Terrorists attack Christian churches in Iraq

[krisy]

Here we go. These guys are gearing up. Between the NY threats and now Christian churches that Iraqi's attend,I'm getting worried.


http://www.foxnews.com/

 

[Annie]

Here we go. These guys are gearing up. Between the NY threats and now Christian churches that Iraqi's attend,I'm getting worried.


http://www.foxnews.com/

I've been feeling odd about this all, since early this morning. :scratch: Now, if worry will care for, we're all safe! :teeth:

 

[krisy]

Fox News just reported 4 churches have been hit and Iraqi officials say there will be massive cashualties. Basterds!!!!!


:finger:

 

[dilloduck]

Guess the terrorists got the word that killing Iraqis was a no-no so now they aimed at some western soft targets.

 

[krisy]

Guess the terrorists got the word that killing Iraqis was a no-no so now they aimed at some western soft targets.

That's the thing. There were many Iraqis in these churches if I'm correct. Including a fair number of children. Last word I'm hearing on Fox,6 churches. To me,these threats are a sign that we need G.W. in office now more than ever. They are ruthless and we have to have someone with balls tough enough to keep us safe.

 

[Annie]

Reuters just updated:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=13&u=/nm/20040801/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Bomb Blasts at Iraqi Churches Kill at Least Three

5 minutes ago

By Edmund Blair

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Car bombs exploded outside at least six Christian churches in Iraq (news - web sites) Sunday, killing at least three people and wounding many more in an apparently coordinated attack timed to coincide with evening prayers.

Fighting In Falluja Inflicts Iraqi Casualties

"We are expecting a huge number of casualties," an Interior Ministry source told Reuters. He said there had been four blasts at churches in Baghdad and two in Mosul. At least two of the Baghdad blasts were suicide car bomb attacks, he said.

The attacks were the first to target Christian churches during the 15-month insurgency.

Iraqis said the blasts, which scattered chunks of hot metal and shattered stained glass windows, said they feared the attacks were designed to stir tensions among Iraq's diverse religious communities.

"These operations are aimed at creating strife between Christians, Shi'ites, Sunnis and others, nothing more, nothing less," said Omar Hussein, 25, a metalworker near the scene of a blast at the Armenian church in central Baghdad.

Another blast happened about 15 minutes later outside an Assyrian church in the same area, mangling cars and sending a loud boom reverberating across the neighborhood. Medics dragged a wounded man from a car, his arm almost torn off by the blast.

An ambulance driver told Reuters that two people were killed in the explosion at the Assyrian church and several wounded.

Police said at least one person was killed in one of the Mosul blasts.

There are about 800,000 Christians in Iraq, most of them in Baghdad. There have been a string of attacks in recent weeks on alcohol sellers throughout Iraq, the majority of whom are Christians of either the Assyrian, Chaldean or Armenian denominations.

BOMBINGS IN MOSUL

Earlier Sunday, a suicide car bomber blew up his vehicle outside a police station in Mosul, killing at least five people and wounding 53.

 

[Annie]

Guess the terrorists got the word that killing Iraqis was a no-no so now they aimed at some western soft targets.

I think that would be, non-Muslim. Just a guess.

 

[dilloduck]

I think that would be, non-Muslim. Just a guess.

BINGO

 

[insein]

Looks like they are resuming their Faith. All non-believers will perish.

 

[Hobbit]

These guys need to take a lesson from the guy who tried to steal money from a Catholic collection plate...he was hit by a bus not five steps from the front of the church.

 

[Major_Baker]

To me,these threats are a sign that we need G.W. in office now more than ever. They are ruthless and we have to have someone with balls tough enough to keep us safe.

I don't recall this sort of thing happening in Iraq before the GW era. This is a direct result of the invasion of Iraq--keep that in mind Krisy.

 

[krisy]

I don't recall this sort of thing happening in Iraq before the GW era. This is a direct result of the invasion of Iraq--keep that in mind Krisy.

To somehow insinuate that this happened because of G.W. is absurd. 9-11 was in the making while Clinton was in office,so keep that in mind Major. No one is responsible for terrorism but the terrorists. No other president has had to deal with this on this level. It isn't good to place blame where it doesn't lie,these are the things that divide our country in areas where we should be together. I simply feel Bush has the guts to do what it takes to handle these people. Not to mention,he is the one with the MOST experience handling terrorists,hence the large number of them that have been caught(with a lot of credit going to our military,of courrse). Think about it,no one else has this kind of experience because no one else has had as much intel,as the Bush administration.

As far as what has happened in Iraq before the war. Maybe there weren't Christian churches being blown up(I don't know that for sure),there was just massive amounts of people being slaughtered including children at the hands of an evil dictator...sounds much better.

