Car Bomb Kills at Least 31 Outside Iraqi Army Base
By EDWARD WONG

Published: June 17, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 17 — A suicide car bomb ripped into a throng of men waiting this morning to sign up for the new Iraqi Army outside the army's main recruiting station in the heart of the capital, killing at least 31 people and wounding more than 100, hospital officials said.

The bomb went off around 9 a.m. in the upscale Mansour neighborhood and sent a thick plume of smoke over the Baghdad skyline. The explosion threw bodies into the air and scattered them across a four-lane road. Cars burst into flames. Charred shrapnel rained from the sky.

The car bomb was the deadliest in months. It came after several days of powerful bombings in Baghdad, and at a critical time for the Iraqi Army. Many soldiers refused to fight during the uprising in April, and the Americans are now desperately trying to recruit and train a reliable force that can begin taking over security after June 30, when the interim Iraqi government will assume limited sovereignty.

But the explosion raised questions about whether the Americans and Iraqi security forces can even protect those men who are willing to sign up.

"I just heard a loud explosion, a strong explosion," said Abdullah Shadhan, 31, who had been waiting outside the recruiting center in sweltering heat with five cousins and 10 friends. I was thrown into the air.

"Then I blacked out for a couple of minutes. I didn't know what was happening. When I woke up, I didnt think I was injured. But I couldnt stand up. Something was wrong with my legs."

Mr. Shadhan was speaking as he coughed up blood in a bed in Yarmouk Hospital. An intravenous drip ran into his left arm. Dried blood covered his sheets. A man in a bed next to him held a white cloth over his head and moaned.

Tears welled up in Mr. Shadhan's eyes as he said that one of his cousins had been killed. He began sobbing. "I have seven children, and now what am I supposed to do?" he said.

He grabbed a bloody pink sheet from beneath his head and wiped away his tears.

The same recruiting station was hit by a suicide car bomb last February that killed dozens of men waiting in line. Though the front of the station was protected today by a perimeter of double-tiered sandbags, people at the scene said hundreds of recruits were forced to stand outside for hours. Many had come to listen for their names being called over a loudspeaker, which meant they could return for interviews.

"I was outside talking with an old friend from the army, and we were talking about how we wanted to join the army again," said Hassan Jasim, 35, a thin man lying in a hospital bed with white gauze bandages swathed around his forehead. "Then we heard the explosion. Some of the people with me are dead, some are injured, some escaped."

Many of the victims complained that there was neither security nor stability in Iraq, and that the Americans were to blame. The same mantra has been heard over and over from Iraqis following the bloody uprising in April. Hatred of the occupation is running higher than ever since the toppling of Saddam Hussein last year, and there appears to be no sign of any change of mood during this volatile summer.

A recent poll commissioned by the Coalition Provisional Authority showed that a majority of Iraqis want American soldiers to leave their country immediately.

"We were at the guard tower and saw injured people and bodies everywhere," said Ahmed Kadhum, 36, a military policeman working at the station. "There is no security. America is responsible for the lack of security here."

An hour after the bombing, soldiers from the First Cavalry Division and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, a national militia, had sealed off the area. Humvees blocked the highway running past the recruiting station. Glass and metal parts littered the roadway right in front of the main gate. A blue sedan with a cracked windshield sat atop the median.

"I don't know who did this," said Lt. Col. Mike Murray, the commander of the American soldiers on the scene. "It's obviously like some other ones weve seen."

Ambulances from the Red Crescent raced back and forth along the road, their sirens wailing. Many of the dead and wounded were taken to three hospitals in the area. Officials at all three said they had received a total of at least 31 bodies and more than 100 wounded.

At Yarmouk Hospital, a doctor opened the door of a refrigerated morgue for a reporter. Male bodies lay strewn across the floor and in metal trays stacked on shelves along the walls. Some of the men were naked and covered in blood; others died with their eyes open. White sheets covered several corpses.

In the lobby, a woman dressed in full black robes screamed for her son.

Sad news indeed. :(

In other news, there are still no terrorist supporters on Ironworks.

Never let the facts get in the way of some incitful hyperbole.

Bullshit. Just because someone claims to not be a terrorist supporter doesn't make it so. FACT is some argue in support of terrorists and/or against the US and Israel 100% of the time without fail.

