“The U.S. State Department confirmed the attack in a statement condemning it.” These impotent condemnations are an international embarrassment.
“Islamic State claims suicide bombing of Iraqi soccer stadium; 29 dead,” by Gregg Zoroya, USA Today, March 25, 2016:
A suicide bomber killed at least 29 people and wounded 60 others in an attack on a crowd gathered at a soccer stadium south of Baghdad on Friday, according to multiple media sources.
The U.S. State Department confirmed the attack in a statement condemning it.
The blast occurred during a trophy presentation in the village of Iskandariya about 25 miles south of the Iraqi capital, wire services reported.
Islamic State militants claimed responsibility for the attack, according to the Amaq news agency, which is affiliated with the group also known as ISIL or ISIS….

Angry Aussie says
I wonder if Amaq News Agency were feeling a little insecure that we may not realise who is responsible? Perhaps, if they hadn’t been clear, we may mistakenly have thought that the Yazidi or Coptic campaigns of terror against the world had gained momentum? What fools! RIP to all the dead. May the injured survive and come back stronger and united against this evil, preferably alongside the families of the freshly murdered.
خَليفة says
US can condemn ISIS activities until the cows come home, but until they take proactive actions the atrocities will continue.
Jay Boo says
Allah is keeping a kill score trying to decide which Muslims loves him more.
mortimer says
Exactly.
Whoever creates more dead bodies wins.
Jerry says
Yes, our government strongly condemns these attacks! Not so much that they are willing to identify the enemy or the ideology that inspires them, but with an angry scowl and a clenched fist. That’s how strong.
Ya know, our fearless leaders have no compunction about categorizing every concerned citizen as an islamophobe, racists who aren’t willing to overlook that religion’s bold face violence. Why is it that they can’t apply that same standard to islam and at least acknowledge the hate within? Why is it as one who is concerned about violence in the name of god must I bear the brunt of their moral weakness, while those who advocate the violence are portrayed as victims of race hate? I don’t think I’m distorting reality with this view. There’s been too much death for islam to be calling it a religion of peace. Those that do this align their selves with islam’s jihad agenda, regardless of whether it’s done out of moral weakness or deliberate collusion. If I must be a hateful bigot for my fair-minded objections to their faith’s violence, then I make a plead for a condemnation of that violence.
I want our next president to say this: This is America, we love freedom, equality, and justice. We are not perfect with these ideals, but they are worth striving for. We welcome all people, all faiths, all creeds and colors. But freedom comes with responsibility, a responsibility to live peaceably and lawfully in service to our country. Controversial and opposing views are welcome. But not those that advocate violence toward others. Such talk sows discord and hate, it leads to violence and bloodshed. No amount of divine sanction or popularity can ever justify that kind of rhetoric. As the leader of this free nation, the greatest nation on Earth, I condemn any threats of violence as beyond legal protection and not befitting our ideals, our laws, or our peaceful existence. It is my fervent hope that such ideas no longer play a part in our society, not for politics, religion, not any ideology. I soundly condemn threats of violence against our citizens as possessing no humanitarian value and unworthy of our forebearance. It is time to expose the voices of hate and send a clear message of our disapproval: We will not tolerate it any more.(said with much emphasis–lol)
(Then he/she gets a standing ovation from Congress and they pass new laws against islamic violence and sharia. That’s my starry dream, that’s my vision of hope.)
(I know it’s a bit silly, but it’s better than anything Trump has said, and he’s tops in the polls)
Mirren10 says
You make some good points, Jerry.
However, you seem to think that **violent** jihad is the only jihad we need to fear, repel, and withstand.
Violent jihad is great fun for pious mohammedans, and great fun for them to see us weeping and wailing, proffering soggy teddybears, flowers and candles in response to murder, but it is only the means to an end.
The end, of course, being ”to make all the world for allah”, to force us all to accept the sharia, and those Christians and Jews who refuse to convert, have the alternative of living as dhimmis, and bankrolling the mohammedans with jizya. Until of course, the ‘end times’, when the sick Islamic version of Christ, isa, returns to smash all the crosses and kill all the pigs; Jews and Christians.
The infiltration of mohammedans into every area of our polities; the armed forces, the police forces, the judiciary, even our governments. The use of lawfare, the jihad of the pen, the jihad of the tongue, the mass hijra of mohammedans into the West, intent on destroying the economic base of so many European welfare states.
The **collusion** of our ‘leaders’ in the above. Or, if not collusion, sheer cynical intent in refusing to deal with any of it until their terms of office are over. This is far more comprehensive than violent jihad attacks, horrific though these are, and ultimately, far more dangerous to us in the West, and our culture and civilisation.
