Skip to comments.U.S. troops clash with Shi'ite militia in Baghdad
Posted on 09/24/2005 11:33:23 PM PDT by HAL9000
BAGHDAD, Sep 25 (Reuters) - U.S. troops clashed with militia fighters loyal to a rebellious Shi'ite Muslim cleric in eastern Baghdad on Sunday, killing eight militiamen and wounding five, Iraqi police said.
They said U.S. forces entered the poor Shi'ite district of Sadr City seeking to detain a group of militia members suspected of carrying out guerrilla attacks.
The militia, known as the Mehdi Army, is loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, a young radical cleric whose followers have led two uprisings against U.S. forces.
The U.S. military said it had engaged what it termed anti-Iraqi forces in several locations in the east of the capital for around 1-1/2 hours.
"There were some anti-Iraqi forces killed," a military spokesman said, but gave no details on numbers. He said no U.S. forces were killed or wounded. No militiamen were detained.
British forces say the Mehdi Army was connected to the detention of two British soldiers in the southern city of Basra last week. British troops freed the two using armoured vehicles.
Sadr has a strong following in Baghdad, Basra and other southern cities. Representatives of Sadr's movement could not be reached immediately for comment on the Baghdad clashes.
Why is this guy still walking around?
Can't someone drop a mortor round on him? Please?
This guy is probably personally responsibile of 50 dead US troops.
Why is that fatboy Sadr still alive?
I think the plan is to get the new Iraq constitution ratified - it prohibits organizations like the Sadr militia - then deal with him.
assasinate Chavez and Sader and a whole bunch more islamo leftist scum
I guess making a martyr out of him could be prooven counterproductive...
From the example of Saddam's capture, out of the high expectations, not much materialised...
And Saddam only had few hard core dead-ender followers.
Sadr has about a million Shiits...
MOST ( I mean 99% ) only sits on the wall.
1% making mess.
Would you take the risk to turn the 99% against the US?
Yes, I would.
These people respect power. They always have.
We've been weak by letting him repeatedly kill our people without consequences.
I should add that that weakness has embolden our enemies to attack and kill our people because they think they can get away with it. And for the most part they have. Take out al-Sadr and see who the next Mullah is willing to take his place.
If you want to take up arms against our troops you should die.
THE 50/50 SOLUTION
I'd kill 50 percent of them and see if the rest wanted to die too. If you want to talk percentages, 100 percent of the worlds 1.2 BILLION moslems have failed to issue a fatwah of death against Moqtada al-Sadr. Or Osama for that matter. Oh they will issue fatwas against terror and indiscriminate killing but to come right out and state : There is a death sentence on Osama Bin Ladin - that ain't been seen yet.
Of course these two didn't write a book. Mr Rushdie did and he recieved a fatwah of death. So that must be it. .....
1990: Iranian leader upholds Rushdie fatwa
Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said the death sentence on writer Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy will remain in force.
He rejected the author's repentance and recent decision not to publish a paperback edition of the novel The Satanic Verses which was deemed offensive to the Islamic faith.
Tehran Radio quoted Ayatollah Khameini as saying the decree by his predecessor Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini "remains unchanged even if he repents and becomes the most pious man of his time".
religion of peace, Mr. Bush?
The usual bloody-minded nonsense from the nuke-em-all crowd. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Without the majority of Iraq's people (Shiites) on your side, all your efforts in Iraq will come to naught. You can't seriously expect they'll remain your allies if you kill them indiscriminately?
Maybe your screen name should be, "mollycoddler?"
And you're talking bollocks too! I've seen your name on many threads with the same stuff.
What's with this religion of peace crap? Moslems are no more or less peaceful than Christians are.
I can't remember any apologies from American Christians or their churches for the things done by both Catholic and Protestant terrorists in Ulster.
Maybe you should apologize to Americans for having to save your arse twice in the last century?
Whatever. I think the screen name "insane but somehow pathetic military fetishist" would fit a good number of you.
Hah! I knew that would come up pretty quickly as soon as the US gets criticised!
A very valid argument, except for the fact that it's totally incorrect. Try another tack.
How about "EuroTwit?" That seems to fit you.
Really? If it wouldn't have been for the Yanks, you wouldn't have had to go to Germany to learn to speak German.
Where do you get this stuff from? Hilarious.
You Americans always come in late when the war's nearly fought out and then claim the credit. Once is OK, twice is annoying.
I see "Eurotwit" is already taken. Might want to try "Ahole."
We wouldn't have come in had you been able to handle it.
Yes, we were content to watch Neville hyperventilate his way into a war by declaring peace.
Thanks for the smile this morning.
You make it sound like Omaha beach was a cakewalk, and that the battle of the bulge was an afterthought.
You wouldn't have come in if you hadn't been attacked by Japan. Don't twist the facts.
I think you and leadpenny need to read a history book or two about post-WW1 Europe and WW2.
It's hardly my fault if the US military got - shall we be charitable? - unlucky twice. I can think of a few other instances where the US army got its arse kicked. Doesn't mean a thing: every other nation in that war also got its arse kicked, usually more than once, shrugged off its losses and just went on with the job. So what?
