Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:11, 7 February 2007

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Here are some clearer sources

These two sources have more details regarding what happened, about how a group of pilgrims approached a checkpoint and what happened afterward. There is some background information on the various groups involved, plus quotes from various officials across the spectrum. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ -Tubby 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Cut from article:

The authorities may also have exaggerated their own military success. The signs are that they underestimated the strength of the Soldiers of Heaven and had to call for urgent American air support.

It is always the viewpoint of insurgents that authorities lie and are weak. We should not "side" with the insurgents. Rather, report the news like this:

• Insurgents disputed the authorities' account; or,
• Source X disputed the authorities' account (if someone else is siding with the insurgents)

We should be neutral. --Uncle Ed 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This was not "insurgents", it was BBC's Middle-East expert, you... damn, you can't even say "idiot" on Misplaced Pages. You American superpatriot, then. There was no statement from "we did this" guys whatsoever. BBC is British, and it was a British battle too (no, you can't bomb London). --HanzoHattori 14:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is one sides report more trustworthy than the other? Were the insurgents not also at the battle? Would their casualty estimates not be equally authoritative? How does relaying the casualties claimed by the insurgents qualify as "siding" with them? We should instead say:

• Iraqi security forces claim X. Insurgents claim Y. Independent third parties (UN, Red Cross, etc) claim Z.

We should be neutral. Endomorphic 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a rather good reason why some sources should be trusted more than others. Example: "There are no american tanks in Bahgdad". It is fine to say that insurgents claim Y, Iraqi security forces say X, etc, but we shouldn't persume the Iraqi insurgents to be credible just because they were there. 213.250.59.162 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The source questioning the Iraqi casualty estimate is American, IIRC. I'd trust our troops who were actually bailing the Iraqis out versus whatever bizarro claims the Iraqis want to make.

"Among the troubling questions raised about the Iraqis' military ability is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 16 kilometers, or 10 miles, northeast of Najaf. The government knew that there was a camp set up in the area, but officials thought they were there to worship together."

Citations can be found in today's issue of USA Today, I know. Kensai Max 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Agents kidnap and kill 5 US Soldiers, confirmed by NBC News. This gets no mention. Misplaced Pages = joke. Business as usual. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this part of the battle of Najaf? If not, please take the discussion elsewhere on don't clutter up this discussion (for example, you could try making an article if you really feel one is merited) 203.109.240.93 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cry me a river, μολὼν λαβέ. --HanzoHattori 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Give numbers of all for each group in the X, Y, Z format as above -- Nbound 09:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed Editorial paragraph

Among the troubling questions raised about the Iraqis' military ability is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 16 kilometers, or 10 miles, northeast of Najaf. The government knew that there was a camp set up in the area, but officials thought they were there to worship together.

I moved the above to here because its an editorial style. Such questioning style needs to be attributed to someone if its included in the article at all Brentt 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

believable?

did a force of 800 really get that obliterated, and only managed to kill a few of the american and iraqi forces? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.166.104.26 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Apperarently, the aircraft bombed the crap out of them while they were overhelming the government forces. --HanzoHattori 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be for the first time something like that happened, either. I imagine the final insurgent death toll and captured will be reduced significantly, since they were hiding among civilians, though. 213.250.59.162 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You DON'T put ranks here

Randomly:

• Battle of Berlin
• Battle of Gettysburg
• Battle of Midway
• Battle of Verdun
• Battle of Waterloo

AM I CLEAR ENOUGH --HanzoHattori 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, Mr. Retard, I am not. Too bad! (If someone see who keeps adding the rank to Mr. Iraqi Commander's name, post here his nickname, so I'll know who's THAT stupid.) --HanzoHattori 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

that's not a reason for personal attacks. Anyway, you can find him in history and address him on his talk page. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not yet edited a Wiki, but I believe these pro-U.S./U.K. official accounts must be questioned against the those of local Iraqis:

January 31, 2007 The Waco of Iraq? US "Victory" Against Cult Leader was a Massacre

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Baghdad.

There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement. The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf. They came from the Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah to the south, and arrived in the Zarga area, one mile from Najaf at about 6am on Sunday. Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, and his wife driving in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi, his wife and his driver, Jabar Ridha al-Hatemi. The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief.

Members of another tribe called Khaza'il living in Zarga tried to stop the fighting but they themselves came under fire. Meanwhile, the soldiers and police at the checkpoint called up their commanders saying they were under attack from al-Qai'da with advanced weapons. Reinforcements poured into the area and surrounded the Hawatim tribe in the nearby orchards. The tribesmen tried - in vain - to get their attackers to cease fire.

American helicopters then arrived and dropped leaflets saying: "To the terrorists, surrender before we bomb the area." The tribesmen went on firing and a US helicopter was hit and crashed killing two crewmen. The tribesmen say they do not know if they hit it or if it was brought down by friendly fire. The US aircraft launched an intense aerial bombardment in which 120 tribesmen and local residents were killed by 4am on Monday.

The messianic group led by Ahmad al-Hassani, which was already at odds with the Iraqi authorities in Najaf, was drawn into the fighting because it was based in Zarga and its presence provided a convenient excuse for what was in effect a massacre. The Hawatim and Khaza'il tribes are opposed to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party, who both control Najaf and make up the core of the Baghdad government.

This account cannot be substantiated and is drawn from the Healing Iraq website and the authoritative Baghdad daily Azzaman. But it would explain the disparity between the government casualties - less than 25 by one account - and the great number of their opponents killed and wounded. The Iraqi authorities have sealed the site and are not letting reporters talk to the wounded.

Sectarian killings across Iraq also marred the celebration of the Shia ritual of Ashura. A suicide bomber killed 23 worshippers and wounded 57 others in a Shia mosque in Balad Ruz. Not far away in Khanaqin, in Diyala, a bomb killed 13 people, including three women, and wounded 29 others. In east Baghdad mortar bombs killed 17 people.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006.

SOURCE: http://counterpunch.org/patrick01312007.html Mikymikeatl 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The writer of your source, Patrick Cockburn, is not an objective journalist.Applesanity 04:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is like using KCNA as a source about North Korean economy and calling it objective. Heck, they're promoting a book about an imperialist crusade in Yugoslavia. What's next, using Osamas' speeches as credible accounts of events? 213.250.59.162 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please cite sources showing that,"Patrick Cockburn, is not an objective journalist." Incorrect claims have been made about this article before. I assume good faith but I dont assume your claims are factual. Show me. SmithBlue 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rebel leaders - need some good lynch... I mean, mergin'

• Dia Abdul-Zahra
• Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim

Appearently different person:

• Ahmed al-Hassan
• Ahmed Hassani al-Yemeni

They both have plenty of a different spellings as for now. --HanzoHattori 14:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pl added type of victory

pl elobrate the victoy.in the box User talk:Yousaf465

picture bias

almost 300 enemy are killed with next to no allied losses, and the only picture around is one of smoke from a downed US helicopter?

any feedback ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.20.207.29 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

It's a picture of the event. It's relevant. I don't see why it should be a problem in any way. If there are other relevant pictures, then these would naturally be welcome additions. It is more biased to not include the picture just because it depicts a downed U.S. helicopter. --169.233.10.233 06:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Independent

I read the Independent story in my local paper and it says the story was emerging from Arabic news sources. If this is true, these sources should also be referenced... 203.109.240.93 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense

Why do you think Azzamman was banned in Iraq? It was actively trying to promote violence by fabricating stories. It was also shown to have ties to al Qaeda. As long as you try and present the most ludicrous conspiracy theories as though they were fact, the TotallyDisputed template will remain. KazakhPol 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you insane? Article on Azzaman (Independent calls it "authoritative Baghdad daily" in its article). --HanzoHattori 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am just better informed. Although I suppose it could be seen as insane to not take Al Qaeda at its word... but thats just me. KazakhPol 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pherphaps you are disinformed. --HanzoHattori 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps neither 'pherphaps' nor 'disinformed' are words. Who knows? KazakhPol 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please supply cite for claime in edit summ., "a paper that was banned in Iraq after it was found to be actively inciting violence by fabricating news." SmithBlue 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link that mentions that the televised version - Al-Sharqiya - was banned. Please provide a single citation (preferably a source that is not banned in Iraq) that questions the Iraqi government's version of events. KazakhPol 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

An example of a source questioning the official Iraqi version is in the article, "One U.S. advisor to Iraqi security forces cautioned against exaggerated casualty reports from the Iraqi government, saying, ""There are rumors everywhere", "The whole situation is so bizarre." The advisor also questioned how the Soldiers of Heaven force had grown and remained undetected until this conflict." We now have two sources offering a "pilgrims at checkpoint" start for the incident. and

