Egyptian blasts kill at least 45, wound 200

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Yup, we're definitely winning this war on terra:

CAIRO, Egypt - As many as seven explosions, including at least four car bombs, struck Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik early Saturday, hitting several hotels packed with European and Egyptian tourists and killing at least 45 people in the deadliest attack in Egypt in nearly a decade, witnesses and police said.

Official: At least four car bombs
At least four car bombs were used in the attack, said a security official in the operations control room in Cairo monitoring the crisis. One went off in the driveway of the Ghazala Garden hotel, a 176-room four-star resort on the main strip of hotels in Naama Bay, the governor of South Sinai province, Mustafa Afifi, said.

Another exploded in the Old Market, an area a few kilometers away, killing 17 people — believed to be Egyptians — sitting at a nearby outdoor coffee shop, the control room official said. Three minibuses were set ablaze, though it was not clear if they were carrying passengers, the official said.

Another blast went off near the Meridien Hotel, said a receptionist there who declined to identify himself.

Security officials put the toll at 45 killed and around 200 wounded. The Interior Ministry put out a statement putting the toll at 31 people and 107 wounded.

The dead in the Sharm blasts included British, Russian, Dutch, Kuwaitis, Saudis, Qataris and Egyptians, a security official said.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8671549/

"Either we take the war to the terrorists and fight them where they are – at this moment in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere – or at some point we will have to fight them here at home." - Donald Rumsfeld, August 2003

"America is more secure. The world is safer." - George W. Bush, January 2004

"The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week." - The Washington Post, April 2005

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - Dick Cheney, May 2005

"...the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda." - classified CIA report, June 2005

"This shows that president Bush is doing exactly the right thing, or they wouldn't be making these kinds of attacks." - CSPAN caller, July 2005

"There were nearly 3,200 terrorist attacks worldwide last year, the Bush Administration said yesterday, using a broader definition that increased fivefold the number of incidents that Washington had previously tallied for 2004." - The London Times, July 2005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/205.html
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Yup, we're definitely winning this war on terra:[/QUOTE]

What do you expect? That bitch has the powers of the Espers!
 
This is the same thread the OP would have made had the British authorities not shot the train suspect.

See no matter what organized services do its bitch bitch bitch.
 
The Egyptians have had problems on their own with extremeists for years. Anwar Sadat was murdered for making peace with Israel. Gunmen killed dozens at Luxor a few years ago, there were the hotel bombings near the Israeli border last year and now this.

We're not involved in Egyptian counter terrorism or internal security. I fail to see how any of this can be placed on Blair, Bush or the U.S. war on terror. If we're not invited into a country like Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to help deal with the issues how can you logically blame us?

It's more proof that Islamofascists don't care who they kill. There's no doubt more Egyptians died in these attacks than westerners. They're also having security issues over upcoming elections where militant extremeists want a more Islamic (SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE!, End Gomer Pyle statement.) government.

I know you so desperately want to blame Bush. I know it pains you that we had no responsibility or culpability here but wish to God we had. I know you wish you could place blood at the feet of the West.

Why do tards like you quote Democraticunderground.com and think you have credibility? Maybe I should start posting from freerepublic.com, hannity.com, rushlimbaugh.com, michaelsavage.com or Glenn Beck. Get objective, do your own homework and leave the nut jobs masturbating to their own world of make believe.
 
[quote name='vienge']This is the same thread the OP would have made had the British authorities not shot the train suspect.

See no matter what organized services do its bitch bitch bitch.[/QUOTE]


I've come to the conclusion you're an idiot. Nowhere, in any article, did anyone ever claim that the guy had a bomb on him when they shot him. The guy was not armed, there was nothing to go off. You just spout stuff you didn't even read (like bbc articles that mention clinton and china but have nothing to do with what you're saying).

Reading comprehension is an important skill, learn it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Reading comprehension is an important skill, learn it.[/QUOTE]

Practice what you preach.

It is sad I have to repost this.


They were watching him to see where he went and who he met because he was linked to the people who blew themselves up on public transport. It seems that he left the house wearing concealing clothes unsuited to the weather. He approached a train station and they went to stop him. He fled.

