Fierce battle underway in Basra

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "police" refuse to fight? lol.

This is the usual type of spin we get from some of the "news" outlets in situations like this. There have been, what, a few tens of Shi'ite policemen that refuse to join the fighting? Somehow that magically transforms into all policemen refusing to fight and a huge crisis that doesn't exist. Besides that, it was already known that some of Sadr's men had infiltrated the police. Good to see them bail and it's no secret to see these guys are Sadrs men or they wouldn't be wearing masks to hide their identity while turning in their weapons at Sadr's headquarters in Basra.

btw. Try to find and post some stories that don't come from an Iraqi insurgent enabling rag like the Independent as well. They are well known for their far left and anti-war spin.

LoL - You've provided not one factual rebuttal but instead went on a childish rant about not liking the realities of the situation. Try posting something that is factual and not bias that says other wise. Even the AP article in Yahoo I read the other day has pretty much pointed out the same situation in Iraq as the Independent along with most on air news agencies.

When you hold everyone to that same standard you might be making a fair suggestion. But you don't, so it's not.

Again where is you evidence to the contrary that negates all these accounts being relayed back by reporters on the scene in Basra. Please I am waiting.

It's in the very same place as that boatload of evidence you yourself have brought to this thread.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "police" refuse to fight? lol.

This is the usual type of spin we get from some of the "news" outlets in situations like this. There have been, what, a few tens of Shi'ite policemen that refuse to join the fighting? Somehow that magically transforms into all policemen refusing to fight and a huge crisis that doesn't exist. Besides that, it was already known that some of Sadr's men had infiltrated the police. Good to see them bail and it's no secret to see these guys are Sadrs men or they wouldn't be wearing masks to hide their identity while turning in their weapons at Sadr's headquarters in Basra.

btw. Try to find and post some stories that don't come from an Iraqi insurgent enabling rag like the Independent as well. They are well known for their far left and anti-war spin.

Which source do you recommend?

How about MSNBC, CNN, or another site that gives a more complete and rounded story?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...9/iraq.main/index.html

How is CNN different from what I just posted above?

There's a different tone and lack of spin in the CNN article.

"Police refuse to support Iraqi PM's attacks on Mehdi Army"

"At least 40 national police have turned in their uniforms and joined the Mehdi Army, taking their U.S.-supplied weapons with them, according to an Iraqi Interior Ministry official."

Quite different.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "police" refuse to fight? lol.

This is the usual type of spin we get from some of the "news" outlets in situations like this. There have been, what, a few tens of Shi'ite policemen that refuse to join the fighting? Somehow that magically transforms into all policemen refusing to fight and a huge crisis that doesn't exist. Besides that, it was already known that some of Sadr's men had infiltrated the police. Good to see them bail and it's no secret to see these guys are Sadrs men or they wouldn't be wearing masks to hide their identity while turning in their weapons at Sadr's headquarters in Basra.

btw. Try to find and post some stories that don't come from an Iraqi insurgent enabling rag like the Independent as well. They are well known for their far left and anti-war spin.

Which source do you recommend?

How about MSNBC, CNN, or another site that gives a more complete and rounded story?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...9/iraq.main/index.html

How is CNN different from what I just posted above?

There's a different tone and lack of spin in the CNN article.

"Police refuse to support Iraqi PM's attacks on Mehdi Army"

"At least 40 national police have turned in their uniforms and joined the Mehdi Army, taking their U.S.-supplied weapons with them, according to an Iraqi Interior Ministry official."

Quite different.

Now you're looking at the granular psychology of both articles? That spells a deep apprehensiveness as if you have some investment in the parties involved. Either way, it's bad news for Iraq and America. IMHO, same thing.