The link you offered to indicate an Azzaman ban shows that no such ban was made. A TV station was banned. It has the same owner as Azzaman, which, the article shows, was not banned. Do you have another source relevant to your edit summ.? If not please remove the TotallyDisputed template. SmithBlue 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the newspaper is banned is irrelevant -> The article says "none of this can be substantiated." When you find me a single, reliable source that says it can be substantiated I will consider removing the template. Until then the template will remain on this page. I suggest you not make any attempt to remove it until then as this page is on my watchlist and I am watching very carefully. KazakhPol 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that the basis of your edit summary is now described by you as "irrelevant". And that you offer no cite for any of your claims about Azzaman. Without any evidence to the contrary, Azzaman appears reliable. And yet you continue to reject it as a source. Why?

I have offered another source. We now appear to have 2 reliable sources. They substantiate eachother. SmithBlue 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Asia Times source appears reliable. If you use information only referenced to that, and not Al Qaeda run Azzaman, then you can remove the TotallyDisputed template. Azzaman is not a reliable source. Saying it's reliable is the equivalent of saying Al-Manar is reliable. KazakhPol 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: Please give sources backing your statement, "Azzaman is not a reliable source". SmithBlue 05:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Very amusing. The source I already provided shows that Azzaman's televised version is banned and you continue to ask for a source. I assume then that the TD template will have to remain, yes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KazakhPol (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

The fact that what you allege is the Azzaman's TV version is banned seems largely irrelevant since the newspaper itself isn't banned and is apparently a respected source in Iraq. The fact that other sources are reporting this source also gives it credibility until and unless these sources begin to question the story. Also, as I mentioned in your talk page, it is extremely misleading for you to suggest they're banned when they're not. 203.109.240.93 14:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NB, while I don't agree there is any merit for the template, I do agree it has to remain for now since you have explained what you dispute 203.109.240.93 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add the fact that something is banned also doesn't mean it is automatically ruled out as a reliable source. There needs to be evidence it is not a reliable source first. The fact something is banned could just mean the people who have the power to ban don't like it which doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source 203.109.240.93 14:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Understand that if you engage in sockpuppetry again and I catch you, you will be reported. I better not see anymore edits from 203.109.240.93. KazakhPol 05:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol, who exactly are you accusing of sock puppetry? And why? SmithBlue 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do not understand then you should not concern yourself. As to your "question" of why - asking patronizing rhetorical questions is immature and incivil. KazakhPol 02:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I know so little that the question wasn't rhetorical. Everything that happens on this talk page concerns me to some extent; I'm editing here. If there are sock puppets operating I'd like to know who so I can watch.SmithBlue 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gramatical Error

"At least six US and Iraqi troops reported having killed 263 and captured 502 rebels in the fierce fighting around the city." I don't understand this sentance. Is this a group of six guys that happen to be a mix of US and Iraqies? Can some one figure out how this is really suposed to be. thanks

Someone keeps eye on the KazakhPol guy

See above and article history. --HanzoHattori 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. He is a shifty character. --Anonymous

Iraqi Victory?

Should this really be labeled as an Iraqi victory, seeing that they were on the verge of annhiliation until the US and UK bailed them out. Maybe something more like "Iraqi/US/UK victory" Eightball 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Isael has been labelled as a sole victor, considering that it's war was primarily fought by U.S. and British naval forces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

That comment has absolutely nothing to do with my suggestion. Please try to not make stupid political statements. Eightball 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fog of War contradiction

"There was much confusion after the battle who was the real leader of the group and who was the deputy. Nearly a week later, Iraqi officials said that the leader was Ahmed Ismail Katte, a Sunni from a Sunni stronghold of Zubayr near Basra in the south."

The battle was about 3 days ago as of now. It's nowhere near a week afterwards. I don't know the details, so I can't edit it correctly.--71.221.34.181 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

...nevermind, it was just deleted. The whole section.--71.221.34.181 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Perspective

There are fundamentally different accounts of this incident, which can primarily be divided between the "western" (current article) and "Arab" (citation 9). Nobody contributing to the current article can make any authoritative statement about what happened, and it is reasonable to question both accounts. I can't form any view on which is right but I'm helping my daughter with her "History - Evidence" paper. If the present article was presented to her with a contemporary Christian account of a battle in the Crusades it might be hard to find too many differences, and I would tell her to be very sceptical of both.

