« K for Kerry? | Main | The stakes are too high for irresponsible political posturing »

US and Iraqi Forces Kill 250 Terrorists in Najaf

And this part is unexpected: they were comprised of both Shiites and Sunnis. From Reuters:

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.

The US military isn't commenting on the helicopter that crashed because the mission is still ongoing, but I expect we'll have more successful missions where we send terrorists to their waiting virgins. The question is will the media actually report on our and the Iraqi troops' successes or will they completely ignore them?

Link via Hot Air.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US and Iraqi Forces Kill 250 Terrorists in Najaf:

» Flopping Aces linked with Good Stuff Inside Iraq

Comments (20)

Doesn't the fact that you g... (Below threshold)

Doesn't the fact that you got this information via Reuters answer your last question?

What I want to know is why ... (Below threshold)

What I want to know is why wasn't this reported in the Mainstream Media..... oh, wait a minute. It was. You linked to it.

Oh, but it's a Reuter's report. Everyone knows that the people at Reuter's are lying terrorist sympathizers. How can you post a link to something Reuter's says, Kim?

Ohhhh, I see. You guys like to blast the MSM when they publish something that hurts your political party -- when you like the news they're reporting it's no problemo....

"The question is will the media actually report on our and the Iraqi troops' successes or will they completely ignore them?"

LOL. Get back to us on that Kim. I saw the story an hour ago - here - by the AP, but you get back to us on your theory that the MSM will ignore this news, k?

btw - Here's the story as reported by ABC News. Do you ever bother to check the facts before you blabber on about this kind of thing?

So much for the flowers and... (Below threshold)
OldYaleCoke Dealer:

So much for the flowers and candy greeting.

does anyone killed by US fo... (Below threshold)

does anyone killed by US forces qualify as a terrorist to you? are there any non-terrorists who oppose the US in Iraq?

Same old "pucker puss" (lee... (Below threshold)

Same old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (resident turd polisher) being a dumbass. He or her has a bad case of the "links". Lookie here he or she says. I have to be right as I found a link so don't question my post as being BS.

strongMan You idiot anyone ... (Below threshold)

strongMan You idiot anyone shooting at U.S. forces in Iraq is a terrorist dumbass!

Yes, Lee is oblivious that ... (Below threshold)

Yes, Lee is oblivious that sometimes hard news ends up in paragraph 27 on page A16, instead of top of the fold. Any 6th grader in a journalism course could figure that out, but not Pee.

Since few people I know read wire reports, we'll have to see how NYT, LAT, AJC, et al "position" their news. You can rest assured that if there were a "huh-oh moment" for US troops, it'd be front page above the fold.

Lee, you are such a fool. And all here know it.

You idiot anyone shootin... (Below threshold)

You idiot anyone shooting at U.S. forces in Iraq is a terrorist dumbass!

Right, just like all the Japanese, Germans, Vietnamese, and Koreans who were shooting at us in their countries... weren't they all called terrorists too? Oh, wait...

Brian, no one would confuse... (Below threshold)

Brian, no one would confuse your name with "brain."

That analogy is as limp as your wrist.

Kim, did you actually read ... (Below threshold)

Kim, did you actually read the article you linked to? All you did was excerpt the parts that had the phrase "U.S." in it. Did you read the rest?

Shi'ite political sources said the gunmen appeared to be both Sunni Arabs and Shi'ites loyal to a cleric called Ahmed Hassani.


Twin car bombs targeting ethnic Kurds killed 16 people


The governor of Najaf province said Iraqi troops fought a day-long battle with up to 200 Sunni gunmen


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.

This is centuries-old sectarian violence bubbling up. This was not an attack on U.S. troops. They were not shooting at Americans. Until a U.S. helicopter got in their way, I suppose. But hey, at least we killed 250 of those "terrorists"!

All this event does is puncutate the question, What the hell are we doing there?

Is the Green Zone already i... (Below threshold)
Thanks, Mitchell. I love al... (Below threshold)

Thanks, Mitchell. I love all those "your statement is flawed" comments from the right, without any further supporting arguments. Nothing else says "good point!" like that does.

