At least 69 killed, 38 wounded in Iraqi violence (Roundup)

The hidden ImamMar 27th, 2008 - 23:35:13

'Bush the Butcher of Muslims'

In that case; 4 more years! 4 more years!

'SO THEY HAVE ADOPTED THE POLICY OF SHIITE GENOCIDE'

This is shiites killing each other. Let them do what they do best.

'BUT THEY FORGET THAT POWERS OF ALMIGHTY GOD, GOD OF JESUS SON OF MARY, MOSES, ABRAHAM, AND ALIKE, ARE JUST UNLIMITED.'

God doesn't like people who fly aircraft full of people in to buildings full of people. Look at all that God gave us and all that has been kept from you and you can see that God has no use for you as well.

Report this comment

Hidden dum-dum out of argumentsMar 28th, 2008 - 00:22:36

Generally we get a stack of lies; and THEN the personal insults.

Today it appears he's even out of lies.

www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1725798,00.html

A charade is going on in Baghdad and it may end badly. The U.S. military has been very careful to say that the current offensive by the Iraqi government in southern Iraq was simply 'enforcement of the law in Basra.' It was not directed against the Mahdi Army, the militia run by radical Shi'ite cleric (and political powerhouse) Moqtada al-Sadr, whose seven-month-old cease-fire has been key to the success of the American surge. The U.S. maintained that line today even though it was clear that the 'criminal gangs' battling government forces in Basra were identifiable as elements of the Mahdi Army. In a military briefing in Baghdad on Wednesday, the U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner continued to define the Mahdi Army as those parts of it that observe the cease-fire while those that ignore it were referred to as criminal elements.

The larger question, though, is how many 'criminal elements' can ignore the cease-fire before the cease-fire becomes meaningless as a practical matter. Even as Bergner characterized the fight as a battle between the Iraqi government and 'criminals,' rockets launched from the militia's Sadr City stronghold poured into the Green Zone for the fourth straight day.

So far the U.S. has mostly stayed out of the fighting, preferring to let the Iraqi government and Iraqi troops take the lead. Bergner would not comment on whether the Americans would become involved more directly if the Iraqi government could not complete its Basra operation. 'I would say,' he said, 'that's a very hypothetical question at this time.'

It is also the question of the hour. If the violence continues to intensify and the Iraqi government cannot finish what it started then the U.S. must choose whether to throw its troops into the fight. If that happens then the seven-month cease-fire, which was vital to the dramatic drop in violence late last year, will truly be over and a new round of bloodletting may be about to begin.

Report this comment

The Threat of a Re-Surge in Iraq #1Mar 28th, 2008 - 00:25:24

www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1725265,00.html

Could Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attempts to re-establish control over Basra backfire? There is a growing possibility that it could become a wider intra-Shi'ite war, drawing in the forces loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose ceasefire has been key to the success of the U.S. 'surge'? If so, the consequences for American military strategy in Iraq in an all-important political year will be grave.

Maliki's government targeted Basra because it could. Unlike many other southern cities where fighting has escalated in recent weeks, Maliki has built an independent power base among the security forces there. But Tuesday's sweep of Basra could turn sour in other southern cities where the central government's power is weak. Indeed, many Shi'ites are seeing this not just as an example of the Shi'ite Maliki taking on other Shi'ites (including Sadrists) but of America backing the Prime Minister up in a de facto Shi'a civil war. Iraqi government forces have attacked Shi'ite militias and gangs in at least seven major southern Iraq cities in the past two weeks. And America has been there to support Maliki's troops every time.

In response, Sadr loyalists have already taken to the streets in Baghdad, where U.S. troops will have to deal with the backlash. U.S. officials have so far shied away from blaming Sadr for the recent rise of violence (including an Easter attack on the Green Zone), mostly because Sadr's ceasefire has been key to the success of the surge. (General David Petraeus has pointed the finger at Iran instead.) But as clashes increase, they may not be able to dance around it for much longer.

