Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)/Archive 2

message: In the section Rate of attacks and Coalition casualties one finds the number of deserters (AWOL) : Over 5,000 American soldiers have also deserted. with a reference to the link Iraq Coalition Casualties. Unfortunately I can't find any numbers on deserters at that site, nor can I find a credible source for those numbers. Over 5.000 seems a bit steep in my view and the only pages I can find reporting those numbers seem to be politicly motivated. Unless someone has a good reference, I'll remove that sentence. --Ebralph 13:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a google search andcame up with this, through a cache of a blog. US deserters flee to Canada to avoid service in Iraq By Charles Laurence in New York (Filed: 09/01/2005). It is estimated, though (I don't put much wieght in it ... and if true, it's samll to the total number of people in the military). That it's an estimate should be noted in the article. JDR 17:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, great that you guys digged out a reference. I must admit that I find the amount high, but if CBS and the Telegraph bring out a report in that fashion, I guess it must be so. I changed the page so far, that the report on deserters has a link to the CBS report, because American readers are bound to more likely know and trust. Also, it has a direct reference to the Pentagon in the first sentence plus the higher numbers. I would like to qualify the number though, because it doesn't say in how much it is connected to Iraq. The Pentagon claims it is the normal rate though it seems obvious enough. Maybe a sentence in a seperate Paragraph with something to the effect: While the Pentagon says that the rate of desertion is at normal levels  , several service men say that their desertion stands in connection with the war in Iraq. --Ebralph 18:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Objection to your Objection. :-) I assume it is the overall desertion rate, though it is not clear. The Pentagon claims that it is normal - it is not clear. The sentence had been in there for 2 months, btw. What surprised me at the time was the source it referenced. I made the reference clearer. If you think it is made unclearer then make a proposition how to make it clearer. --Ebralph 23:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ebralph: there are two issues, clarity and relevance.  Relevance: if the rate is normal, there is no point mentioning it here since it has no relation to the situation in Iraq.  The only reference on that subject says it is normal: hence the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to keep this statistic to show that it is not normal, and moreover that the change is related to Iraq.  Clarity: this is almost certainly the overall rate, of which probably very little was actually in Iraq or had anything to do with Iraq, but the way it is described makes that far from clear (you can read it as "have deserted ... in Iraq").  "Deserted" is probably the wrong term anyway since the military code distinguishes between "desertion in the face of the enemy" and "absent without leave", a much less serious charge.  The handful of actual desertions related to Iraq deployments have been in all the papers.  ObsidianOrder 00:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said on the issue of clarity, I'll welcome any input. The Pentagon is very tight fisted about the issue of desertion as far as I can tell. I guess the only way to find out if there is a change in rate is to compare it to similar time frames before the invasion. Most refers to AWOL, I guess again. But I won't get into too much discussion over that subject, though. Like I mentioned before, my concern had been more the source then the if. As it had been in there for over 2 months I had the feeling that it was considered relevant. The cases highlighted in the sources are all AWOL because of the conflict in Iraq which is no conclusion - on the other hand how can you categorize the motivation of people. They might be lying - to give there dersertion a "moral" veneer. Anyway, I would still bring up the subject at this point because these numbers have been ghosting through the net in connection with the war. It would be a good way to clarify. I see the point you are making and will leave it up to you and the other "main" editors. --Ebralph 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will wait for a bit for anyone to cite a source that shows how this is relevant (e.g. number is substantially higher than usual) and if nobody does I'll delete it.  ObsidianOrder 09:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Number of AWOL? 

