Posted on 01/28/2007 11:06:07 AM PST by cgk
Edited on 01/28/2007 11:44:41 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
| U.S., Iraqi forces kill 250 militants in Najaf Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:16 PM ET
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 250 gunmen in a fierce battle involving U.S. tanks and helicopters on the outskirts of the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf on Sunday, a senior Iraqi police officer said. The day-long battle was continuing after nightfall, Colonel Ali Nomas told Reuters, as tens of thousands of pilgrims converged on the nearby city of Kerbala for the climax of the Ashura commemorations. A U.S. helicopter was shot down in the fighting, Iraq security sources said. The U.S. military declined comment. A Reuters reporter saw a helicopter come down trailing smoke. Shi'ite political sources said the gunmen appeared to be both Sunni Arabs and Shi'ites loyal to a cleric called Ahmed Hassani. In Baghdad, 13 people were killed in bombings in mainly Shi'ite areas, police said. Twin car bombs targeting ethnic Kurds killed 16 people as night fell in the northern oil city of Kirkuk, whose population is a volatile mix of Kurds, Turkmen and Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs. Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims have converged on Iraq's other main Shi'ite holy city, Kerbala, for Ashura, marking the 7th century Battle of Kerbala, which helped consolidate the schism between Shi'ite and Sunni Islam. It ends on Monday. It is the first time the 10-day annual ritual has been held since violence erupted last February between Iraq's majority Shi'ites and once-dominant minority Sunnis. Tens of thousands have since been killed in tit-for-tat killings. The governor of Najaf province said Iraqi troops fought a day-long battle with up to 200 Sunni gunmen, including foreign fighters, holed up in orchards on the northern outskirts of the city, seat of Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite clerics. Governor Asaad Abu Gilel told Reuters the authorities had uncovered a plot to kill some of the clerics on Monday, to coincide with the climax of Ashura. "There is a conspiracy to kill the clergy on the 10th day of Muharram," Najaf governor Abu Gilel said, referring to the day of the Muslim calendar on Monday. A Reuters reporter about 1.5 km (1 mile) from the fighting said he heard intense gunfire and saw U.S. helicopters rocket groves sheltering militants. He saw smoke trailing from one helicopter before it came down in the midst of the fighting. He was unable to see what had happened to the helicopter, but officers in Iraq's 8th Army Division and policemen said it had crashed and that the two crew members were dead. The U.S. military said it did not comment on operations still taking place. (Additional reporting by Aseel Kami, Sherko Raouf in Sulaimaniya) |
|
|
|
Along the same lines, maybe you should try an advice for the traitors in D.C.:
You wimps: Lose lips that stink ships
NRA2BFRee's original Post: Oh yeah, right. Please tell me when the LAST time was that we killed 250 insurgents in one day in a firefight???? Our guys are now kicking @ss.
NRA2BRee Again:I said KILLED, and you said captured. I am clearly talking about KILLING insurgents, and YOU are talking about capturing them.
Me:BTW all, here's a poster who blames our military operations because 600 Mahdi Army members surrendered instead of shooting it out to the death.
Yeah, that's the ticket, when all else fails, LIE about what another poster said. You need to get a clue!!! Btw, all, here's a poster who is so stupid he can't comprehend what he reads, so be very careful what you say to him!! LOL!
Let the record show a poster who gets sarcastic when another poster states that our military operations have been kicking ass for years.
Let the record show that the poster implies that military operations (for political reasons)has not been "kicking ass" for years and is only "now kicking ass".
Let the record show that whether 600 of the enemy surrenders or whether 250 of the enemy has to be killed, that our military operations have been "kicking ass" before "now" -- a point that the poster as stated, disagrees with.
What a dope you are or are you lying to cover your original statement.
I don't lie you POS poster. How pathetic that you accuse me of such.
I got to thinking about Reagan's Grenada invasion the other day, so I went back and got some numbers.
The invasion begin the end of October '83, and our troops were out by the middle of December '83. Roughly 6 weeks. 7,000 troops were involved. There were 19 Americans killed.
Imagine if that were happening in Iraq. We would be suffering 270 KIA per month and total KIA would now be 14,000.