For liberals like Brian, ev... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

For liberals like Brian, everyone shooting at the Americans in Iraq is a freedom fighter. Liberals at their best like Kerry, Hanoi Jane, Dick Durban, etc...

Lorie, We should kn... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

We should know by now what side the liberal media is on.

If you'd substituted "armed... (Below threshold)

If you'd substituted "armed illegal militia" for "terrorists" I'd have no problem with the post.


At least that seems to be the gist of your opponents of this post.

Get real folks, one poster's terrorists are another commentor's freedom fighters.

no one is calling anyone a ... (Below threshold)

no one is calling anyone a freedom fighter. cite that, or quote it, and then we can talk. the point i was trying to make, before all the vitriol came out, is that there is a difference between the insurgency and terrorists in the "war on terror" sense. your responses are a sadly predictable result of the brainwashing that bush and cheneyBot have unleashed on this country.

why is this important? this is important because some of these "terrorists" as you define them are going to be in iraq long after when, and if, a unity government is created. it is important to distinguish between those who are fighting over iraq and those who wish to be fighting against the united states, in the al-qaeda sense. they are not necessarily the same people. to misunderstand this extremely basic point is to misunderstand the point of our being in iraq.

if your defintion of terorrist is correct, then part of our stated goal in iraq is to help the iraqis set up a government where the views of terrorists are represented. why is this? this is because there are separate warring factions in iraq, at least some of whom are broken down into sunni and shia splits. as these factions are warring against each other, they also are sometimes warring against us forces, but not because they are planning the next 9-11, but because they view us forces as being in the way of their gaining power in iraq. however, we state that part of the solution to stopping the violence, is to come up with some kind of national reconciliation, where these warring factions will be represented jointly in the government. by your defintion, a potential majority of people represented by such a government will be terrorists. mission accomplished? we set up a government where the terrorists are represented?

on the other hand, there are also some al-qaeda style terrorists who are training in iraq. presumably, we are not trying to help them, and hopefully they are foreigners, and/or represent a minority of iraqis. these are the people i would call "terrorists" in the sense of the word that the united states should be concerned with. so if we differentiate between these terorrists, and people who are fighting over iraq, and will remain in iraq once we are gone, because they are iraqis, it helps us to uderstand why we are in iraq, and what we should be doing there. otherwise, we just shoot everyone, which would seem to kind of be at odds with our other stated goals.

i am sure one of you will somehow explain how this is wrong. if so, then i would like to know who you think we are setting up a government for, and why we should possibly be doing this.

i will also add that what i think we are actually trying to do, but don;t explicitly state, is set up a pro-american democratic government, which seems to be getting more difficult by the day.

if you wish to view everyone shooting at us forces as terorrists, you are free to. however, this simplistic viewpoint will not help us to figure out what we are dping in iraq or what we should be doing. in addition, it will not help us to understand what to do in fighting al-qaeda style terorrism. the world is complicated and not manichean. time to recognize this and think a little harder.

"they also are sometimes... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"they also are sometimes warring against {us} forces, but not because they are planning the next 9-11, but because they view {us} forces as being in the way of their gaining power in iraq."

Hey tuffguy , get a new keybaord. Seems your Cap's must have worked once upon a time.


Wow, strongMan posts a bril... (Below threshold)

Wow, strongMan posts a brilliant analysis of the fighting in Iraq, and all he gets from the right is criticism of his capitalization.

"Get our! Surrender! Retrea... (Below threshold)

"Get our! Surrender! Retreat!" We must be allowed to show this administration lost in Iraq! We are betting our political future on it! What a repulsive lot we are!

American Socio-Commie (Far-left to mid-left of dem party)

strongMan"They are... (Below threshold)


"They are also sometimes warring against{us}forces in Iraq not because they are planning the next 911, But because they view {us} forces as being in the way of their gaining power in Iraq."

Ok, so when they gain power then they start planning right? otherwise they would just lay low until We left and then they could carry out their plans!

If they are attacking thru backstabbing roadside bombs and homocide attacks now, What would they be planning if We were not in their way?






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy