Sadr urged to do more to stem bloodshed
BAGHDAD —
A U.S. general urged Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Wednesday to do more to halt attacks by his loyalists on the security forces, as Baghdad was rocked by fresh fighting that killed 21 people.
“We hope that Moqtada al-Sadr will influence his elements to stop violence and that he will work in favor of peace,” Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin, the number two commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told a news conference in Baghdad.
His comments came as the U.S. military said it had killed 21 people in clashes overnight in Shiite areas of east Baghdad, pushing the death toll in fighting there between militiamen and U.S. and Iraqi forces since late March to at least 366.
Sadr has warned of “open war” if assaults against his Mahdi Army militia, who were ordered by the cleric last August to observe a ceasefire, are not halted.
Austin blamed much of the violence on “Special Groups”—fighters the U.S. military says are renegade Mahdi Army elements trained by Iranians in the use of sophisticated weaponry.
“Special Groups criminals are continuing to hurt people with violent actions. They must be brought to justice. The people of Sadr City are tired of them,” he said.
U.S. Col Allen Batschelet told a separate media briefing that Special Groups members were blending in with mainstream Mahdi Army members.
“These two groups are so amorphous. They cross back and forth between one and another. It is difficult to say who is who,” he said.
“We see evidence of a guy who might be working very hard inside JAM (Jaish al-Mahdi—the Mahdi Army) to present himself as mainstream kind of a compliant person, yet we have other indicators that show him… kind of working you know… got a night job to do a Special Group criminal kind of stuff.”
Batschelet said militiamen had fired almost 700 rockets and mortar rounds from various locations in Baghdad in the past month. Of these, 114 hit the highly fortified Green Zone where the Iraqi government and U.S. embassy are based.
The latest fighting began when Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered a crackdown on Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra on March 25.
Clashes quickly spread to other Shiite areas of Iraq, and the fighting since April 6 has focused mainly in Sadr City, a Mahdi Army bastion.
Fighting, meanwhile, erupted in Husseiniyah, on the northeastern outskirts of the capital, where six militiamen were killed late on Tuesday, Lt-Col Steven Stover said.
They were killed when U.S. troops returned fire after coming under attack with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire when their Bradley tank became stuck in the mud, he said.
An Iraqi security official said seven people were killed in Husseiniyah, among them two women.
The U.S. military said 15 other people were killed in battles in eastern Baghdad, which is dominated by Sadr City.
American forces used ground troops and air strikes during the clashes which began late afternoon Tuesday, the military said.
A U.S. soldier also died of wounds sustained in a firefight on Wednesday in east Baghdad, the military added.
Meanwhile, a 10-strong parliamentary delegation comprising Sunni and Shiite lawmakers toured Sadr City on Wednesday and demanded that Iraqi forces ease their “siege” of the district.
“We demand that the siege of Sadr City be lifted,” said Harith al-Obeidi, an MP of the National Concord Front Sunni bloc. “The people of this poverty stricken district have already suffered enough. We don’t want them to be besieged by Iraqi soldiers.”
The delegation visited wounded people in the hospitals and houses damaged and destroyed in the fighting.
AFP









Order by Time Order by Popularity
25 Comments
Login to comment
0
redacted
Even the BBC is reporting that the Iraqi Army appears to have won Basra.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/7362509.stm
"In Basra, the Iraqi commander, General Mohan Furaiji, told the BBC his forces had nearly gained complete control of the city.
""Iraqi troops celebrate after gaining control of a district of Basra - 19/4/2008
He denied reports that he had given the leaders of Shia militias in the city 24 hours to give themselves up.
The US has sent 800 troops to Basra to help the Iraqi army, and UK and US special forces are launching raids to detain key figures in the militias.
The Iraqi campaign in Basra got off to a shaky start, but appears to be gaining ground with increased support from coalition forces, says the BBC's Patrick Howse in Baghdad.
The most influential of the militias in Basra is the Mehdi Army. There are also the Badr Brigades - linked to the political party, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq.
