Montgomery Blair High School's Online Student Newspaper
Wednesday, December 13, 2017 1:38 pm
Latest:
Tags: Roundup
Nov. 24, 2006

Deaths in Iraq multiplying

by Hokuma Karimova, Foreign Desk Editor
This is not original reporting. All information has been compiled from the BBC World News. Silver Chips Online posts this news summary to provide readers with a forum for discussion.

Shiite Muslims bombed mosques and homes in the Sunni Arab area of Baghdad, killing at least 30 people in response to yesterday's bombing in the Shia Sadr City that left more than 200 Shiite Muslims dead, the most fatal attack since the 2003 US-led invasion.

The gunmen attacked four mosques in a Sunni area in the Hurriya neighborhood. The most serious damage happened after Friday prayers, when a mosque was burned down, and a rocket-propelled grenade exploded in another one. Two other mosques were spewed with bullets fired from AK-47 assault rifles. Six Sunnis were also reported to have been burned alive.

Local people said that although homes were still on fire, funerals were still taking place for those victims killed in the attacks.

The past few attacks have been the most devastating to date in Iraq. Police have reported that 25 Sunnis died, but a defense ministry official told French news agency, Agence France-Presse (AFP), that because the clashes were so intense, the precise number is difficult to obtain.

Other parts of Baghdad have also experienced attacks. On Friday, in Sadr City, a US helicopter fired on militiamen who were launching rocket attacks. In the northern town of Talafar a suspected double suicide bombing killed at least 22 people.

Images of the attacks can be seen here.



Share on Tumblr

Discuss this Article

Silver Chips Online invites you to share your thoughts about this article. Please use this forum to further discussion of the story topic and refrain from personal attacks and offensive language. SCO reserves the right to deny any comment. No comments that include hyperlinks will be posted. If you have a question for us, please include your email address or use this form.
 

  • Republican on November 24, 2006 at 10:56 PM
    One can only wonder how these people would act if Saddam Hussein is still in power.

    The United States spoiled them by giving the freedom that they would never have had or dared to use under Saddam Hussein.

    These two ethnic groups hate each other so much that they'll even kill each other.

    Look beyond the numbers of people that die each day. Look instead at the people who finally gain their freedoms.

    It is unfair that many people do not have freedom because of a couple of people who choose to misuse their freedoms.

    Before, Iraqis' freedoms were limited so few of these killings occured. Now, Iraqis have their freedoms so much more of these killings occur.

    A good trade in my opinion.
  • Logic on November 25, 2006 at 12:34 PM
    OK. So, they like killing each other. Why is this the United States' problem? Let them have their own civil war, fine, but why do Americans need to die because of it?
  • Eli Barnett on November 25, 2006 at 3:33 PM
    What else is new?
  • Libertarian (View Email) on November 27, 2006 at 6:37 PM
    1. Deaths don't multiply, highly slanted title simply for dramatic effect

    2. If I were in charge we wouldn't be in Iraq. That was their problem and we stepped in. I know people compare it to a neighbor beating his wife, but I wouldn't stop a neighbor from beating his wife if it meant sacrificing the lives of some of my family members.

    3. They are better off now than under Saddam. I'll take being in Iraq now over being there under Saddam any day. We did good, but I don't think it was worth the American lives we lost and are continuing to lose. We stopped the husband from beating his wife, but our wife, 2 of our kids, and our family dog died and the mean husband was replaced by angry neighbors fighting for control over the house.
  • hard core dem on November 28, 2006 at 2:07 PM
    um, 'republican, stop being dramatic,The people that died deserve as much freedom as the ones that are living. So i say get out of Iraq and let them deal with their own problems. America should look closely at itself before interfering with another country. We have enough problems as it is, we don't need to double them.
  • To Republican (View Email) on November 28, 2006 at 6:14 PM
    You say that these iraqi's have gained freedom, as if you know precisely what freedom is. As Americans, our interpretation of freedom is different from other people around the world. Who is to say that they want this much freedom, thats a very American way to think....that freedom is the nirvana of life.
  • Republican on December 1, 2006 at 10:21 PM
    It's pretty clear cut to me. Getting tortured just because you disagree with the government is not freedom to anyone. Having an unchecked dictator on the head of government is not freedom to anyone. You got to be a pretty crazy person to want to have someone else who isn't that great decide your fate. This is the reason why dictators are bad. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and there's no way a few Iraqis can stand up to Hussein's military.

    hard core dem, this is not about if we should have invaded Iraq. This is about the "civil war" in Iraq.