Mirren10 says
I should add, that of course violent jihad is meant not only to terrorise, but to further facilitate the destruction of the West, by forcing governments to spend money on attempting to eradicate it.
This is, in my opinion, merely chopping at the twigs and branches, rather than destroying the **roots**.
Jerry says
However, you seem to think that **violent** jihad is the only jihad we need to fear, repel, and withstand.
No, I don’t think it’s the only thing we have to fear and repel, I think it’s the only thing we might be able to outlaw. We can’t outlaw religion in general in America, but the violent parts, maybe. I’m talking about their koranic/Hadith threats of violence against non-muslims, and their sharia too might be considered “foreign laws” and maybe that too can be outlawed in some measure. Attempts have been made already. I do believe it should be part of our strategy against these invaders. Not an easy task in the land of free speech. But I think after a new president and some more bloodshed our nation will come around. We already have laws that cover hate speech and terroristic threats, we need to tweak those laws so we can clamp down on “slay the infidel.” It’s a conspiracy to murder, I think the evidence is good enough to make the case.
And I gotta agree, yes, they are “infiltrating.” I’ve always said muslim immigration is far worse than terrorists, at least we can kill the terrorists. I should have added in my imaginary speech the need to stop muslim immigration, that’s as important as anything else. But I’m not a speech writer and I had islam’s violent teachings in mind when I wrote it. Feel free to add the part about immigration. lol. If it’s good we can send our effort to Trump when he gets into office. 😉
Thanks for taking an interest in my baby effort.
Mirren10 says
”No, I don’t think it’s the only thing we have to fear and repel, I think it’s the only thing we might be able to outlaw.”
Fair enough. I agree with you.
But I’m sitting here, watching the news, whilst I’m typing this, and I’m hearing the Belgian police have **released** their only live suspect, because, according to them, **they don’t have enough evidence to hold ** him**.
I’m listening to a BBC presenter, ( I try to avoid the BBC, it sends my blood pressure sky high) interviewing the disgusting representative of some Islamic outfit in Lahore. After perfunctorily deprecating the murder of *Christians* murdered, he spends the rest of the interview emphasising that **muslims** were killed, too. Shock, horror ! and going on about how muslims are the victims, sunni vs shia, blah, blah, blah etc, whilst the BBC presenter sits with a smarmy look of concern, nodding and bloody well **agreeing**.
The West seems to be on a determined road to suicide, or rather, our ‘leaders’ and media are, and determined to take the rest of us over the cliff with them.
salim says
Blood shed in Syria, Iraq and Pakistan and other countries, all because of the religion of peace.
I cant believe how the establishment in the West reacts to all these massacres. They are worried from what they call the “hooligans of the right”, not worried at all from the people who cause the bloodshed.
In the UK, the coward MSM doesn’t allow comments on subjects like these. Again, they feel our comments are more dangerous than the bloodshed
Angemon says
Soccer is anti-islamic – unless if it’s played with the severed heads of the kuffar, murtadd, mushrikun or mulhid.
salim says
(Off topic)
All what I am reading today makes my blood boil.
In the UK, a judge rules that a father cannot take his son to church because his ex wife was a muslim.
I don’t know why everybody in charge of anything in the UK happens to be idiot?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/27/father-banned-from-taking-his-son-to-church-because-ex-wife-is-muslim/
mortimer says
The England and Scotland have an established church. There should be no problem. The boy will decide eventually.
I cannot believe this dopey decision will hold up in an appeal.
mortimer says
The targeting of civilians is a clear statement that Islam believes in terrorism, since both Shi’ites and Sunnite Muslims target civilians, even at sports matches, one of the few venues of entertainment in places like Iraq.
Do any Muslims ever come to the conclusion that something is wrong with Islam to have these attacks every week? Or do they immediately decide that the Mossad or CIA cause every sectarian attack? Are any Muslim even capable of rational thought?
Are they so narcissistic about Islam? Do a lot of them privately realize Islam is madness?
Walter Sieruk says
Such delusional evil and madness of this and other like-minded jihadist suicide/homicide bombers and attacks have . For in the deluded way of thinking those murdering jihadists actually believe by engaging in those murderous actions they will obtain a paradise for themselves. What fools they be. For the have been deceived by the imams into believing in the falsehood of the Koran with its enticing “promise” of having a paradise the killing and are killed in the jihad for Islam[[The Koran 9:111.] For all have had or will have a very harsh reality check after they die in such murderous bombings..For instead of have in a paradise ,with or without,virgins, they will find themselves trapped and suffering in torment . For the Bible teaches that a murderer “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Galatians 5:21. The Bible in Revelations 21:8. also teaches this.