I suggest that the article needs complete revision, into three sections. There are some facts which are broadly not in dispute, i.e., where, when and how many dead. I suggest that the rest, i.e., who, why, how, are not amenable to agreement or proof, and should simply be presented as opposing views, with citations to sources.

GBH 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

POV & undue weight.

At present there are two accounts of this event. The Iraqi army account, the accuracy of which is cautioned against by their allies and the account in the Independent, which claims the support of local sources. We have no way of knowing which is more accurate. The Iraqi army acount has all the space in this article except for 1 sentence referencing the Independents account. Why? SmithBlue 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Split into two accounts. Official/"The Independent" weight ratio now approximately 67/33. SmithBlue 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath needs to be separated out into events and explanations? At present Iraqi official claims run though eyewitness accounts. SmithBlue 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Map of Zarqa?

Anyone here know how to get a detailed map into this article? - preferable with lots of details of Zarqa and just the edge of Najaf. Roads, date groves, stronghold/compound, checkpoint would be perfect. SmithBlue 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Have a satelite image of Najaf and "Al Zargar water treatment plant" (Zarqa?) just to the north of Najaf - theres a river running northwest-southeast on the east side of Narjaf and desert to the northwest. Tree along the river. Lots of markers in Arabic on the photo - anyone here read Arabic?

commanders?

Someone needs to find out the real commanders in this battle...because I'm pretty sure the commanders for the U.S. and Britain weren't General Grevious and Jesus Christ, and that the commanders for the insurgents weren't Osama bin Laden and Josef Stalin.

--Blue403 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Suggest refresh your browser - you've got an older if more interesting version of page - mine says Othman al-Ghanemi and Ahmed Ismail Katte†,Dia Abdul-Zahra† SmithBlue 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor was the commander for coalition forces Michael Jackson...but I see someone fixed it. Buckeye1921 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What you are most likely seeing is just the work of some random vandal. As Blue403 said, all you need to do is refresh the page. User talk:Fusion7

Feb 07 article concerns

"I still see attribution to Azzaman, which I regard as unreliable, if not banned in Iraq. I also see an instance of citation needed, and the second reference links to nothing. Several paragraphs do not have citation, though this may simply be an issue of adding the citations there. KazakhPol 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)" posted talkpage SmithBlue

I am concerned with timeframe given for battle. SmithBlue 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this article not 2007 Battle of Najaf? The current title is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages's usual title style. I would change it but that page has already been established as a redirect. Theonlyedge 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of timeframe

Did this event end when the article says it did? When did it end? Is it ongoing? BBC had articles about continuing conflict in Najaf on ? 4th Feb. added template disputeabout|The topic of dispute SmithBlue 06:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Azzaman( Iraqi newspaper) reliable?

Please post here material, with cites, relating directly to unreliability or reliablity of Azzaman(Iraq newspaper). SmithBlue 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Independent" newspaper is prepared to publish article, which includes the following statement, "This account cannot be substantiated and is drawn from the Healing Iraq website and the authoritative Baghdad daily Azzaman." (emphasis mine) SmithBlue 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes... it cannot be substantiated... how authoritative. The television version of the paper has been banned - which you do not dispute. The newspaper version is at best hysterically anti-American and dubious in accuracy, if not already banned - which I believe it is. KazakhPol 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions and beliefs, while vitally important, are, unless you supply referenced material to back them, irrelevant for establishing the un/reliablity of Azzaman. The sister TV station is banned - you have shown this with your cite . Please show evidence for Azzaman being considered unreliable". SmithBlue 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. That last comment was a little arrogant. However, this is a poll on users opinions on whether it can be considered reliable - I say no. My lack of citation in my opposition my detract from the # of users who agree, but this is my position. KazakhPol 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC source

why don't you use this as a source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6313433.stm The fact that Iraqi officials are now also saying it was a Shia Cult that was involved, shuld be in the Intro. Nobody disputes that it was a Shia sect now, NOT Sunni insurgents. I'm not sure, depending on accounts, if this hsould be under terrorim category either Aaliyah Stevens 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference LAT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Patrick Cockburn, The Independent newspaperUS 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'. 31 January 2007 retrieved 2007-02-02
3. Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily, Asia Times Pilgrims massacred in the 'battle' of Najaf. Feb 2, 2007 retrieved 2007-02-02

• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics