Author Topic: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision  (Read 5132 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2007, 12:22:02 AM »
The standard of the right decision is the alternative decision.

In Afganistan there was very little involvement by the US in the situation once the Soviet forces left , the neglect was not benign.

What, aside from  size , is the diffrece now?

Should we decide to be involved or not?

When we decided to be uninvolved the result cost us the dontown New York skyline.

What ,aside from larger scale ,cold we expect to go diffrently from decideing to be uinvolved in the development of Iraq?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2007, 12:26:28 AM »
<<Either way blood will flow. The NY Times endorses that. Apparently so do you.>>

Yeah.  Right.  I endorse the blood flowing.  If you remember, I was opposed to the invasion from the beginning.  Because of the bloodshed.  But now I want the war to stop.  Because I want to see more bloodshed.

You guys live in some never-never land where logic and reason are permanently suspended or run in reverse and facts are whatever you say they are.  I've never seen such screwed up reasoning but I think I can summarize some of it as follows:  People who oppose Bush and his war are "haters" who love to see blood flow and people who support Bush and his war are mature and responsible even as the tab run up by these "mature" and "responsible" people tops the half-trillion mark and continues to rise at record levels.  The "mature and responsible" people can now claim credit for about 25,000 wounded and presumably seriously fucked-up Americans and over 3500 dead Americans (minus a few hundred green-card seekers) whereas the "shrill" and "irresponsible" Americans run around screaming about such trivial inconveniences and annoyances as the loss of a son, the lack of proper health-care, housing and education, the failure to rebuild New Orleans.  A typical conclusion based on such Bizarro-World logic is that someone who wants a war to stop is someone looking to see more blood shed.





Yes , and when this entirely predctable situation comes to pass exactly as you have here stated remember this that you have said here and don't pretend to be surprised.


After all, we have seen it before .

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2007, 12:36:18 AM »
Quote
A typical conclusion based on such Bizarro-World logic is that someone who wants a war to stop is someone looking to see more blood shed.

Which war, the Iraqi War or the Civil War that is going on now?

The gamble is whether the civil war widens with our departure or a lid is better kept on it with our presence as factions go the diplomatic route to peace.

Your desire for us to leave also leaves no semblance of protection for those left behind. Genocide is an acceptable outcome as the NYT opines and you endorse.

You almost gleefully look forward to the death of the collaborators in many of your predictive posts. So yeah, i think you are very familiar with twisted logic as long as it suits your ends.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2007, 12:52:50 AM by BT »

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2007, 12:40:39 AM »
<<Yes , and when this entirely predctable situation comes to pass exactly as you have here stated remember this that you have said here and don't pretend to be surprised.>>

You people have an absolute genius for taking the blame away from the folks who start wars and pasting onto the people who opposed starting the wars.  IF the situation (mass bloodletting) does come to pass, the blame for this will rest upon the shoulders of Bush, for starting the war and letting all the genies out of the bottle that they could never be forced back into.  The ludicrous and unproven pretence that the genies COULD have been forced back into the bottle, though proven false on the ground in failed effort after failed effort, will be insisted on by the same liars who started the war, in the hopes that they can still after the exposure of so many of their lies, find suckers dumb enough to believe in their latest lies.


<<After all, we have seen it before .>>

Yes, we have seen Nazis and militarists and loser veterans of a lost war blame pacifists and anti-war activists for the loss of that war (which was in fact lost by their own army) and springboarding off of that ridiculous lie,the face-saving excuse for their army's incompetence, gain power in a fascist coup because the sheeple (enough of them)  were dumb enough to believe that bullshit.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2007, 12:45:32 AM »
<<Yes , and when this entirely predctable situation comes to pass exactly as you have here stated remember this that you have said here and don't pretend to be surprised.>>

You people have an absolute genius for taking the blame away from the folks who start wars and pasting onto the people who opposed starting the wars.  IF the situation (mass bloodletting) does come to pass, the blame for this will rest upon the shoulders of Bush, for starting the war and letting all the genies out of the bottle that they could never be forced back into.  The ludicrous and unproven pretence that the genies COULD have been forced back into the bottle, though proven false on the ground in failed effort after failed effort, will be insisted on by the same liars who started the war, in the hopes that they can still after the exposure of so many of their lies, find suckers dumb enough to believe in their latest lies.


<<After all, we have seen it before .>>

Yes, we have seen Nazis and militarists and loser veterans of a lost war blame pacifists and anti-war activists for the loss of that war (which was in fact lost by their own army) and springboarding off of that ridiculous lie,the face-saving excuse for their army's incompetence, gain power in a fascist coup because the sheeple (enough of them)  were dumb enough to believe that bullshit.


I can see pacifists pointing their finger squarely at the one thing that might have prevented a coupple of million deaths if it comes to pass.
And yes the pacifists hands will be dripping red as they blame everyone elese for not thinking ahead.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2007, 01:04:10 AM »
<<Which war, the Iraqi War or the Civil War that is going on now?>>

What difference would it make?  If I didn't want to see Iraqi blood flow in an invasion of Iraq, why would I want to see it flow in an Iraqi Civil War?  Your statement is crazy no matter which war I was referring to.

<<The gamble is whether the civil war widens with our departure or a lid is better kept on it with our presence as factions go the diplomatic route to peace.>>

Don't you understand the significance of that NYT article?  They - - and the people they are speaking for, who obviously include people who were once some of the war's strongest supporters - - don't give a shit if the civil war widens or not.  This war is a fucking disaster for American interests, not Iraqi interests.

<<Your desire for us to leave also leaves no semblance of protection for those left behind. Genocide is an acceptable outcome as the NYT opines and you endorse.>>

Whine, whine, whine.  Genocide this, genocide that.  Boo-fucking-hoo.  When did your government EVER - - from WWII to Rwanda - - ever give a shit about genocide?  You REALLY expect anyone to believe that the U.S. government would stay on in Iraq because they are concerned about GENOCIDE?  That would be a historic first.  The country that doesn't give a shit about "collateral damage" to Iraqi civilians - - isn't even concerned enough about it to do a body count - - suddenly develops this intense humanitarian aversion to genocide.  Next thing they'll be claiming that they have to prevent genocide because the Genveva Conventions demand it.

I don't get it.  Is anyone supposed to be FOOLED by this bullshit?


<<You almost gleefully look forward to the death of the collaborators in many of your predictive posts.   So yeah, i think you are very familiar with twisted logic as long as it suites your ends.>>

You think a man should betray his own countrymen to torture and death at the hands of an invading army and not expect any payback from the surviving Resistance Fighters when the invaders pull out?  Sorry, BT, the world doesn't work that way.  Never has, never will.  That's not twisted logic.  That's realism.  Something you conservatives are very reluctant to acknowledge.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2007, 01:06:34 AM »
<<Which war, the Iraqi War or the Civil War that is going on now?>>

What difference would it make?  If I didn't want to see Iraqi blood flow in an invasion of Iraq, why would I want to see it flow in an Iraqi Civil War?  Your statement is crazy no matter which war I was referring to.

<<The gamble is whether the civil war widens with our departure or a lid is better kept on it with our presence as factions go the diplomatic route to peace.>>

Don't you understand the significance of that NYT article?  They - - and the people they are speaking for, who obviously include people who were once some of the war's strongest supporters - - don't give a shit if the civil war widens or not.  This war is a fucking disaster for American interests, not Iraqi interests.


And when youare waist deep in blood you will still be pointing ?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2007, 01:06:57 AM »
<<I can see pacifists pointing their finger squarely at the one thing that might have prevented a coupple of million deaths if it comes to pass.
<<And yes the pacifists hands will be dripping red as they blame everyone elese for not thinking ahead.>>

Sorry, plane, you lost me there.  What does that mean?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2007, 01:46:51 AM »
Quote
What difference would it make?  If I didn't want to see Iraqi blood flow in an invasion of Iraq, why would I want to see it flow in an Iraqi Civil War?  Your statement is crazy no matter which war I was referring to.

Makes all the difference in the world. Most of the casualties in this war have been Iraqi on Iraq. You want the referee removed.

Quote
Don't you understand the significance of that NYT article?  They - - and the people they are speaking for, who obviously include people who were once some of the war's strongest supporters - - don't give a shit if the civil war widens or not.  This war is a fucking disaster for American interests, not Iraqi interests.

The NYT has been in decline for years. Perhaps their editorial is in their own best interests.

Quote
Whine, whine, whine.  Genocide this, genocide that.  Boo-fucking-hoo.  When did your government EVER - - from WWII to Rwanda - - ever give a shit about genocide?  You REALLY expect anyone to believe that the U.S. government would stay on in Iraq because they are concerned about GENOCIDE?  That would be a historic first.  The country that doesn't give a shit about "collateral damage" to Iraqi civilians - - isn't even concerned enough about it to do a body count - - suddenly develops this intense humanitarian aversion to genocide.  Next thing they'll be claiming that they have to prevent genocide because the Genveva Conventions demand it.

I don't get it.  Is anyone supposed to be FOOLED by this bullshit?

We are not talking about the US Government. We are talking about your advocacy for genocide.

Quote
You think a man should betray his own countrymen to torture and death at the hands of an invading army and not expect any payback from the surviving Resistance Fighters when the invaders pull out?  Sorry, BT, the world doesn't work that way.  Never has, never will.  That's not twisted logic.  That's realism.  Something you conservatives are very reluctant to acknowledge.

For a man who espouses peace, this reply is certainly inconsistent with the desire to end bloodshed.


 

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2007, 02:15:55 AM »


<<Makes all the difference in the world. Most of the casualties in this war have been Iraqi on Iraq. You want the referee removed.>>

A "referee" who is supplying arms and intelligence to both sides of a conflict isn't really a referee, he's more of an instigator and a shit-disturber.  When it turns out that the "referee" is also a participant and is promoting one side against the other, and wants to do business with the winning side, I'd say he's more of a fucking crook than a referee.  But nice try, BT.  The only part of the referee analogy that I like is the black-and-white stripes on his shirt.  I hope one day to see convict stripes like that on Bush but I guess I'll have to settle for an orange jumpsuit.

<<The NYT has been in decline for years. Perhaps their editorial is in their own best interests.>>

You can speculate any way you like on the NYT, personally I think their loss of readership is related to the dwindling number of Americans who bother to vote: both a symptom of popular loss of faith in the established authorities and a growing awareness that the system is rotten from top to bottom.  Whether the ruling class loses readers from its established media voices or voters from its electoral charades, there still is a ruling class and the NYT or its owners are a part of it and speak for it.

<<We are not talking about the US Government. We are talking about your advocacy for genocide.>>

Not really.  We are talking about the US Government's pretence that genocide is a reason for staying on, and my point that "genocide" is today's reason, as "building democracy" was yesterday's reason and "WMD" was the reason before that. 

And my so-called "advocacy for genocide" (another fucking lie, why would I advocate genocide?) is really an argument that the whole genocide issue is phony, that the U.S. is not in Iraq to prevent genocide, in fact doesn't give a shit about genocide, in fact never gave a shit about genocide.  But since I expose a phony concern about genocide as being phony, in right-wing fascist "logic" this means I am "advocating genocide."

<<For a man who espouses peace, this reply [that collaborators will get what they deserve]  is certainly inconsistent with the desire to end bloodshed. >>

More crypto-fascist bullshit.  If you are against the  bloodshed caused by criminal acts of fascist aggression, you must therefore be against payback for fascist collaborators.  Using this same "logic," if you are against the Nazi invasion of France, you must also be against the execution of Frenchmen who collaborated with the Nazi invaders.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2007, 02:23:40 AM »
<<I can see pacifists pointing their finger squarely at the one thing that might have prevented a coupple of million deaths if it comes to pass.
<<And yes the pacifists hands will be dripping red as they blame everyone elese for not thinking ahead.>>

Sorry, plane, you lost me there.  What does that mean?


It means that we expect a power vacuum to cause very hard fighting with no releaf of any kind for ten years or so.

Or that is how it happened in Afganistan anyway.

The Taliban was hailed as a force oforder when it started , because the lawless period was even worse.

In Vietnam there was no lawless period , but there was a period of bloodletting we will never know the scale of , we know that more than a million people tried to escape in boats and a minority of them survived .

Lets do it our way just for an experment , and when the blood is filling the scuppers and all of the surrounding countrys are full of refugees you can re-interate how it is someones fault.

I expect the rate of killing to accellerate a lot, just as soon as we act to please you  , why should I expect otherwise?

Of course it will not be Americans doing the killing so it won't count?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2007, 02:36:20 AM »
<<It means that we expect a power vacuum to cause very hard fighting with no releaf of any kind for ten years or so.

<<Or that is how it happened in Afganistan anyway.