And some seem to argue in support of the war 100% without fail, while the war on terror and in Iraq only seems to have spawned more hate towards the US and more people desperate or insane enough to resort to terrorist activity in general - the war supporters add to the circle of hate that breeds terrorists, so from an equally skewed perspective as the one quoted above, this could be interpreted as indirectly supporting terrorism in general. ;)
Seriously, let's just not go there. And we all know that the only way we could support terrorists is by doing drugs, duh. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon10.gif

Riiiiight. I love the "doing drugs supports terrorists" stretch. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Perhaps you could give us some evidence so that we don't just think it's your paranoia/siege mentality at work here.

You're the lawyer - name names, provide proof, give quotes.


You seem incapable of differentiating between someone understanding why terrorists do what they do and supporting what they do.

No one on IW supports terrorism.

And some seem to argue in support of the war 100% without fail, while the war on terror and in Iraq only seems to have spawned more hate towards the US and more people desperate or insane enough to resort to terrorist activity in general - the war supporters add to the circle of hate that breeds terrorists, so from an equally skewed perspective as the one quoted above, this could be interpreted as indirectly supporting terrorism in general. ;)
</font>[/QUOTE]Using that logic I have no problem being a terrorist supporter as long as those sacks of horse manure are throwing themselves at our military and being killed in Iraq by the thousands I say yeah come on in the water is fine, don't mind those men in camo's pointing their M-16's at you, or the AC130 specter gunships flying over head. They're just here to make sure you get to see your awaiting 40 virgins. ;)

On a side note since I was talking about 40 virgins, have any of you people thought about that asspect of the terrorist logic. I mean here these guys are making thier wives wear vails, burkas, and covering up so there is no lusting after women and sin. Yet what is their Idea of paradise? 40 virgins waiting for them. And people want to say that some Christians are hung up these people are down right fruity. They don't want any lusting and skin shown here but wait until they get to paradise they got 40 virgins to play around with. Lordy the more I think about it the more I beleive making the bastards pose nude and using sex as a torture element isn't such a bad idea, use their weakness against them. The 9/11 Hijackers spent their last night in Florida going to a strip club to see naked women.

[ 06-17-2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Donut, I'm not incapable of differentiating between understanding them and supporting them. I just draw the line differently than you do. As far as naming names and quoting quotes, I'm not going to bother. You Euros can nitpick shit to death and I'm not about to get in the game of trying to PROVE something to you without an ARBITER of facts to tell us when one of us is wrong or right, because left to our own devices we can disagree in the face of the facts until the end of days. You know what I mean and what I'm saying, and if it sways you, it sways you and if it doesn't, it doesn't.

Besides, I'm not going to pick on certain members while they're on hiatus. ;)

When lacking evidence to back up petty insults in the guise of fact- dodge the issue entirely and claim lack of objective arbritation as a cop out.

Weak. Lame.

Good thing I have my hips boots ready, the bullshit started filling up in this thread quick from the original post. If it keeps up, I'll have to get my canoe out. Peee Yuuuu!

Christ... I know I have been avoiding this forum, since people on both sides have been astounding me in their rigidity to the point where I don't even want to bother any more, but when was it that YOU turned into a paranoid xenophobe Timber? "You Euros", "You terrorist supporters"? I thought you were a smart, discerning guy who usually refrained from generalisation and discrimination and who was capable of seeing both sides of an issue instead of adopting a blindly black-and-white viewpoint. If this is indicative of more widely spread feelings, then I am sickened and afraid. And really disappointed.

Sarah over and out.

Edit: grammar

[ 06-18-2004, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

You must realise Timber that somewhere else ,someone is posting the same sort of thing as you, only on behalf of the other side, they think they're right as well, then there's the others , the ones you call terrorist supporters, that can see that both sides have to take some blame, it dosn't mean they support terrorists, it just means they can see the middle ground, which is where we need to be if there's ever going to be any solution.

It would be easy for me to call America a supporter of terrorism, after all Noraid raised funds for years, whilst a blind eye was turned, Ira leaders took part in st patricks day parades, while us in the UK saw what good work the money was being put to , killing our Soldiers, kiliing innocent people, killing our politicians, planting their bombs in crowded pubs, then watching the carnage from afar.This dosn't happen so much these days, we had a meeting at a long forgotten place called Middle ground

It's easy to work out who you think these 'Supporters of terrorism' are, but if you looked deep enough, you'd know the title of this thread is Very wrong, and extremly offensive.

As donut said, name names, inform the authorites, it's your patriotic duty, but I don't think they'd find any Terrorist supporters here.

