Iraq: Stop the massacre in Sadr City…

… so says Al-Ghad.

In the weeks following the high profile attack on Basra by the Iraqi army and its high profile failure something of a low-level war has been going on across Iraq much behind the scenes of the mainstream media. Yet now the situation seems to be coming to a head.

Al-Ghad issued a statement giving an urgent warning that an imminent massacre of the people of Sadr City is being planned:

The occupiers have decided to implement the Israeli style ghettos of imprisoning people in concrete walls. When this didn’t solve their problem, they came to the idea of mass slaughter of the whole of Sadr-City, using mass bombing, rockets and heavy artillery against a civil population.

Wafaa’ Al-Natheema condemned the attacks against hospitals in Baghdad:

Today the Shu'la hospital in Karkh district was attacked… Historically, I am unaware of military operations targeting civilian hospitals!!…

Who will evacuate the dead bodies and heal the wounded? I really can not keep silent when today my colleague, the journalist, Yasir Shammri described Sadr City Hospital as the hospital of death whose function is just to keep corpses.

While Ladybird reports rumours of plans to use chemical weapons on Sadr City:

I don’t know the truth behind this story … but there are rumors .. that neighborhoods around Sadr-City are being evacuated.

According to al-Badeel al-iraqi, their sources in Sadr-City sent a message saying that the attacking forces are preparing to hit the city with opiate fentanyl non-lethal gas, the same gas the Russians used to attack the rebels in Moscow theater in 2002.

Whatever can be said about the new security plan in Iraq, it has not come without cost. The new Iraqi army can hardly be called non-sectarian. Zeyad posts a video showing Iraqi Security Forces raiding a small town in Iraq in a scene reminiscent of Saddam's violent quelling of an uprising in 1991. He writes:

A massacre that you will not see on CNN, perpetrated by the US-backed “Iraqi security forces” or, more accurately, Badr/SIIC/ Da'wa gangs in uniform and out of uniform… The soldiers are heard spitting out obscenities at the wounded detainees and even at dead bodies. Others are seen dragging another injured detainee, kicking him violently and cursing him before throwing him on a pile of dead bodies… Those are the “security forces” that our American friends want us to trust and to condemn attacks targeting them.

Raed posts stills from the same video and writes:

The Iraqi police, army, interior ministry forces, and other US backed forces are nothing more than nice titles for militias that happened to be called “governmental”. The Sunnis and Shiites allied with the US get to have their militias treated as “good militias” with governmental titles, but the other Sunnis and Shiites who represent the majority of Iraqis and oppose the occupation are the ones with “bad militias” that are described as terrorists and extremists…

The congress has approved billions of dollars of US-taxpayers money to fund these sectarian militias who are directly responsible of the ethnic and sectarian cleansing that has been taking place in Iraq during the last 5 years.

On a lower level Last of Iraqis has a confrontation with the same kind of soldiers at a checkpoint in Baghdad. He was stopped and nearly arrested. He writes:

During the ordeal many things were running through my head, I was thinking about the previous trouble that I have faced and remembered the comments; that really helped me to be cool, I was thinking about my dead friend; Omar who was killed by the Iraqi army in a situation like mine, he was talking with my other friend on the phone when he reached a checkpoint for the Iraqi army in Harthia neighborhood so he placed the phone aside and my friend could hear everything through the phone…it was so similar to my case but they took him and the next day his dead body was found in a garbage!!!

I know you are bored from the same story being told over and over by me but this is what the ordinary Iraqis go through everyday despite the countless explosions and assassination. That's the army and police that should protect us!! How funny.

These events leaves me with the same questions that Wafaa’ raised:

Aren't these disasters sufficient to move the conscience? What freedom and democracy and what government reform, reconstruction and national unity are those? Will these events move the corrupt political parties to PM Maliki's table? What constitution allows the army to kill people and insults and threatens doctors? Is there any wise man amongst you, deputies and ministers? Where is the Islam of the Islamic parties where is the democracy of the liberal and patriotic parties?