The violence is escalating as Patraeus (sic), the architect of the nine-month military 'surge' involving some 30,000 extra troops in Iraq, prepares for a scheduled Apr. 8 and 9 report to congress on his progress in Iraq. They also come as he and Defense Secretary Robert Gates waffle over whether to withdraw five combat brigades by July, reducing troop levels down from about 158,000 to 140,000 — the pre-surge peak. If the fighting spreads to other southern cities and attacks by Shi'ite militias increase, intra-Shiite violence may be the wrench that jams the whole works of a meaningful reduction of troops.

Report this comment

The Threat of a Re-Surge in Iraq #2Mar 28th, 2008 - 00:28:27

www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1725265,00.html

If the U.S. decides to actively go after the Shi'ite forces in the south, it would mean reopening a southern front where American forces once fought some of the Iraq war's fiercest battles against Sadr but now have only a shadow presence. That would involve draining the concentration of surge troops around Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. It might even require more troop extensions or additional deployments to hold ground and maintain modest gains. Moving against the Shi'ite strongholds could then open opportunities for the Sunni fighters of al-Qaeda to strike Iraqi and U.S. targets in the Sunni triangle as the American heat turns south.

This week's violence in Baghdad and Basra followed several days of bloodshed in the Shi'ite city of Kut, some 100 miles southeast of the capital, where Sadr loyalists clashed with police forces largely controlled by their Shi'ite rivals, the Badr Corps militants of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, and with government troops affiliated with Maliki's Da'awa party.

'This was expected. It was just a matter of timing,' said Vali Nasr, Tufts University scholar and author of the bestselling book, The Shi'a Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future. 'The ceasefire and the surge allowed everyone to regroup and rearm. There is still the Shi'a-Sunni conflict. There is still the Sadr-Badr conflict. The surge and the ceasefire merely kept them apart, but there has never been a real political settlement,' he said. 'No, the big battle for Iraq hasn't been fought yet. The future of Iraq has not been determined.' Nasr said the question now remains just how deep U.S. forces will get sucked into a Shi'ite civil war.

Sadr's ceasefire did allow U.S. forces to concentrate on hunting al-Qaeda in Baghdad, Mosul and Diyala without having an open front in the south. But it also allowed the cleric to rearm, clean his own house and retake the reins of his splintering movement. However, Sadr's devoted rank and file seem to be itching for a fight now as the Iraqi government and their American backers take sides with rival factions and continue to crack down on Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi, or JAM. 'Sadr has had an interest in making sure everyone knows he's still around,' Nasr said. 'He's not going to go down without a fight.'

The conveniently quiet arrangement between Sadr and the U.S. is now being challenged from within and from without. 'There are all kinds of groups who would be interested in dragging [Sadr] into positions and into conflicts that he doesn't want to be in,' said Anthony Cordesman, a top Iraq analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Cordesman warns against jumping to conclusions that the south is rising up. He says it's more likely that the recent violence is a sign that the many Shi'ite factions that have broken from Sadr's movement are seeking to prove their mettle, and that al-Qaeda cells are seeking new ways to strike as they are forced out of more and more areas by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Cordesman echoes Army Lt. Gen Ray Odierno, who, after leading U.S. forces in Iraq for the past 15 months, recently reported that Sadr seemed to be softening and his movement becoming more of a faith-based political movement than a militia waiting to kill Americans or take power by force. That said, Odierno expressed concern over the growing Shi'ite rivalries. 'I worry about intra-Shi'a violence a bit,' he said upon returning to the Pentagon earlier this month. 'That could, you know, spiral out of control.'

Report this comment

spam on loser...Mar 28th, 2008 - 01:26:13

'Generally we get a stack of lies; and THEN the personal insults.'

Indeed, I am just watching you spin your wheels trying to peddle your defeatism. All is lost because the Iraqi version of the crypts and the bloods are killing each other! No one is buying it. You desperately need to get a life, you are beyond pathetic.

So go ahead, spam away. Opinion polls are edging higher on Iraqi sucess even considering your boss, George Soros is funding a Iraqi defeatism propaganda offensive to the tune of

Soros-attack groups target McCain
By Michelle Malkin • February 25, 2008 01:50 PM

I love how Reuters calls the Soros-sponsored operatives uniting against John McCain “grass-roots:”

Democratic grass roots organizations on Monday launched a $20 million campaign to defeat Republican John McCain in the 2008 U.S. presidential election by focusing their attention on rising costs of the Iraq war.