 

[Major_Baker]

To somehow insinuate that this happened because of G.W. is absurd. 9-11 was in the making while Clinton was in office,so keep that in mind Major. No one is responsible for terrorism but the terrorists. No other president has had to deal with this on this level. It isn't good to place blame where it doesn't lie,these are the things that divide our country in areas where we should be together. I simply feel Bush has the guts to do what it takes to handle these people. Not to mention,he is the one with the MOST experience handling terrorists,hence the large number of them that have been caught(with a lot of credit going to our military,of courrse). Think about it,no one else has this kind of experience because no one else has had as much intel,as the Bush administration.

As far as what has happened in Iraq before the war. Maybe there weren't Christian churches being blown up(I don't know that for sure),there was just massive amounts of people being slaughtered including children at the hands of an evil dictator...sounds much better.

Who said anything about 9/11? I was talking about the terrorism in Iraq. I am not blaming GW for this, I was stating that this terrorism IN IRAQ, horrible as it is, is a direct result of us invading Iraq, which ultimately was GW's decision. Now this thread isn't for arguing whether the war was wrong or right. But acting like GW is the solution to terrorism in Iraq just doen't make sense to me. There is not much he can do in Iraq to curb these acts, short of a full withdrawal, which is foolish. Iraq will be a mess for decades--expect to see much more terrorism there.

I know all about Saddam and what a piece of crap he was, and how many were killed under his regime. It is also important to realize that children and women are still dying over there as a direct result of our invasion, and nothing more. So my point is Iraq is essentially out of GW's hands now, and his defeat/reelection will probably not influence the terrorism in Iraq either way.
The can of worms is already opened.

ps let's not talk about the amount of intel we had about Iraq, as much of it turned out to be invalid.

quit poking me :whip3:

 

[krisy]

I believe Major,that there were terrorists in Iraq before we invaded and they are not a direct result of the war. I will agree that terrorism is worse,but my point is that we are fighting for a greater cause. Sooner or later Iraq will straighten out and be a better country than it started. If nothing was done,thousands would still be looking at a mass grave burial. I am not implying either that Bush is the only answer,but right now,I believe he is the best answer. Up to this point,he has the best experience. Someone has to have the guts to stand up and not always worry what political ramifications might be,but what will make our country safe,which will probably help the rest of the worls as well. I do believe that there were WMD at some point in Iraq,but were undoubtedly moved to Syria. We may never know for sure.

 

[Major_Baker]

I believe Major,that there were terrorists in Iraq before we invaded and they are not a direct result of the war. I will agree that terrorism is worse,but my point is that we are fighting for a greater cause. Sooner or later Iraq will straighten out and be a better country than it started. If nothing was done,thousands would still be looking at a mass grave burial. I am not implying either that Bush is the only answer,but right now,I believe he is the best answer. Up to this point,he has the best experience. Someone has to have the guts to stand up and not always worry what political ramifications might be,but what will make our country safe,which will probably help the rest of the worls as well. I do believe that there were WMD at some point in Iraq,but were undoubtedly moved to Syria. We may never know for sure.

You are certainly free to vote for and support Bush, you deserve respect for taking a stance. However, I will think that Bush's actions have made the world more dangerous, in that terrorist recruitment is up in many countires, and many 'undecided' borderline terrorists now have a true defined enemy--US. The war in Iraq was seen unjust by many countries (Let's not get into this right now) and, being covered extensively by the international media outlets, has therefore created a negative image for America in some of the most violent, destitute parts of the world. Look at the influx of foreign terrorists to Iraq.
I agree with the job that the Bush team has done in capturing international terrorists. I was quite impressed when I heard the number of key AQ dirtbags that were caught. However, I feel that Iraq was the wrong direction to take, and that we have opened opurselves up to vulnerabilites by doing this. It has also been reported recently that Afghanistan is in rough shape. We should have done a better job there to ensure safety for Americans.

Someone has to have the guts to stand up and not always worry what political ramifications might be,but what will make our country safe,which will probably help the rest of the worls as well.

See, this is where we differ. A President that does not consider or worry about what the political ramifications of his actions are is completely irresponsible.

 

[Hobbit]

You are certainly free to vote for and support Bush, you deserve respect for taking a stance. However, I will think that Bush's actions have made the world more dangerous, in that terrorist recruitment is up in many countires, and many 'undecided' borderline terrorists now have a true defined enemy--US. The war in Iraq was seen unjust by many countries (Let's not get into this right now) and, being covered extensively by the international media outlets, has therefore created a negative image for America in some of the most violent, destitute parts of the world. Look at the influx of foreign terrorists to Iraq.
I agree with the job that the Bush team has done in capturing international terrorists. I was quite impressed when I heard the number of key AQ dirtbags that were caught. However, I feel that Iraq was the wrong direction to take, and that we have opened opurselves up to vulnerabilites by doing this. It has also been reported recently that Afghanistan is in rough shape. We should have done a better job there to ensure safety for Americans.

