Talk:18 April 2007 Baghdad bombings

Untitled

It would be good to have a blank map of Baghdad and then to draw attacks locations in photoshop and that would fit in the infobox of every bombing. It's just shocking to see that several attacks like these have occurred since 2003. Think about if that was happening in a western country what the conseguences for the society would be... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OMG you read my mind. I will try to work on this later. Here's some ideas...-Indolences 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to get a citation on the number of wounded, especially because some of the cited sources disagree with the stated number. Yahoo says that that there were only about 148 wounded, which is a significantly lower number than the 243 stated on the article. Quanticle 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The wounded figure of 138-140 might be for the market bombing alone, while the entire series of attacks have wounded about 240 as has been indicated in this CNN article [1] KBi 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

this is just senseless... why are they doing this?? i dislike americans too, but i don't blow my own people's guts out... how is this ever gonna end... - disturbed and frustrated, Alveolate 04:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they are doing this to 1. prove the surge is ineffective in deterring violence and 2. to help start civil war between different sects within Iraq, further reinforcing point 1. Who ever did or planned this seemingly does not value the lives of the hundreds of people they kill and maim in order to achieve these objectives. This definitely blurs the line between an insurgent act and terrorism.

I'd like to add that this act of violence may either make the surge look like its failing (security still lax/bombings still happen), or make it look as if its working (attacks launched in desperation due to choking off insurgents). Depends who you ask.

<that is unsigned. no matter who did the several bombings this time, you may assume the people behind it, tend to think that the nrs of victims are acceptable. That is some more or less subjective measure of proportional, it's not very helpfull, but it puts things a clearer context generally.(an extreme example: sectarian strive would suit westerners because the casualtys would not be so much on their side, a some sense of proportionality in a way).80.57.243.16 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a responsibility video from the islamists for this kind of attacks, who says they are the perps?? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I have just updated the B class checklist for Mil Hist project. I believe that this article fails the referencing and coverage criteria for B class. Some suggestions for improvement:

• Referencing & citations: each paragraph of block of information (e.g. list) needs to have an in line citation for B class, there are still some that do not have this;
• Coverage: there is limited content, this could probably be expanded by adding something about the aftermath, or responses to the attacks; and
• Supporting materials: are there any images available?

Just a couple of ideas. Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)