Great post, Lanesra.

Personally I DO have trouble understanding the terrorists' side because I have trouble imagining the sort of things that would lead me personally to commit such atrocities (I think there are few of them, if any). But I do feel the middle ground should be sought, and that attempting to look into the enemy's head and try to understand what motivates him is preferable to just killing him because you can. Because as people have said countless times, with ONLY killing and nothing else, the cycle does NOT stop. Ever.
Anyway. Even this in my eyes pretty mild (i.e. non-extremist) stance would make me a terrorist supporter in Timber's eyes. In fact, "Just because someone claims to not be a terrorist supporter doesn't make it so. FACT is some argue in support of terrorists and/or against the US and Israel 100% of the time without fail." [my italics] - just arguing against the USA or Israel alone can get you labelled as a terrorist supporter.
It's not for nothing that I posted what I did above, I'm not normally the type of person to do that, but I am genuinely shocked by Timber's paranoia and... dislike.

Thank you Mel! Despite the rhetoric of many who are trying to make a point, I think your's is the most realistic statement made in this forum regarding the overused 'understanding' argument.

Of course the middle ground should always be sought, but I'm not interested in what would make someone saw the head off a living human being because of his nationality.

I can understand the situation in the Middle East without having to understand the terrorists. I can understand what upsets those in the region without understanding what allows a person to say he is helping his fellow countrymen by killing them.

Why don't they just put '40 virgins' on their list of demands when they hijack the plane?

Settle down fellas...go and grab a coffee or something. Leave this thread for a while. Lots of pent-up aggression here. I realise you all have your points of view, and believe that each of you are right and the other is wrong, but you're not each others's enemies here. This is really petty, what you lot are doing here with all this pointscoring. What happened to the maturity and respect we're all supposed to display towards each other here? :rolleyes:

If you want to continue discussing this, then leave your aggro at the door please and discuss it in a reasonable, civilised manner. If you can't do that then stay out of it, please.

[ 06-18-2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

Why don't they just put '40 virgins' on their list of demands when they hijack the plane? </font>[/QUOTE]You got me, I don't have a clue as to why they don't do that. Lordy I wouldn't stop at 40, that's only about a weeks worth ;)

I'm going to defend TL on this one, just like I defended Skywalker before. TL wrote: "More reason for you terrorist supporters to cheer" If you don't support terrorists in the first place His comments don't apply to you, they only apply to those that support terrorists. It would be like if somebody wrote: "More reasons for you killers of innocents supporters to cheer" would not apply to me even though I support the war and innocents are killed in any war. The reasons for the war are not to kill innocents, thought that is an unitended consquence of war. Now if it was writen : "More reason for you war supporters to cheer it would apply to me". And once it applies to me then I have to ask myself what parts of it then apply, and why?

Just some thunks for people to thunk on.

[ 06-18-2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Nice logic, but unfortunately it completely falls apart when you consider Timber's second post in this topic.

[ 06-18-2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Nice logic, but unfortunately it completely falls apart when you consider Timber's second post in this topic. </font>[/QUOTE]Now did TL's second post come for no reason or was it in reply to something posted before? There are a couple of posts before TL infamous second post. You make the call for yourself I've allready made my call.

Just as a slight point of information, the word translated into 'virgins' can also be translated into 'angels' with arguably much more accuracy. You will not find many Islamic scholars translating it as 'virgins'...

And i'm going to suprise by agreeing with TL's infamous 2nd post:

"Just because someone claims to not be a terrorist supporter doesn't make it so" - a reasonable statement.

"FACT is some argue in support of terrorists and/or against the US and Israel 100% of the time without fail." - also true, some people do argue against the US and Israel 100% of the time. Also note the presence of the and/or - TL is not saying that the two must go together, simply that they might.

(Edits and additions....)

[ 06-18-2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

If this is true, I'm going to have to seriously rethink my conversion.

The hypothetical or actual people I referred to do not lay blame on both sides. In fact, they have almost never given any quarter in continuing to argue that Palestine and the Iraqi insurgents are in the right in defending their homes, and that they only use the tactics that are necessary.

If you want to discuss someone who lays blame on both sides, well that's me -- so you're preaching to the choir.

And kudos to Shamrock for being good at reading what I actually said rather than what he wanted to hear.

[ 06-18-2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Noticed that as well, actually; but that doesn't mean I'm gonna cut him some slack for it. Ironically enough, it appears to be a nice example of the infamous manipulative debating technique that he so often seems to revile in people like Michael Moore. ;)

[ 06-18-2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Untrue, Grojlach. It wasn't meant to be manipulative at all. It was meant to keep me from getting thrashed for saying something that was untrue.

I think that arguing against the US and Israel 100% of the time no matter the circumstance, ascribing all fault for the Middle East woes to them, not blaming Muslim extremists for their terrorist tactics, etc. -- are all possible substitutes for "supporting terrorism." They are exactly what I meant by "thinly veiled" support for terrorism. When I see this sort of evidence day in and day out consistently in every instance of discussion, I draw my conclusions.

One instance would not be enough, of course -- it's the pattern of behavior over time that gives away the underlying beliefs.

LOOK -- I've said enough on this. The one who ought to be here discussing this isn't, and it's not fair for me to continue to rail about it, even if I am just reacting to what others are saying. I'm done now discussing this thing. It doesn't mean I capitulate, it just means I don't want to be unfair to absent members.

Pfui. One has to wonder, if the USA army can defend "The rock" from chicken invasion. With all the respect that i feel for USA and its army, i alsways ask myself "Won't they ever learn?? :( ". How many times must they fel into the same trap? Can't they just secure the area? Pick 10-30 soldiers, give them bullet waists, transportable bunkers (Made from stel&concrete and you transport them in a car. These bunkers israely stile, are immune to rpg, unless fired from above, f.e. from upper storey of a building), machine guns, ammo, and these things that stop fast cars ( Pieces of steel with nails in them. You drop them on the road, and no private car would ever go through). Train some dogs to sniff out explosives and you will reduce the TA in no time. Who runs the city warfare there?
I think that an amateur. :(

We don't want to hurt anybody, we have to respect their diversity. You know rules in a knife fight kinda stuff.

Personnaly I'd surround the city in question inform all inhabitans(sp?) they have x number of hours to leave, they must leave BUTT NAKED, so we can see if their carrying any weapons, anyone or anything left in the city after the set time would be killed. Then I'll drop some daisy cutters and Napham the city, then bring the leaders of every city in Iraq to view the smoldring ruins and inform them this is what will happen to you city if the attacks aren't stopped. To hell with the UN what the hell are they going to do? pass a resulution so the hell what they don't have the guts to back it up.

I would laugh at you. But somehow it would just take away the horror I just felt at reading your words.

Read them again. Then imagine a Russian general in the Cold War saying the same thing about an American city. What right do you have to do that to another country? I'm pretty sure if Russian nukes flattened LA or New York 'just because they could' and they decided to crack down on some enemies, your opinion would be very different. Come on!

In any case, the actions you describe are hardly the mark of a so-called 'liberating force'. Not much point in bringing democracy (contradiction that it is) to a country which has no cities left.

(Edits)

[ 06-18-2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Huh? What'd I do? I haven't around much at all lately! But I do appreciate the defense, where and whenever it was, John. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Democracy is a contradiction?</font>

Enforcing democracy on a country that did not have it before is a contradiction.

[ 06-18-2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Hmmm no....can't see it as a contradiction....allowing the people to decide who they want to govern them...while different it doesnt really make it contradictory.....just different. In theory the can vote them selves back into a dictatorship if they wish eventually. Just not immediately</font>

But democracy by definition is 'government by the people, for the people, of the people'. It's hardly the situation we see in Iraq. Asides from which, its pretty much doomed to failure in the first place. I will be absolutely amazed if it works in Iraq; you can't help wondering that if Bush had read anything about Iraqi history he would have realised that you need a strong central government to keep control. The Bush administration has said itself a mammoth challenge here...

[quote]Originally posted by shamrock_uk:

Quote:

I would laugh at you. But somehow it would just take away the horror I just felt at reading your words. Read them again. Then imagine a Russian general in the Cold War saying the same thing about an American city. What right do you have to do that to another country? I'm pretty sure if Russian nukes flattened LA or New York 'just because they could' and they decided to crack down on some enemies, your opinion would be very different. Come on! In any case, the actions you describe are hardly the mark of a so-called 'liberating force'. Not much point in bringing democracy (contradiction that it is) to a country which has no cities left. (Edits)

If you've read much of what I've writen you'd see from the very begining 9/12/2001 I stated war is terrible, horrible and bloody, people die, are mamed and IT must not be entered into lightly, BUT when it is entered into it must be done with extreme prejudice, no mercy, kill all your enemy and their damn goats.

