The Iraq thread 3

[theavonlady 2]

Couple of questions arise;

Why is he using word God instead of Allah, and why is he referring to heaven instead of paradise?

How available is internet connection in Iraq (and to whom)nowadays, hell there is a lack of water and all...Whats the Iraqi isp(s)?

I was wondering the same thing.  And while we are at it, Why did he have marmalade on his toast this morning instead of jam?  And hey, why did he get out of bed on the left side instead of the right for that matter?

Something smells fishy to me!

So many doubting Thomas's!

Again, read the USA Today article about Iraqi bloggers.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]He did not use a general term to describe Islam.

Does it really mather?Where did this Iraqi learned his English, this term of AMERICAN ORIGIN used by neocons? Where oh where,after claiming he lived his entire life in Iraq and suffered from Saddam regime?

Baghdad U. These 3 brothers are Sunni, seem to be well educated and have some money.

From their ABOUT page:

Quote[/b] ]About us.

In response to some e-mails asking me to give some information about who I am, my background,where I live...etc. I'm posting this piece of info. Actually we are 3 brothers, working together on this blog.

-Mohammed: 34 years old dentist/single/graduated from Baghdad university in 1995. Left his job 6 years ago because he refused to serve in Saddam's army, and now back to work in Samawa City in the southwest part of Iraq. Interests: poetry, reading (history, religions, philosophy and politics).

-Ali: 33 years old doctor/single/graduated from Baghdad university in 1995. Left his job for 3 years for the same reason, then did the military service after losing hope, just to go on with his career. Now working in Baghdad as a senior resident and studying to become a pediatrician. Interests: chess, reading (history, parapsychology, politics and novels).

-Omar (I'm the one responsible for the publishing and internet work): 23 years old dentist/single/graduated from Baghdad university in 2002. Saved from the military service only by God and the coalition. Now working in baghdad. Interests: music, sports (martial arts), reading (novels) and now blogging. We were all born in Baghdad and still living here.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]I was wondering the same thing.  And while we are at it, Why did he have marmalade on his toast this morning instead of jam?  And hey, why did he get out of bed on the left side instead of the right for that matter?

Something smells fishy to me!  

Guess what,in a scam the small details are those who reveal you as the phoney that you are.

It has been so for centuries and his questions was indeed justified as this man claimed he lived in Iraq his entire life and his English is let`s say somewhat unconventional.Again I`ll repeat my self and say just turn on the TV and watch the most educated Iraqi people on TV from the Iraqi Gouverning Council talking a poor English and you will understand.

[denoir 0]

Oh, who cares where he is from?   Read the text he wrote. His text is as insightful as if it was written by a moderately gifted goldfish.

So what if he even is an Iraqi? Does that mean that he knows or is telling the exact truth about the situation in his country?

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>OMG:</span>

Bush plans on painting the white house black to protect it against terrorist attacks. It is written and published by an American, so it must be true! Surely the person who wrote the article must know what is going on in his own country!

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]I was wondering the same thing.  And while we are at it, Why did he have marmalade on his toast this morning instead of jam?  And hey, why did he get out of bed on the left side instead of the right for that matter?

Something smells fishy to me!  

Guess what,in a scam the small details are those who reveal you as the phoney that you are.

It has been so for centuries and his questions was indeed justified as this man claimed he lived in Iraq his entire life and his English is let`s say somewhat unconventional.Again I`ll repeat my self and say just turn on the TV and watch the most educated Iraqi people on TV from the Iraqi Gouverning Council talking a poor English and you will understand.

Here's a pic of the brothers (scanned copy of USA Today article).

[theavonlady 2]

Oh, who cares where he is from?   Read the text he wrote. His text is as insightful as if it was written by a moderately gifted goldfish.

So what if he even is an Iraqi? Does that mean that he knows or is telling the exact truth about the situation in his country?

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>OMG:</span>

Bush plans on painting the white house black to protect it against terrorist attacks. It is written and published by an American, so it must be true! Surely the person who wrote the article must know what is going on in his own country!

Ignore the Iraqi blogs.

Ignore the USA Today article.

Ignore the NY Times article.

It's a free world.

[denoir 0]

Ignore the Iraqi blogs.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that the those specific Iraqi bloggers are not representative of the Iraqi people as a whole.

As a matter of fact, the blog authors hint to that in the USA Today article as well.

Quote[/b] ]My ideas are very shocking to people, Ali says. "I tell people I am a friend of America, a friend of Israel. Some of my colleagues at the hospital think I am an infidel. It's impossible to change a man's mind, but you can only make him consider other alternatives.

Quote[/b] ]It's a free world.

Yes it is, but I'm doing you a favour by explaining to you that the opinion of one man posting on the web does not have to be representative for all of his countrymen. Want to bet that I can find a page where a Jew advocates the destruction of Israel? If I did, would you say that he is representative for all Jews?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]It's a free world.

Yes it is, but I'm doing you a favour by explaining to you that the opinion of one man posting on the web does not have to be representative for all of his countrymen. Want to bet that I can find a page where a Jew advocates the destruction of Israel? If I did, would you say that he is representative for all Jews?

Can you also explain away the NY Times article as well?

If you look at the other Iraqi blogs, you'll see similar comments. Same with the ones in Arabic on the BBC forum.

[quicksand 0]

We could argue all day long and it will go nowhere.I do agree with the freedom of opinion so I wil keep mine and you can keep yours

Now more on Fallujah

I`ve found a very intresting satallite map of Fallujah.Looks like the Marines have a nasty fight ahead of them as the city is much bigger then I expected.I`ve managed to locate the hospital,mosque-where the fighting has been going and the industrial zone.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah-map.htm

Quote[/b] ]FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Iraq threw down a gauntlet to fighters from both main Muslim communities Monday, threatening imminent assaults on two key towns if guerrillas do not accede to their demands.

U.S. forces encircle both Najaf, the holiest city for Iraq's Shi'ite majority, and Falluja, where Sunni insurgents fought a bloody new round in a three-week battle with U.S. Marines. Eight guerrillas and a soldier died in clashes that damaged a mosque.

U.S. and militia forces also fought near Najaf Monday.

With the clock ticking down to a formal handover of power to Iraqis on June 30, the U.S.-led occupation authority is racing to extinguish two serious challenges to its military control -- while avoiding inflaming Iraqi public opinion.

U.S. officials in Washington said President Bush had asked commanders at Falluja to keep up negotiations. But they may start probing patrols into the city of 300,000 as early as Tuesday, risking serious confrontations.

Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Baghdad who called the situation in Najaf "explosive," issued an ultimatum to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to withdraw his Mehdi Army militia and its weapons from mosques and schools immediately.

Late Monday, U.S. forces clashed with Sadr's militiamen outside Najaf, south of Baghdad, leaving several Iraqi vehicles burning, witnesses said. There were no reports on casualties.

[theavonlady 2]

Baghdadee. Iraqi blog in Arabic. Arabic translator needed.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's a free world.

Yes it is, but I'm doing you a favour by explaining to you that the opinion of one man posting on the web does not have to be representative for all of his countrymen. Want to bet that I can find a page where a Jew advocates the destruction of Israel? If I did, would you say that he is representative for all Jews?

Can you also explain away the NY Times article as well?

What about it? The people of Najfa don't want bloodshed? Now there's some ground breaking news! Who would have thought?

Yes, we all thought that all Iraqis were bloodthirsty savages that would love to die if they can get some Yanks to follow them to their death. Wow Avon, thank you for that great insight. I'm a new man now. Suddenly I realise that normal people do not wish to die a premature death.

Quote[/b] ]

If you look at the other Iraqi blogs, you'll see similar comments. Same with the ones in Arabic on the BBC forum.

The other Iraqi blogs? I'm sorry, I did not realize that you had read the opinions of 5,000-10,000 Iraqis, which I am sure you know would be the required amount to get a statistically valid estimate for a population of 30,000,000.

.......

This is what happens when they cut down sciences and math in education

Did you ever consider that the few blogs that you read may come from a quite specific cluster of Iraqis, namely english-speaking and/or with access to the Internet? How representative do you think those are for the entire Iraqi population?