He ignored their warnings and went hell for leather to get to a train despite the risk of being shot by the (reported) twenty or so armed men around him. Now, he could have been trying to escape or he could have been trying to make it to a concentration of targets. Either way, the moment that he got near the train the authorities were out of choices and he was a dead man.

From first hand witness reports the police shoved/jumped on him as he tripped on the platform/carriage door, then shot him. Given that they couldn't really fire wildly in a train station towards an occupied carriage, and given that if he detonated he'd kill them and everyone in the carriage, then I think it was reasonable.
 
[quote name='vienge']Practice what you preach.

It is sad I have to repost this.


They were watching him to see where he went and who he met because he was linked to the people who blew themselves up on public transport. It seems that he left the house wearing concealing clothes unsuited to the weather. He approached a train station and they went to stop him. He fled.

He ignored their warnings and went hell for leather to get to a train despite the risk of being shot by the (reported) twenty or so armed men around him. Now, he could have been trying to escape or he could have been trying to make it to a concentration of targets. Either way, the moment that he got near the train the authorities were out of choices and he was a dead man.

From first hand witness reports the police shoved/jumped on him as he tripped on the platform/carriage door, then shot him. Given that they couldn't really fire wildly in a train station towards an occupied carriage, and given that if he detonated he'd kill them and everyone in the carriage, then I think it was reasonable.[/QUOTE]

Totally irrelevent, since you stated that if the police hadn't shot him he would have blown himself up.

This is the same thread the OP would have made had the British authorities not shot the train suspect.
 
How does that make it irrelevant?

See the point, since you don't seem to realize it, is that no matter what the police had done you and your friends would find some fault with their actions. This is why peacekeeping is one of the most thankless jobs there is.
 
[quote name='vienge']How does that make it irrelevant?

See the point, since you don't seem to realize it, is that no matter what the police had done you and your friends would find some fault with their actions. This is why peacekeeping is one of the most thankless jobs there is.[/QUOTE]

What I see is someone who half reads (if even) things and then comments on them.

And what does this have to do with peacekeeping? That was totally out of nowhere. Since I don't understand why this was thrown in, I'm just gonna go off and say some things about it. Though if this is somehow referring to the u.s., america is very poor at peacekeeping. They pay about a quarter of the peacekeeping money, but have extremely few peacekeepers. Canada is the worlds premier and most experienced peacekeeping country (really the only part of their military that's not a joke in canada), and has supplied more peacekeepers than any other country

Over 125,000 Canadian personnel have served in peacekeeping operations for the United Nations; this is more than any other country...........

In total, more than 750,000 military troops and police – more than 125,000 of whom are Canadian – and thousands of civilians from around the world have served as peacekeepers.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/military/peace_keeping/canada.html

Though their numbers are temporarily down lately

The countries that have historically formed the core of UN peacekeeping operations are Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, India, Italy, and Australia. In recent deployments, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa have contributed large numbers of troops........



As of June 30, 2001, there were 797 US personnel (1 troop, 756 civilian police, and 40 observers) in worldwide UN peace operations, accounting for 1.8% of total UN peacekeepers

http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/UN_peacekeeping

The United Nations is expected to assume responsibility for peacekeeping in Liberia on October 1, incorporating the approximately 3,500 West Africa troops of ECOMIL into a new UNMIL operation. News reports indicate that the US offshore force of about 2,500 is expected to depart within a few weeks. The 150 US marines stationed on the ground to support the West African force withdrew at the end of August. West African reinforcements arriving the following week included 250 troops from Mali, 250 troops from Senegal, and 150 troops from Gambia, which has a population of 1.5 million, compared to the US population of 290 million. Washington, however, seems unwilling to make a commitment even to match the Gambian troop commitment to UNMIL. Worldwide, the US ranks 23rd in contributions of troops and civilian police to UN peacekeeping operations, with 453 of the total 36,948 deployed as of the end of August 2003. Those countries ranking ahead of the US in total troop and police contributions include Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Ghana, each with over 2,000 troops and police committed. Among African countries, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, Morocco, and Senegal also each contribute more troops to UN missions than does the US.

http://www.africaaction.org/docs03/lib0309.htm
 
[quote name='Rich']Eat Babies[/QUOTE]

Tomorrows breakfast:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=+2]Frosted-Baby-O's:[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Eat Frosted-Baby-O's for breakfast with some warm milk and a glass of baby urine.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Recipe:
20 shrivled up baby fingers
2 cups of milk
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Directions:
Chop up the baby fingers into a eatible size, then pour them into a bowl with some warm milk(or baby urine/blood). To get the urine, just squeeze and shake the dead baby as hard as you can.[/font]
 
And for dinner:

Baby Baby Back Ribs:

2 racks Baby back ribs; 1 1/2 to 2 pounds each (will require at least four full babies to serve four regular sized people)
1/4 cup sugar
2 teaspoons dry mustard
1 1/2 teaspoons dried basil
1 1/2 teaspoons onion powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon Tabasco sauce

Preheat oven or grill:
Meanwhile, combine sugar, mustard, basil, onion powder and salt in small bowl; stir in Tabasco sauce until smooth. Rub ribs all over with mixture.
Grill ribs 4 to 6 inches from heat for 15 to 20 minutes, turning once, until sizzling, well browned and cooked through.
Cut ribs apart taking care not to break the actual ribs. Unlike Pork, Beef, or G_D forbid chicken ribs, Baby Baby Back Ribs are more fragile.
Oven method: Preheat oven to 450 degrees F. Place ribs, curved-side down on rack in large baking pan. Cook 30 minutes; turn curved-side up and bake 10 more minutes. (When baby drippings in pan begin to smoke, add water to cover pan bottom.) Turn ribs over again and cook until sizzling and well browned.
Serve with mashed potatoes, and ice cold beer.




I had baby back ribs for dinner.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What I see is someone who half reads (if even) things and then comments on them.

And what does this have to do with peacekeeping? That was totally out of nowhere. Since I don't understand why this was thrown in, I'm just gonna go off and say some things about it. Though if this is somehow referring to the u.s., america is very poor at peacekeeping. They pay about a quarter of the peacekeeping money, but have extremely few peacekeepers. Canada is the worlds premier and most experienced peacekeeping country (really the only part of their military that's not a joke in canada), and has supplied more peacekeepers than any other country

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/military/peace_keeping/canada.html

Though their numbers are temporarily down lately



http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/UN_peacekeeping



http://www.africaaction.org/docs03/lib0309.htm[/QUOTE]

Peacekeeping != a bunch of humanitarians running around in a marsh playing Jesus.

Peacekeeping = law enforcement.
 
[quote name='vienge']Peacekeeping != a bunch of humanitarians running around in a marsh playing Jesus.

Peacekeeping = law enforcement.[/QUOTE]

Um.... the term peacekeeping and peacekeepers refers to what I described. You may hear about a cop "keeping the peace", but the term peacekeepers refers to what is mentioned above. I have no idea what the jesus thing is about.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Um.... the term peacekeeping and peacekeepers refers to what I described. You may hear about a cop "keeping the peace", but the term peacekeepers refers to what is mentioned above. I have no idea what the jesus thing is about.[/QUOTE]

Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.
The noun peacekeeper has 3 meanings:

Meaning #1: a member of a military force that is assigned (often with international sanction) to preserve peace in a trouble area


Meaning #2: someone who keeps peace


Meaning #3: the pistol of a law officer in the old West


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
[quote name='vienge']Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.
The noun peacekeeper has 3 meanings:

Meaning #1: a member of a military force that is assigned (often with international sanction) to preserve peace in a trouble area


Meaning #2: someone who keeps peace


Meaning #3: the pistol of a law officer in the old West


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

Yes, but use the term peacekeeping in any conversation, #1 (with the (often with international sanction) bit) is what it will be understood as.
 
Hey, vienge - peacekeepers wouldn't be needed at all if we just started drilling in alaska.

(Sorry, just trying to imitate a vienge argument.)
 
bread's done
Back
Top