And for your information I grew up on USAF bases both SAC and TAC bases we were target #1 for the USSR. hell we didn't even have drop and cover drills cause we knew it wouldn't do any good. SO no my opinion wouldn't be differant, I believe if you're going to do something do it all the way and not half assed. If your goal is to kill as many of who ever stands in your way then kill'em don't yap at them. If your goal is to yap then talk their damn ear off for all I care.

I got no problem being called a war monger.

When the media cries about some prisoners, you call a press conference and in front of the gathered vultures you show the film of Sodamn Insane's torturing of people then tell the gathered press to shut the hell up and the press conference is over.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
First "The PEOPLE" have to be free to choose their own path...and after GENERATIONS of opression it takes a while for them to actually realize that they are free and CAN choose. So you have to put an environment for them to LEARN this stuff in place...hence they have a brand spankin new Constitution and eventually we will kill all the outsiders interfering and killing Iraqi's in the name of their fanatical interpretation of the Koran. I think it is not only do able but that we are well on the road.....so far our only mistake is not being tough enough. In that part of the world compassion is taken as a sign of weakness. We have to build up the Iraqi's confidence and courage.....really it is much like you treat new recruits in basic training...you are hard on them..but it is for a good reason and necessary.</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
J.D. I agree..if you are going to do something DO IT, don't ■■■■■ foot around. Just get it done. However...Im not sure we have to take ALL compassion out of the equation.</font>

I noticed. And somehow i'd never have guessed you're from the US military...

Magik - democracy is an extremely recent western invention. Due to the comparatively short period its been around, it is not possible to say whether this is the 'best' system or simply the one that happens to be fashionable at this moment in time.

For democracy to be 'by the people' and 'of the people' it has to evolve naturally within that country. If its imposed on another country then this is not the case. Plus, for observers in the Middle-East, the imposition of democracy is just another example of Western cultural imperialism, and therefore not the best choice anyway.

Also the idea that giving the population a say in politics is a 'good' thing is rather contentious. Given how uninformed the average member of the public is about current events and politics, how is it beneficial that they can make or break a government? It's this that has led to the rise of 'spin' and the immense political power of the media who have the ability to form the opinions of the masses who don't have one of their own.

Plus, why should you have a 'right' to determine who runs the country? This has not been the case for the thousands of years of human history - to say that the last fifty or hundred years is somehow the 'right' system flies in the face of experience. Ironically, the best 'western' form of government would be the one devised by Plato, yet the Islamic empires, including the early Ottoman one, have been the only ones to implement it. This was done with great success, despite an obvious lack of exposure to Plato.

Also consider that given the idea that democracy is somehow the 'holy grail', it is interesting to note that legislation (in all Western countries, but most notably America) is constantly seeking to restrict democratic power and increase dictatorial ones. If democracy is so good, why is this the case?

[ 06-18-2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Hmm recent? Seems to me Ancient Greece wasn't quite so recent [img]smile.gif[/img]

The rest of your logic doesnt hold any water though.

What right does a citizen have to stop a mugger from mugging his victim?

What right does a person have to stop someone from raping his 3 year old daughter?

When a people are Opressed (and there is no question in any official body about Saddam having oppressed the people) people of good will and ability will come to their aid.

As for the ancient empires of the middle east....there is a reason they are ancient andnot current....they FAILED. It is a fact that were it not for the $$$$ (and their Oil which westerners found and enabled them to exploit I might add) from the western nations these "third world countries" would be ...nothing but memories and camel hearders with nothing of worth to the rest of the world.

There is a thing called progress. We have progressed and just because "Ancient Ways" came first, doesnt mean they should stay in place.....

If one were to believe that...I would heartily reccomend that they move into a cave somewhere and live as the Cave Man did.</font>

[ 06-18-2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

That's not true. It is the situation we are trying to give Iraqis. You may have noted that the provisional government, particularly the PM, is insisting on certain things from the US. We are trying to give them control of their country, and we can already see how doing this is resulting in increased demands on us. Yet we do it nevertheless. The US has always been loathe to occupy.

Shamrock-the tactics that John D Harris suggests, will end the terror in no time (couple of monthes). The english had done it here, in 20-is. They had problem with water pumps in Kineret (our only lake). The arabs destroyed the water pumps. English destroyed 2-3 houses and the saboteurs stopped.