Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)/Archive 1

message: i find it incredibly offensive to state that somehow the 'upper classes' and 'educated' are somehow inherently non-violent, while the 'lower classes' and 'uneducated' are somehow inherently pro violent. let me remind you that although gandhi and king were middle class themselves, a large portion of their followers, indeed their foot soldiers in their marches, were 'lower class' and 'uneducated'. let me also remind you that upper class educated people are the ones who started the invasion in iraq. and upper class educated people have presided over some of the most brutal dictatorships of the 20th century, including Mobutu in Zaire, not to mention others. if this is 'neutral point of view' then i am a polkadotted rhinocerous.
:Which part of the article are you referring to? I agree with you btw. If anything, the vast majority of violence comes from more or less 'educated' 'upper classes', although typically they manage to convince other people to do it for them. They are the ones who command armies and have their fingers on the nuclear button.The Iraq war is the obvious example for that. - pir 01:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class of resistance 

message: From the article:
:Occasions where fighters were concentrated in larger numbers included a battle near the town of Rawa on June 13, 2003 near the Syrian border and a large coordinated ambush of a convoy in the town of Samarra on November 31. Both involved groups of roughly 100 fighters.
It wasn't until I added some links to this article that I noticed the 2nd date was bogus: the month of November only has 30 days. While I assumed this was just a typo & fixed it, it's possible that this bogus date was a flag to show this 2nd attack is a hoax. Could someone far more knowledgeable than me verify that there was such an attack, & if so, what the correct date was? -- llywrch 17:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 31? 

message: I've just reverted an edit by User:164.58.80.66. His changes were IMO an NPOV violation; they had the article start with "The Iraqi insurgents (sometimes reffered as resistance by people with anti-US tone)". There may be NPOV problems with the article, 164.58.80.66, but putting a massive NPOV violation in the *first sentence* isn't the way to fix them. -- Cabalamat 18:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of changes by 164.58.80.66 

message: I've temporarily removed the following, which really need to be sourced to be of any use:
Sheik Hareth al Dhari has been described as the  Mullah Omar  of Iraq
Some believe that the major division in Iraq is not between religious/ethnic groups nor between the general population and violent groups, but between those who collaborate with the foreign occupation and those who resist it
: It's in the article linked to in the immediately preceding paragraph , paraphrasing the opinion of Wamidh Nadhmi, political scientist at Baghdad university and spokesman of the National Foundation Congress. Why weren't you consistent and removed the following sentence ("Though the divisions in Iraq between religious and ethnic groups (and, inparticular, between the general population and various violent groups) have became more appearant.) ? It's an unattributed, unsourced POV statement for which there is little evidence but quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. - pir 10:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I put one sentence back and (temporarily) removed the other. If there's a source or at least an attriution, please put it back if you like. - pir 19:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: The reality is that this is primarily a psychological war. The way the war is perceived is actually much more important than the military situation. Since suicide bombing is such a shocking form of attack, and often can be more effective at grinding away at the will of the U.S and intimidating Iraqi police and other forces than just firing an RPG, it has become a favored insurgent tactic. That it is a more effective way for the insurgents to kill their enemies was mentioned elsewhere in the article. [Anon]
I don't believe a word of it.   If we're going to include it, we need a source, and not to report is as indisputably true. Markalexander100 00:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Markalexander100. The only studies I've seen of the psychology of suicide bombers suggest that they are people who have been severely traumatised by conflict, like being tortured or the loss of a close relative  ; 2/3 of female suicide bombers are said to have lost ther husband or to have been raped. - pir 08:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's a silly beating-about-the-bush version to avoid saying the obvious (that the Allawi government shoots at peaceful marches) and not contradict the Western media orthodoxy (that Allawi is a good guy in a difficult situation). It needs rewording. - pir 10:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: On 16:44, 24 Sep 2004, Jkh.gr added this large chunk to the foot of the page.  It all seems good stuff, and it has been wikified a little since, but it seems to me that this ought to be either integrated further up the page (where some of the groups are already mentioned) or in a separate article of its own, say Iraqi resistance organizations?  I could be bold, but I've not edited here before and I don't know the issues very well - do other contributors have a view? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahmm... It's actually a copy-paste from an article posted to Indymedia. The original is from a newspaper in Baghdad, and was translated into English by FBIS. It's actually linked to in the external links (). It's better to remove the text, it's probably a copyvio. - pir 20:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unintegrated addition

