There’s been an ongoing discussion here between myself and reader “An_Arab” about how justified the insurgents are or or not in attacking U.S. troops, and how justified the U.S. is in fighting the insurgents.

But with the security agreement between the U.S. and the government of Iraq that would allow U.S. troops to continue operating in Iraq still pending- meaning that if it’s not signed by Dec 31st all U.S. activities in Iraq would have to cease until an agreement is reached, and an incoming President Obama who has pledged to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of taking office, there is still one thing on everyone’s mind- the security of Iraq.

Something that was reinforced today in Baghdad, not in an attack on U.S. forces, not with a placed roadside bomb, but in twin violent suicide bombings that killed at least 28, injured roughly 68, and destroyed store fronts, and a bus full of school girls.

A suicide bomber struck Monday in a crowd gathered at the site of an explosion that moments earlier had damaged a bus filled with schoolgirls, with both blasts killing at least 28 people and wounding 68 others, authorities said.

Also Monday, a female suicide bomber attacked a security checkpoint in downtown Baqouba, killing five people including a local leader of Sunni group opposed to al-Qaida, police said. Fifteen other people were wounded in that explosion, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

The twin blasts — the deadliest in Baghdad in months — occurred during the morning rush hour in the mostly Shiite Kasrah section of Azamiyah neighborhood in the northern part of the Iraqi capital. They shattered storefronts along a crowded street and set fire to more than a dozen cars.

Police said the first explosion damaged a minibus carrying young girls to school. The second happened when a suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt in the middle of a crowd that had gathered around the vehicle.

Associated Press Television News video showed the minibus pocked with shrapnel marks with the floor soaked in blood. Girls’ shoes were scattered about amid the wreckage.

Ahmed Riyadh, 54, owner of a nearby grocery, said called it a ”vicious attack” that ”did not differentiate between Shiites and Sunnis.”

”We are fed up with such attacks and we want only to live in peace,” he said. ”The politicians should work hard and set aside their differences to stop the bloodshed.”

Nothing I can say in debate can illustrate nearly as well as this that the insurgents are not “justified” in their violence.  There are no political aims gained from events such as this.  This is violence for the sake of violence.  The average person on the street in Iraq doesn’t want violence no matter who is initiating it, they want what every person wants, peace and prosperity.

While I don’t agree with every move the U.S. military has made in Iraq, I could never sympathize with anyone who would kill so indiscriminately.  So there it is dear readers… better than any argument I could ever make, illustrated in real life.

I wouldn’t call myself a Libertarian (mainly because socialized health care doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to me), but when we start hearing about certain powers being granted to Federal agencies that directly opposes an individuals personal rights…. I get a little worried:

The Justice Department is finalizing rules that would allow FBI agents to solicit informants and use other new techniques to bolster the agency’s intelligence-gathering operation in the United States, officials said Friday.

The changes would expand rules the department enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks that permitted the FBI to conduct “assessments” of threats of terrorism and espionage even in instances where little or no proof existed of criminal activity.

Such assessments are separate from formal investigations, which can involve more invasive investigative methods but which require harder evidence.

Justice officials said the FBI had been hamstrung in carrying out the earlier mandate because the agency had been limited to “overt” intelligence-gathering techniques, such as permitting agents to conduct interviews only when they identified themselves.

But the proposed revisions have raised concerns among civil liberties groups that the FBI would have too much latitude to collect information on U.S. residents and would be allowed to track people based on their race or ethnicity.

But the most concerning change is this:

In assessing possible terrorist threats, agents now are limited to conducting interviews and gathering data through public sources, such as the Internet. The changes would allow them to conduct physical surveillance in a public location, recruit and deploy informants, and conduct interviews without identifying themselves.

Here’s an example:

The official cited a hypothetical example in which the FBI receives a tip about illegal activity in a bar.

If a tipster claims that a patron is dealing drugs, the guidelines for criminal investigations allow agents to conduct more intrusive preliminary interviews and take other action.

If the tipster claims the patron is raising money for a suspected terrorist group, an obvious national security concern, the alternative guidelines limit investigators to the more public methods, absent more evidence.

In the second example, the FBI could conduct interviews (uhh.. interrogations?) without identifying themselves.

See also, the Bush Doctrine.

[video]

Ms. Missive:  This is my favorite part:

Interviewer: “Are homosexuals on your agenda?”

Yahya Saade: “My agenda is about the freedom of any human being. My agenda is about personal liberties. We should respect and accept one another, despite all our differences.

[...]

Interviewer: “Are you for or against the 9/11 attacks on America?”

Saade: “What would you like me to say – for or against?”

Interviewer: “Tell me, are you for or against? Tell me the truth, without embellishing it – what you say when you are with your friends.”

Saade: “I am for them [the attacks on 9/11].”

Interviewer: “Why?”

Saade: “Because in my view, they constituted a very loud cry, which raised a very important question within American and European society

Ms. Missive:  Let the contradictions roll on.

Source: MEMRI TV

An Israeli court ruled in favor of the Palestinian Authority paying retribution for the death of an American couple.  The couple were shot in 1996 by Hamas gunmen in Israel inside of their car.

Of course, the Palestinian Authority is arguing the ruling and provides the following reason to the court:

The Palestinian Authority’s pleading in the case was not made public, but an attorney for the plaintiffs summarized it for CNN. The attorney said the Palestinian Authority asked the court to throw out the case because an unfavorable judgment would make the organization liable for such large sums from this and other cases that it would go bankrupt.

Sooooo….  the PA is arguing that they shouldn’t have to pay retribution to this family because THEN they’d have to pay for ALL the families who’ve been subjected to their terrorist attacks.  That’s an air-tight argument if I ever heard one.

From the International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) ( or, Islam Makes Everyone Magically Confusional.  Yes, confusional is a word):

Israeli troops kidnap young boy

The Israeli army entered Hebron on Tuesday morning and kidnapped a local fourteen year old boy.

According to local reports, Israeli troops surrounded the city, erecting several checkpoints at village entrances close to Hebron, on main roads and near the Israeli settlements. The Israeli army also imposed curfew on the area.

Eye witnesses reported that the troops kidnapped fourteen year old Muhammad Ewewi and took him to an unknown destination.

First of all, a 14 year old teenager is perfectly capable of committing a criminal act. You call that fella a child? I think not. Teenagers are especially susceptible to molding and I wouldn’t disregard being shaped into a terrorist pawns as documented here and here.

Second, he was kidnapped??  uh…  last time I checked, a kidnapping usually involves the use of hostages, extracting ransom, or fraud.   Are we having trouble with translation again?  I know English can be a complicated language so let me help you out with this one.  Replace kidnapped with arrested.  There.  You see?  That wasn’t so hard, was it?

UPDATE: And another example of a “young boy” reported by ynet today.