Blast Hits Iraqi Cinema, Causes Several Casualties

[Kellanved]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A blast ripped through a cinema in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul Wednesday, causing several casualties, local people said.

Edit (same link):
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A hand grenade blast ripped through a cinema in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Wednesday, killing two people and wounding 20, police said.

Police said a witness had told them the movie theater was showing a pornographic film when the grenade exploded. Islamic militants have attacked some cinemas in postwar Iraq (news - web sites) for showing movies they regard as immoral.


"A grenade exploded inside the cinema. Twenty people were injured, two were killed," said Mohammed Sadiq, an officer at the police station nearest the cinema told Reuters by telephone.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030924/wl_nm/iraq_cinema_dc&cid=574&ncid=1473

[bowens43]

1. They can thank mr bush

for bringing terrorism to Iraq.

[demdave]

2. The terrorists have always been there....the Bath's and radical Sunni's

Now that they are targeting the Iraqi people it is fairly easy to see that this is not the work of the locals rising up against the invaders. This is radical fundamentalists trying to impose religion with a hand grenade. I want to know why anyone here would support this. How is this good?

[Chico Man]

3. Who says it is good?

I'd have to ask you a question now: "Why are they targeting the Iraqi people?" Do you think it has anything to do with the foreign invaders?

Look up another 10,000 feet. We have radical fundamentalists (the Bush cabal) trying to impose religion (capitalism, democracy) with a hand grenade as well.

What Bush has done is to escalate the climate of fear in Iraq because he is too blind to understand the consequences and complexity of the situation. He idealistic black/white approach is going to provide plenty of fertilization for terrorism in Iraq agaist anyone. Terrorists vs. terrorists, terrorists vs. Iraqi civilians, terrorists vs. the UN, terrorists vs American soldiers.

We have created a monster due to the careless approach of our so called president. He could have taken a different approach. However, as is the case with his "tax cut" solution for the exconomy, his only solution for peace is "war".

On edit: Actually, I'm quite surprised Bush hasn't declared a "war on unemployment" or "war on the economy". If there is a problem, we all know war is the magic bullet... :eyes:

[demdave]

4. Because they are religious nutcases

Police said a witness had told them the movie theater was showing a pornographic film when the grenade exploded. Islamic militants have attacked some cinemas in postwar Iraq (news - web sites) for showing movies they regard as immoral.


Bush didn't create them anymore than Clinton created Osama. They have a religious view that urges them to take action against those that don't hold the same view. The Buddhist statues were blown away by the Taliban, females are not educated or allowed basic rights by many of these zealots.

While I understand your desire to rant aabout Bush, there are other evils in the world that are not directly realated to him. If you are willing to sweep everything under the "Bush" rug to satisfy your fury, you are turning a blind eye and giving free reign to problems that should also be solved.

[Chico Man]

5. Well a possible solution would be to take the Israeli approach

Get a whole bunch of white people in Iraq and then fence off all the brown skinned people who are religious nutcases.

There are plenty of hornets nests in the world. To beat them with a stick, well is insane. And since Bush is the leader of the free world, and launched this war without planning for this, yes, he is responsible.

We will never have a perfect world.

[demdave]

6. You obviously have your own demons to deal with

as is told by your "white people" comment. So I will not "beat you with a stick". Carry on carrying on.

[Chico Man]

9. Telling it like it is..

Its is not my strategy, and not my demons. you make it sound like I'm the one doing the herding. I'm just telling it like it is.

[markses]

7. Your analysis fails to note

That these "religious nutcases" IN IRAQ only started shooting female principals, bombing movie-houses, and cutting the throats of those selling alcohol after the American invasion.

Saddam Hussein's regime was certainly a terror of first magnitude, but it was a secular terror for the most part, and one could sip wine without fear of reprisal on the streets of Baghdad (and, I suspect, Mosul), and Iraqi women were - before the first Gulf war certainly, and even after - among the most "liberated," and educated women in the region, vis-a-vis religious dictums.

You also fail to note the historical connection between nationalism and religious fundamentalism throughout the Middle East, the latter rising as a cohesive mechanism to bolster the former, particularly in times of revolt or crisis. In a stunningly beautiful and terrible scene in the film "The Battle of Algiers," a group of children attack and beat a drunk Muslim as he stumbles along in the Casbah. The idea is clear - the violent fundamentalisms do not exist in a vacuum; they are always responses to other social forces. Isolating the fundamentalisms now raging violently in Iraq from the sheer social fact of the US/UK colonizing invasion is absolutelunacy, absolutely ahistorical, and ultimately foolish.

However, as you pose it, people just want to attribute X to "Bush." We can, however, take a longer view, and think clearly through tyhe various social forces at work. Instead, you want to do the reductive opposite of the reductive move. Not "Blame X on Bush," but "Blame X on religious nutcases." Both approaches are wrong.