The campaign, supported by former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, aims to link war spending with the ailing U.S. economy.

“There’s a great concern and anxiety, angst out there among most Americans about their economic security,” Edwards said in a teleconference from North Carolina. “All these things are made much worse by concern about what’s happening in Iraq … People don’t understand why we’re spending $500 billion and counting in Iraq.”

…Groups taking part in the new campaign are the Center for American Progress, USAction, MoveOn.org, VoteVets.org, Service Employees International Union and Americans United for Change.

What Reuters forgot to mention:

The Center for American Progress is Clintonista John Podesta’s think tank funded with Soros cash.

MoveOn is a Soros operation.

USAction is tied to Soros.

VoteVets.org’s chief adviser is Soros-backed Gen. Wesley Clark. And Americans United for Change is a Soros-linked, BDS front group.

Report this comment

juhaMar 28th, 2008 - 01:46:10

Iraq is one big Fubar....time to leave the people to the myseries they so long for, one faction after another fighting forever and a day. Evil has invaded Iraq and fear has chased the people into their houses. Sorry....but the US cannot maintain any stability with so many groups vying for power. Pull the plug, this saga is over, a failed attempt at democracy for those who dont want it.

Report this comment

To BelieveMar 28th, 2008 - 10:04:18

RE: Until the government is able to establish itself as THE authority with a monopoly on force, then there will not be significant progress that could lead to US disengagement.

Until the government establishes itself as being representative of the people, then there will be no democracy. Perhaps, the people the government acts like it represents are not die hard believers in a justice for all type of governing.

One Nation

Report this comment

spfoolMar 28th, 2008 - 14:02:18

why is it that in the so-called 'coalition of the willing' fighting for freedom in Iraqalqaeda only the United States is willing to go after and kill enemy? The cowardly brits hide behind walled compounds while our guys bravely engage the terrorists in this war on evil. Certainly we can not expect the analicki shia to fight anyone since they are brothers with the Iraqalqaeda terrorists. And, the communist oriented beaurocrats at the UN are just a bunch of effeminate wimps who only want to cry about global warming. So leave it to America to have to go solo, as usual, in a glorious, patriotic effort to save the world from the forces of evil.
Once we get control of our oil, we will have the resources necessary to quickly strike at all the evil in Iran, and eliminate it. By then we will be prepared to take the battle just a few hundred miles further, to Armageddon for our final fight between good and evil. In the shock and awe of it all we shall fight many enemy, and many terrorist nations. We will really find out who is with us and who is against us, but we will not be surprised when some of our so called friends in the coalition bear false witness against us and become enemy. That is ok because we are used to enemy ganging up on us, and our God is on our side, and therefore we will win anyway.

Report this comment

CharlesMar 28th, 2008 - 14:44:46

'Only an idiot would lump together Bush's admitted past use of drugs and alcohol, and some fanatical Islamic nutcake.'

Do you read what you write?

You were alleging that Bush CURRENTLY uses drugs and alcohol - in inventive and ridiculous combinations I might add...

You were not alleging that he used drugs and alcohol in the PAST.

This is the Commander in Chief you are denigrating during a time of war. This encourages our enemies. Any adversarial propaganda machine will try to do the following (especially when adversary is democratic):

1. Undermine the faith of the people in their leadership;
2. Undermine the faith of the people in their strategic mission;
3. Undermine the faith of the people in their tactical capability to win.

Think about it.

You are playing into the conspiracy theories of others. Just like you were sucked into that nonsense, so you too will suck others into that pile of crap. That islamic nut job is very deep into that pile of crap. That is what you both have in common.

With all of the bad news you have been smoking for 5 years about our imminent defeat and the hopelessness of our cause and the unjust liberation of Iraq, you will probably not be able to grasp the fact that we lost more people on a bad day in WWII than we have lost in the last 5 years in Iraq. 2-3 times more Americans die EACH MONTH in car accidents and from hospital infections than have died in 5 YEARS in Iraq.

Of course any death anywhere tragically shatters the lives of everyone
touched.

The constant drip drip of defeatism parroted at the highest levels of our government is life giving mana from heaven for our enemies, the kiss of death to our allies, and has distorted the public's perception and undermined their will to fight.

Report this comment