<<The Taliban was hailed as a force oforder when it started , because the lawless period was even worse.>>

Your logic is really fucked up, plane.  If that's what happened in Afghanistan, are you saying it would have been better for the Russians to have stayed on indefinitely?  And since you admit yourself that it didn't happen that way in Viet Nam, aren't you really saying you can't be sure that it WOULD happen that way in Iraq?



<<In Vietnam there was no lawless period , but there was a period of bloodletting we will never know the scale of , we know that more than a million people tried to escape in boats and a minority of them survived .>>

You don't know any such thing.  You don't know that there was a period of bloodletting.  When was it?  Who got killed?  How many?  You have nothing to back that up.  You even admit you don't know the scale of it - - that means it could be from zero on up.

<<Lets do it our way just for an experment , and when the blood is filling the scuppers and all of the surrounding countrys are full of refugees you can re-interate how it is someones fault.>>

What if the blood doesn't fill up the scuppers?  What makes you think it will bleed any more than it's already bleeding?

<<I expect the rate of killing to accellerate a lot>>

Why would it?

<<Of course it will not be Americans doing the killing so it won't count?>>

You're not even responsible for 45 million of your own fellow citizens not having health insurance, so how the hell could you be responsible for an Iraqi killing another Iraqi?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2007, 03:49:48 AM »
After two million die in a war what is a few hunded thousand dieing in prison count for?

I don't absolutely trust these numbers, to me they seem low.

Vietnam fought the west for a whole generation just for the right to mistreat its own people and starve them.

But that is so much better than haveing individual freedom and prosperity that they are admired for it.


As they slowly become less Communist their condition s improving .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_people


Quote
Events resulting from the Vietnam War led many people in Cambodia, Laos, and especially Vietnam to become refugees in the late 1970s and 1980s, after the fall of Saigon. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge regime murdered millions of people in the "Killing Fields" massacres, and many attempted to escape. In Vietnam, the new communist government sent many people who supported the old government in the South to "re-education camps", and others to "new economic zones." An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.[1] 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.[1] Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.[1] These factors, coupled with poverty, caused millions of Vietnamese to flee the country. In 1979, Vietnam was at war (Sino-Vietnamese War) with the People's Republic of China (PRC), and many ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, who felt that the government's policies directly targeted them also became "boat people." On the open seas, the boat people had to confront forces of nature, and elude pirates.


Quote
   Hong Kong adopted the "port of first asylum policy," and received over 100,000 of them in the city at its peak in the late 1980s. Many refugee camps were set up in its territories. Frequent violent clashes between the boat people and security forces caused public outcry and mounting concerns in the early 1990s since many camps are very close to high-density residential areas.

For Australia, there was a major policy shift by the Fraser government, which abolished the White Australia policy by letting over 100,000 Vietnamese refugees in such a quick pace. The countries that accepted most of these refugees were:

United States - 823,000
Australia and Canada - 137,000 each
France - 96,000
Germany and UK - 19,000 each
By late 1980s, Western Europe, the United States and Australia received fewer Vietnamese refugees[citation needed]. It became much harder to get visas to settle in these countries. The refugees faced prospects of staying years in the camps and ultimate repatriation back to Vietnam. They were branded, rightly or wrongly, as economic refugees. By the mid-1990s, the number of refugees fleeing from Vietnam had dwindled. Many refugee camps were closed. Most of the well educated or those with genuine refugee status had already been accepted by receiving countries[citation needed].

There were some unwritten rules in the mind of immigration officials from Western countries. They preferred to accept married couples, young families and girls over 18 years old, leaving single men and minors to languish at the camps for years. Among these unwanted, those who worked and studied hard and involved themselves in constructive refugee community activities were eventually accepted by the West by recommendations from UNHCR workers. Hong Kong was open about its willingness to take the remnants at its camp, but only some refugees took up the offer. Many refugees would have been accepted by Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, but hardly any wanted to settle in these countries.

The market reforms of Vietnam, the imminent return of Hong Kong to China by Britain and the financial incentives for voluntary returning to Vietnam caused many boat people to elect to return to Vietnam during the 1990s. Consequently, most remaining asylum seekers were voluntarily or forcibly repatriated to Vietnam, although a very small number (about 2,500) were granted residency by the Hong Kong Government in 2002, marking an end to the Vietnam boat people history. In 2005, the remaining refugees in the Philippines (around 200) were granted asylum in Canada and the United States.


Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2007, 04:19:01 AM »
My point in posting the following is that we're there, and we can't stop this war from  expanding and getting worse.  That is not doable militarily, IMHO.  Too many countries involved, neighboring countries, too much ancient rivalry between tribes, parties, sects, etc.   
I think of this as a huge, huge forest fire, and soon I'm afraid our men there will have no way out. 

http://www.juancole.com/2007/07/al-maliki-to-face-no-confidence-vote-as.html

[]
Sunday, July 08, 2007

Al-Maliki to Face No-Confidence Vote?
As Many as 150 Dead in "Turkmen Massacre"


Readers sometimes ask me if analyzing the news from Iraq every day doesn't get me down.

It got me down today. Sunni Arab guerrillas, unable to operate as effectively in Baghdad because of the US troop surge, had a suicide bomber drive a truck loaded with explosives into a market in a village on the fringes of the northern city of Tuz Khurmato and detonate his payload. As I write, authorities had counted 130 dead bodies, many of them women and children, and relatives reported another 20 dead. Another 250 or so were wounded, some of them badly, according to the Arabic daily al-Hayat. The latter says Iraqis are referring to the bombing as "the Turkmen massacre." Some 40 homes, 20 shops, and a dozen automobiles were also destroyed.

Like the detonation of the minarets at the al-Askariya shrine in Samarra recently, this act of terrorism had a strategic purpose. First, even 160,000 US troops cannot provide security to the whole country. The guerrillas are announcing that if they are prevented from operating in the Karrada neighborhood of Baghdad, they will just shift operations to Samarra (an hour's drive due north of Baghdad) or Tuz Khurmato.

Moreover, they are saying that they are just as capable of waving a read flag in front of the Shiite bull even if they aren't in Baghdad. Thus, they hit a sacred Shiite shrine again at Samarra. And Tuz Khurmato is a largely Shiite Turkmen city of some 63,000, surrounded by villages with a similar composition, like the one that was blown up Saturday. Although Turkmen Shiites had in earlier decades been removed from the formal, clerically-dominated Shiism of Najaf, practicing instead a folk religion, in the 1990s Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr reached out to them and brought many of them into orthodox Twelver Shiism. Arab Shiites now feel solidarity with them, and on occasion young cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has sent Mahdi Army fighters up to protect them. The Badr Corps of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council has also attempted to attract their loyalty. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki denounced the bombing as the work of Sunni extremists who declare that Shiite Muslims are actually infidels.


CBS News is reporting that on July 15, the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accord Front will call a vote of no confidence in the Iraqi parliament against prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. CBS says that Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashimi, who is spear-heading this move, met with US VP Dick Cheney and that Cheney may have approved the move.

There are three Sunni Arab parties in the 275-member parliament. The largest, with 44 seats, is the Iraqi Accord Front. The National Dialogue Front of Salih al-Mutlak has 11 seats. The small Liberation and Reconciliation Party has 3 seats (its founder, Mishaan al-Jibouri has had to flee the country because a warrant was issued for his arrest last fall). According to the Iraqi constitution, any 50 members of parliament can call a vote of no confidence, so the Sunni Arab parties can certainly initiate the process.

They would need 138 seats to unseat al-Maliki, however, and it is not clear that they would have them. The 58 Kurdish deputies will vote for al-Maliki, and he would only need 80 Shiite votes to win the vote. Even with the defection from his alliance of 32 Sadrist MPs and 15 from the Islamic Virtue Party (Fadhila), al-Maliki probably still has 80 Shiite MPs behind him (before the defections he had about 130 in his United Iraqi Alliance, so the defections should have left him with 88). It is also not clear that the Sadrist and Islamic Virtue MPs will actually vote with Sunni fundamentalist parties to unseat a Shiite prime minister.

[]
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2007, 04:24:30 AM »
It got me down today. Sunni Arab guerrillas, unable to operate as effectively in Baghdad because of the US troop surge, had a suicide bomber drive a truck loaded with explosives into a market in a village on the fringes of the northern city of Tuz Khurmato and detonate his payload. As I write, authorities had counted 130 dead bodies, many of them women and children, and relatives reported another 20 dead. Another 250 or so were wounded, some of them badly, according to the Arabic daily al-Hayat. The latter says Iraqis are referring to the bombing as "the Turkmen massacre." Some 40 homes, 20 shops, and a dozen automobiles were also destroyed.



Sunnis are suicidal?

Seems like it , if this sort of behavor gets Americans to leave , it will also cause ethnic cleansing , mostly on the Sunni.