1. Nobody said it'd be easy. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
2. We did get a lot of support on Iraq, especially from GB. France, Germany, and Russia were the biggest opponents, and we all know why, now.
3. I'd rather have an influx of terrorists into Iraq for our soldiers to shoot than have an influx of terrorists into the U.S. for me to shoot.
4. Nothing we do, short of adopt a fundamentalist, Islamic government, will get the terrorists off our backs. We hadn't invaded Iraq or Afghanistan before 2001, yet...
5. We have two choices on how to deal with terrorists: Shoot them or appease them. I go for the first option.

 

[krisy]

You are certainly free to vote for and support Bush, you deserve respect for taking a stance. However, I will think that Bush's actions have made the world more dangerous, in that terrorist recruitment is up in many countires, and many 'undecided' borderline terrorists now have a true defined enemy--US. The war in Iraq was seen unjust by many countries (Let's not get into this right now) and, being covered extensively by the international media outlets, has therefore created a negative image for America in some of the most violent, destitute parts of the world. Look at the influx of foreign terrorists to Iraq.
I agree with the job that the Bush team has done in capturing international terrorists. I was quite impressed when I heard the number of key AQ dirtbags that were caught. However, I feel that Iraq was the wrong direction to take, and that we have opened opurselves up to vulnerabilites by doing this. It has also been reported recently that Afghanistan is in rough shape. We should have done a better job there to ensure safety for Americans.



See, this is where we differ. A President that does not consider or worry about what the political ramifications of his actions are is completely irresponsible.

I don't believe there were ever any "undecided" terrorists. Non Muslims are their target,period. I do commend you for recognizing the number of AQ that has been caught. The great terrorist uprising we are seeing now all started on 9-11 IMO. Bush had not obviously taken us to war with Iraq at that point. They had a plan then and it was only going to get worse-war or not. They hate us as much as they ever have and that will never change. The U.S. has been a target for a very long time. What about the first World Trade Center attack? Maybe a point that is brought up too often is that no one wanted to do anything about Hitler,including the U.S. We all know the rest of that story. I will agree that terror may be worse now after the war because the country is rebuilding,but maybe that will just make it easier for us to destroy them. I still stand by that it is always THEIR fault. They started it and I hope we will finish it.

 

[krisy]

1. Nobody said it'd be easy. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
2. We did get a lot of support on Iraq, especially from GB. France, Germany, and Russia were the biggest opponents, and we all know why, now.
3. I'd rather have an influx of terrorists into Iraq for our soldiers to shoot than have an influx of terrorists into the U.S. for me to shoot.
4. Nothing we do, short of adopt a fundamentalist, Islamic government, will get the terrorists off our backs. We hadn't invaded Iraq or Afghanistan before 2001, yet...
5. We have two choices on how to deal with terrorists: Shoot them or appease them. I go for the first option.

You said that beautifully,Hobbit!!! :hail:

 

[dilloduck]

Who said anything about 9/11? I was talking about the terrorism in Iraq. I am not blaming GW for this, I was stating that this terrorism IN IRAQ, horrible as it is, is a direct result of us invading Iraq, which ultimately was GW's decision. Now this thread isn't for arguing whether the war was wrong or right. But acting like GW is the solution to terrorism in Iraq just doen't make sense to me. There is not much he can do in Iraq to curb these acts, short of a full withdrawal, which is foolish. Iraq will be a mess for decades--expect to see much more terrorism there.

I know all about Saddam and what a piece of crap he was, and how many were killed under his regime. It is also important to realize that children and women are still dying over there as a direct result of our invasion, and nothing more. So my point is Iraq is essentially out of GW's hands now, and his defeat/reelection will probably not influence the terrorism in Iraq either way.
The can of worms is already opened.

ps let's not talk about the amount of intel we had about Iraq, as much of it turned out to be invalid.

quit poking me :whip3:

This can of worms was BEGGING to be opened. How long was the United States willing to sit on it's ass while the enemy made plans for more attacks?
Exactly where would we be now?? Having our asses blown off while our head was in the sand.

 

[krisy]

This can of worms was BEGGING to be opened. How long was the United States willing to sit on it's ass while the enemy made plans for more attacks?
Exactly where would we be now?? Having our asses blown off while our head was in the sand.

Great point. Bush said we are not going to wait for things to happen to us. I believe the world will be safer because of this stanse.