There are signs that the militias' hold on the city is weakening, says our correspondent.
There are reports of women dressing less conservatively, couples walking arm-in-arm and live music being played at weddings - all things that would have been impossible a few weeks ago, adds our correspondent."
0
adaydream
Bring the troops home and force the Iraqi Army to handle this. Force the peoples of Iraq to stand up and take control of what was started out of greed and revenge.
Where are those self exiled Iraqis who said that Iraq was ready to stand up on their own? Somebody start the singing and flower throwing. Rah!! Rah!! Rah!! for Iraq.
This country was duped into Iraq, but we don't have to stay there till the Iraqis get ready to handle things on their own.
Bring the troops home!!!!!!!!!!
0
skipthesong
adaydream: I want to agree with you but talking to a friend at work the other day who happens to be from close to Iraq, made a good point about this. 1. The US and many other countries stayed in Japan and Germany after that war and look how they turned out. 2. If the US were to leave, how much does she support Iraq in terms of money, assistance, etc...
0
Madverts
redacted,
That's strange, I read on the beeb;
The intervention of Western special forces in Basra shows the level of concern the Americans and British have about the capabilities of the Iraqi forces, says the BBC's Crispin Thorold in Baghdad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7360875.stm
The Iraqi army is aactually in a shambles. And as is usual in third world spots such as these, the fundie roots will be far more important than the uniform they're sporting, so we can't expect much loyalty.
But then again, there are those so desperate for any sign of progress from this fiasco, they'll believe anything positive they read.
0
redacted
Yeah madverts,
Things just go from bad to worse for those "Western forces" involved in the counterinsurgency -
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has recommended the top military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, be appointed head of US Central Command.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7363465.stm
0
Madverts
No, redacted, you were raving earlier that the Iraqi forces had triumphed in Basara, which is false. Meanwhile, int the old hated, the occupiers are actually so worried that they are doing the job themselves becuase they can't count on either the army, or the "government" they installed. Something like half the army either didn't fight or changed sides in the earlier Basara uprising.
And besides, what the hell does your latest post have to do with the shiite, al-Sadr militia problem in the south?
0
adaydream
Skip, those were different times. Those nations attacked others and were defeated and because submissive and followed the rules dictated by the US/UN to rebuild their countries.
The leaders of those countries weren't hanged before the conflict was over. Under the directions of this country, Saddam was hanged. Even if Iraq was a defeated nation, where are the leaders to rally the peoples around a new occupation forces.
Iraq didn't attack anybody. Iraq didn't take aggressive actions against the US and once defeated becomes submissive. They were attacked by the US and will defy efforts of the US to do what's best.
Bring the troops home.
0
SuperLib
Iran. Israel. Saudi Arabia. Kuwait. Just say, "Oh, yeah" and let's move on, please.
0
adaydream
You know SL. When they attacked those countries, Iraq was punished.
But, we attacked for lies. Not in retaliation of an attack.
But since you like to throw out that arguement, what about Iraqis that now come to the US to retaliate for the unprovoked, pre-emptive and uncalled for attack on Iraq.
Will you justify Iraqis for attacking the US after we destroyed their nation? Will you tell posters out here that the Iraqis are justified because we attacked them for beefed up reasons? The US warrantlessly attacked another country, just like Iraq has done in the past. They were punished for their actions. We haven't been punished for our aggression.
0
Zaphod
daydream:
" But, we attacked for lies. Not in retaliation of an attack. "
Enough already of that tired old soundbyte. "We" did not "attack" Iraq as a "retaliation" for anything; the invasion of Iraq came after an endless string of ultimatea, which SH did not meet.
I would be the last person to call the Iraq quagmire a success, but let us be honest about the basic facts here. Those polemical soundbytes don`t give you credibility.