message: There seems to be some people who insist that any mention of a "Conflict in Iraq" should be linked to this article, & not to the more comprehensive Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004. I fail to understand the logic in this linking. This article, based on its subject line, is only about one party in this conflict: the individuals & groups opposed to the US forces & their allies. The article I've made an effort to redirect the phrase "Conflict in Iraq" to, "Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004", not only covers both sides but also the larger history of the event. To use an anlogy, using this article to stand for the entire conflict would be exactly like using an article on the Soviet army or the German army alone for World War II, instead of that comprehensive article. Wouldn't you find it confusing & frustrating to follow a link from an article on, say, an Italian Blackshirt regiment or a Japanese warship to find it led to a discussion of the Soviet Army 1939-1945?
:Frankly, I find it wrong to include events (for example) as the refusal of 19 Army Reservists stationed in Iraq to take part in a fuel delivery convoy mission under a header that is concerned only with the opposing side. The Iraqi Resistance did not have any direct effect on this refusal; this refusal is best included as a matter related to the more comprehensive article. Let's try to preserve the proper relationship between the articles, so that students consulting Wikipedia are helped, not confused. -- llywrch 18:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. I have been guilty of this for the past few weeks. I saw someone previously link to Iraqi resistance so I simply kept with precedent without realizing there even was a better article to link to. I don't know why it didn't occur to me but now that it has been pointed out I will link future Current events dealing with occupation of Iraq to the obviously better article Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004. Thanks to llywrch for the heads up message sent via my user talk. -- Dejitarob 00:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conflict in Iraq" != "Iraqi Resistance" 

message: Any Evidence? --Alberuni 06:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The support for my statement is documented on the Occupation of Iraq page in the "United Nations Resolutions" section.  My statement, as opposed to your characterization of it, does not go beyond this documentation.--Silverback 07:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverback is claiming that the UN authorized the US invasion/occupation 

message: have the insurgents proposed any specific methods?  Are all the methods peaceful? if not which ones are and aren't?  Left unspecified, traditional could mean anything from conversion by the sword and ethnic cleansing of kurds and the wetland shiites to tribal chieftans.--Silverback 08:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose removing the mysterious  euphemism "traditional methods" 

