+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/17/2018 10:20 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.922 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/04/2005 10:58 AM ID: 45400 Permalink   

Governor of Baghdad Assassinated


The governor of Baghdad, Ali al-Haidri, was assassinated by gunmen today and ten others were killed by a suicide bomber in the Iraqi capital. Insurgents are working towards ruining the Iraq general elections at the end of this month.

The killing of al-Haidri is Iraq’s highest-profile assassination in the last eight months and it is suspected insurgents wanted to show they can gain access to high-level officials. The suicide bomb beforehand happened just inside the green zone.

58 people were also wounded in the attack.

    WebReporter: NuttyPrat Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
elections will be an exercise in futility. What a joke.
  by: lurker     01/04/2005 03:03 PM     
  This just goes to show you...  
That terrorists are frightened by democracy and will go to any length to stop it. This act was in response to them fighting for their freedom in Iraq? Bah.
  by: Urmac     01/04/2005 03:09 PM     
Look how long these resistance fighters can just keep on going knowing that 50% of the USA and most other countries is cheering them on.

Admit it, lurker. You didn't even stop to consider the sacrifice this man made trying to help his country become free -you saw an opportunity for a politically-based attacks aided by these terrorist actions and you made it.

For shame.
  by: Yare     01/04/2005 07:16 PM     
If the elections fail, it won't be for want of the Iraqi people or the alliance/UN's trying.

It's funny - you put the blame for the attacks on Bush, when clearly its the terrorist factions that don't want an election.
  by: lauriesman     01/04/2005 08:55 PM     
  I'm curious  
as to why they think elections will be successfully held so soon after the 'war' was declared at end. While I do think the elections will take place, there is doubt within me. My line of reasoning is it took three years for Afghanistan to have 'successful' elections. How is Iraq, a much more dire situation in terms of opposition, going to have their elections in an even less amount of time?
  by: Gnaglor     01/04/2005 09:17 PM     
We want out....
  by: bag     01/04/2005 09:28 PM     
  Many 'resistance fighters'  
are poor men who receive some money from their leaders to fight the current authority. These guys are poor and only have their families finances in mind when they strap that rocket-launcher on..... unfortunatly. As the chain of command is whittled down the 'resistance' will falter because the money flow will cease to filter through to the fighters.

This is pretty common all over the middle-east and asia....
  by: theironboard     01/04/2005 09:43 PM     
  The shame is...  
that the US invaded a sovereign nation for no reason other than to try and cram democracy down the throats of people that don't understand it and don't want it, at the end of a gun. Also, the big bonus for the neo-cons would be the oil and the fat government paychecks to Halliburton and the others. Our soldiers have died and are dying for nothing but a right wing folly.
Don't shame me, shame the idiots you elected in Washinton.
  by: lurker     01/04/2005 11:15 PM     
Quit blaming others, you guys sound like politicians or better yet, DEMOCRATS! Who cares what happened, its over! We're talking about today! All you can do is blame others, ya so what, now you worry about the future!!! GET OVER IT YOU inconcievable, irrational thinking animals! What if, doesn't count anymore, its what you make use of now!
  by: luc2010   01/05/2005 12:04 AM     
I think you should clarify what you are saying-- there seems to be no real objective statement.

How 'now' do you want it to be? It's the internet- this event happened today. People are discussing it 'now'.

what do you want?
  by: theironboard     01/05/2005 12:21 AM     
Terrorists? what terrorists, oh them terrorists, oh you must mean the ones dressed in coalition uniforms. Damn, how could i have been so uninformed. A simple truth to this in any country and its history particularly those invaded by a foreign army is that spies and traitors will be shot. Any one collaborating whatever the reasons is a traitor, this governor is no patriot but a traitor.

they can keep going for years to come, how long can the US hold out with it on the verge of bankruptcy??

hmm, in case you weren't paying attention, they don't need and more supplies or money, they got enough weapons to fight with for a decade. And there is always the invader's weapons that they can sieze in raids on convoys which is a daily routine. Also the fighters outnumber all coalition troops and are more mobile than the sitting ducks known as the coalition.
  by: DuncanHole   01/05/2005 03:22 AM     
  true, Duncanhole, but....  
It's also true that gaining money for their family is (among their religious convictions) a major reason for people to become suicide attackers. This is true, true, true. (I do pay attention to the facts).

And, yes, there are also large caches of hidden weapons across the country (many weapons provided courtesy USA), huge sums of money that disappeared with Saddam's regime, and a large number of very angry residents. There are also a small number of 'leaders'.

Nobody knows the actual number of resistance-fighters there, but I would bet that it's less than you'd expect. Anyone heard any 'facts' about this figure?
  by: theironboard     01/05/2005 12:14 PM     
  here it is  
Iraqi insurgents now outnumber coalition forces
  by: DuncanHole   01/05/2005 02:56 PM     
add ml to the end of the address after copy/paste url.
  by: DuncanHole   01/05/2005 02:58 PM     
what would you do if china came to USA and took over and tried to have a election on their terms in the USA?? Would you just quietly accept it and go vote? Dint think so
  by: da_fogotten_one   01/05/2005 05:30 PM     
  It will take time  
to fully brainwash these uncivilized nations in the middle east. We are doing it and with more time become much more effective. We must spread democracy so that we become more and more superior as a nation. These insurgents will be active for some time but when it all is said and done we will have an ally in Iraq to help us stabalize the whole middle eastern region. Hopefully we will soon start to spread democracy to Syria and Iran. I know these people love to supress their women and are threatened by outside influence but that soon will go away.
  by: TOBYKIETH     01/05/2005 08:30 PM     
"nd there is always the invader's weapons that they can sieze in raids on convoys which is a daily routine. Also the fighters outnumber all coalition troops and are more mobile than the sitting ducks known as the coalition."

Daily routine? Hardly. Insurgent attacks are happening less each day. They are far from more mobile than us. The only reason we might be considered "sitting ducks" is because we're more restrained by morals and human decency.
  by: erasedgod   01/05/2005 08:54 PM     
  calling us sitting  
I bet you never heard a duck QUACK like we HA HA
  by: TOBYKIETH     01/05/2005 09:00 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: