Can we really blame most of the insurgents in IRAQ?

[Neomega]

This is the second time I heard this term, the first was about NK, now Iraq.

what... they don't have sarcasm in Israel?

 

[bigfatron]

BFR
The mass graves filled with about 300k dead shia and kurds. Nothing dubious there. And your 600k dead civilians is bullfeathers and has been debunk repeatedly.


Heres some links to the mass graves you have such a hard time finding.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

Fair enough - looks like the figures that I had seen before for Saddam's death toll were light.

But your next line is, unfortunately, incorrect - the 655,000 Lancet estimate was reviewed by the UK's National Audit Office, a highly respected government body not naturally inclined to support an estimate that casts bad light on our country, and they agree with the methodology and the figure.

Had our occupying forces made any attempt to count civilian casualties then we might have had a meaningful argument, but since we didn't we have to rely on survey-based estiamtes, of which this is the one with the best, now peer-reviewed, methodology.

So I'll swap you an admission from me that my Saddam number looks light for an admission from you that 650,000 is the best civilian death toll estimate we have.....

BFR

 

[CartesianFart]

As the Insurgency in its current form breaks down:

And quite beautifully if you ask me.

-Almost all(>95&#37 are Iraqi Nationals
-3 broad groups:

That is interesting but i find that limiting yourself of the sense that only 3 is dogmatic in scope due to the degree of varibles of broad groups can and have in the past change alliances or split apart to name a few.

-Islamist, i.e Iraqi nationals who are Muslims and feel the need to efend Iraq from foreign invasion by chrsitians (large majority of insurgents)

Now this is plausible but i suspect that it is too much of a burden of necessity to call it in general terms of religiously motivated groups as the criteria of being a central reason for the broad organization to exist.Most are,i believe,are merely militias with some street-demagouge which are not in the sense Nationalistic in a sense but fragmentary due to that militias consist of many different groups that defend their sphere of influences.Call it the tribal factions;which is militias with thier own street-demagouges or no demagouges.

-Nationalist (including Ba'athists who were forcibly removed from power, ex-soldiers and Republican guard who had nowhere to go, Iraqis fighting against loss of nationall Sovreignity, probably 2nd largest group)

This is surely the most sophisticated bunch of your list and frankly that in recent days there are movement in the Iraqi government to lift the ban of these party members in thier government due to the fact that the strategy of disassembly of the Bathists loyalist did not work.

I believe this is the worst failure of the United States policy of reconstruction of Iraq.

-Secular (including Communsits driven underground by Saddam)

Do you have anymore info on this?

-Jihadi (including foreign elements, by far the smallest, yet most hyped, group).

Not necessarily so due to the nature of secrecies and media coverage(since it is Al-Jazerra that does the most coverage and magnification of these radical organzation such as Al-queda and others).

The majority of Insurgents consider civilians to not be targets, and try to limit their targeting to Coalition troops, Iraqi Security Forces, Police, and collaborators, all legitimate targets, which are targeted by most groups, though some don't and prefer to attack other militias instead.

This is more complex and sometimes i think that using the word 'insurgents' is too narrow of an application to define who is making the attack against the Coalition and the Iraqi Security Forces and others that are the targets.

Overall, considering the Iraqis have effectively lost their homeland, their national identity, their sovreignity, their stable lives, the semblance of normality from day to day, I can very much empathise if not sympathise with their objectives, and their methods, while sometimes questionable, would be used by their enemies in any case, so ti's a matter of necessity to them.

I don't think it is 'lost' but something of a temporary 'limbo' till security is better for in order to rebuild and provide the necessary institutions(schools,courts,universities,and utilities that can provide better standard of living) that can give them a chance to build a culture of citizens that in turn can be beneficial for the International community.

All in all, I wish them the best of luck in their objectes insofar as removing foreign presence from their soil.

I disagree on the fact that is impossible till whatever foreign beligerants leave the other will win.It is the choice of the Iraqis to choose,not to be too cliche,the lesser of two evil.

 

[nonconformist]

That is interesting but i find that limiting yourself of the sense that only 3 is dogmatic in scope due to the degree of varibles of broad groups can and have in the past change alliances or split apart to name a few.

It's a very loose term, seeing as it encompasses both shia militias, liek the Mahdi Army, and Sunni ones.

Now this is plausible but i suspect that it is too much of a burden of necessity to call it in general terms of religiously motivated groups as the criteria of being a central reason for the broad organization to exist.Most are,i believe,are merely militias with some street-demagouge which are not in the sense Nationalistic in a sense but fragmentary due to that militias consist of many different groups that defend their sphere of influences.Call it the tribal factions;which is militias with thier own street-demagouges or no demagouges.

Something like that. But the Mahdi Army is quite influential, as al-Sadr is a leading iraqi politician.

This is surely the most sophisticated bunch of your list and frankly that in recent days there are movement in the Iraqi government to lift the ban of these party members in thier government due to the fact that the strategy of disassembly of the Bathists loyalist did not work.

Strangely enough, Iraqi Militias are a lot more sophisticted than the press gives them credit for.
They're quite often young guys with a good grasp on electronics, who use computers, mobile phones, and shaped charges with the greatest of ease.

Do you have anymore info on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_insurgency
"Patriotic Communists (who have split from the official Iraqi Communist Party and other leftists"
They're quite a minority, however.

Not necessarily so due to the nature of secrecies and media coverage(since it is Al-Jazerra that does the most coverage and magnification of these radical organzation such as Al-queda and others).

We went over this last thread, when I proved to you foreign fighters in Iraq have never numbered over 3000.

This is more complex and sometimes i think that using the word 'insurgents' is too narrow of an application to define who is making the attack against the Coalition and the Iraqi Security Forces and others that are the targets.

As a general rule of thumb, the majority of Islamists believe that civilians are not targets if they are Iraqi, but foreigners are.

I don't think it is 'lost' but something of a temporary 'limbo' till security is better for in order to rebuild and provide the necessary institutions(schools,courts,universities,and utilities that can provide better standard of living) that can give them a chance to build a culture of citizens that in turn can be beneficial for the International community.

A fairly nationalist country has been more or less wiped from the earth, and I think they want it back, without help from outside.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Moderator Action: Stop the trolling and flaming. Neomega warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889