[theavonlady 2]

This is what happens when they cut down sciences and math in education

This is what happens when you're obstinate as a mule and entrenched in your opinions.

Read the NYT again.

Quote[/b] ]They know that the hopes of a majority of Shiites of overcoming the long-running domination of Sunni Muslims rest with the success of the Americans' efforts to establish a largely democratic Iraq. They know, as well, that by advocating armed rebellion, Mr. Sadr's forces play into the hands of the violent Iraqi insurgents who seek to drive the United States out and reassert Sunni dominance.

Good night.

[ralphwiggum 6]

how about both of you take a step back for a day or two?

[Bernadotte 0]

If there were no attacks in Falujah and Najaf and Al Queda wasn't blowing up the port in Basra, etc, wouldn't the Iraqis be having the elections they want very soon, doctor?

No.  The decision against allowing Iraqis to elect their first government this year was announced ages ago, although Shiite leaders were still trying to change Bremer's mind as late as February.

You read that BBC poll.  You saw that the IGC and coalition have little more than 5% of the public's support.  But does it matter? Nah!!  That's who will be leading the Iraqi people whether they like it or not.  Of course we've all known since the 2000 presidential elections that the will of the majority has very little to do with Bush's view of democracy.

[denoir 0]

This is what happens when they cut down sciences and math in education

This is what happens when you're obstinate as a mule and entrenched in your opinions.

That is what happens when I'm right

Quote[/b] ]Read the NYT again.

Quote[/b] ]They know that the hopes of a majority of Shiites of overcoming the long-running domination of Sunni Muslims rest with the success of the Americans' efforts to establish a largely democratic Iraq. They know, as well, that by advocating armed rebellion, Mr. Sadr's forces play into the hands of the violent Iraqi insurgents who seek to drive the United States out and reassert Sunni dominance.

I'm sorry to repeat myself again but statistical representation is the key. The survey that you so love to post contradicts the article. So who do you think is right? An editorial in a magazine or a poll that shows what 2737 Iraqis answered. Now while I do have some questions about the poll's representability, the answer is certainly that the poll is more reliable.

What I said about education etc was not directed specifically at you, but it is a common problem. Unfortunately quite many people put a lot of faith in testimonies from individuals, not bothering to check if those individuals are representative for the whole group. Although a bit questionable in itself the survey is the only real data we have on what the Iraqis may be thinking and feeling. Of course we also have the events in Iraq as markers.

If anything the survey is clear about is what the Iraqis think about the coalition and how long (short) their stay should be.

Quote[/b] ]

Good night.

Sweet dreams. (refering to your IMO overly optimistic picture of Iraq)

[Bernadotte 0]

I've just read this interesting article about dramatic changes being imposed by the UN to the original Bush program.  Apologies to all those who were hoping for yet another Iraqi blog.

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>U.S. has the guns, but not the legitimacy</span>

NOW U.N. ENVOY IS THE GO-TO GUY

By Daniel Sneider

President Bush has been accused of not having a clear plan for the transfer of power to a sovereign Iraqi government. Instead, critics say, Bush offers little more than a determination to ``stay the course'' in Iraq.

That is unfair and untrue. The president does have a plan. He is just too proud to tell the American people what it is.

The reality is that the White House has now ceded authority in Iraq to the United Nations -- and, to a lesser but significant extent, to Iran. Why? Because both the United Nations and the Islamic leadership of Iran have the legitimacy and the ability to provide political stability that the United States so obviously lacks.

Sure, the United States still has the guns. But stability in Iraq cannot be established by military means anymore. Force is necessary, especially when American troops are under constant attack. Ultimately, however, this is a political problem that needs political answers.

For those answers, the place to go these days is U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. The president said as much last week. Asked by reporters whom the United States will hand over power to on June 30, Bush responded: ``We will find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing.''

The next day in Baghdad, Brahimi presented an outline of his plan for the transition. The White House has signed off on the plan, even though it abandons the approach pursued since last summer by American occupation boss Ambassador Paul Bremer. Here are the key points:

• The American-appointed Iraq governing council will be dissolved completely, a clear slap at the exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi installed by the Pentagon.

