Bombings in Baghdad

This is sick. Terrorists attacking the Red Cross, which has no political agenda & has been there to help the Iraqi people get back on their feet. Typical terrorists to attack innocent organizations.

Anyways, are the terrorists getting desperate that they resort to destroying an aid building?

Hello GA,

I don't believe that the terrorists are close to getting 'desperate'. Unfortunately. The setting of these attacks (five bombings, almost simultaneous) actually shows a high degree of preparation and method.

There is a consistency in these attacks to destroy symbols of the Western world. It is a clear sign for all foreigners, whatever they're doing : "Go home or die".

Let's see the typical targets of the past months : militaries from the coalition, Iraqi civilians, Iraqi police, UN members, NGO workers and even journalists. IMO, the strategy we have here is clearly designed to maintain chaos for as long as possible, in order to :

1. overwork the coalition troops, by killing them and weakening their morale
2. create doubt and fear in the American opinion through heavy costs in money and lives
3. scare the Iraqis enough to make them wish they were back to where they were before (Saddam) OR make them wish for something other than a democracy (theocracy, Ansar al'Islam, Al'Qaeda???)

Saddam has yet to be found. He's still hodling a few strings, even if they're running thin. Now imagine what happens when the remnants of the secret services were to team up with Islamic terrorists...

Current intelligence reports reveal that HUNDREDS of fanatics from Al'Ansar are back from the Iranian border. Remember what a handful of terrorists did on 9/11 and think what these could do in Iraq.

It's a trap.

They are taking out soft targets. We need to quickly hand over authority to the Iraqis and allow the Iraqis to take the inhumane actions needed to stop the terrorists. France and Germany are right on this issue. Time is against us. There needs to be, even if at first it is mainly symbolic, quick action to return Iraq to the Iraqis. This does not mean we cannot remain, at the request of a legitimate Iraqi government, to insure the transition goes well.

I don't think so.

I think our French friend is correct in his observation that the message here is for all foreigners to get out of Iraq, and GW Bush may think the ghost of Vietnam has been buried, but unfortunatly ghosts have a rather irritating habit of rising from the grave...

I doubt Saddam will return though. Even if he survives, and the Americans withdraw, his grip on power is broken. Others will rise to take his place.

The only thing that these attacks spell out for certain is that terrorists are scumbags. They are not freedom fighters, they are not "holy warriors". They are cold-blooded killers who will blow up anyone who can further their agenda.

Well I disagree with all of you

I agree that this kind of attack and the others like them are for the effect of sending a message. I just do not feel the message is solely intended for the Westerners as I believe it is equally directed to the Iraqis themselves. Yes I agree that the goal of those involved in these terrorist attacks is to make the Westerners know that they are not welcomed. Yet I also feel it is to make it known that Iraqis who help the Westerners in any way will be equally considered "enemies"

No I do not feel it is a sign that these terrorist are becoming desperate...certainly the attack over the weekend on the hotel that Wolfowitz was staying in shows they can hit targets they and ourselves deem of great importance politically. That attack too was also reported in some retellings or observations of it as showing desperation because of the type of weapon used. Not really understand this interpretation at all myself.

I will agree tho with Amlord the only kind of desperation being shown is a desperate lack of morality.

I think we can all agree with Amlord on that one...

honestly I believe they are desperate in their attempts to drive the everyone OUT. "They" being Saddam's loyalists (Sunnis who know the whereabouts of all the weapons cache dumps), the Syrian, Al-Qaeda and Iranian fundamentalist elements. The more progress that is seen to be made, the more desperate they get to terrorize the Coalition, the Iraqis who WANT freedom and the international community.

The message they seem to be sending out is clear. They DO NOT want a free and democratic Iraq. Saddam, as long as he still breathes will spare no expense to get his power back. The Iranian and Syrian Shia fundamentalists, who have hated Saddam will spare no expense to get hold of Iraq and turn it into mini-me Iran. Mother of all power struggles.

A Terrorist's job is to instill terror, expect the unexpected. They are not freedom fighters. Attacking humanitarian organizations who are there to give AID to fellow Iraqis such as the Red Cross is disgusting.

Amlord, I agree, these people are soulless for killing the innocent PURPOSELY. Yet, isn't this the idea? To attack innocent people mercilessly and create an overwhelming sense of unease, to instill stifling fear? Isn't it this fear that is ultimately keeping some donors from sending in troops, or kofi Annan sending in UN peacekeepers? It's all over the media ALL the time how THIS country and THAT country will not send troops until Iraq is secure. Well, It's working isn't it? Who benefits?

As long as the world pulls back in fear and horror at the extent to which these people go, they win. Iraq losses.

The international community really needs to blank or get off the pot. Imagine the message that would be sent to these animals if the international community, instead of giving in to its fear, were to step up and actually PARTICIPATE in the war on terror?

Well let's see...
I do believe the latest string of terrorist bombings (going back to the Jordanian embassy, now that I think of it...) could be a sign of desperation in a sense.

That is, they (the terroists) may have begun to realize that attacking coalition soldiers isn't getting them anywhere, one or two a day isn't going to drive anyone of out of Iraq (compared to Vietnam [a comparison that has occasionally been drawn] this "resistance" is beneath pathetic)

Therefore as I've mentioned before in another thread the primary target has changed. I believe, as SoCaliente_1 notes that the target is now Iraqis. If they can be frightened into thinking the only way to recover their security (bombing civilians), services (bombing water lines), or economy (bombing oil lines) is to drive the Americans out (a tactic which is failing just as surely as attacks on soldiers have) then the terrorists will have completed their objective. Acts of desperation are not always poorly planed. Terrorists may be loosing hope that America will recall it's troops while the majority of Iraqis still want them there. So, they are no attacking the issue from the other end...

Yes But when they start targeting the civilians, civilian establishments (schools, basic service places, markets) and Organizations that are in the country to help civilians, they lose all credibility and they become monsters and hated, not feared. For example, when they attacked the WTC on 9/11, they thought we would cuddle into a ball and cry. Some people did, but others vowed to kick their butts. Oops...mission failed. You just screwed yourselves. You messed with the Superpower.

Anyway, attacking aid organizations is just so low. Unarmed, non-political organizatins being damaged by a faceless coward with a few hundred pounds of TNT.

The attack in Fallujah today was near a school and a utilities plant. Attacking kids now? Starting to stoop to Hama's level.

I agree with you, Hugo. This is one thing that I think everyone should be able to agree on. An extended dominance? Sounds a lot like, that dreaded word, IMPERIALISM, to me. And I'm sure at least a substantial minority of Iraqis share the same view. Just because you don't like Saddam, doesn't mean you welcome the next monsters in as Liberators.
Are terrorists getting desperate? The act of terrorism in it's classic definition is a desperate act in any case... however, in reality, war is just another form of terrorism: an act by people with money, armies, and nationalism. Terrorism is War, War is Terrorism. They are used in the same ways (hence, War on Terrorism is an oximoron! Yah!). To use Israel for an example, the PLO are considered the "terrorists" in the area. They suicide-bomb civilian, military, and foreign embassy targets. The IDF is commonly viewed as the "good guys" here... and yet, they do the same things. More civilians, in fact, have died to the IDF than to the PLO. This seems a lot like the "terrorism" practiced by their enemies.