Diwaniya: ISF Gives Mahdi Army Bloody Nose

#1
http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/08/diwaniya-isf-gives/

Initial reports were conflicting as to which side won the gunbattle. Al-Hayat quoted a provincial official as saying that with the arrival of reinforcements by the end of the day the ISF had control of all areas of the city except two neighborhoods (Al-Nahda and Al-Wahda). The Washington Post, by contrast, reported that the Mahdi Army had won, and that they were in control of the city, although it appears that their report relied on anecdoctal accounts. The New York Times, on the other hand, described the fighting but did not indicate that one side or the other had won.

The Iraqi newspaper Al-Rafidayn, by contrast, gave a detailed account of the ceasefire agreement which made clear that the ISF had the upper hand, but which also suggested compromise with the Sadrists

Reuters reports on comments from Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih that Prime Minister Maliki is planning to reshuffle the government soon, reassigning cabinet posts based upon factions’ support for the government’s policies on reconciliation. The report suggests that Sadrist ministers might be removed, and notes that one, the transport minister, has already resigned. Comments of this nature have been reported in the Iraqi press repeatedly over the past few weeks, and the fact that it is so often mentioned without execution suggests that Maliki is using these leaks as a means of pressuring Sadr.
 
#2
NEO_CON said:
http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/08/diwaniya-isf-gives/

Initial reports were conflicting as to which side won the gunbattle. Al-Hayat quoted a provincial official as saying that with the arrival of reinforcements by the end of the day the ISF had control of all areas of the city except two neighborhoods (Al-Nahda and Al-Wahda). The Washington Post, by contrast, reported that the Mahdi Army had won, and that they were in control of the city, although it appears that their report relied on anecdoctal accounts. The New York Times, on the other hand, described the fighting but did not indicate that one side or the other had won.

The Iraqi newspaper Al-Rafidayn, by contrast, gave a detailed account of the ceasefire agreement which made clear that the ISF had the upper hand, but which also suggested compromise with the Sadrists

Reuters reports on comments from Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih that Prime Minister Maliki is planning to reshuffle the government soon, reassigning cabinet posts based upon factions’ support for the government’s policies on reconciliation. The report suggests that Sadrist ministers might be removed, and notes that one, the transport minister, has already resigned. Comments of this nature have been reported in the Iraqi press repeatedly over the past few weeks, and the fact that it is so often mentioned without execution suggests that Maliki is using these leaks as a means of pressuring Sadr.
And BBC World has just reported that a truce was called after the ISF failed to secure the town!
 
#3
And BBC World has just reported that a truce was called after the ISF failed to secure the town
Thats what I would expect from BBC World.

The Washington Post, by contrast, reported that the Mahdi Army had won, and that they were in control of the city, although it appears that their report relied on anecdoctal accounts. The New York Times, on the other hand, described the fighting but did not indicate that one side or the other had won.

The Iraqi newspaper Al-Rafidayn, by contrast, gave a detailed account of the ceasefire agreement which made clear that the ISF had the upper hand, but which also suggested compromise with the Sadrists

I pulled this section out of the article to let the reader know that there were conflicting reports, something I am sure BBC world did not informed the people of. You can see by the terms of the ceasefire who won and what the eventual conditions were indicates who had the upper hand.
 
#4
NEO_CON said:
And BBC World has just reported that a truce was called after the ISF failed to secure the town
Thats what I would expect from BBC World.

The Washington Post, by contrast, reported that the Mahdi Army had won, and that they were in control of the city, although it appears that their report relied on anecdoctal accounts. The New York Times, on the other hand, described the fighting but did not indicate that one side or the other had won.

The Iraqi newspaper Al-Rafidayn, by contrast, gave a detailed account of the ceasefire agreement which made clear that the ISF had the upper hand, but which also suggested compromise with the Sadrists

I pulled this section out of the article to let the reader know that there were conflicting reports, something I am sure BBC world did not informed the people of. You can see by the terms of the ceasefire who won and what the eventual conditions were indicates who had the upper hand.
But since neither of us is actually there, we don't know what's fact and what's fiction. We both choose what to believe from amongst all the contradictions.
 

Latest Threads

Top