    I am not at all being dramatic. These suicide bombers deserve their rights just as much as the law-abiding people of Iraq. I was just saying how these suicide bombers are misusing their rights and how it isn't fair to label giving rights to the Iraqi people as a bad thing just because of these few bad apples.

    So, as you read this article and click the images, think of it as only the few bad apples. There are plenty more good apples. The few bad apples only represent a very small proportion of what’s actually happening in Iraq. Put it in perspective, 2500 kids a day in the United States are lost each day. Are we a country of lost kids? No! Iraq is definitely not a country of violence.
  • to on December 3, 2006 at 1:18 AM
    So are you implying that oppression is the nirvana of life? Enslavement?

    Please enlighten me. You're implying that some human condition is better than freedom, and I can't figure out what it is. That's not arrogant nationalism, that's logic, pure and simple.
  • and to hard core dem on December 3, 2006 at 1:24 AM
    I agree with your sentiment that we need to get out of Iraq ASAP, but doing so too hastily would be a grave error. Think about it: America invades a Middle Eastern country, destroys its government, installs a new one and then leaves it with little or no resources to survive with a Civil War looming oh so close. The inevitable result would be a tremendous increase in terrorist sympathizers and terrorists themselves.

    As the bipartisan taskforce that issued a report on the situation in Iraq concluded, we must leave Iraq as soon as the situation allows, but only once the situation allows. I want our troops home as much as you do, but for all the deaths of American soldiers to mean something, we must accomplish something. And leaving too early would not only accomplish nothing, it would destabilize the region so much that terrorists would gain strength.
  • hard core dem on December 4, 2006 at 5:22 PM
    republican, this civil war your talking about isn't a war so don't call it that. our "great leaders" of america call it a war on terror, this war doen't involve a specific group of people and frankly, no one in iraq isn't even fighting back so don't call it a war. The people who want the us to mind their business are the one who do these suicide bombings. Who gave us the right to go into a country and set their election dates and build it a better government. That should be the UN's job wihich by the way is standing by and watching, doing squat to stop these killings. HOw can anyone tell the 'good apples' from the bad if you are saying this 'war' is to get rid of these bad apples then they might as well get rid of the good one, like the saying 'In order to save a village we must destry it'. so why don't you go ahead and try that strategy reply when it works out. The point is that the good always comes with the bad u can't pick one ove the other, it is IMMPOSSIBLE!!!!
  • alum Marine (View Email) on December 5, 2006 at 8:50 PM
    To correct hard core dem, people in Iraq are fighting back. Though we have not fought a conventional war since WW2.
    What i am saying is look at the IED's (Imptovised explosive Devices) or road side bombs, Mortor and Rocket attacks and random small arms fire. There are people in Iraq that are fighting back, and those people are called insurgents.
    Most of the attacks dont go on the news because no one dies, that seems to be the only thing the news covers.
    You dont see the positive aspects of what is going on over there because the media chooses to show the negative stories because that is what gets the ratings.
  • hard core dem on December 13, 2006 at 6:22 PM
    my point is we should not have gone there and we should not be there right now.IT IS NONE OF THE US's BUSINESS Many countries are facing conflicts in this world with corrupted leaders so then why don't we go to all of those countries and fix their government for them??? huh? see this is why don't choose just one country to save(especially one that doen't want to be saved)to fix up. it is an irresponsible act and a careless move. The us needs to go back to being the great country that it once was.
    to alum marine-the people that are fighting back are those who don't want a country that wants to accomplish its own needs before the country itself and not letting that country going go around killing the people that are innocent.
Jump to first comment