message: NoPuzzleStranger,stop taking out the picture's caption that reflects the  historical circumstances. See the history of the insurgency @ the date cited in the picture. JDR 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of militants

message: Many editors do not understand NoPuzzleStranger's revertion, his issues, or the huge and extensive edit that he keeps reverting to.  It has been said that NoPuzzleStranger's edit is very old and many editors have made many valuable changes over the time he has been editing the article.  This poll will solicit opinions whether to use NoPuzzleStranger's version or the current version.  In addition, we will hopefully learn NoPuzzleStranger's main issues with the current page.
:User:Noitall added this poll] on August 14, 2005, without signing it, which would have automatically added the date.  Since over 50 edits have been made since then, and no-one participated in the poll, perhaps Noitall should consider snipping it out?  --  Geo Swan 15:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll regarding NoPuzzleStranger reversions and edits

message: This is The Economist article I was referring to earlier . Adam 06:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Figures on casualties

message: You are right only about one thing--not all of the insurgents are necessarily terrorists.  So, there are probably parts of this article where the term 'insurgent' might be more appropriate.  What this article fails to mention is that there are many attacks which should be classified as terroristic without sacrificing neutrality.  Until I started changing things, the word 'terrorist' wasn't mentioned even once. 
:Ok, that is a basis on which we can work. But changing every appearence of the word 'insurgent' isn't the solution. Lets first discuss it here.  
Also, you can't subjectively put yourself in their shoes by stating that you would use a civilian population as cover for an attack.  Neither of us truly know what's going on (or not going on) in the minds of these people, although the media (also neutral) has stated before that many of these people don't mind civilian casualties, as 'Allah will save the innocent.'
:The point was that there are situations in which I could see myself fighting an army and using weapons and even risk the death of bystanders.
Your argument that modern technology is more lethal to civilians is also flawed.  If anything, our modern military has made the battlefield SAFER for noncombatants.  
Yes, that sounds odd, but remember your history.  Early military forces, for example the Romans, the Mongols, the Vikings, and others would have already slaughtered every man, woman, and child in some of these insurgent strongholds.  In the Middle Ages, opposing forces would launch deseased, decaying carcasses across castle walls, in the hopes of infecting the enemy population with the plague and other ailments.  During WWII, the Allies adopted a policy of massive aerial bombardment of civilian centers, as a way to demoralize the Axis.  This policy demolished cities like Dresden and Berlin in Europe.  In Japan, the massive incindiary bombings of major cities literally engulfed wooden buildings in a massive inferno, killing more civilians and causing more damage than both atomic bombs combined.
:That is a non tennable claim. Until the 1. World War, Wars were mostly battles fought between armies far away. It seldomly happened that civilians were in much danger unless you had the unfortune to live in a city which was going to be sacked. Which happend less then one thinks. It was limited to the battlefield. Modern military doctrine calls also for the destruction of the infrastructure supporting the war machine, etc. That means not only the army or the castle are of military relevance, but the *whole* country. 
:You reference the slaughters in past ages. Unfortunately what you forget is the fact, the amount of effort it took on the side of the invader to slaughter that amount of people. Today all I need are a few machines, earlier I needed literaly thousands and thousands of people.
:To put it differently: boy soldiers wasn't a phenomena until modern days because you needed stamina and years of training, which children didn't posses. Modern weapons do not come with such a requirement. Another thing to note is that in earlier days, possesion of weapons were limited to a caste of warriors. That tended to limit such things.
Today, our technology is so advanced that we can literally read the postage on a stamp, sitting in a gutter, across the street from Lenin's tomb.  We can accuratly pinpoint and destroy any target, with MINIMAL COLLATERAL DAMAGE.  We have gained this technology with the intention to PREVENT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.  The difference between the bombs of today and the ones of previous wars is that in WWII, Vietnam, and others, planes just dropped bombs like drops of rain, and gravity would do the rest.  It wasn't uncommon for everything except for the target to be hit.
:That may be for American forces and that claim is far less so, then the military would like us to believe. Less then 20% were presicion bombs during Gulf War 1 - fortunately it was more in the last time.
It doesn't always work.  We are all human and are prone to make mistakes.  This is why war is not something anyone should just jump into without serious contemplation.
: Agreed. But when you bomb something you take the risk of hurting innocent people. No way to avoid it. The same counts for the Iraqis fighting the coalition forces.  
The truly neutral way of explaining the difference is that when the coalition kills innocents in the crossfire, it is an unfortunate, accidental tragedy.  It is not their policy to take out as many as possible.  When the insurgents drive a truck into a group of school-children for taking candy from a handful of US troops, that is a malicious, TERRORISTIC act.
: It is a shameful thing, agreed.
I understand your point of view, and with all due respect, either of our points of view are irrellevant.  I'm not trying to inject my personal beliefs into the article.  If I was, it would be alot more blunt in some places.  I am trying to correct an innaccuracy.  
: And I am trying to point out that you are, your good intention noted. What you are doing is being able to understand the motivation of the people who are executing such acts. Who says that the thing with the school children isn't an accident from the side of the insurgents? I don't believe so, but that doesn't make it so. Usig the word 'terrorist' is alreay a view because it depends heavily on your POV to what you designate them.
Instead of dismissing any of my changes as 'crap,' 'vandalism,' or my own 'POV,' why not actually review what was done before, and what was done now, and modify the article where appropriate.  These comments alone suggest to me that someone has already injected a POV in this article. 
128.194.54.244 21:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At no point did I claim the words up here. Do me a favor and keep appart what I said from what others have said. For one thing I would ask you to get a login and edit under that name - that is more transparent. The other thing is that we should work out what should be added together here to avoid any kind of edit war or something. The third thing is that if you want to make the point more strongly here, be my guest but I think it should be a extra passage - not changing all 'insurgents' to 'terrorist'
--Ebralph 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral does not equal innaccuate 

