The worst bombing of the war

August 16, 2007

Just stunning.

Officials said Wednesday that as many as 500 people probably died in a series of coordinated truck bombings that devastated two northern Iraqi villages Tuesday and set a record for mass carnage in war-torn Iraq.

Residents and rescue workers in Tal al Azizziyah and Sheikh Khadar, two villages near the Syrian border in Nineveh province, spent Wednesday pulling the dead and wounded from the rubble of clay homes that had collapsed when the massive bombs exploded.

The confirmed death toll was at least 250 and climbing, officials said. Five hundred more were wounded, many critically. More than 100 one-story homes and shops were destroyed by the blasts.

In noting the bombing, hilzoy had an excellent post, noting that keeping up on individual bombings and disasters in Iraq is nearly impossible for a blog to do — in part because there are so many, and also because it’s taxing “to find words over and over for unspeakable things.” Indeed, hilzoy recalls doing posts about horrible incidents in which “twenty whole people were killed.” And now, Iraq is witnessing coordinating bombings killing up to 500 people at once.

It is against this backdrop that the administration is touting a drop in civilian casualties.

To its enormous credit, McClatchy applied some scrutiny to officials’ claims, and set the record straight.

Despite U.S. claims that violence is down in the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officers are offering a bleak picture of Iraq’s future, saying they’ve yet to see any signs of reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Muslims despite the drop in violence. […]

U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don’t support the claim.

The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same.

First, that’s quality journalism — and we don’t see it nearly enough.

Second, the next time you hear about the “progress” in Iraq, keep this information in mind.

Who wants to lay odds that the automatic assumption that al Qaeda was behind the bombing will prove to be incorrect? It’s hardly implausible — they do love to bomb things, after all — but the blame came so soon after the bombing that it could only be based on zero evidence.

We can also place bets on whether any news outlets will do a follow-up report when the actual culprits are identified (if ever) and found to not be al Qaeda.

I wouldn’t be surprised if four coordinated truck bombs with two tons of explosives turns out to be the work of relative amateurs. They lack the confidence to attack with a single bomb, so they plan four, and they don’t know how little they actually need. This, too, is based on zero evidence.

  • Progress in Iraq will be achieved when Mr. Bush begins to redeploy our troops out of their occupier status. Until then, blood will continue to flow at an ever alarming rate. -Kevo

  • This is the village where they stoned the 17 year old girl to DEATH.
    She wanted to date someone who practices a differnt form of Islam then they do.
    Actually on BBC they said these people ‘s religion pre dates Islam and they dont beleive in God.
    So Al Queada or insurgents targeted them .

  • it’s taxing “to find words over and over for unspeakable things.”

    America is somewhat numb to the news because it’s just the same story over and over again, and psychologically it seems like only one event to us. Every day on Yahoo news headlines there’s a line stating “(some number) killed in Iraq bombing” it’s just a permanent fixture on the page like the mail link or the weather link. It has become totally normal. What’s the difference between one bombing and another to me sitting in my American cubicle? It’s just a line on Yahoo headlines that I see every day before I check my email.

  • The U.S. is an occupying power in a country fighting a civil war.
    The U.S. presence is an occupation, and there’s a debate as to if our continuation of this occupation is helping or aggravating the situation.
    The U.S. (that is the Bush regime) is offering no diplomatic help, for instance involving Saudi Arabia, to quell the civil war. Actually, the Bush regime is eliminating any meaningful diplomacy by pushing for another war, this time with Iran.
    The U.S. cannot “win” a civil war of another country.
    This is depressing.

  • “…but the blame came so soon after the bombing that it could only be based on zero evidence.”-Grumpy #1

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but if memory serves, Osama Bin Laden was blamed for 9-11 on 9-11 before the sun even went down that day.

  • So…we’ve reached the point where whatever we are being told about the occupation – from death rates to numbers of car bombings – is not to be trusted, and should probably be viewed as little more than propaganda designed to make the average person believe that things are going in the right direction. All of this is in advance of the long-anticipated September report, which now appears will be written by an administration that has already shown that it views information, intelligence and hard facts as equivalent to items on a buffet menu, and they need only choose those bits that make whatever point they are currently trying to sell.

    While I would never suggest that we should ever accept without question everything the government tells us, it is still a sad day when it has reached the point where we cannot believe anything they tell us. We can’t trust the FDA to keep us safe from bad drugs and bad food, we can’t trust the EPA to keep us safe from pollutants in the air, in the water or in the ground, we can’t trust the mine-safety people to actually make sure the mines are safe, we can’t trust road and bridge infrastructure, can’t trust the toys and other goods we import, can’t trust the Department of Justice to be fair in its administration of justice, can’t trust that we won’t be disappeared to a black-site prison to be tortured and never seen again, we have no expectation of privacy in our phone calls and e-mails, and we cannot trust one word these people utter about what is going on in Iraq. Not one.

    Who do we trust? Are our choices soon to be between totalitarianism and anarchy? I’m sorry, but neither of those is my country, and I am angry and frustrated that it has been allowed to get to this point.

  • Five bucks says there’ll be at least one assessment from the Bushies that says violence against Iraqi civilians is down if this bombing is excluded from the statistics.

  • Five bucks says there’ll be at least one assessment from the Bushies that says violence against Iraqi civilians is down if this bombing is excluded from the statistics.

    No bet. That’s exactly what they did last year at this time.

  • U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent.

    Could this be a result of the Admin’s convenient redefinition of what constitiutes a casualty? I seem to recall a post here and reading elsewhere that they didn’t want to count people killed by car bombs, or only wanted to count people killed by car bombs. Sorry, I can’t remember more.

    Either way, what Anne says.

  • I seem to recall a post here and reading elsewhere that they didn’t want to count people killed by car bombs

    The article you’re looking for is here:

    http://www.afsc.org/iraq/news/2006/09/civil-war-body-count-911.htm

    September 2006

    BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S. officials, seeking a way to measure the results of a program aimed at decreasing violence in Baghdad, aren’t counting scores of dead killed in car bombings and mortar attacks as victims of the country’s sectarian violence.

    In a distinction previously undisclosed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said Friday that the United States is including in its tabulations of sectarian violence only deaths of individuals killed in drive-by shootings or by torture and execution.

    That has allowed U.S. officials to boast that the number of deaths from sectarian violence in Baghdad declined by more than 52 percent in August over July.

  • Haik #6

    True, but anyone who had any grasp of current events knew 9-11 was Al Queda before being “told.”

    It’s not the same thing.

  • Thanks Jinchi!

    I missed this before but I now note that they won’t be counted as victims of sectarian violence.

    Could it be bombing deaths (far more dramatic than a drive-by) will all be blamed on AQI so the Deciderator can continue to push the idea that we have to fight them over there so we’re not fighting them over here?

    This now ironic piece from USAToday seems to point that way:

    “The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.”

    So it makes more sense. If you decide beforehand that all large scale attacks are by one group you can continue to pursue that group and ignore what your so-called allies might be doing with the weapons you give them.

  • Haik #15,

    Really? Al Queda and Osama bin Laden never occurred to you on 9-11? I am being totally serious when I say that I make no mistake in thinking I am the brightest person in the room, but I and at least three different colleagues and a few friends all said “Al Queda” as we stood on Broadway and watched the second building get hit.

  • True, Adam.
    I received a briefing on all of the al queda actvities, as well as obl when I was a Marine during the Clinton administration. We were told in 1997 that our next war would be unconventional and against terrorists.
    We put Iraq into an unstable condition as proven by the mass killings of civilians, it is now our duty to ride it out and leave it better than we found it – which I know is not the way a lot of Americans think.

  • I am being totally serious when I say that I make no mistake in thinking I am the brightest person in the room

    That’s some pretty tortured language, (you must work at a law firm 😉 and I guess the truth of it would be determined by which room you’re standing in.

    I happen to believe the official story of 9-11 is total bullshit, that the so called “war on terror” is a hoax and that Osama Bin Laden is George W. Bush’s best friend next to booze and cocaine. I’m still allowed to believe and say these things, right? I mean it’s still a free country right?

    The dow is down about three hundred points right now. Have you seen any stock brokers jumping out of windows down there in the financial district today?

    Let’s not keep talking about this, Adam. We’re off the topic of the string.

  • We put Iraq into an unstable condition as proven by the mass killings of civilians, it is now our duty to ride it out and leave it better than we found it – which I know is not the way a lot of Americans think.

    What does “ride it out” mean in this context? Are you suggesting we “stay the course” and hope everyone involved in the violence gets tired and quits? Or do you think there is a strategy we could be employing that would help to make things “better than we found it”? What would you consider “better than we found it”?

    “Which I know is not the way a lot of Americans think.” — How do you define “a lot”? What’s the percentage of Americans that think(or don’t think) the way you posit? Have you considered the possibility that some of those Americans who don’t think we should “ride it out” think that the best way to improve the situation is to remove American troops?

    Do you or do you not agree with the current strategy that is in place? Do you think the current strategy is improving the situation, making it worse, or maintaining the status quo? Were a Democrat to get elected president, and announced a plan to draw down/withdraw troops, would you loudly declare Democrats to be traitors and quitters, or would you point out the main culprit being the flawed strategy that brought us to that point?

    Why do you think the people that created this mess are going to be any more competent at fixing it after all these years?

    What steps would you propose your normal American take to help make Iraq “better than we found it”? Do you believe taxes should be raised? Draft reinstatement? More cheerleading and trust in our leadership?

  • I think blogs on the left could do a MUCH better job explaining what these bombings are for and who exactly is behind them rather than just focusing on the domestic political side of things. I realize this is a political blog, but it’s critical that the left (not to mention the right, of course) look at the war from a variety of perspectives.

    • Comments are closed.