• The U.N., in consultation with the Americans and others, will appoint a new caretaker government led by a prime minister and ``comprising Iraq men and women known for their honesty, integrity and competence.''

• A National Conference will be convened to help build consensus and reconciliation, electing a consultative assembly to serve alongside the caretaker government.

• Only elections in January 2005 will create a truly legitimate, representative Iraqi government, Brahimi concluded.

The United States retains responsibility for security in this plan, although implicitly the security role could be broadened after June 30 to include troops from a much wider range of nations. But Brahimi sharply condemned the harsh use of military force in recent weeks against Sunni insurgents in Falluja and Shiite radicals.

``The excessive use of force makes matters worse and does not solve the problem,'' he said.

Which brings us to the curious acceptance of Iran to broker a deal with the radical Shiite militia. The occupation authority continues to threaten to use troops to capture radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and dismantle his militia now defiantly occupying the holy city of Najaf. But according to reports in the Arab press, a face-saving agreement is in the works for Sadr to accept a clerical fatwa dissolving his militia and head into temporary exile in Iran until the new Iraqi government is formed.

The administration deserves credit for recognizing reality and backing this path to political stability. Unfortunately this was precisely what the administration rejected last summer when many nations urged it to hand over real authority to the U.N. At that time countries such as India were prepared to provide significant numbers of troops if the U.N.'s role had been expanded.

At that same time, Bremer and the occupation authority failed to listen to moderate Shiite clerics such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who told them that no legitimate government could be formed without holding direct elections and doing so quickly.

A terrible price in lives and loss of American credibility has been paid for this long detour. Whether this now leads to peace and stability in Iraq remains very much in doubt. Indeed it is not even clear that the Bush administration will stick with this course. It may not even realize fully just what it has done in calling in the U.N. and Iran to save the day. But one thing is obvious: The tough talk of forcing others to yield to American will at the point of a gun is more rhetoric than reality.

[Schoeler 0]

Couple of questions arise;

Why is he using word God instead of Allah, and why is he referring to heaven instead of paradise?

How available is internet connection in Iraq (and to whom)nowadays, hell there is a lack of water and all...Whats the Iraqi isp(s)?

I was wondering the same thing.  And while we are at it, Why did he have marmalade on his toast this morning instead of jam?  And hey, why did he get out of bed on the left side instead of the right for that matter?

Something smells fishy to me!

So many doubting Thomas's!

Again, read the USA Today article about Iraqi bloggers.

Avon, I was being a smartass. I guess the sarcasm didn't come through.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will take a little time to see if joint U.S.-Iraqi patrols can work in Falluja before deciding whether to take military action there, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Monday.

Powell also told Reuters the still undefined interim government expected to take over in Iraq on July 1 would have to give back some of its sovereignty to U.S.-led military forces for some time.

Reuters

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will take a little time to see if joint U.S.-Iraqi patrols can work in Falluja before deciding whether to take military action there, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Monday.

Powell also told Reuters the still undefined interim government expected to take over in Iraq on July 1 would have to give back some of its sovereignty to U.S.-led military forces for some time.

Reuters

Turms... it's called buying time. You can count on the fact that currently there are simply NOT enough Marines available to take Fellujah. I would be willing to bet money that over the next week or so, US Army units will be sent to augment the Marine force if Bremer and the Bush administration really want to suppress Fellujah. The thing is that long term suppression of groups there will require a very sizable US presence as it has been shown that the Iraqi police force does not obey the American military or the Iraqi governing council. They only obey leaders in Fellujah.

I think that the Marines could take Fellujah by themselves but it would be a really tough fight for even the most elite forces in the world of any army.

Bush does NOT want heavy casualities as that will effect his chances for reelection... well assuming that the new electronic voting systems are not rigged.

So most likely these patrols are simply probes to determine the extent of the defenses set up by the resistance. Sadly I think that these patrols are going to take significant casualties from hidden roadside explosives and ambushes.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

WMD hunters ambushed in Baghdad [uPI]

Quote[/b] ]By P. Mitchell Prothero

Published 4/26/2004 1:32 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 26 (UPI) -- An explosion that killed al least three U.S. personnel in Baghdad was an ambush of a top-secret unit detailed to search for weapons of mass destruction, United Press International has confirmed.

The military initially claimed that a detail of U.S. Army soldiers were about to raid a suspected bomb making factory when two were killed after an explosion. Several Iraqis in the area at the time told UPI that the building exploded when the soldiers tried to enter the house.

Although coalition spokesman Maj. Gen. Mark Kimmitt admitted that the owner of the home "was suspected of supplying chemical agents," he refused to confirm that the troops belonged to the top secret Iraq Survey Group, a task force of Central Intelligence Agency, Special Forces soldiers and other biological, chemical and nuclear weapons experts.

Kimmett would only say that, "The inspection was by a number of coalition forces."

But at the scene of the blast in Baghdad's Waziriya district -- which destroyed four military Humvee vehicles -- UPI witnessed clear evidence that the troops belonged to the ISG, including credentials looted from the vehicles by local Iraqi youth.

And just a kilometer from the scene, a dozen Special Forces soldiers had secured part of a hospital for treatment of five wounded soldiers. Their completely anonymous uniforms, lack of unit patches or rank indications, facial hair, personalized weaponry and radically modified military vehicles generally indicate membership in special operations units.

Although coalition officials have said that two Americans were killed in the blast, which leveled the house being raided, and five were wounded, an Iraqi employee of UPI witnessed three uniformed American or British bodies being put into body bags and taken from the scene.

Although laws require the U.S. government to announce the combat deaths of military personnel, it does not generally announce the deaths of intelligence officers or special forces troops operating on classified missions, which could explain the discrepancy in the actual and announced number of those killed in the action.

Neighbors of the facility told UPI that the building raided had been in use as a weapons-making facility used to arm resistance elements in Iraq, but they could not confirm any connection to chemical or biological weapons production.

The neighborhood reacted with joy at the destruction and within minutes of the departure of the U.S. forces from the area began looting the vehicles of helmets, charred weapons and shredded uniforms.

As the crowd gathered around the burning vehicles, children began pelting them with rocks and men used sticks, axes and sledgehammers to break off chunks of the destroyed equipment.

The looting was accompanied by chants of "Yes, yes Moqtada. No, no America!" The cheers referenced radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, whose militia has been in armed conflict with the coalition forces for nearly a month.

One participant told a reporter "See how Iraqis fight! We will destroy America."

At one point, several men actually started one of the burning vehicles, put the fire out, and drove it around the neighborhood while it spewed oil and black smoke. Crowds of men and boys jumped on top of the vehicle as they took a triumphant victory lap around the neighborhood streets until they came upon the Turkish Embassy.

At the embassy, the guards became unsettled at the sight of a dozen cheering Iraqis riding atop a burnt U.S. military vehicle and opened fire on the crowd of supporters, causing everyone involved to dive for cover. One Iraqi was slightly wounded in that portion of the incident.

At that point the vehicle was set on fire -- again -- and left to burn on one of Baghdad's main streets.

This was not the only violent incident in Iraq Monday, as U.S. Marines continued to insist that a ceasefire remains in effect in Fallujah, the restive city 35 miles west of the capital.

But while the coalition calls the situation a "ceasefire" while a negotiated settlement to the nearly month-long siege of the city, the thousands of anti-coalition fighters dug into the dusty city appear to be preparing less for negotiations and more for their own "Alamo" as they continue to attack Marines at every opportunity.

In meetings this weekend between national security staff and President Bush in Washington, the coalition has decided to try for a political settlement to the siege of Fallujah, which began after four U.S. security contractors were killed and mutilated in an ambush in early April.

The ensuing fighting killed dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis. It also saw a mass exodus of refugees from the fighting flooding into Baghdad. Two weeks ago a ceasefire was declared by U.S. troops, but there have been almost daily skirmishes.

But Monday saw the announcement that the U.S. did not plan on a return to a frontal assault on the city, but rather would begin joint Iraqi-American patrols of the city on Thursday.

The response from the insurgents was the bitterest fighting in two weeks that has killed at least one Marine and wounded several others. Reports from Fallujah indicate that vast swaths of the city and being attacked by tanks and helicopters, while insurgents are responding with heavy weapons fire from various fortified positions, putting the ceasefire in dire jeopardy.

Part of the issue making a solution to the unrest in Fallujah difficult is the presence of hundred of foreign fighters from other Arab countries, who refuse to negotiate or surrender.

[denoir 0]

I've just read this interesting article about dramatic changes being imposed by the UN to the original Bush program.  Apologies to all those who were hoping for yet another Iraqi blog.

Interesting article. However, IMO the UN is not a magic solution. Of course it is good if they are forming the post war plan, but I think that there is still a significant military problem. Part of that problem is the bad rep that the US has in the region and the lack of peace keeping experience of the US soldiers. Radical elements in Iraq know how to provoke a military reaction which gets political consequences.

Replacing the US force with an international one is problematic. First of all the only possibility for that is if some key European countries get involved, which at least now don't seem interested in that idea at all. The second problem is that a UN force is likely to be seen as just another face of the occupation. And that would not be surprising as it would de facto legetimize it. The same elements that create problems for the US forces could create problems for an international force.

One possibility that people have sugested is to get the Arab countries to provide the bulk of the force. Frankly I doubt that they have the military capability and organization to do so. Also the Shiia-Sunni relationship will likely become more problematic.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The question is:

a) Would the UN now be willing to participate (leaving the moral obligations aside), now that they see the struggle

b) In case they wouldnt be willing, would they do it to gain back the US to re-strengthen the power of the UN.

C) can the UN bring together enough forces to realy change the situation

D.) How does the iraqi public perceive the UN. How do arab nations in general perceive such an organisation. is Occupation always an occupation, whoever is behind this. In Kosovo the UN seems to be well respected, but I guess that is a different story.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]a) Would the UN now be willing to participate (leaving the moral obligations aside), now that they see the struggle

Now this is something that US can / could effect. UN was willing in one point to take the whole shit, IF US would handover the administration of the army there, and administration of Iraq as a whole.

Quote[/b] ]b) In case they wouldnt be willing, would they do it to gain back the US to re-strengthen the power of the UN.

Wouldnt that give the signal out that you are welcome to do whatever you want and everything will be forgiven instantly. I think US should apologise for the illegal war, and handover all the juristiction, and its troops in Iraq to UN, and pay for the damage that can be fixed.

Quote[/b] ]C) can the UN bring together enough forces to realy change the situation

It is United Nations isnt it. look at desert storm. All the countrys asked to participate did so, becouse it was a action sanctioned by UN, unlike the current war. Remember Korea? Im sure there would be more than enough peacekeepers

to do the job.

Quote[/b] ]D.) How does the iraqi public perceive the UN. How do arab nations in general perceive such an organisation. is Occupation always an occupation, whoever is behind this. In Kosovo the UN seems to be well respected, but I guess that is a different story.

UN forces could be seen also as occupiers, but they wouldnt pour gasoline in the flames, UN forces are professional peacekeepers, unlike the occupational army there now. (Brits are doing just dandy) UN has the expertise to manage this situation and eventually arrange elections. In Kosovo the Particiapants in the ethnic clashes hate eachother, in Iraq they hate the occupants. Quite logigal actually.

There is no simple solution in the crisis of Iraq, but it is allways good to throw some random thoughts in the air, maybe someone there knows how to catch the right pieces, and gather the puzzle of peace in Iraq.

add these smilies in the places they seem to fit:

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces have killed 43 Iraqi insurgents in fighting near the Shiite Muslim holy city of Najaf, a U.S. military spokesman said Tuesday. An anti-aircraft position was also knocked out.

According to the spokesman, an AC-130 "Spectre" gunship was used in the battle at 9:45 p.m. (1:45 p.m. EDT) Monday.

The four-engine, turbo-prop gunship is a modified, heavily armed version of the C-130 "Hercules" transport aircraft, fitted with a formidable array of side-firing cannon positioned along the length of the fuselage.

Its primary role is to provide close air support and armed reconnaissance from a low-flying and relatively slow-moving airborne platform capable of concentrating heavy firepower on ground targets such as enemy troop concentrations.

About 2,500 U.S. troops are poised outside Najaf, where an uprising led by anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr began three weeks ago. A U.S. military commander said American soldiers had moved into a base camp between Najaf and Kufa but have not entered the city.

A Coalition Provisional Authority source in Baghdad told CNN that U.S. helicopter gunships attacked Mehdi Army positions in the Najaf area Monday.

Top coalition officials have said that U.S. and allied forces in Iraq "will not tolerate" the stockpiling of weapons in mosques in the holy city, warning that action could follow if Iraqi insurgents refuse to remove the weapons.

In a statement issued Monday, Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, said a "dangerous situation" exists in Najaf.

"Weapons are being stockpiled in mosques, shrines and schools. This explosive situation cannot be tolerated by those who seek a peaceful resolution to this crisis," Bremer said.

Coalition spokesman Dan Senor said weapons must be removed from holy sites and schools "immediately" -- and if they were not, "further steps may have to be taken."

He said he would discuss those steps but said places of worship "are not protected under the Geneva Conventions in the event of military action, if they are used as bases for operations and bases to store weapons and other tools of violence."

Al-Sadr is wanted on murder charges in connection with the slaying of a rival cleric last year.

U.S. officials have said they want to capture or kill him, but there have been ongoing talks to defuse the possibility of fighting between U.S. troops and the Mehdi Army in Najaf.

Deadline arrives in Fallujah

In the Sunni Triangle flashpoint of Fallujah, coalition officials said insurgents failed to meet Tuesday's deadline to turn in their heavy weapons. No weapons at all were turned in during the past day.

"The amount of weapons that have been turned in come nowhere near approximating the number of weapons that are inside of Fallujah, and clearly do not demonstrate a good-faith effort on the part of the insurgents to meet us halfway -- part of the way -- any part of the way in terms of bringing a peaceful solution back into Fallujah," said Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

Kimmitt said coalition representatives will begin patrolling, with Iraqi police, areas of Fallujah not currently under U.S. Marines' control, calling it a step toward stabilizing the town and restoring Iraqi civil authority there. During those patrols, anyone armed without authorization "will be considered hostile," Kimmitt said. "He will be considered a threat, and appropriate action will be taken."

Heavy fighting rocked Fallujah on Monday, leaving one coalition soldier and eight Iraqi fighters dead after a three-hour firefight between insurgents and U.S. Marines.

Ten Marines were wounded, four of them "pretty seriously," said Capt. Douglas Zembiec, a Marine company commander in Fallujah.

The Marines called in close air support, including helicopter gunships and fighter jets, during the battle. Tank fire destroyed the minaret of a nearby mosque the Marines said was being used as a sniper position.

A statement from the 1st Marine Division said its forces returned fire after being shot at from the mosque. One attacker was killed, the other gunmen withdrew, then returned later and opened fire on the Marines again before tanks destroyed the minaret.

A Marine commander said he believed his forces were vastly outnumbered and credited them with fighting "like lions."

Marines were deployed in Fallujah in response to the March 31 attack on four American contractors who were killed and mutilated.

At the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said U.S. forces have been "extremely careful" in the standoff in Fallujah, and he held out hope that a political settlement to the three-week standoff could be reached.

"I hope they will find a way out without having to fight their way into Fallujah," he said.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S. commanders are being patient in resolving the standoff, but do not stand idle when attacked.

"As you saw today, when our soldiers and Marines are attacked, they will respond and they will respond with force to protect themselves and kill those that are trying to kill the dreams of the Iraqi people," Powell told reporters in Washington.

Fighting like lions,at what point?Was that the part when the Marine asked his partner to step aside so he can shoot the unarmed civillian,or when they called in heavy air support after the first shots fired?In any case it`s intresting that now they claim they are vastly outnumbered...

And Najaf,the peace negotiations are over,what cought my attention was the "anti-aircraft position".Does the Resistance have this kind of heavy weaponry?

[Longinius 1]

Well, it could have been a large open spot with 20 insurgants laying flat on the ground aiming their AK's up into the sky... Would explain the body count atleast