Fighting Erupts In Baghdad After Week Of Relative Calm

Reuters   |  Wisam Mohammed   |   April 6, 2008 11:36 AM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Twenty-two people were killed and 55 wounded in clashes in Baghdad, police said on Sunday, the worst eruption of violence in the capital since Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called his fighters off the streets a week ago.

The violence in Sadr's Baghdad stronghold, the Shi'ite slum of Sadr City, follows a week of relative calm after a crackdown by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Sadr's followers led to battles across the south and Baghdad late last month.

In a reminder of instability further north, a group of roughly 40 students were kidnapped by gunmen for several hours near the city of Mosul before Iraqi security forces freed them.

The unrest comes only days before U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker and U.S. commander General David Petraeus are due to deliver key testimony to the U.S. Congress on progress in Iraq.

Gunfire could be heard throughout the day in Sadr City, the stronghold of Sadr's Mehdi Army and home to 2 million people in eastern Baghdad.

Read the whole story here.

 

Comments
142
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

The confrontation with Sadr is really not necessary. If you look at his previous stance, his main grievance is the presence of foreign troops in Iraq and that stance has not changed. He has been taking care of the cities under his sway quiet well, maintaining law and order. He joined the political process and accepted Maliki initially. In this latest confrontation Sadr is not the aggressor and I doubt Maliki dare attack Sadr city wihout the approval and support of US.
The loss of lives and damage to properties could have been avoided. It is a matter of Maliki, Sadr, and the Sunni Sheiks coming together to agree upon a time table for the withdrawal of US troops and to support the government troops. When the US troops leaves I bet they will all rejoice shooting in the air instead of each other. To them it is liberation and victory. If Maliki choose the path of violence I doubt his cut into Sadr city will heal. He is already seen as a US lacky anf a traitor.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 04/07/2008

Why is the US-puppet Al-Maliki incinerating riots in Iraq? Because his master told him to do so. Petraeus needs a certain degree ov violence, to justify the presence in Iraq AND to cause unrest with Iran - hoping, the Iranians would swallow the bait and do something foolish, which would justify an all-out assault on Iran.

Hey: The USA is a mere 231 years old; Persia, in contrast, existed already for a thousand years, before even THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE BIBLE was written!

Guess, who will have the longer lasting patience?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 AM on 04/07/2008

W., with his pretend act to parents of 4,010, dead, brave teenage American soldiers, that he feels their pain and grieves with them. Liar. W. never feels anything at anytime, ever, in his 60 years of life on this earth. He is a lying, sniveling coward, who has a Daddy problem, thus, he began his vanity , Daddy war, based on a pack of lies. The media and congress went along with his charade to complete an act unseen in the history of the country. Why, Condi had to take out her Cliff Notes to "educate" the President who cannot read, think, reason, ruminate, ponder, speak, assess, evaluate, feel, understand, and provide pictorials of the history of the Middle-East. It is sad commentary that the people of this country voted for this buffoon. Twice.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:32 AM on 04/07/2008

Very well said. I totally agree with you.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 AM on 04/07/2008

Israel is the reason we are still in Iraq. If you do NOT believe that, just ask Wolfowitz, or Feith, or Eliot Abrams, or Richard Perle, or Peres, or Olmert, or Kristol, or Krautpliars or "Cakewalk" Adelman, or Senator "Isreal First" Lieberman. And, then it will be on to Iran to knock off another of Israel's enemies, with NO regard for the loss of American lives, or the stunning financial cost.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 AM on 04/07/2008

True, that's why Bush wants to ensure total control of Iraq by putting a strong pro US government in Iraq before the troops leave. Otherwise any goverment other than that may metamorphosis into an anti Israel-US government. Destroy! Destoy! Destroy! All resistance is futile. Hmm... sounds familiar isn't it? Ah! Now I remember it is that wrongly programmed robot in Lost in Space. Or was it Dr. Who?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 04/07/2008

Even online Irak gets second billing. Got Ads?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:35 AM on 04/07/2008

3 more die in vain for those that have already been killed and maimed there.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:33 AM on 04/07/2008

3 more dead, and for what? FOR WHAT? Liberty? Democracy? Greed?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:52 AM on 04/07/2008

This is awful. That's a couple of platoons sent to the hell of rehab and five dead. Those are our guys getting clobbered in supposedly secure areas. This is awful.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 AM on 04/07/2008

Yeah, what are we doing down in Basra, when AQ is pinned in the north?