message: You are right about 2 things:  first, this is starting an edit war, and frankly, I don't have the time or patience to continue.  Second, not every single reference to an 'insurgent' is necessarily a 'terrorist.'  As I said earlier, an insurgent is not always a terrorist, but a terrorist is always an insurgent, by definition.
:So far agreed.
As I flip through the list of 'Insurgency Organizations,' each and every group is an insurgent/gurrella organization.  Even the group run by Zarqawi is described as a gurrella organization. 
: That is open to debate and not something you'll find me terribly disagreeing on. If you want to designate him and his organization as such, ok. But you are editing *every* instance of the word 'insurgent' and that is plainly incorrect as well.
As if that isn't bad enough, the previous posting suggests that the insurgents might not consider driving a truck of explosives into a group of children as a terrorist act.  How does any rational person, on either side of the conflict not see that as unneccessary, deliberate murder?  What is there to 'understand?'
: The problem is not the action itself, but the fact that you claim to know the motivation of ther perpertrator, which I claim you can't know - unless you are part of the insurgency. I do not go around saying the stuff that happend in Abu Ghraib was systematic on the side of the Americans and the equal amount of skepsis should be granted to ther other side. Do you know it was intentional? It stands to reason, but we just, don't know.
You can 'understand' and 'tolerate' until you're blue in the face, the truth is that there are groups of 'insurgents' who consider these kinds of attacks acceptable, which is why they should be called 'terrorists' without fear of a POV.
:Once again, I would like you to read what I wrote earlier. I did not say I condone or tolerate any such action. Your line of reasoning relies on the fact of intention of the people fighting. The problem is that you are looking for logical reason to comdemn one side and not the other and that just isn't the case. Its people killing each other for whatever reason and other people being in the way. Both sides accept the risk of innocent people being hurt. Some more, some less - which is the destinction in your choice of words. The question for the determination of the title 'terrorist' therefore depends on how much risk these people are willing to condone. Do you know it? For sure? With the amount and diversity of people participating in this fighting that is a pretty risky thing to do.
I could go on and on with other Iraq-related articles, and I could try to edit out the 'neutral' bias, but I have a life, and someone would just remove them anyway.  Again, this problem is much bigger than one article.
As far as having a valid discussion, I believe I have already done that.  By changing the inconsistencies in the article, others were supposed to review and revise and discussion was supposed to take place.  Instead, any changes I made were 'vandalism' and my own 'POV'. 
:I do not feel you have had a valid discussion. You insist on your reasoning and if someone objects, you expand your argument. Please don't understand this as an attack, just a way I've experienced your actions. A discussion includes a compromise on both sides. I've repeatedly offered you suggestions of how we might be able to resolve our POVs. I've also explained why I don't agree with the edits you have made so far. In the whole thing, I haven't seen you once agree or compromise with me. Once again let me repeat this is just the way I've experienced you. Here again a suggestion: instead of removing the word 'insurgent' wholesale, lets work out a section about how the designation 'terrorist' could be applied to a lot of the groups. 
Even the one or two individuals who did discuss didn't bother to go back and remove the word 'terrorist' where they felt it inappropriate, instead, opted to just overwrite the whole thing, and accuse me of starting an edit war.
:That might be that others reacted that way - I am not. I'm trying to reach a point where we don't revert each others edits. I haven't accused you of anything - so far I haven't used any of the words you complained about so far. On the other hand if that happens to you often enough, you might want to rethink the way you contribute. It just might be an issue of netiquette.
Here's my POV on Wikipedia--it's being edited by people who DO have a POV to be as PC as possible.  They don't want to offend anyone, and if that means watering-down the truth, then so be it.    In their minds, it's perfectly acceptable to write an article so neutral, that it actually exposes their own POV to be to afraid to call a thing what it truly is.  Just by viewing the related articles tells me that no amount of talking or editing will solve this, since someone will always revert back, and call the changes 'crap,' even when there is a 'discussion.'
:Generally the will not. If enough people support a certain formulation, that sort of thing tends not to happen. Why don't you try to convince me? I promise that if we find a solution we can both live on, I will also help you defend it towards others. That is way democracy works - you find a consensus.
That's a shame, because this is supposed to be a 'free' encyclopedia, where people are encouraged to 'contribute.'  From where I sit, it's controlled by a group of editors/admins/whatever who are too afraid to tell the truth without bias.  You're ruining a good thing.
128.194.54.244 23:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will say that I find the last offending. Nonetheless, try to win over the people who work on the article not to push your view. You've given the reason for your edit and I understand your reasoning. I've tried to portrait why that reasoning is not only very POV in my view but also options of how to solve that impasse. So far all I have heard from you is your reasoning and why I have to agree with it. Not once have you tried to win me over with a compromise. --Ebralph 00:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem is much bigger than this one article 

