Source: Yahoo News:.... A suicide truck bomber struck a market in a predominantly Shiite area of Baghdad on Saturday, killing at least 121 people and wounding scores among the crowd buying food for evening meals, the most devastating strike in the capital in more than two months.
2007-02-03 04:39:00 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Saddam was busy killing as many people as he could himself.... he ruled with absolute fear.... even the cowardly terrorist insurgents cowered.... but that does not mean that it was better under Saddam....
Maybe you should go live under a dictator to see what it is like first hand... might I suggest Cuba or North Korea???
2007-02-04 05:24:03 · answer #1 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe it did- except there were no western reporters who would write about it (like the CNN who had a special agreement with Saddam to censor what they were reporting)
Another reason might be that all the murderers were in the Saddam's secret police- they did not need to use bombs. Torture chambers were quite enough.
Still another reason might be that anyone engaged in anti-Saddam actions was fully aware that Saddam would kill every single relative of the suicide bomber. And it would not matter if they were old, neonates, aware of the attack or completely innocent. Engaging in anti-Saddam action meant total anihilation of the whole family- probably even the whole district or town.
If you need proof of the last statement please look up the poison gas attacks on the Kurdish villages. Or the case for which Saddam was hanged- some 150 people were murdered in a town because of a failed attempt on his life. And that was when they failed to even scratch his skin!
2007-02-03 05:01:10 · answer #2 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sectarian violence wasn't really possible under the dictatorship, so while he ruled with an iron fist, there was greater stability and prosperity during Saddam's regime, and at the same time he eliminated those who might have disagreed with his rule. Dissent wasn't tolerated, unlike the ineffectual government that America has put into place in Iraq currently. The problem is that without our troops, it's improbable that peace and harmony will ever return to Iraq.
2007-02-03 04:49:03 · answer #3 · answered by Sailinlove 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because the shia and the kurds were oppresed under saddam hussein and when the americans invaded the shia magority took control of the country but the sunnis see the shia as collabarators with the occupiers and so they attack them and american troops.
2007-02-03 07:17:58 · answer #4 · answered by englishfellabloke 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was already a mobster state where killings happened all the time, not just spectacular suicide bombings. So death was everywhere and there wasn't need for insurgent input.
2007-02-03 04:45:12 · answer #5 · answered by Caysie101 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's really sad, Saddam was responsible for 2,000,000 Iraqi deaths over a 25 year time period while The Bush administration is directly and indirectly responsible for 750,000 Iraqi deaths in less than 4 years.
It appears that they were better off with Saddam in charge.
2007-02-03 04:52:06 · answer #6 · answered by Mario Savio 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
For the same reason things like that didn't happen under Hitler, or Stalin, or Casro, or Ho Chi Min, or Mao Tse Tung.
Next silly question.
2007-02-03 07:16:33 · answer #7 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because the terrorist are scared that someones actually doing something about there evil so now there coming from all over to try to stop us
2007-02-03 08:41:19 · answer #8 · answered by benriedell2002 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because he killed all his enemies who had capabilities to do this. Freedom has it's price. Maybe we should do a Saddam and wipe everyone out who looks suspicious. That what you want?
2007-02-03 04:43:21 · answer #9 · answered by JohnFromNC 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because freedom was unheard of when he was in power. Everyone walked on eggshells around him!
2007-02-03 21:03:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