(Don't tell the Democrats or the media, it would just upset them)
You obviously didn't read the orginal post I had commented on.
I think our generals need to learn from history that even the best army cannot win a war, only breaking the will of the enemy to fight wins a war.
jet fighters cannot win a war
Cobra gunships cannot win a war
Special forces cannot win a war
killing massive numbers of the enemy does not win a war
ONLY breaking the enemies will to continue wins every time, and that is always accomplished by incomprehensible attrocious and horrific over the top acts of death and destruction on an inhuman apocolyptic scale.
If this entire town and every other town that engages (including it's inhabitants) was to be completly demolished to rubble by firepower in the presence of these "entire families involved in the fighting" this war could have an end to it.
The enemy would lose it's will to fight
the way it is going it will never end, the enemy will continue to think it has a chance
usually if you hear that many killed with few US/Iraqi casualties, it meant that firepower was involved.
I don't have the latest reports, but CNN said the Iraqis were fighting them and they asked the US to help and then the CNN guy snidely said now the US was doing most of the fighting.
The way he said it was as if the Iraqis were incompetent, and so the US had to save their posteriors.
But the way I interpreted it was that the Iraqi Army was outnumbered, and so they asked the US for air and ground support, and we hit them with artillary/missles. Indeed, since one helicopter was destroyed, I suspect it was a gunship hitting them with hellfire...
It doesn't change the bizarre nature of your election theory, nor how off topic it is from the point of the thread.
But I understand borderbots pretty well by now. Anything and everything justifies bashing the President on immigration.
You don't need a real connection. You create them in your heads.
this is the fatal flaw we have been making in war staegy since Korea
oops sorry that reply was addressed to brazzaville
Color me skeptical but perhaps his major hemming and hawing was for the sake of an audience...his constituency...I lean towards thinking that the country is run more by a permanent shadow government than by the elected officials we see on TV...I don't really believe that most politicians believe in anything beyond their careers.
I appreciate you taking the time to get those figures.
MSM reporting ticks me off to no end.
Since you posted that Humvee cartoon, you ought to take a look at some Humvee driving in Baghdad... :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yco1deXOzN8
Regards,
Star Traveler
"...it's like Clinton getting welfare reform through..." so fighting welfare reform tooth and nail including vetoing the bill three times is "getting welfare reform through"? I think you meant "getting welfare reform over Clinton's dead body" didn't you?
This has nothing to do with the Democrats taking over Congress.
"...the Administration's will to win." Oh, yeah THAT is our problem. Everyone else is running for the high timber and YOU are concerned about the President as he stands ALONE against almost the entire world. Disgusting.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that my concern about the Administration's will to win is wholly unjustified, well, I think I can justify it.
But you may want to talk to some others instead of me, like the WA State Freeper who decided he wouldn't vote for McGavick because McGavick "abandoned the President" by calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. I can't remember who that Freeper was - I'd love to get his reaction to Rumsfeld's canning after the election. I bet he's plenty upset about the Administration's reliability.
I mean it is disgusting to read such comments on a forum noted for its general intelligence. Your remark is completely unjustified and 180 degrees off. President Bush has done a remarkable job in prosecuting this war in the face of the LIARS who oppose him right and left. Most of them know little of what is happening or what does happen in war. All apparently believe losing 3000 in a four year war is a lot. None appreciate the complexity and difficulty of this undertaking which has succeeded in its main task: denial of a home ground for terrorist attacks throughout the world.
Since you are apparently not aware of the reality of the situation I will give you a clue. Rumsfeld resigned in order to remove a convenient target from the RATS' gunsights. His presence was determined to interfere with the policy which WILL continue to be carried out in Iraq. It say NOTHING about the Administration's "reliability".
Oh dude, you are so wrong. North Korea gets the bomb. Iran is developing a bomb probably with North Korean help now. Iran and Syria send arms and soldiers into Iraq unimpeded. The Enemy Media publish secrets that damage the war effort unimpeded. The Administration leans on Israel to give up defeating Hezbollah. I could go on. The Administration has done a on-balance positive but decidely mixed job on this war. Not so different a record as the Administration's domestic policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.