[demdave]

8. When an abortion clinic is bombed it is by a religious whackjob.

They may or may not have been egged on by an organized religious group, but I fail to see what it has to do with who is in the Whitehouse. In the same vein, the person throwing the grenade may or may not be steered by an organized religious leader or group. In their own mind I am sure they think they are religiously motivated. The fact that the US is there is not the reason they threw the grenade. The reason they didn't throw the grenade under Saddam is a security issue. There is now a lack of security and the opertunity to impose their religion has presented itself. They are not a response to a social force but rather taking advantage of a social opportunity, much like looters.

[markses]

11. When somebody bombs an abortion clinic

There are most certainly a wide array of social forces involved.

However, you are seeking to blame, rather than to understand, so there you go. Perform your magical isolation of the social realities, and you'll feel better about your previous fanatical support of this disastrous war, I'm sure.

[demdave]

12. While you are "understanding", people are being killed for watching porn.

I would rather see it stopped than to point fingers at some convoluted logic of how this is Bush's fault. Religious groups that believe that this is an appropriate tool have no place on the face of the earth.

[Chico Man]

14. Why don't we let time be the judge of humanity

Just a few hundred years ago we had no idea what kind of atrocities were taking place 150 miles down the road. Now, the world has grown small. We see bad things happening everywhere. Third world countries trying to gain peace. Naturally we want to fix them. We try to fix them, with the most moral, rightous, and compassionate of goals. And yet, the problem gets worse. Why?

Man cannot solve the problems of man on this earth. To condemn those living on the other side of the planet, and say they have no place on the face of the earth is one thing. But to physically attempt to solve the problem using man-made strategies and so called military genious is another.

Of course Bush is not the cause of the WHOLE problem. The problem goes back all the way to the birth of human kind. But, Bush IS the cause of the drastic rise of horrible things happening on the planet at this point in time. Why? Because he has too much faith in mankind. He thinks he can solve the problems of the world. He is learning the hard way that this cannot be done.

[markses]

16. Real prevention requires it

We share the same goals here, to be sure.

And, last time I checked, your version didn't do shit, either - except make you feel better, I guess.

[Chico Man]

13. Let me ask you a simple question, DemDave..

Did the approach Bush took with Iraq promote or hurt the cause of religious induced violence in the middle east?

Aside from mass killing "prospective" suicide bombers using American made "legal" bombs, I do not see how the war could impede religious induced violence.

And just yesterday the interim government stated the reason for all of the violence was due to "Arab media" broadcasting violence on the airwaves in Iraq. There is no solution. We can iether make the problem better or worse. This is like a sore that will never go away. We can pick at it and irritate it, and cause a whole lot of pain and grief, or we can medicate and treat the situation carefully and with patience.

Bush whipped the whole region up into a frenzy. He picked the scab off the wound. He wants to end global terrorism. What a righteous goal. For a leader of the free world to not understand this goal is 100% unattainable is a very dangerous proposition.

[demdave]

18. Such a firestorm as the ME couldn't get worst.

What I do think going to Iraq did was keep it over there. The Taliban is on the run and reduced to potshotting and ambush, but not running a country like a terrorist training camp. Iraq now has a chance to become democratic, which I think the people of Iraq desire. They are one of the most educated countries in the area and therefore I hold out hope in their own ability, desire and strength.

Lastly, and this will get me flamed :), I believe we have shattered the perception that we will talk the talk but not walk the walk. When Clinton sent the Tomohawks into the Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq, I think he sent a message that we retaliate in an ineffectuel manner and then forget about it. I think the region has a different view now. I read where the Sudan in detaining 200 people because they HAVE to in order to avoid US sanctions, which they oviously take seriously now. Whether our actions are justified or not, whether they will be fruitful or not, I believe the fact is that the ME perception of us as all bark and no bite has changed. The trick now is to do some good with the situation as it stands.

[Skittles]

19. you need to change your moniker

to "dem"dave

[Chico Man]

20. Shock and Awe

If I understand you correctly, "shock and awe" was an appropriate strategy to show the world that we will retaliate, and with force?

It really all depends on what the enemy's definition of "bite" is. Next step is "mini-nukes". After that, big nukes. We know the enemy will gladly give their life for the cause. "Bring it on."

Like I said in an earlier post, the world is getting smaller and more delicate by the day. Scare tactics, shock and awe, and threats of mass retaliation (TMR) can only be used to create "peace" for so long.

A new path must be made.

[Ashcroft Kutcher]

15. Indeed but.

Because of Bush these religous nutcases blowing up theaters have become our problem.

[Paragon]

10. Damn, they'll book "Gigli" anywhere now

:silly:

[pschoeb]

17. Didn't Asscroft just start his anti-porn initiative?

maybe there's a connection ;)

Patrick Schoeb