If any nation deserves credit for beating the Germans, it was the Soviet Union, followed by the British Empire. However, the Americans did their bit in the end too. Thanks for that. But don't hog the limelight all the time.
Weren't we talking about Iraq?
However and whenever we got there, we, along with the Soviets, saved your bacon.
BTW, if you include my name in a post, include me in the "To:" line.
So you're conceding that it wasn't just the US that "saved our bacon", and that the US didn't enter the war to help us, but for its own valid reasons. That's fair enough, I suppose.
One could debate the what-ifs all day, but anyway, I have to go now.
As far as WWII is concerned, exactly when is it that we should have declared war on Hitler. Was it when Stanley Baldwin repeatedly failed to respond to Hitler's violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Or was it when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland and the British and French failed to declare war on Germany as expected by the German High Comman. Or was it after Munich, when Chamberlain snookered Hitler into occupying Czechoslovakia without having to fire a shot. Or was it when the Germans attacked Poland and Britain failed to do anything beyond issuing a declaration of war against Germany. Or was it when the Phony War was occurring between Britain and Germany. Or was it after Dunkirk when through their own inability to respond to Guderian's tactics, the British almost lost their entire expeditionary force.
On the other hand, I have a better idea. Maybe, just maybe Brits should take a deep breath and stop pointing the finger at America when your country is unable to control problems it has let fester in its own backyard
I hope this means what I prefer it means.
"and that the US didn't enter the war to help us, but for its own valid reasons"
I don't believe I said that.
But, of course, all nations ultimately act in their own self interests. As it turned out, it did keep you from growing up speaking German.
Beyond all, though, you do appear to be drinking the European Mainland Kool Aid.
Careful, you'll upset ukman
Drinking so early on a Sunday morning? /sarcasm
"Weren't we talking about Iraq?"
And another thing - you went off topic first.
A shower clears the cobwebs.
Do you believe a plane flew into the Pentagon on 9-11?
Yes, red faces time in Britain.
Also, the Basra event might be connected to this raid. Relations with the Shia community are under strain.
al-Sadr does not represent the majority of Shiites.
al-Sadr is one guy that is directing the killing of our people.
Hardly a "nuke-em all" statement. al-Sadr is a murdering POS that needs to go. You don't negotiate with murderers you bring them to justice.
After reading more of your posts I see you're a complete idiot.
I assumed you were intelligent/honest and worthy of response.
I won't waste anymore of my time responding to you.
Isn't that a coincidence? I was just thinking the same thing about you!
No, you started first with #14.
And yes, of course I believe a plane flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. So what?
No I don't dispute in any way that Basra has gone completely pear-shaped. I understand the local commander has said something along the lines that they would have to go back to square one as regards building up local forces. Can't say that I'm really concerned myself, as the UK troops will reportedly be out of it next year anyway, so the whole Basra area (if not all of Iraq) will come under Iran's control. Regrettable, but then again I feared back in 2003 the whole thing would probably be a fiasco.
As regards WW2, a US entry into the war would have been most welcome on May 10 1940 or soon after,and no later than just after Dunkirk. I quite agree that Britain and France should have marched into the Rhineland in '36, or at least tried to help the Czechs in '38. Both countries misjudged the situation and paid the price. And didn't we just...!
In June 1940 the US thought that Britain had had it (BTW, do you know who the anti-British US ambassador was at that time?). So the US waited to see what would happen, took the UK's gold and also a few British colonies in return for a few old destroyers and 2nd hand weaponry. A very nice deal for it while Britain was on the ropes. It also SOLD us lots of arms (Lend-Lease). Note the emphasis on sold. That debt was only finally paid back a year or two ago. So please don't try to tell me that the US helped us out of the goodness of its heart. Now, I don't mind that so much as the later expectations that GB should be grateful for ever after.
I've no solutions for Iraq by the way. Why should I offer any when I think the whole thing was a mistake in the first place? Neither the UK and the US troops seem to be able to get a handle on things. I await with interest further developments.
"Neither the UK and the US Troops . . ." - you must have meant to say, "nor?"
I've no solutions for Iraq by the way. Why should I offer any when I think the whole thing was a mistake in the first place?
How many anti-US/UK War protests have you attended?
As far as who went off topic first, it appears you not only want to rewrite the history of WWII, you also want to rewrite the history of this thread. Check your post 13.
That must be welcome news to the Al Qeda folks in Tal Afar, Ramadi, Hit and all of the other towns and cities which are being cleaned out right now. According to Bill Roggio (fourth Rail blog) there are some very significant things happening right now.
Come back in 6 weeks or so and tell us whether you think they still don't have a handle on things.
>Come back in 6 weeks or so and tell us whether you think they still don't have a handle on things<
Whether 1 or 10 or 100 terrorists are killed or captured isn't really that important. It's whether the new constitution goes through that's crucial. We'll see.
Congratulations on spotting the deliberate mistake. Just testing you there...
>How many anti-US/UK War protests have you attended?<
None. Like I said, I'm not really that interested.
I'm not rewriting history (it's the US that's been more guilty of doing that ever since the ALLIED victory in WW2). What I wrote was a fairly common view in the UK both during and long after the war; a different and equally valid viewpoint. We could argue about this till the cows come home, but I've said my piece and won't post again here. 'Bye!