 

[Lemon law]

Quite frankly I too am baffled on the datalink7 fallacy question. As I re and re read this thread, I can only see that the datalink7 position is quite clear with no fallacies I can see. And he has given some interesting on the ground perspectives qualified with the statement that what may be true where he is may not be true in other or all parts of Iraq. Datalink7 should not have to defend his position, that really should be the job of all honest readers of this thread. While there may be some validity to the GR GR contention that the Iraqi security forces were past tense provided inferior equipment, that is still a time, place, and location moving target, and its still a side issue in the larger question of where events are now moving in Iraq. And when hornet nests are rattled and dice are rolled, the only fallacy is to expect the results to bow to someone's preconceived notion of logic.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rather than blow off Dari with a SO, we can only hope this Patrick Cockburn pessimism does not become the new Iraqi reality. And wiser heads will defuse the violence.

Too late for wiser heads. Sadr is involved. If he was wise at all he would have disbanded his militia and stopped trying to undermine the Democratically elected government long ago.

But that turd is only about expanding his own personal power base, riding the coat-tails of his dead father, and nothing more.

Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "police" refuse to fight? lol.

This is the usual type of spin we get from some of the "news" outlets in situations like this. There have been, what, a few tens of Shi'ite policemen that refuse to join the fighting? Somehow that magically transforms into all policemen refusing to fight and a huge crisis that doesn't exist. Besides that, it was already known that some of Sadr's men had infiltrated the police. Good to see them bail and it's no secret to see these guys are Sadrs men or they wouldn't be wearing masks to hide their identity while turning in their weapons at Sadr's headquarters in Basra.

btw. Try to find and post some stories that don't come from an Iraqi insurgent enabling rag like the Independent as well. They are well known for their far left and anti-war spin.

Which source do you recommend?

How about MSNBC, CNN, or another site that gives a more complete and rounded story?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...9/iraq.main/index.html

How is CNN different from what I just posted above?

There's a different tone and lack of spin in the CNN article.

"Police refuse to support Iraqi PM's attacks on Mehdi Army"

"At least 40 national police have turned in their uniforms and joined the Mehdi Army, taking their U.S.-supplied weapons with them, according to an Iraqi Interior Ministry official."

Quite different.

Now you're looking at the granular psychology of both articles? That spells a deep apprehensiveness as if you have some investment in the parties involved. Either way, it's bad news for Iraq and America. IMHO, same thing.

What would your reaction be if, say, Fox News reported "Iraqi Security Forces Have Control in Basra." Then it goes on to describe aspects of that control without ever mentioning that it only comprises 25% of Basra.

Would you consider that to be quite a bit of spin? A sin of ommission?

I would. I'd consider it dishonest reporting, just like the article you posted from The Independent was dishonest by using the same sort of sin of ommission to make things appear to be something they really weren't.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rather than blow off Dari with a SO, we can only hope this Patrick Cockburn pessimism does not become the new Iraqi reality. And wiser heads will defuse the violence.

Too late for wiser heads. Sadr is involved. If he was wise at all he would have disbanded his militia and stopped trying to undermine the Democratically elected government long ago.

But that turd is only about expanding his own personal power base, riding the coat-tails of his dead father, and nothing more.

Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true...

Care to explain?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rather than blow off Dari with a SO, we can only hope this Patrick Cockburn pessimism does not become the new Iraqi reality. And wiser heads will defuse the violence.

Too late for wiser heads. Sadr is involved. If he was wise at all he would have disbanded his militia and stopped trying to undermine the Democratically elected government long ago.

But that turd is only about expanding his own personal power base, riding the coat-tails of his dead father, and nothing more.

Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true...

Care to explain?

you guys are hilarious... where are the play by play stats on this Basra Fight???? Instant Replay? Come on!!!!

JK

I really hope this all pans out. America had a nasty start and had help from others. I sure hope 100 years from now people can say the same thing for Iraq. God help those people.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Just in time for the "surge" of 2008!

We're making progress.

Ironically, Basra is in this state because of the British pullout.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "police" refuse to fight? lol.

This is the usual type of spin we get from some of the "news" outlets in situations like this. There have been, what, a few tens of Shi'ite policemen that refuse to join the fighting? Somehow that magically transforms into all policemen refusing to fight and a huge crisis that doesn't exist. Besides that, it was already known that some of Sadr's men had infiltrated the police. Good to see them bail and it's no secret to see these guys are Sadrs men or they wouldn't be wearing masks to hide their identity while turning in their weapons at Sadr's headquarters in Basra.

btw. Try to find and post some stories that don't come from an Iraqi insurgent enabling rag like the Independent as well. They are well known for their far left and anti-war spin.

Which source do you recommend?

How about MSNBC, CNN, or another site that gives a more complete and rounded story?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...9/iraq.main/index.html

How is CNN different from what I just posted above?

There's a different tone and lack of spin in the CNN article.

"Police refuse to support Iraqi PM's attacks on Mehdi Army"

"At least 40 national police have turned in their uniforms and joined the Mehdi Army, taking their U.S.-supplied weapons with them, according to an Iraqi Interior Ministry official."

Quite different.

Now you're looking at the granular psychology of both articles? That spells a deep apprehensiveness as if you have some investment in the parties involved. Either way, it's bad news for Iraq and America. IMHO, same thing.

What would your reaction be if, say, Fox News reported "Iraqi Security Forces Have Control in Basra." Then it goes on to describe aspects of that control without ever mentioning that it only comprises 25% of Basra.

Would you consider that to be quite a bit of spin? A sin of ommission?

I would. I'd consider it dishonest reporting, just like the article you posted from The Independent was dishonest by using the same sort of sin of ommission to make things appear to be something they really weren't.

Ummm, no article will give you the whole story. That's why, if you want to get more information, you read more reports on the same story.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Dari
Ummm, no article will give you the whole story. That's why, if you want to get more information, you read more reports on the same story.

The issue here is not about the "whole story." It's about putting a very distinctive and easily recognizable spin on the story.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Quite frankly I too am baffled on the datalink7 fallacy question. As I re and re read this thread, I can only see that the datalink7 position is quite clear with no fallacies I can see. And he has given some interesting on the ground perspectives qualified with the statement that what may be true where he is may not be true in other or all parts of Iraq. Datalink7 should not have to defend his position, that really should be the job of all honest readers of this thread. While there may be some validity to the GR GR contention that the Iraqi security forces were past tense provided inferior equipment, that is still a time, place, and location moving target, and its still a side issue in the larger question of where events are now moving in Iraq. And when hornet nests are rattled and dice are rolled, the only fallacy is to expect the results to bow to someone's preconceived notion of logic.

Thank you for the comment. And perhaps I was a bit aggressive in denouncing GrGr's post... it WAS true that the Iraqis had sub-par equipment. When we first arrived in sector half their stuff looked like it was falling apart. However, they got equivilant equipment around 6-7 months ago which seems like forever over here, so I was a little annoyed that GrGr was claiming they had inferior equipment. But I do know that the media doesn't get a very good picture most of the time, so perhaps GrGr didn't know as he's obviously not over here. So sorry for that.

Still don't see my fallacy though

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Looks like Sadr has blinked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765/

For a little more insight on why he blinked, because the MSM would rather have everyone believe that Sadr is suddenly about unity and peace and fail once again to tell the entire story:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/...dr_orders_follower.php

Sadr?s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basra.

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

His Mahdi Army was getting obliterated, i.e. - Their ass handed to them.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like Sadr has blinked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765/

For a little more insight on why he blinked, because the MSM would rather have everyone believe that Sadr is suddenly about unity and peace and fail once again to tell the entire story:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/...dr_orders_follower.php

Sadr?s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basra.

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

His Mahdi Army was getting obliterated, i.e. - Their ass handed to them.

up an down, back and forth, we adjust, they adjust us, we adjust to them again, ad nauseum. net result = another year goes by just like the year before it and the year before that and on and on and on...

 

[Lemon law]

Lets us all hope that TLC is basically right and that this resent escalation of Iraqi violence will not continue.

Things are now in a state of flux and all manner of outcomes are possible. And sadly, one of those outcomes is that Iraqi people will not pay the slightest heed to what either Malki or Al-Sadr says.

The dice are still being rolled and its way premature to predict which sides will be up. After all this is no binary result, lots of dice are being rolled, and some but not all dice have at least six sides.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like Sadr has blinked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765/

For a little more insight on why he blinked, because the MSM would rather have everyone believe that Sadr is suddenly about unity and peace and fail once again to tell the entire story:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/...dr_orders_follower.php

Sadr?s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basra.

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

His Mahdi Army was getting obliterated, i.e. - Their ass handed to them.

This guy isn't stupid. He'll just resort to terrorism, like blowing up American soldiers and Iraqi governors and soldiers. And all this is for an election coming up in October? You call that democracy, when, insteading of raising money they kill each other to eliminate the competition?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rather than blow off Dari with a SO, we can only hope this Patrick Cockburn pessimism does not become the new Iraqi reality. And wiser heads will defuse the violence.

Too late for wiser heads. Sadr is involved. If he was wise at all he would have disbanded his militia and stopped trying to undermine the Democratically elected government long ago.

But that turd is only about expanding his own personal power base, riding the coat-tails of his dead father, and nothing more.

Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true...

Care to explain?

They're fucking occupied by us?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like Sadr has blinked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765/

For a little more insight on why he blinked, because the MSM would rather have everyone believe that Sadr is suddenly about unity and peace and fail once again to tell the entire story:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/...dr_orders_follower.php

Sadr?s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basra.

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

His Mahdi Army was getting obliterated, i.e. - Their ass handed to them.

This guy isn't stupid. He'll just resort to terrorism, like blowing up American soldiers and Iraqi governors and soldiers. And all this is for an election coming up in October? You call that democracy, when, insteading of raising money they kill each other to eliminate the competition?

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rather than blow off Dari with a SO, we can only hope this Patrick Cockburn pessimism does not become the new Iraqi reality. And wiser heads will defuse the violence.

Too late for wiser heads. Sadr is involved. If he was wise at all he would have disbanded his militia and stopped trying to undermine the Democratically elected government long ago.

But that turd is only about expanding his own personal power base, riding the coat-tails of his dead father, and nothing more.

Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true...

Care to explain?

They're fucking occupied by us?

Yes, they are. What does that have to do with their government not being democratically elected?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rather than blow off Dari with a SO, we can only hope this Patrick Cockburn pessimism does not become the new Iraqi reality. And wiser heads will defuse the violence.

Too late for wiser heads. Sadr is involved. If he was wise at all he would have disbanded his militia and stopped trying to undermine the Democratically elected government long ago.

But that turd is only about expanding his own personal power base, riding the coat-tails of his dead father, and nothing more.

Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true...

Care to explain?

They're fucking occupied by us?

Yes, they are. What does that have to do with their government not being democratically elected?

First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

I have a wealthy uncle with a massive gun collection and ammo and ammo making facilities. He's an old war loon, worth about half a bill, but he does have alot of plans drawn up with elders in his town in case government fails. He essentially built his own green zone.

He's also got alot of humvees and shit.. pretty crazy. its about 20 miles south of St. Louis.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab
First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

What you said was quoted already, but I'll quote it again:

"Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true..."

So please explain how they can have a Democratically elected government, yet that's somehow not 100% true.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

What you said was quoted already, but I'll quote it again:

"Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true..."

So please explain how they can have a Democratically elected government, yet that's somehow not 100% true.

I think he was implying that the government was democratically elected but that it was not a true democracy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

So how many towns and counties are controlled here in the States by Pat Buchanon's personal militia?