message: We have compromised--we both agree that some of these groups condone terrorist actions, while others are insurgents.  This does not require another section, if a group claims to condone terrorism, and this is a proven fact, then it is a terrorist group.  My problem is that instead of leaving the word 'terrorist' where it is appropreate, someone overwrites it, and accuses me of inserting my own point of view.  From what I gather from yourself and others, if I find a problem in this article, I'm allowed to contribute, but only with your approval.  If you/someone else doesn't like my words, then instead of changing them yourself to further meet in the middle, I am supposed to rewrite it, and resubmit for your/someone else's approval.  I believe I made myself clear in the last post that removing the term 'insurgent' from every reference was probably not completely accurate.
:The big problem is that the word 'terrorist' is already a conclusion. That term has been used too often for the one or other side. Armed fighters or whatever word you want to choose is easier by far, which probably is the reason that it is used. So if you want that wording in there you are bound to hit resistance. Another problem is the wide spreading of the word changes. Changing the words in several sections is a major revision and as such should really be put to discussion up front before going at it. That way the support for such changes are built up upfront and don't lead to such reactions(in my experience). Another way to avoid the problems is to cite sources. Thats pretty easy, actually. For example: The definition of terrorist according to Webster is such-and-such and fits the description of Zarqawi. So far you've given your own definition of terrorist as basis for your wording and though I do agree with it, backing it up is probably the better way to go about it.
I have also never tryed to establish the motivation of opposing sides.  I probably can't say why some insurgents are terrorists, or why some misguided soldiers committed attrocities in Abu Ghraib. What I can say with confidence is that no coalition government has, or ever will sanction the Frat House-style attrocities suffered by prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and that there are Islamic Fundamentalists who are willing to kill innocent people that they feel have turned their backs on Islam.  If you need proof, remember that the Abu Ghraib soldiers were court-martialed and punished for their actions.  Entire policies were rewritten to prevent these things from happening again.  Also, multiple apologies were issued by all ranks in the military and the White House.  In the case of the children suicide bombing, Zarqawi allegedly claimed responsibility for the "heroic attacks."
:A very good and valid point. It clearly shows the motivation of the different participants. One of the major differences between terrorists and valid freedom fighting is the goal to kill as many bystanders as possible. Work on that basis, cite Zarqawi and thereby make it clear why the conclusion is valid. Best to cite someone on that conclusion too. Keep it local to the ones you can cite thereby making your point very strong. I think the problem is more that most here the term 'terrorist' used too often by too many. It takes more backup because one doesn't want to sound like some sort of propaganda outlet. I think you are on a good track, if you can cite some sources to clearly show how he condoned the death of children, etc. 
This is the same Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that is described by Wikipedia as a gurrella fighter and an insurgent.  Even if these allegations are false, there are other confirmed instances where Zarqawi is clearly advocating terrorism, thus making him a terrorist without sacrificing neutrality.
:Great. Cite the sources, put it in specific to Zarqawi and you will find a staunch supporter for it in me.
My comments are not directed to a specific individual, if you examine the history, I've been overwritten a few times.  Admittedly, in the beginning, some parts probably needed to be removed.  When I am getting specific messages NOT to contribute (again, not by EBralph) there is a problem with the system.
128.194.54.244 01:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe - I think it is more getting used to people opposing the perfect obvious. :-) You need to build up support for the changes and that is much a question of rethoric and mechanism as anything else. In the end such critique results in a better page, though. Because all issues have been discussed and things which one might find obvious is truely researched and explored. --Ebralph 02:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The compromise 

message: According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm, Zarqawi has been confirmed to have personall executed no less than 2 individuals, including Nicholas Berg.  He is also known to encourage violence against the Shia.  Jordan has also sentenced him to death, for attempting to overthrow the government, by planning attacks against American and Israeli tourists.  Therefore, I think it would be safe to use the term 'terrorist' to describe himself, and his organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad.  The Wikipedia article for that group could use a little editing too, but one article at a time.  More to come! BQAggie2004 04:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. Maybe something to draw a clear line between certain groupings like that from Zarqawi and others would be a great idea. It would also make clear that there are people using the chaos as a way to excuse their deeds. --Ebralph 05:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi 

message: This article, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-sadr.htm, is very detailed.  Personally, I think is a flaky group of over-zealous nut jobs, but I realize I can't write that.  Their belief that the Americans have come to kill the 12th Imam allows us to refer to them as 'extremists.'  If only they knew that the average American probably had no idea what the word 'Iman' meant before 9/11.  I can find plenty of evidence that they have been willing to attack coalition forces, but nothing that says they support killing innocent civilians, either unarmed coalition civilians or Iraqi yet.  At least there is some political progress with them for now.  BQAggie2004 05:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahdi Army 

message: This groups's website, http://www.al-awda.org/ looks like more of
a political organization.  It doesn't appear to be affiliated with any militia.  I can't tell if it discourages violence.  Also, they're own webpage clearly states that they are against bigotry, although, they make no clear mention of bigotry against Jews.  Really, I have no idea what they are supposed to be as of now. BQAggie2004 05:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Awda 