0
SuperLib
Sadr? Bush lied. The surge? Bush lied. Saddam? Bush lied. Iran? Bush lied. Syria? Bush lied. Israel? Bush lied. The economy? Bush lied. Taxes? Bush lied. The pizza's late? Bush lied. That soundbyte are his earplugs....it blocks any and all new information from entering his head. When you actually bring up the specifics on any situation you're just pulling his string. :)
Here, let me show you:
Daydream, do you think about Sadr's policies and practices?
pulling string
0
WhiteHawk
SuperLib,
Bush lied about the surge working? Funny, nobody told my B-i-L-to-be. He recently returned from another tour in Iraq, and said the surge has worked great.
But he's only been there, maybe you know more about the situation than he does...?
0
adaydream
MMMMMMMMM
Sounds like the right get tired of reading the truth.
They get so tired of seeing this war go straight down hill and knowing all along that it was contrived out of lies for greed and revenge.
Sure, if my country was attacked by a warmongering country, I'd be fighting and fighting till I helped push the occupiers out. But you folks sound as iff you'd lay down and just roll over for the occupiers.
Al-Sadr is doing what he sees as the right thing to do against invaders, occupiers, thieves and thugs. But you make it sound as if he's a bad man.
SuperLib, if Iran attacked us, would you just give up and allow them to rule our country as they see fit? Zaphod, would you be for allowing Iraq to decide who gets the natural resourses of our country? Please give me a show of "Oh Yea!! from all those who would be allowing Irani soldiers to walk our streets as the law of the land!!
Next!!...
0
WhiteHawk
SuperLib, I apologize for that.
0
adaydream
SuperLib, if Iran attacked us, would you just give up and allow them to rule our country as they see fit? You didn't answer.
Would you just allow the occuping regime to just give away your natural resourses to their friendly interests without retaliating?
Would you allow the occupiers to just walk up and down your streets without trying to kick some occupiers butt?
Would you follow a leader within this country, who stood up against the occupiers?
Where do you stand SuperLib?
0
WhiteHawk
adaydream, are you seriously putting Iraq under Saddam's dictatorship on the same level as America?
0
SuperLib
See what I mean, WhiteHawk? It's actually a fascinating case study in psychology. He removes all context from the situation by changing "US troops" to "occupiers" and "radical Shiite cleric" to "freedom fighter," then he makes his case from there. That way in his mind he's not advocating the death of his countrymen, he's supporting the American ideal of freedom. Not only that, he's saying he'd do the same thing. The mental switch is so strong that he's actually saying he'd join a hardline Muslim in killing US soldiers.
Isn't it an absolutely stunning result? The debate is actually over the context. Since I've added it back in he'll have to respond by stripping it all away again. When he feels he's done that sufficiently he'll once again state his position based on the neutral vocabulary. Watch it happen...
pulling the string
0
GeorgeRouault
America´s war is worse than Saddam´s dictatorship. US doesn´t care about Iraq what do they care? They don´t. They went in and ruined the country and now they want us to belive they care. US should go home. They are there to install a puppet and have permanent bases to help Israeli expansion while coming with BS propaganda such as freedom and liberty. Occupiers and invaders on a pack of lies.
0
adaydream
Allow me to rewrite my post so you don't whine.
SuperLib, if Iran attacked us, would you just give up and allow Iran to rule our country as they see fit? You didn't answer.
Would you just allow the Iranians to just give away your natural resourses to their friendly interests without retaliating?
Would you allow the Iranians to just walk up and down your streets without trying to kick some Iranians butt?
Would you follow a leader within this country, who stood up against the Iranians?
Where do you stand SuperLib?
Or shall I writre it like so?, If you were Iraqi and the Americans had stolen your country, would you stand up and kill the American occupiers?
If you were Iraqi and the Americans came into your country and gave away your natural resourses to their friends, would you stand up against the Americans?
If you were an Iraqi and Americans had come into your neighborhood and raped a 14 year old girl. Would you be looking for a way to get back at the Americans?
SuperLib?
0
WhiteHawk
Ah yes, I see what you mean now. I've witnessed such logic-torture before. It's always as frightening as it is entertaining. On the one hand, you're thinking "wow, it's fun to watch this person do this to themselves, just to meet the criteria of their own prejudice", but then you realize "oh no, this person is free to roam publicly". :)
Of course, if he really believed his own rhetoric, he would actually join these "freedom fighters". So he's really just trying to see if he can convince anyone else as well as he's convinced himself.
