' to kill anyone giving help or aid to the enemy then this would legitimise coalition slaughter of Iraqis suspected of sypathising with insurgents (probably a large proportion of the population in many places) which seems unsupportable i think most would agree.

In my mind there's a major difference between people who naturaly belong there and people who don't. We are not talking about Red Cross or anything like that! We are however talking about norwegian soldiers who was sent there to do something UN disagreed with.

Quote[/b] ]The UNs laws and 'international standards' are widely flouted throughout the world by UN member states and there is massive abuse in many states, yet no action is taken.

I cannot answer for all wrongdoings that happen because UN members act against the UN conventions. You're not seriously trying to compare a single nation like Libya's lack of democratic rights or Brasil's abuse of the indigenous population with practically the whole of UN going against US and GB's invation of Iraq? We are after all talking consequences right?

Quote[/b] ]it seems somewhat to be missing the point. For Iraqis the UN doesnt have any integrity anyway.As far as i can tell most Iraqis dislike the UN at least as much as the US.

Of course UN lacks integrity for most if not all of the iraqi people. Would you trust UN after the sanctions and embargo?

For the average iraqi the UN is as bad as US! That doesn't mean YOU or I have to judge UN that way - especially after what happened prior to the war. If you want to talk about what's moraly sound or not you should look no further than your own government who acted against what the majority of the UN members (including the security council) will! Furthermore, it seems you - and many others - mistake the what UN is! It's nothing else than an arena where politics take place. If you act against it you also act against reason and compromise!

Quote[/b] ]And the opinion of many in the US on that institution is well known. In other words neither Iraqis or Americans have a natural respect for the UN (and this is perfectly understandable if you look at their respective histories) and so the only practical reason for a UN resolution would be to make europeans and a few others feel morally justified in going into Iraq and otherwise assisting.

Bullshit! UN or the european nations are not responsable for the security or rebuilding of Iraq! YOU are however since you are the occupying power together with you lovely cousins! To claim that other UN nations should be responsable for your mess is the worst kind of moral blackmail I've ever heard of!

Quote[/b] ]But seeing as noone significant seems very intent on doing that anyway, the whole practical purpose for a UN involvement seems to evaporate.

That's a silly thing to say! There could have been an involvement on behalf of the UN if your governments decided to play along with the rest of the world. The problem of the UN is not the UN itself - but the lack of will to make it relevant! That's where your government and US comes into the picture! You sabotize the idea of compromise and a common will - an accepted "give and take" policy! You only want to take! So, if anyone is responsable for UN's failings it's you!

Quote[/b] ] Possibly the only thing that -could- improve the perceived integrity of the UN for Iraqis is peaceful intervention.

You sure made that possible didn't you? (as in your government) .

Quote[/b] ]Plenty of conflicts on the part of supposed enforcers of order have taken place without official UN sanction, but the UN still tends to assist when and if it can. Whats different is that the US has militarily toppled a regime and obviously other governments dont like that. But so what. Being apathetic to instability in Iraq in order to 'punish' or pin down the US should be nothing to do with the UN.

Again, it's your responsability. You were warned and decided to ignore it! Noone else can be held responsable than you! Your argument is nothing but an immoral blackmail of the worst sort! You broke it - you fix it!

Quote[/b] ]If there is a future invasion proposed by TBA (or any other government) it should be debated on and fought via other means than pointing to the disgusting oozing wound that we would let Iraq become.

Are you suggesting that debate in a political arena didn't take place? Actually, I'd say you proved it cannot be done in the future as long as you stick with your current governments (US & UK) . If anything, I'd say noone should debate with you because you do whatever you feel like anyway! If you lost your talking buddies as a result you have only yourself to blame. You cannot be trusted anymore! Actualy, allthough it's impossible in any other way than the current one where you have to pay for your mess, I'd say you have certainly earned your right to be sanctioned. It's a pity it can't be done!

[tak 0]

U finds 'Glory' in Iraq war pic

Ford starrer based on 'Fallujah' tome

Harrison Ford is attached to play one of the key characters in an ensemble drama that marks the first major feature project about the current war in Iraq.

You can find more story here

[denoir 0]

Medics should not be targets within their capacity as medics, civilian and otherwise unarmed workers and contractors (and even soldiers) should not be targeted. In my opinion it is immoral to kill such people with knowledge of their state, and if the law makes it legal then the law is an ass, besides which as far as i am aware it does not.

Actually, medics are quite legitimate targets; they're armed and will shoot you if they get a chance. They're not to be confused with civilian doctors.

Quote[/b] ]For Iraqis the UN doesnt have any integrity anyway. As far as i can tell most Iraqis dislike the UN at least as much as the US. And the opinion of many in the US on that institution is well known. In other words neither Iraqis or Americans have a natural respect for the UN (and this is perfectly understandable if you look at their respective histories)

Do you have something to back that up? The only thing that I can find is the following from BBC:

Which shows that the Iraqis trust the UN about twice as much as the US led forces.

Quote[/b] ]and so the only practical reason for a UN resolution would be to make europeans and a few others feel morally justified in going into Iraq and otherwise assisting. But seeing as noone significant seems very intent on doing that anyway, the whole practical purpose for a UN involvement seems to evaporate.

Nonsense. You are confusing cause and effect. Because Europeans and a majority of the rest of the world did not think the war was justified, there was no UN support. It's not the other way around. Europe and the rest of the world correctly predicted that the damage an occupation could cause to Iraq and the region would be greater than the damage Saddam was doing.

Saddam hated the UN and claimed that it was a US puppet organization. The US dislikes the UN as well, claiming that it's an organization bribed by Saddam. Since the two protagonists both claim that the UN is working for the "other" side is a good demonstration of that it's doing something right.

Quote[/b] ]Plenty of conflicts on the part of supposed enforcers of order have taken place without official UN sanction, but the UN still tends to assist when and if it can.

Not at all many. Just about any war that is waged on grounds of humanitarian reasons or world security has UN backing. And that goes for wars in self-defence as well.

Quote[/b] ]Whats different is that the US has militarily toppled a regime and obviously other governments dont like that. But so what.

Yeah, but so what? The same "so what" as when Iraq invaded Kuwait or Hitler invaded Poland. Yeah, that's a good attitude.

Quote[/b] ] Being apathetic to instability in Iraq in order to 'punish' or pin down the US should be nothing to do with the UN. If there is a future invasion proposed by TBA (or any other government) it should be debated on and fought via other means than pointing to the disgusting oozing wound that we would let Iraq become.

I'm hoping that by "we" you are refering to the US and the UK. Against all warnings from your friends and allies you went in and started bombing the country into chaos. What was that latest estimate? 100,000 civilians? Feel proud? A job well done? And you have the stomach to criticize the UN!

Quote[/b] ]Very good. But to make your analogy more realistic we should add that noone in government can agree on what the laws should be and the police headquarters is a corrupt bureaucratic nightmare that most often does not respond when you ring. In this country i would carry a pointy stick at all times.

First of all, it was an analogy which is limited to the judicial situation. A police action and a military action are two very different things. When you make a decision to go to war, you choose to for some cause to go off and kill a lot of people. It is far safer for the world if you go too seldom to war than too often.

That's where the bureaucracy comes in, which is the strength of the UN. Going to war should be a decision that should be debated from every aspect. There is no more serious decision in the world, and a solid bureaucracy prevents idiotic mistakes like Iraq - where you rush to war without knowing what you really want or how you are going to do anything.

If avoiding 20 Iraq wars gives us one Rwanda, it is worth it.

The worst possible option is going back to the old custom of nation states engaged in a cycle of war against other nation states. That is far more important than even stopping a local genocide. If everybody runs off starting wars of the self-interest, the world will be as Europe was for some 700+ years. And that will cost far more lives.

The criticism that can be directed at the UN is the security council structure, which should be removed. It is very unreasonable that certain nation states can enforce their agendas on an international level. It is absurt that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN declared war and later slapped on heavy sanctions, while when the US does the same thing, it gets economic assistance. Instead of the SC and general assembly, a two-chamber parliament-like structure would be much more fair.

[bn880 5]

Heck, I can even play OFP these days once I accept what is happening and that the cause is at the top, not on the ground.

your coop players give you inadequate air support?

lol

I meant the government to be specific, yesterday when I wrote and left that I thought someone might htink I mean a supernatural being (god).

Actually in the coops it's the opposite, the ground troops regulairly fail to clear the are of AAA and thus we can' get air support. You should join us on Zeus someday, at times we have serious coops, at times not so serious, usually entertaining and long.

EDIT: Yeah, the only way I can "mourn" the deaths of innocents or regular people in Iraq now is to clearly connect cause to effect, and when given a chance speak out against the cause. Never forget, and remember what drives the cause.

Mourning otherwise would probably mean you have to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up the whitehouse.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Report: Mosul Attack Was a Suicide Bombing

Investigators Say Deadly Mess Tent Blast Was a Suicide Attack

Mosul, Iraq

Dec. 22, 2004 -- New evidence shows the bombing of a U.S. military mess tent in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Tuesday — which killed 22 people and wounded 69 others — was a suicide attack, ABC News has learned.

Investigators at the base have found remnants of a torso and a suicide vest that was probably a backpack, sources told ABC News, indicating that the attack was a suicide bombing.

The bombing at the mess tent at Forward Operating Base Marez in Mosul was one of the deadliest attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq since the start of the war. Early reports indicated that the massive explosion might have been the result of a rocket attack.

But a radical Sunni Muslim group, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, later claimed responsibility for the attack and said it was a "martyrdom operation," a reference to a suicide bomber.

A day after the devastating attack, another message posted on a Web site, allegedly by Ansar al-Sunnah, provided details. According to the online message, the suicide bomber was a 24-year-old man from Mosul who worked at the base for two months and had provided information about the base to the group.

The base, also known as the al-Ghizlani military camp, is about three miles south of Mosul and is used by both U.S. troops and the interim Iraqi government's security forces. It once was Mosul's civilian airport but is now a heavily fortified area.

Security Issues Arise

The deadly attack in the middle of a U.S. military base has led to questions about security at the facility in Mosul, a northern Iraqi city that has seen an increase in insurgent attacks since the U.S. military assault on Fallujah last month.

U.S. military officials say there were plans to build a bunker-like mess hall at the base. Although dining halls at bases have been the target of mortar attacks across central Iraq in the past, there are growing indications that Tuesday's attack might have been an "inside job."

According to the online message, the suicide bomber used plastic explosives hidden inside his clothes. The "martyr" had gotten married about a month ago, the message said.

Link

Roh-oh!

[BOP_101TFS 0]

http://chicagostreetculture.com/video/Nightline_Falluja_fighting.wmv

15 mins

[billybob2002 0]

http://chicagostreetculture.com/video/Nightline_Falluja_fighting.wmv

15 mins

It is down...

[Wilco 944]

Quote[/b] ]By RAWYA RAGEH, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Al-Qaida's arm in Iraq released a video Saturday showing its militants lining up five captured Iraqi security officers and executing them in the street, one of a string of recent attacks claimed by the group led by terror boss Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

A statement posted on an Islamist Web site along with the video denounced the five men as "American dogs," and the group warned other Iraqis they would meet the same fate if they join the security forces loyal to the government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, seen as collaborators with the U.S. military. In the video, one of the prisoners identified himself as Lt. Bashar Latif Jassim and said his mission was to "prevent terrorists from entering Iraq." When asked by one his captors ; who did not appear on camera; who the terrorists are, Jassim said: "Those who sabotage the country."

The five prisoners — apparently captured in the insurgent hotbed of Ramadi, west of Baghdad — were shown sitting on the ground with five masked gunmen behind them, one reading a statement. A banner carrying the name of al-Zarqawi's group, al-Qaida in Iraq, hung in the background. "Here is another bunch of apostates in the land of Iraq, another group of the doomed soldiers who came to the blessed jihad land of Ramadi to support the apostate Allawi government and help the unjust American enemy," said the man reading the statement.

The video then showed the five men lined up, their hands bound behind their back, and shot in a street in broad daylight. The militants repeatedly shot the men even after they fell to the ground.

People and cars are visible in the video, passing by during the shooting, and some even stop to watch. It is not clear, however, where the executions took place. One of the masked shooters left a paper, apparently a statement, on the back of one of the bodies.

[denoir 0]

Governor of Baghdad assassinated [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The governor of Baghdad, Ali al-Haidri, has been assassinated by gunmen in the Iraqi capital.  Reports say gunmen shot at his car as it passed through a northern district of the city. At least one of his bodyguards was also killed.

Violence has been escalating ahead of elections planned for 30 January.

In a separate incident, at least 10 people have been killed and at least 50 others injured in a bomb blast at a police post in Baghdad, officials say. Reports say a truck caused the blast near the Green Zone, the heavily fortified government and diplomatic compound.

Violence

Iraqi insurgents have repeatedly targeted government officials around the country.

Mr al-Haidri is the most senior Iraqi official to be assassinated in Baghdad since the head of the Governing Council was killed by a suicide bomb in May last year. He escaped assassination in a roadside bomb attack in September.

Tuesday's attacks come a day after at least 20 people were killed across the country. There were at least two suicide car bomb attacks on Baghdad on Monday.

Three Britons and an American were among those killed. Another suicide car bomb targeted the offices of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, killing another four people.