206 comments

  • FLOYD CHANDLER

    ALL OF YOU ARE RIGHT THEIR IS NO WRONG IN WHAT YOU SAY. IN MY OPINION IRAN WANTS IRAQ BECAUSE OF THE WAR THEY HAD WITH THEM. IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGON THEY ARE KILLING THEIR OWN BROTHER AND SISTERS WHO BELEIVE AS THEY DO BUT THE DIFFERANCE IS THEY ARE RADICAL AND AS OUR OWN RELIGON YOU CAN INTERPIT AS YOU WANT. I THINK IT IS TIME TO GET OUT AND LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER THEN THE WORLD WILL BE BETTER OFF EXCEPT FOR ONE THING THEY DID COME HERE AND KILL ALMOST 3,000 PEOPLE, I AGREE WITH ONE OF YOU THAT WE SHOULD OR COULD CARPET BOMB THEM OUT OF EXSISTENCE JUST THINK WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO HAVE TOTAL PEACE IN THE WORLD I KNOW THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN . I WILL SAY THIS IF THEY DO SOME HOW LET A NUKE OF HERE I THINK WE SHOULD DO THE SAME .BUT THAT ONLY BRINGS MORE HATE THEN WHEN WILL IT END .

  • Ahmed

    What is the need to invade in the name of democracy and make the innocent peoples life hell. I am an Indian, and I am not a Iraqi, but i can feel their pain. There is no limit of killing Iraq people, and ultimately I think it is a planned mass murder. And it is not a work of insurgent groups (Sunni/Al-Q., or Shite/Muqtada/..) or Irani parties, but it is a superpowers brutality, and surely it will come to an end.

  • Chuck

    I get tired of trying to fight a “politically correct” war when the enemy could care less what it does and brags about t. Ever since Viet Nam we have not been able to fight as though we were at war. NO, we have to make sure we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings while the enemy beheads, burns and drags to death their foes and we are made to look like the barbarians. If the soldiers in WWII had all the restrictions and criticism our boys get they would have NEVER won, plain and simple. War weary career professional soldiers weren’t put on the carpet for accidently killing a non-combatant and quite the contrary, they purposely killed tons of civilians to win the war at all costs.( fire bombing Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to mention only a few). This had to be done to bring radicals to their knees. Many enemy POW was simply shot in the head as the grunts didn’t want to be bothered with them. Yet no one in the good old US of A uttered a word of protest because those Americans knew that “War is Hell” and if we didn’t take it to them head on with the gloves off they would do it to us, plain and simple. It’s a crying shame to see politcians comfortable at home once again screw up a conflict at the cost of american boy’s lives not to mention a trillion dollars. We have become a soft, sad country.

  • tony

    Its rather unusual to say, but all the writers make valid points. The truth is there is no easy answer. I personally believe we should have never invaded. Hussein was no threat to the U.S. For Gods sake he was a silk suit wearing,cigar smoking. cognac drinking Sinatra listening monster. But we are there and believe me for the long haul. You can foolishly believe our humanitarian reasons, but the U.S. want a foothold by way of military bases in Iraq to keep Iran in check,protect Israel and control the oil. Not a bad strategy-but at what cost. Do you think we would do this in dafur or Somalia which are devoid of strategical or natural resources-of course not. Face it-We are an Imperialist country purportedly protecting its future. But can we afford it -human life and billions of dollars. Bush thinks so.

  • PMoney

    All the shiites in Iraq (including Basra and Sadr City) should be sent packing to Persia, where they belong. The Sunni seem to get along with their Kurd neighbors peacefully.

    Make it happen GW. Round them up for a final blow against Tehran.

    God bless our Nation’s brave ones fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

  • Jim

    Some of these opinions, are obviously fraudulent. Misguided at best. Puppet government? You bet. Best way to control chaos of post-war remnants, and observe attempts at power grabbing. Iran (our enemy) and their puppet, Hezbollah, are just finding out what Osama benlaid-to-waste learned much to his dismay; That President George Bush, (not mr. bush, for those of you who parrot for lack of original thought) represents an America which recognizes a thinly contrived plot to engage all who protect freedom from tyrrany, and any who would support ISRAEL. Sadly, we will be engaged to the area until someone with both a spine, and a brain figure out that evil men, not God, demand killing of their enemies. Thought we didn’t have the stomach to fight for the innocents, did ya?
    Think again Osama, Persia, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Adolph, Ali Husseini, Yassir, or whatever name you choose, when you remove the title, it’s the same ancient hatred.
    Egypt lost her slaves, and was confounded by the most high. If revenge is in the blood, it will make it’s way out.

  • Tom

    I think that we will be in Iraq for at least 5 years no matter who the next President is.
    Salam,
    Our country is not taking sides. We are taking orders from your elected President. He wasn’t the guy we wanted the Iraqi’s to elect but he was elected by the people of Iraq. He has made it clear he wants all unlawful militias disbanded. We will take on 1 militia at a time. Al Sadr is in Iran and is a coward. He claims that he is in Iran for religious reasons, but we all know he is Iran’s puppet. If he really cared about the Iraqi people, he would be fighting along side his militia comrades. If he really wanted to become a part of Iraq he would have joined the political process himself instead of pulling his party out of the process every time he didn’t get what he wanted. In the U.S. after the civil war, our government cleaned up a lot of the militia’s and made them join the process.
    Hopefully for the sake of the Al Sadr militia, they give up and join the process.

  • Michael Gomez

    How can someone truely believe that The Iraquis are at fault for the U.S. not leaving their country? Why should they accept the present Iraqi “government”? To expect them to surrender to the whim of the American (George Bush) government and be happy, happy folks is asinine. The truth is that the freedom fighters, patriots and those who are oppossed to being ruled from afar by George III, excuse me these are phrases from my early American History books. But I cannot help but comparing the American Revolution when reading these post by royalist loyalist. As the American revolucionary insurgent once said “Don’t Tread on Me”

  • right4us

    Salam, Your last post seems to suggest (rather blatenly) that the American military leadership is dense – don’t understand. I take exception to that. I trust the wisdom and leadership of them, much more than I would you and your opinions. Any and all unstableness in Iraq – for how ever many years – is the RESPONSIBILITY and CONSEQUENCES of the IRAQIS. But no, not to many, actually too many Muslims. It was posted earlier about the unwillingness, (maybe even inability – my word) to accept responsibility – its always the fault of the west, or America – and/or the Jews, or Israel.
    Iraqis are killing Iraqis and letting twisted, and evil people fuel this. If you know how to stop that madness – go for it.

    Wanna see bloodshed – have America leave Iraq.

  • Mike Curran

    This article is fairly biased and unorganized.

    There isn’t going to be any carpet-bombing or nerve-gassing of Sadr city for a variety of reasons so obvious they are not worth explaining in detail (P.R. disaster, doesn’t advance U.S. agenda, doesn’t advance Iraqi gov’t-backers agenda, Sadr city to densely populated for any of this to be a viable strategy), so one can only guess that the references to those are to rile up the anti-American sentiment even more (no shortage of that, probably with good reason). The reference to the wall being like the Israeli strategy toward the Palestinians is especially poorly included and emotional (it also doesn’t do justice to the abhorrent situation of the Palestinians – the Sadr city walls won’t be up that long, unlike the West Bank). Don’t get me wrong though and see me as pro-U.S. in reading my above statement, the Americans being stuck in this mess is their fault for getting hoodwinked by a relatively small group of neocons who dusted off long-standing Iraq invasion plans when 9-11 gave them the chance to pursue their (really, really misguided) agenda.

    The squeeze on Sadr city is part of the power-struggle between the two primary Shia factions (BADR/SCIRI & Mahdi Militia), and both these groups have differing agendas, power-bases, and relationships with the occupying power. Everything in relation to it must be understood through that context.

    To fill out the context, the U.S. shouldn’t be in Iraq, and are there because a misguided neo-con dream (compliant, oil-providing Iraq providing a nifty next base to Israel-threatening Iran) went very, very awry. Seeing as they royally messed things up, and their really stupid idea of a secular-led Iraq totally bombed out, they’ve thrown their hat in the ring with BADR/SCIRI. However, the Mahdi army actually has more on the ground support than BADR/SCIRI, so know we have U.S. and Iraqi government forces trying to eliminate that threat to their mutual (overlapping, but not synonymous) goals.

    The Sadr city squeeze will play out as part of the inter-Shia power struggle, and the U.S. support of one and the animosity of the other toward the U.S.

    Iraq’s issues are actually fairly similar to other ethnically and politically divided states with little to no real democratic stability and backward levels of economic development, even if they are colored by the particulars of the Iraqi case (see mid-90’s Yugoslavia as another close example of this).

Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »

Guidelines

  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.