If al-Maliki doesn't like al-Sadr's control of Basra, let him make a deal with him in the Iraqi congress. That's how al-Maliki got to power anyway, by forming a bloc with al-Sadr! We're getting way too involved in this internal Iraqi fighting. Al-Maliki is using the US Military to fight his turf battles with his former ally Sadr, and it's BS!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 AM on 04/07/2008

Read more carefully. This has nothing to do wtih Basra. The puppet Maliki and the puppet Iraqi army already lost the fight in Basra. Now they are starting another fight in Baghdad.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 AM on 04/07/2008

Same difference.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 AM on 04/07/2008

Over the past 2 weeks there has been a Major Uptick in Violence.

None of it has been attributed to Al Qaida.

Why are we there?
Are we joining the CIVIL WAR?
Which Side are we fighting for?
Sunni's that used to be Insurgents or part of Sadamm's Army and now Our Awakening Force?
The Shia controlled government?
The Mehdi Army?
The Kurds?
The "THUGS" in Basra, Baghdad and Mosel?

I thought the LATEST REASON for staying in Iraq was to DEFEAT Al Qaeda there so they
do not come here to kill Americans.
Between the Allied Force of 160,000, the Awakening Force of 70,000 and the 430,000 Iraqi
Security Forces (660,000 Total) shouldn't we be focusing on the remaining 6000 Al Qaeda Terrorists? Apparently we have killed or captured 4000 Al Qaeda over the past couple years.
So if we stay focused with 660,00 vs. 6000 100 years may not be necessary.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:08 AM on 04/07/2008

All of this is attributed to our government we put in place over there. Its our puppet starting the violence. Its our puppet that started the violence in Basra a couple of weeks ago, and if you read this article carefully you'll see that its our puppet starting this by raiding into the Baghdad slums.

Gen Betrayus is coming to testify on all the wonderful progress in Iraq this week. On the surface, one would think that the last think they'd want is an 'uptick in violence' just before that. That would be easily achievable since they have at least some control over the violence levels since all of this happens in reaction to our military ops.

Gen Betrayus' big goal for this next wave of propaganda appearances is to stoke up a war with Iran. Now, look at the 'uptick in violence' again. Remember that this 'uptick' is entirely caused by us and our puppet forces, first in Basra, then in Baghdad. They want a violent and chaotic Iraq, because they are going to blame this on the Iranians. Nevermind that every bit of it is started by Maliki and our puppet government launching our puppet army into action. What they want is the backdrop of violence in Iraq to blame on Iran to justify launching an attack on Iran.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:10 AM on 04/07/2008

General Betrayus. Now thats a good one.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 AM on 04/07/2008

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1727692,00.html

The Baghdadis caught between these extremes know that the only thing standing in the way of another sectarian conflagration is the U.S. military. This may explain why every Iraqi who offers me a view on American politics seems to be praying for a McCain victory. A 100-year American military presence, of which McCain once spoke, may seem a bit much; I suspect most Iraqis would be happy with five.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 PM on 04/06/2008

Read more carefully. This entire 'conflaguration' is caused by the US Military.

The Iraqi Army doesn't take a dump without US military approval. They don't have the logistics to do it by themselves. And you know on the weekend before Gen. Betrayus comes to Washington, that the Iraqi military sure wouldn't be launching ops without US approval.

Just more random propaganda from fools who think Americans aren't paying attention. You'd have to believe up is down and in is out to be dump enough to believe this propaganda post.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:13 AM on 04/07/2008

Read this more carefully (from Reuters,) "Asked at a separate news conference about the apparent lack of notice given to the Americans, Maliki said: 'We told them frankly these are purely Iraqi operations and this is the way that other operations will be in the future.'"