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/fedayeen.htm
This sounds like it was a group of thugs, that was unleashed on the civilian population.  The website details a horrific 'beheading of women campaign.' Because they operated outside of the law, I think they could be referred to as a terrorist organization, at least at one time.  I have no idea what they do now just yet. BQAggie2004 05:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fedayeen Saddam 

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ansar-al-sunna.htm
One quote from this article: "These terrorists are targeting the Iraqis and killing many, many more Iraqis than they are killing coalition forces."
Also, the Wikipedia page for this group claims that the group beheaded a Turkish truck driver, and that they are linked to al-Qaeda.  Read the part about 12 murdered Nepalese.  Incredibly graphic.  Definatly terrorists. BQAggie2004 05:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaish Ansar al-Sunna 

message: Not much info on them yet. BQAggie2004 05:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snake Party 

message: http://www.answers.com/topic/black-banner-organization
(This page is a carbon-copy of the one on Wikipedia)
This group has taken hostages in an attempt to force a policy change.  They were later released.  Therefore, I believe that they could be called terrorists. BQAggie2004 06:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Banner Organization 

message: According to their Wikipedia page, this group does not believe in killing Iraqi police forces, or other Muslims.  However, they do believe in bombing UN headquarters.  Also, the following webpage says that they have vowed to fight all Muslims who cooperate with the new government.  Therefore, I believe they are terrorists. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/armed_vanguards_of_mohammad.htm
BQAggie2004 06:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohammad's Army 

message: This group might support terroristic acts, but it sounds like it focuses on insurgent activity, according to the Wikipedia page and others. BQAggie2004 06:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi National Islamic Resistance 

message: The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
This is a direct quote from https://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html, a CIA FAQ on terrorism.  I think that the definition is accurate. 
The key points are that the attack is political, it is targeting random civilians, and most importantly, it is intended as a way to communicate the political message.  Communicating a political message is the underlying motive.
BQAggie2004 06:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Terrorism 

message: From Military occupation
    Art. 42.
    Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
    The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. 
This is quite clearly not the situation now in Irak.  So why is this Pov inistance on the term?Dejvid 16:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Military occupation

message: In the first paragraph, I think the following sentence is more accurate:
'Terrorist' groups also have attacked Iraqi civilians, often of differing ethnic-religious heritage than the group's own.
The reason for this is because the only reason to attack civilians/noncombatants is to encite terror.  There are insurgent groups who oppose attacking civilians, namely other Muslims in some cases.
Also, on line 31:
Their reasons for opposing the coalition vary between a rejection of the foreign presence as a matter of principle to the failure of the 'coalition' forces to fully restore public services and to quickly restore complete sovereignty.
I think that this word should be changed from 'occupation' to 'coalition' because since the turnover of sovereignity to the new Iraqi government, the coalition forces remain only with their permission.  At one time, I think the word occupation was accurate, but according to the definition by Dejvid, the occupying army must be hostile.  Also, if the Iraqi government called for coalition forces to leave, they would be forced to honor the request.  BQAggie2004 22:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this article is about insurgent forces, not "terrorist" forces.  If terrorists are part of the insurgency that should be noted, of course, but to change references to "insurgent forces" here is extremely POV and really puts us in a different article.  Second, both "coalition forces" and "occupation" are accurate and are much more NPOV than "liberating forces" or "terrorists".  This is an occupation, whether we want to stay or not is a different point.  Nobody doubts that allied forces occupied Japan or Germany after WWII, for example.  I believe both these terms are accurate.  As for why terrorists attack civilians, you are speculating and mind-reading.  In fact some insurgents claim such attacks are justified actions against "collaborators" - esp where the civilians are politicians and police.  I am not agreeing with their POV but I do think it is inaccurate to impose a different POV on them than they themselves say.  Also I noticed you deleted references to "resistance" without explanation, which is also inaccurate.  There are many who refer to it as the Iraqi resistance and that has already been debated over and over on this page.  The general view seems to be that while calling the article "Iraqi resistance" is too POV, a more accurate interp is to call the article "Iraqi insurgency" and put the term "resistance" in the intro, since many Iraqis consider it that, esp. Sunnis.  Your claim that it is no longer an occupation is facetious -- the Iraqi government is considered by many a stooge of the occupying armies.  Whether or not that is true (I personally agree with you that it is not) is a secondary question -- the fact is for many Iraqis, esp. the insurgents but also for many ordinary citizens, the government is a puppet of the occupation.  So saying that it is no longer an occupation would be like saying that because the Vichy government supported the Nazis, France was not "occupied" between 1940 and 1944.  I am not saying that the US occupation is like the Nazis; only that it is also an occupation.  This point does not seem so controversial on other wiki pages.--csloat 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: In terms of occupation, while I agree with you that the aims are different, we can't know those aims for sure without mind-reading.  It is also true that many around the world do not believe our stated aims and believe that we are there in fact to steal resources.  As for the term "resistance", again, the issue is that many many many people believe it is a legitimate resistance -- the polls on this vary but somewhere between 40% and 60% of Iraqis support the resistance as a resistance, and the numbers are as high as 80-90% in Sunni areas.  The numbers suggest that there is legitimacy to the claim, whether or not you or I believe it.  It should certainly be here.  By contrast, there is no substantial population who considers all resistors terrorists; the only people saying that are in fact totally uninformed on the issue.  Even American conservative writers are careful here and stop short of calling them all terrorists.  But I agree with you that many of these attacks can objectively be described as "terrorist" acts which is why I did not change back all of your uses of the term.--csloat 01:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Also - it is incorrect to say that all terrorists are insurgents.  That is not true.  As you note on the other page, the unabomber was no insurgent.  There is debate about whether bnin Laden is an "insurgent."--csloat 01:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple other things 

message: I think you are both right about this (the Unabomber thing hit me after I wrote on this page :) )  The page Definition of terrorism is a good place to start.  The majority of each definition states that an act of terrorism is:
* Premeditated
* Politically/ideologically/religiously motivated
* Targets are chosen at random (opportunity)
* Result is to intimidate population into forcing a policy change
The British even include shutting down a website as an act of terrorism!
But the main point that I see that differs in all of them, is if the violent act targets noncombatants/civilians, or if it includes military personnel.  You could probably go into POV issues on this.
Unlike an assassination, where the target is explicitly chosen, a terroristic act chooses 'targets of opportunity,' meaning, pretty much anyone who's just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  
If the purpose of the attack is to instill fear, then I would think that any random explosion, targeting soldiers or civilians, would be an act of terrorism.  The reason is because civilians would always have to be on guard--they could always be collateral damage in an attack against military personnel.  The IRA example would fit in here.
One scenario where people accuse the coalition of terrorism is when they bomb/launch cruise missles at a civilian target, with the intent to assassinate a high-ranking enemy leader.  I do not believe this to be a terroristic act, because:
* When this type of decision is made, intel believes that eliminating the target immediatly can save many more coalition/Iraqi lives in the long run.
* The weapons are largely designed to minimize civilian casualties. (ex: using smart bombs instead of mortar fire)
* There is no attempt to intimidate the civilian population into submission, medical/relief is brought in to help the civilians.
* Any time that personal property (including livestock) or human life is lost, the military is liable and must provide monetary compensation.  (ex: if a Humvee runs over a farmer's pig, the Army has to pay for it.  I have to check on that, but I learned that from an Army Sgt. in an ROTC class.)
This does not mean that some civilians are not intimidated by the coalition after attacks, or are not bitter towards them.  Of course, collateral damage is a horrible tragedy, and one of the costs of war.  This is why leaders must exhaust all options before sending military forces abroad, we could discuss that too, but we'd probably have to write another article. BQAggie2004 03:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Terrorism?