Whimsy’s end.

by

Car Bombs Leave 60 Dead in Southern Iraq

BASRA, Iraq – A series of car bombs ripped through police stations and an academy during rush hour Wednesday morning, killing at least 60 people, including schoolchildren, and wounding scores in the bloodiest attacks to hit this mainly Shiite city since the U.S.-led occupation began a year ago.

The official casualties from this will undoubtedly change as more information comes in; prepare for the death toll to go upwards. In the meantime… my prayers and good wishes for the victims of this tragedy and my utter contempt for the cowardly murderers who set off the bombs.

27 thoughts on “Whimsy’s end.”

  1. “The cowardly murderers who set off the bombs” could not do what they are doing without the enabling of the Bush Administration. These are leaders who opened Pandora’s Box thinking they knew best and instead of flowers being thrown there are bombs. And they may pull out June 30th 2004 or June 12th of Never but the bombs will keep falling due to their stupidity. They can’t close the Box again so they’ll patch together a PR campaign to show how we’re leaving ‘with honor’ or some such Vietnamesque drivel.

  2. I have to side with Wilfred on this.
    Generally speaking (and trying not to target Moe’s post, per se, as I know he’s sincere and well intentioned) much of the rhetoric surrounding the insurgency sounds as if we played no role in creating this monster, as if we were simply distributing democracy (as we’re wont to do) and this unexpected nightmare rose up out of nowhere.
    We, the US, are directly responsible for not stopping this bombing. The Iraqis have every right to expect us to protect them from such horrendous acts. We’re supposed to be in control.
    Yes, they are cowards…all terrorists are…but they’re cowards we taunted into doing this shit.
    Correction, they’re cowards Bush taunted into doing this shit.

  4. Is that a serious question? Do you see the USA as simply a do-gooder who is victimized? The US, under most the Administrations of my lifetime has been involved in subterfuge trying to subvert power in other countries, whether it be funding Osama to begin with or helping Saddam (really, us?) or the Contras or the Vietnamese civil war, bedding down with the corrupt Saudi princes and setting down bases in S.A. knowing the populace was foaming about it etc. Do we think there are no ramifications for this? Were they right to do what they did to the WTC? Of course not, but no more wrong than we were to do many of the terrible things we have done. We have done many great things as well but the point is to air this out and increase the good we do and decrease the bad. Being in denial about this stuff helps no one. This is simply talking about the pink elephants in the middle of our house so we can get functional, as dysfunctional isn’t working. This will make us stronger as a country, not weaker.

  5. So, in what way were the WTC and US Embassy bombers taunted into doing what they did? Any ideas? What did the evil Clinton do to get their dander up?
    Good point…there’s no evidence the Iraqi’s took “Bring ’em on” to heart and are responding to that. Still, the rhetoric should reflect that we destablized Iraq.
    Also, can we all agree that B-movie bravado is a useless, insulting exercise for the President of the United State to engage in?

  6. Which, I think, is an improvement over the Saddam-stabilized Iraq.
    Not yet, but hope springs eternal.

  7. Still, the rhetoric should reflect that we destablized Iraq.
    Which, I think, is an improvement over the Saddam-stabilized Iraq. Do you disagree?
    Also, can we all agree that B-movie bravado is a useless, insulting exercise for the President of the United State to engage in?
    Yes.

  9. Well, so far it’s an improvement. Given that Bush has appointed Negroponte as the US ambassador/viceroy to whatever government Bremer is going to “hand over to” on June 30th… Who knows? Maybe Bush didn’t appoint Negroponte out of sheer moral blindness, but because of his record in being able to ignore atrocities committed by governments supported by the US.

  13. It doesn’t matter who is at fault, to whatever degree. (at least in this post).
    What matters is that as a matter of international law, common sense morality, and practical imperial politics, we are required to make the Iraqis secure. As an invader and occupier, we are more responsible for this in Iraq the we are in the Continental USA. And any concievable plan starts from security.
    I favor the war, it’s legality I will leave to lawyers, that is arguable; but in not providing adequate security for Iraqis I consider it a slam-dunk case that the Bush administration are war criminals. Shinseki’s pre-war statements prove prior intent, and I would consider most European countries justified in arresting Bush within their borders.

  15. Bob!
    Spell that out for me, just for fun, if you’ll excuse the expression in this context.
    Shinseki said the occupation would require “several hundred thousand troops” (and others have since noted that not enough troops is why Iraq is not secure enough.
    Is Bush a war criminal through negligence in your opinion?
    This may deserve its own thread…but I wanted to ask you to elaborate first…

  16. Q & A on Hague Convention
    Hague
    Question: What are the duties of an occupying force to provide security?
    An occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. Under customary international law, this duty begins once a stable regime of occupation has been established. But under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the duty attaches as soon as the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of that territory — that is, at the soonest possible moment (a principle reflected in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).
    Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where necessary suppress serious violations involving the local population under their control or subject to their authority. The occupying force is responsible for protecting the population from violence by third parties, such as newly formed armed groups or forces of the former regime. Ensuring local security includes protecting persons, including minority groups and former government officials, from reprisals and revenge attacks.
    Occupying forces may have to be deployed to secure public order until the time local or international police can be mobilized for such responsibilities. Unless such forces are facing hostilities, the use of force is governed by international standards for law enforcement. That is, only necessary and proportionate force may be used and only to the required extent.

  18. I would love to take this to court
    Bush: We didn’t have enough troops to provide security, the rapes and kidnappings were unpreventable
    DA: Why not a draft, or more reserves?
    Bush: ummm
    DA: Shinseki warned you, yet you went in anyway?
    Bush: ummmm

  22. In Fallujah, for instance? Yes, I would contend that. We haven’t been in the city for weeks.
    In Kufa, where we gave control to Muqtada Sadr’s militia? In Basra, and many other place, where we “subcontracted” police work to local militias?
    Could we be certain these militias were fair, unbiased, would not engage in reprisals?
    Would you feel safe sending your family to an outlying town in Iraq?
    The standard is any whatsoever? Well, the Green Zone is safe…no wait…mortar attacks. This is a joke.

  23. Would you feel safe sending your family to an outlying town in Iraq?
    No. Not now, not anytime in the last few decades. Unless you can find words to the effect that the occupying forces must establish total security for each man, woman, and child in Iraq right this second, I think you’re legless on this one, bob.

  24. Unless such forces are facing hostilities, the use of force is governed by international standards for law enforcement. That is, only necessary and proportionate force may be used and only to the required extent.
    So, given the size of the force in place, are the militatry commanders guilty of too much leniency in that they are facing hostilities and have not ratcheted up the response to eliminate the danger to the Iraqi people?

  25. Legless? Ok,anybody else say that Slart has defined the legal standard?
    City sends every cop in my town to a convention, they are suable. 10%, probably not.
    Litigate it. “Good faith effort” (did not disarm anybody, including Baath party members, did not secure ammo dumps and arms caches)
    “Responded adequately to newly discovered conditions?”
    I would take it to a court in Brussels in a second. If Slart is an indication, an American court would be biased.

Comments are closed.