0
WhiteHawk
GeorgeRouault:
America doesn't care about Iraq? If that were the case, we would've put their oil on our ships and left them to put the country back together by themselves (and fight off Iran and Syria at the same time).
As for the "puppet", who would that puppet be? Oh, that's right, you don't know because the Iraqi people haven't chosen him yet.
Israel wants to expand? Where did you hear that, at your KKK meeting? Israel wants to expand into Iraq? Syria? Lebanon? Iran? News to me.
0
adaydream
I'm seriously stating that if I was an Iraqi and I'd seen what America had done to my country, you bet your life I'd be looking for a way to get back at the Americans.
If I was an Iraqi and I'd seen my country's infracstructure destroyed by the Americans, you bet I'd be looking for a way to sabatage the country that attacked me.
But you gentlemen make it sound as if, it makes no difference where your allegence lies or your personal beliefs, only America is right. Strike down all Iraqi's that want to stand up for their belief's.
0
adaydream
So what's wrong with the context of my kwestions now? Since you still can't get the cajones to answer a direct kwestion. Should I reword it for you, again?
0
Zaphod
adaydream:
What kind of "Iraqi" are you talking about? Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Christian? Has there been on single terroist attack by Kurds?
0
SuperLib
daydream you're caught in your "what if" trap and if you can't see the light then I can't imagine I'll be able to type a few words and bring you out of the darkness. As much as I want to help you, and I really do, I know that it's probably not going to happen.
Let me try a different approach with my own "what if" scenario....
Imagine I tell you this story: A criminal (John) is holding someone hostage and it looks like he's about to shoot the hostage. A policeman (Mike) enters the situation and kills the criminal (John). Given the facts of the situation I'm guessing you'd support the use of lethal force.
But instead of telling you the specifics of the situation, imagine I completely remove the context of the police officer and the criminal. All I say to you is this: Today Mike shot John. He shot him dead. Do you support one person killing another?
Do you see how removing the specifics of the situation can produce an entirely different response?
The example isn't used to make you believe the US is a police officer and Sadr is a criminal. That's not what this exercise is about. It's about ways to present information to trick someone into supporting something they really don't support and vice versa. Usually it's used by someone tricking another, but you're actually doing it to yourself.
Opinion polls often use the same propaganda. They get you to agree with some bland, non-specific concept such as "Do you support the environment." You say, "Yes, of course." Then they take your yes answer and insert it into a specific situation that you most likely do not agree with. For example, maybe it's a group that want to ban all cars. They say, "See, daydream supports our ban on cars. He answered 'Yes' to our survey."
Your "what if" scenario isn't even credible. You're imagining Iran invading America and you're leaving it at that. You're thinking about how much you enjoy your country and freedom and you're imaging someone coming in and taking that away and you'd fight for it. And it's a noble cause.
But that's not the reality of Iraq. In reality Iraq was run by a brutal dictator that committed genocide against his own people. They don't like the US being on their soil, but they sure as hell aren't going to fight to remove elections and restore a man like Saddam again. Your imagination removes their reality and inserts your reality, then you're commenting on how they would feel based on your reality. That's where your argument falls apart. Just the simple fact that a vast majority of Iraqis do not take up arms against the US should tell you that your opinion might be different from theirs. Add to that the fact that Iraqis are fighting with Americans to counter Sadr should also tell you that you're not accurately describing what they feel. And since Sadr is fighting to remove democracy and install his Shiite agenda that should tell you "freedom fighter" isn't an accurate description at all. There are so many glaring examples in the reality of the situation that your thought process removes entirely when making a decision.
You've warped the situation to such an extent that your comments only make sense in your "what if" vacuum. All of your comments are actually a barrier you're putting up to keep yourself locked in that vacuum. But at some point you're going to have to exit that vacuum and deal with the specifics of the situation at hand.
Back to top