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 04/07/2008

Michael Moore's Film Documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a powerful account of neglected facts and a host of untruths that led this country into War. It clearly showed the incompetency of our President; the hypocrisy of our congress and the weakness and bias of our Media. This Documentary should have easily swayed the thinking of the American people into demanding more accountability from this administration....but it did none of that. Instead it was put on the back shelf ...out of sight and out of mind. Michael Moore called the American people stupid, maybe near-sighted would be a less harsher word. In any case most Americans seem to be totally disconnected from the reality of this War and that will only fuel its continuance. Mixed information from both Parties on the progress or lack of...in Iraq and Afghanistan only serves to further confuse an already confused public. If Michael Moore's Documentary was made mandatory viewing and some brave reporters were able to film; record and actually show the current situation over there it may make a difference in shortening this War. But can we handle the truth? No-one...not the President, Congress nor the American people are doing enough to bring some type of closure to this War. The next President will have the opportunity to change that if he/she can win the confidence of the American people and gain the full support of Congress...a very big if !!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 PM on 04/06/2008

I asked a pleasant little old lady who was just leaving a small anti-war gathering near Philadelphia if she might consider voting for Ron Paul because he wanted our troops out of the Middle East without any delay (Obama & Hillary want us there until things are "stable" -- which hasn't happened in the last 4000 or so years, and McCain wants more war). Anyhow, she didn't like "everything" that Paul proposed, so she was not going to vote for him. No wonder the neocons are laughing. On to Iran!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 04/06/2008

No, Sen. Obama pledged to have us out within 16 months, and specifically said he won't keep troops there just to prevent Iran from playing a role in Iraq!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 PM on 04/06/2008

Funny, is this the same Obama who promised to still have troops in Iraq at the end of his term in 2012?

Read more carefully. Obama is very slippy with his words. For instance, instead of promising to have us 'out' as a blanket promise, he'll use slippery words like 'combat troops'. Stop and ask yourself why.

Read this article. None of the US troops killed this weekend would be 'combat troops'. Nor is any of the airpower being used to bomb the slum sectors of Baghdad. Because sometimes Obama also uses the slippery term 'combat brigades'.

The Dems always have huge loopholes in their plans. They'll keep troops to 'train and advise the Iraqis'. We could have battalions involved in a firefight just like this in that loophole. Or, the Dems always say they keep troops to fight terrorists. Just call Sadr a terrorist, and there's another big loophole fulfilled.

Obama has never said we'd be "Out" in 16 months. He just used slippery words that meant something else but which tricked you into thinking this.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:18 AM on 04/07/2008

So who are you voting for? Which candidate have you found that absolutely speaks in absolutes about what he or she will do in the future?

I think you're just playing Devil's Advocate on a fault-finding fishing expedition.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 04/07/2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny, is this the same Obama who promised to still have troops in Iraq at the end of his term in 2012?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope. It was not Obama that said that, it was one of his many advisers. It is trivial to find out what Obama himself says on this issue:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you disagree with Obama's position, that's fine, tell us why. But don't simply spread lies about him. Ron Paul has the luxury of being a non-serious contender for the White House. This means he can make promises that would be impossible to fulfill and not catch a lot of grief for it.

Obama has a serious and realistic plan to get us out of the mess Bush created in Iraq. But he is not God and he is not superman so there will always be contingencies and caveats when dealing with such a colossal mess.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 PM on 04/07/2008

Then why hasn't Obama rejected the opinion of his Iraq advisor and warmonger, Colin Kahl. Colin's plan to sustain 80,000 troops in Iraq throughout 2010 is in direct opposition to Obama's promises to end the war expediently?

80,000 is approximately half the number of troops in Iraq at the moment. So after 24 months into Obama's term, we will still be engaged in major combat.

For me, Obama's original commitment is attractive and I praised him for it. However his advisor has been advising something very different. This happens--advisors say things that are seen as at odds with the candidate's promises. But it's easy to clear up, the candidate comes out and disagrees with his/her advisor's opinion. But Obama hasn't done so. Why? Lives are in jeopardy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 AM on 04/07/2008

Sen. Obama's pledge is to have us out by 5/20/10, Kahl said he would recommend end of 2010, conditioned on other factors on the ground.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 AM on 04/07/2008

Seems to me the acerbic notes that are being sounded in the posts anymore tell a much larger story than I see in the mundane holograms of people who live their daily lives as though none of this is happening.

I am worn out, exhausted........depressed and disillusioned.......I want to know where the revolutionaries are? Where are you? Why can't I see you?

Why are we sitting in our homes waiting for the worst yet to come and pinning our hopes on a messiah?

What happened to the country I used to know?

Why are all the people who seem so concerned in here so invisible in my daily life?

Where are you and why are we doing nothing to stop this???

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 04/06/2008

I'm so with you, civilbe. I think almost everyone has suspended their anti-war efforts in hope for the next POTUS. But if we stop screaming, even for a moment, then our resounding rebuke of this war will fall to the wayside.Consequently the candidates will feel no pressure to follow through with their promises to end the war expediently. Who will pull the gun from the cold, dead hands of the U.S.A? Not any president, but our voices screaming through and our hands ripping through the next president.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 AM on 04/07/2008

You are in touch with something for sure. It's something subtle and new. The Hegelians knew how power was symbiotic with the self-understanding of its subordinates. We're aware of the campaign against labor, the coded contempt for the aspirations of blacks, and the weird soullessness of corporate values. But what we missed has been that we have lost, have had taken away from us in a longterm demonstration that it didn't belong to us, our citizenship. They joked that 'the people who own the country are going to be running it', but the psychospiritual effect is what counts. It's not our country. It belongs to the money guys. They've managed to disenfranchise the bourgoisie.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 AM on 04/07/2008

coul bush,McCan't,lieberjew and cheeny be wrong---you mean it isn't over???

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 PM on 04/06/2008

TO: INSURGENTS, DEAD-ENDERS,ETC.
RE: ATTACKING US FORCES
You are all advised to CEASE ATTACKS on US soldiers. As you well know, we are currently in the process of SURGING,and your attacks are very unhelpful. You are ruining the legacy of our CINC, GWB. Please STOP IMMEDIATELY.Enclosed is a check for TWO MILLION EUROS. Go away.
Signed, General Petraeus

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 PM on 04/06/2008

Note that its us attacking them. They didn't come out of the slums to attack us. We are sending troops into the slums to attack them. This is our operation.

If Gen Betrayus and Bush wanted quiet for the Generals testimony and Bush's 'legacy', they could have it just by not giving the order to launch this attack. The fact that they've launched this attack just before Gen. Betrayus comes to Washington tells you that they want a violent Iraq as a backdrop to that testimony.

As usual, the facts leak out of Britain first. They are saying (article on the Telegraph's website) that Gen. Betrayus wants to blame Iran for the violence and help start another war. All this violence is just the backdrop behind that.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 AM on 04/07/2008

The Neo Con owned News Media Conglomerates are in Collusion with the Neo Con Parasites infesting the Executive Branch to the tune of the billions of American Taxpayer dollars paid for Propaganda. The Republicans set it up by deregulating the Neo Con owned Conglomerates who now are sponsoring the so called think tanks in Washington. Corruption, Bribery, Extortion, Sleaze, Secrecy, Conflict of Interest and Collusion is the norm for these Treasonous Neo Nazis.
You wil not hear of the report from the London Telegraph about Gen. Betrayus lying about Iran from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX.
So we now have over 10 trillion American Taxpayer dollars of deficits that who will pay? 3 trillion American Taxpayer dollars of borrowed American Taxpayer dollars from Iraq in direct and radiating costs for the lies the King Pinocchio and Shotgun Cheney told.
Treason is Treason and these Treasonous Neo Cons must be removed from all aspects of power. By revolution if neccessary.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:26 PM on 04/06/2008

If you people are so intent on seeing the U.S. fail in Iraq I suggest you all head on over there and sign up with Al Sadr.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 04/06/2008

And if you are so intend on seeing the surge succeed in Iraq - why haven't you signed up in the US military? I'm sure the surge could use a few more bodies (no pun intended) so why don't you put your butt where your mouth is and join the fight - and I don't mean the "cultural wars" here in this country but the real one in Iraq.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 04/07/2008

Since when is Al Sadr the enemy.

He and his family was the opposition to Saddam. His father was executed by Saddam for daring to oppose him. Sadr is one of the few Shite leaders who did not glee to Iran during the Saddam years.

So, rewind the clock back to 2003, and ask yourself, was Sadr doing anything to threaten the US. The answer is No. All he wanted was Saddam gone. Sadr never had any chem weapons plants or WMDs.

So, how did Sadr become the enemy? What do you mean by 'seeing the US fail' in Iraq? What happened that we are now attacking people who only wanted what we wanted (supposedly)?

Nope, these days we are paying the ex-Saddam-military's salaries and fighting the people who wanted to overthrow Saddam.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:26 AM on 04/07/2008