"I do know that we, including you and I, are indirectly responsible for the deaths of the poor Shi'ite workers in the story, the responsibility that you refuse to acknowledge."
I tend to think that the people who did it, did it. Yours and my respective governments did something else - overthrowing Saddam's regime. That did cause instability. Me, and I know not for want of trying, you, failed to convince people to throw our warmongering governments out. But that chain of reasoning still doesn't make me responsible for the bombing.
As for Doug's question, what's the point of the action ... I guess you would have to ask the perpetrators. They are clearly involved in a struggle that does not fit the model of liberation struggle, or maybe not liberation struggle alone, but one that also involves some different rivalries.
I have an uncomfortable thought. Invading Iraq was wrong. But invading Iraq and then freaking out over it is the worst of all worlds.
I do not think it is good news that the variety of paramilitary actors operating in Iraq are so emboldened. They do not seem to be a democratic movement to establish a free Iraq to me. They seem to be various shades of anti-democratic terrorism, dedicated to short-circuiting the difficult business of winning over the mass of people to their side with violent actions.
I blame the Coalition for their ascendance, but I still think they are a net loss for humanity, not a gain.