message: Second sentence: "The insurgent groups see themselves as repelling foreign occupiers so that the people of Iraq can settle their own affairs."  This is a generalization and not true.  Al-Zarqawi has no interest in the 'people of Iraq' settling 'their own affairs', he is there to attempt to establish a Sunni caliphate (this in a predominantly Shi'a country).  This is obviously against the wishes of the Iraqi people and he has no compunction in blowing them up to achieve his ends.
Why does the sentence fragment "While roughly analogous to the way the French viewed Nazi collaborators during and after World War II," exist?  'French', 'Nazi' and 'World War II' can be exchanged for thousands of different things.  Why can the sentence not just read "Elements of the resistance have shown no regard for innocent civilian bystanders (collateral damage)."  Is there something particular about the French and Nazi case?  Doesn't it carry connotations of associating the multinational forces with Nazism, given that numerous examples could have been used?
Where did Bush claim that the transition to Iraqi rule would be marked by falling human and economic costs?  If I remember correctly, he characterized it as simply one step on a long and hard road.  No quote is provided to support what was in fact just a trope used by his opponents; he cannot be found anywhere to have claimed that things would get better after the handover.
The 'Foreign Fighters' section is all wrong and based on a misreading of the international Islamist movement.  It also contains factual inaccuracies.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is generally regarded to be the head of the most organized and well-financed (because through al-Qaeda) section of the resistance, who the authors of this article have chosen to place under the 'Foreign Fighter' section, in contrast to the 'Sunni Islamist' section.  This dichotomy is somewhat false.  Wahabis in Iraq are not fighting for the Iraqi national cause, and they are not there because they are defending the "Arab" or "Islamic" nation.
The article states that "Some elements of the Western media have painted these fighters as anti-democratic Wahabi fundamentalists who see Iraq as the new "field of jihad" in the battle against U.S. forces."  Why 'some elements of the Western media'?  This is exactly what they are doing, and it is exactly what the international Islamist movement has done since the 1980s.  This is well known and documented on this very site.  Also, "suspected "al-Qaeda" operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" should be changed to take into account the strong personal ties between Zarqawi and OBL that date back years and the oath of loyalty Zarqawi took to OBL. (Source: )
The activities of Wahabis in Iraq mirror their activities all over the world, in places such as the Caucasus, Kosovo, Bosnia and Algeria.  The war Wahabis are fighting against Shi'a in Iraq shows they have no regard whatsoever for the Iraqi national movement, and cannot legitimately be seen as a part of it.  It is similarly a misreading to suggest they are there to protect some unified Arabic or Islamic nation (as if pan-Arabism were really a dominant Middle Eastern ideology), as the section of Islam they represent is totally non-traditional (it is, however, traditionalistic) and does not represent the views of the majority of the world's Muslims (most of whom aren't Arabic), nor of the Iraqi people.
Just some things to think about.  I will gladly work on correcting what I see as errors myself if approval is forthcoming.  This article could be a lot more accurate and a lot more neutral.
--Noung 00:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the main I think you have focused on key problems with the artical as it stands.  I would say tho that pan-Arabism has for long been a significant trend among Sunnis in Iraq tho the Iraq as artificial state wording seems to me to overstate this. Dejvid 02:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General problems and rewrite 'Foreign Fighters'

message: "The Iraqi resistance are the groups fighting against the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the U.S.-installed interim government of Iraq." -- factually incorrect, this is not what the insurgents do.  many attacks have targets unrelated to the Coalition military or the interim government.
"The insurgent groups see themselves as repelling foreign occupiers so that the people of Iraq can settle their own affairs." -- not true of all groups.  any quotes in support of this?  it would be nice if there was a "statements by insurgents" section.  this claim is repeated in several places in the article.  I think it's a fair bet at least some fight so they can seize power after the US leaves, some because they wish to establish an Islamist state, and some because they get paid to.  Baathists or Islamists seizing power cannot be reasonably described as "the people of Iraq ... settle their own affairs".
"they appear to have shown little regard for the lives of Iraqi civilian collaborators" -- or civilians in general. actually "little regard" is a massive understatement since civilians who are not in any possible way "collaborators" have been deliberately targeted numerous times.
"Elements of the insurgency, along with the occupation forces, appear to have shown little regard in their attacks for innocent civilian bystanders, and groups such as that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have deliberately attempted to stir up ethnic strife by bombing Christian Churches and Shi'a wedding ceremonies." -- "along with the occupation forces" is a) factually incorrect and b) irrelevant.  "groups such as" tries to distance the "resistance" from such attacks.  Additionally, Shia mosques and religious festivals have been bombed as well, and more often and on a larger scale if anything than Christian ones.
"the period since the handover has been marked by the highest rates of U.S. military casualties" -- stats?  I'm not sure how this is relevant, considering that the insurgents would need some time to get organized after the war.
ObsidianOrder 09:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make good points, and I think there are also some other issues with the article that will need to be reviewed. It looks like a lot of this was composed by someone with a bizarre political agenda, and little regard for NPOV encyclopedic writing. --Daniel11 20:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: "along with the occupation forces" is not factually incorrect. Reports of civilians deaths at the hands of US troops are numerous, even by their own accounts. Some estimates put the death toll at 100 000 Iraqis. You certainly do not flatten cities like fallujah without reckless disregard for those who cannot leave. It is also relevant because it provides critical context. ?Christiaan 01:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read the sources and criticisms of that 100,000 figure.--Silverback 08:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you claiming "100 000 civilian deaths at the hands of US troops"?  Please explain where you get this number.  The Lancet study does not claim this.  Further: Fallujah is not flattened  , and by numerous accounts US forces have taken great care to avoid civilian casualties, for example by evacuating civilians and setting up safe areas whenever possible.  ObsidianOrder 02:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problems with the summary part of the article 

message: I followed some (admittedly not all) the external links, and found some reporters calling the insurgents a "resistance", but did not find any evidence of Iraqis self-identifying as such.  I doubt the actions of the Jordanian refugee from the Afghan conflict (Zachari) could be characterized as a "resistance" even if he self-identified as such.  Does any know which links support the contention that bombers and executers in Iraq self-identify as a resistance? --Silverback 15:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Silverback, I've looked a little into that, it seems that this term is often used by the insurgents and insurgent-friendly media outlets when they address western audiences (in English)  .  I really doubt this term is commonly used in Arabic (al-Moqawama).  I found one instance of it being used by Al-Sadr, while giving an interview to an Egyptian newspaper.  So far zero instances of use by Zarqawi.  ;)  ObsidianOrder 23:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh you mean reporters that aren't credible because they don't share your world-view. Right. And I see you've suddenly become a Arabic psychic who who can tell what the Arab media writes. The Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance or Jama` self-identify as resistance. Further more if they're using "resistance" when addressing western media how does that preclude it from being self-identification? And I have another question, which of the resistance groups self-identifies as an "insurgency"? ?Christiaan 14:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Iraqi insurgents self-identify as "resistance"? 

message: 195.14.210.34 added these...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_insurgency&diff=10783006&oldid=10730517
I don't have a problem with them, I mostly tend to agree with the analysis, but they do seem rather editorial/conjecture/original research.  Is there a source for these claims?  Mainly (a) Baathist cells are dissolved, and (b) Nationalist groups are becoming more influenced by Islamists?
I'll rv the election comment, I think 400 attacks does constitute a "serious attempt to interfere".
ObsidianOrder 08:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  195.14.210.34 contributions 

message: Some poor editing. Please stop reverting to this. Everybody take a look at Christiaan's proposed changes (basically weak rationalizations for the insurgents, IMO) and decide on what's appropriate for the introductory part of the article. --Daniel11 15:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're not trying to obscure the fact that you're also trying to revert csloat's edit? this is my edit not the one you posted. It is also clearly not conclusive as to who carries out all these attacks. ?Christiaan 15:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Christiaan; looking over the edits of Daniel11 they seem both destructive and heavily POV.  If you want to claim the Iraqi resistance goal was to stop the January election, you need evidence, and you need to explain why they are still resisting now that the election is over.  When evidence is presented of Iraqi resistance that avoids targeting civilians, you shouldn't just erase it.  I think we all need to keep in mind that there are many different insurgent groups in Iraq, some resisting the US occupation, others resisting the Iraqi provisional government, and a small minority resisting "democracy" generally.  Trying to pretend that they have a single goal may be comforting to your own narrow worldview, but it just doesn't represent reality.--csloat 23:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to pretend they have peaceful allies supporting their actions appears to be mere imagination.  What peaceful groups have signed onto the anti-shia and anti-democratic attacks?  Perhaps there is some remaining Bathist and wahabi sympathizers with the insurgents, but if they are an organized group, they should be documented specifically, not presented as a general sentiment of Iraqis or against the coalition.--Silverback 05:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are Orwellian.  You and Daniel11 are doing everything to remove any evidence that the resistance is popular or that there are elements of the resistance who are not terrorists.  There are peaceful groups who oppose the occupation, and there are also violent groups opposing the occupation who do not target civilians.  I will take out the sentence you're objecting to here just to avoid an edit war, but I am reinstating all the other changes, which you reverted without explanation.  Again, I think this entry needs to be true to the reality that there are multiple groups resisting the U.S. occupation, and that they have different goals.  Your assumption that they are all allied with Zarqawi, who is anti-Shiite, is at odds with reality and it is completely insulting to the many Shiites who oppose U.S. occupation.  Let's not forget what I wrote elsewhere on this page -- Ayatollah Sistani, who is the key reason we had an election in January rather than going by the original Bush plan in the first place, has made it very clear that between the Bush Administration and the Sadrists, he prefers the Sadrists.  --csloat 07:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disappoint, buddy, but the occupation is over. I'm sure you must be terribly disappointed -- after all, there's plenty of "popular" "resistance" who "peacefully" share your opposition to the "U.S. occupation" (even when there was an occupation, it was the coalition's, not the U.S.'s) -- but those days are over, Iraq is now governed and legislated by Iraqis. On a no doubt similarly sad (for you) note, it must be a great disappointment to see the end of the "resistance": now that the terrorists have no chance of affecting the political resolution, they're basically just criminals instead of terrorists or even insurgents. When you attack civilians and some hard targets in order to change the political situation, like Al Qaeda or Hamas or your insurgents in Iraq back in the day, you're terrorists; when you're just blowing up civilians for the hell of it, you're really not much more than a serial criminal. It's gonna be harder to stand up for them as this transformation becomes clear to you -- but, I'm sure you'll give it your best whack. --Daniel11 20:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The occupation is over? Since when did the Iraqi government get control over U.S. military major operations? ?Christiaan 20:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: To add to this.... if you think the occupation is over will you please send this information to the National Guards who have been kept in Iraq beyond their contracts so that they can make plans to come home?  Will you please tell that to the residents of Fallujah, so that they too can return home?  While you're at it, please tell Mr. Bush; given his announcement this week that we may be occupying Iraq militarily for a long time to come, it's clear that he didn't get your memo.  Message to Daniel11: stop acting as if those of us who are actually looking at the complexities of the situation are somehow pro-terrorist.  And read something about the reality yourself, rather than just believing everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh.  Every poll in Iraq has consistently shown a majority of Iraqis -- Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, even Christians -- percieve the US as an occupying force.  Even the people who won in the election that you think Bush deserves credit for want the US out.  Wake up.  And until you do wake up, please stop trying to change the historical record to fit your absurd caricature of reality. --csloat 22:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if they had an edit war, and nobody came? 

message: Not this again.... ok, first, why do you keep on putting "U.S. occupation," "U.S. this," and "U.S. that" back in, when these are all coalition activities? I understand there's a lot of (justifiable?) bitterness or envy or whatever toward the U.S. in Europe and other parts of the world, but surely even you acknowledge the basic fact that these are coalition activities, not U.S. activities?
Next, why do you keep trying to hide the names of things like the ITG, which people will see anyway once they click on the link? Does it really bother people with your bias to see things like "Iraqi Transitional Government"?
And finally, while there may be people in Iraq who peacefully disagree with the ITG, the presence of coalition forces, Iyad Allawi, or whatever, this article's not about them, it's about the Iraqi insurgency. If you want to mention those who have peaceful disagreements with anything in the new Iraq, why don't you slip it in as one of your many "hidden" messages of support for the "resistance" later in the article? It most certainly does not belong in the introductory paragraph. --Daniel11 11:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put U.S. this and U.S. that because accuracy is important. This is also an article about Iraqi resistance (not the U.S. invasion) and therefore such terms comply Wikipedia self-identification conventions. ?Christiaan 11:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't answer my questions or address the issues involved... you're still hung up on your obsessive ideas of WP self-identification conventions and "systemic bias." --Daniel11 12:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. Do you have a problem with Wikipedia conventions? ?Christiaan 12:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you answer why you keep hiding the names of important, relevant organizations? Where do you answer why you keep mentioning those peaceful Iraqis who disagree with the ITG in the introductory paragraph of an article about insurgents? And no I don't have a problem with WP conventions, though as I indicated you do seem to obsess about them quite a bit. --Daniel11 12:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a babysitter Daniel. I'm sure you can work it out yourself. Yes I'm well aware of your personal remarks. ?Christiaan 12:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've tried, but somebody keeps reverting me ;) --Daniel11 12:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take 2: What if they had an edit war and a few people came? 

message: I've been unable to find election results for the National Foundation Congress.  How many seats did they win?--Silverback 14:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe zero, as they boycotted the elections.   --Bletch 17:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  election results for National Foundation Congress 

message: We're going to have to come up with a version here that both sides think is NPOV, and Daniel's destructive edits won't cut it.  Stop trying to censor information that upsets your little black-or-white worldview.  The world is more complicated than that.  There is nonviolent resistance to the occupation.  There are groups that only target the occupation and do not target civilians.  These are facts.  Erasing them does not change them.  If you're going to keep doing this, let's just slap a NPOV tag on the whole article and be done with it.
Don't pretend your edits are consistent with the discussion; they are not.  See above - it seems to be agreed that the resistance should be mentioned and we should mention why some of us say "resistance" while others refer only to "insurgents."  You just keep erasing things.  Until someone creates a separate page for the resistance, those paragraphs belong in this entry (and afterwards, a link to them in the new entry belongs in their place).
--csloat 11:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to work on articles concerning peaceful opposition to the Iraqi government and/or the coalition troops, there are numerous places: I just created this, which you might like to work on, or you could start a new article on a related topic, and so on. --Daniel11 12:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: There is just not a significant non-violent "resistance".  This "resistance" hasn't resisted anything, except perhaps the risk of going to the polls. They aren't even parties to the negotiations for the leadership of the country.  The issuing of press releases does not make them a "resistance".  The "occupation" ended with the internationally recognized government last summer.  No candidate for high position in the country has stated that Iraq is ready for the coalition to leave.--Silverback 19:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd read the newspapers once in a while you would see how wrong you are.  Nearly every candidate for high position has stated that they want the U.S. occupation to end.  If the occupation is truly over then why are Americans still dying over there?  --csloat 21:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are policemen dying in the US?  The coalition is providing security, under the auspices of the internationally recognized Iraqi government.  All want the coalition presence to end eventually, as does the coalition.--Silverback 06:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: American policement die in the U.S., not a foreign occupying army (if one existed, you and I would probably both be part of the resistance against it).  If everybody really wants the occupation to end, we have the perfect opportunity to end it now and save face -- declaring victory, praising the elections, and allowing a truly multinational force to handle security on terms determined by the Iraqis rather than the Americans.  The reason Iraq is considered still under occupation is that the Iraqi government is not making decisions about the American military -- those decisions are made by the Pentagon and the U.S. military officers in the field.  When those decisions are made by an Iraqi civilan government, then we can talk; otherwise you are again persisting in sheer fantasy.--csloat 19:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Daniel11 Stop the Edit War 

message: I am thinking more and more that a separate category is a good idea, so I will create it in a bit.  Especially after Baghdad saw the biggest protests since 1958 on the 2 year anniversary of its supposed "liberation," it is pretty difficult for the folks who have been stomping their feet about using the term in this forum to continue to pretend that this is not a popular uprising against the American occupation.  --csloat 08:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be alone in my thinking, but IMHO stuff like that would be better done under Politics of Iraq, as there are too many interractions and relationships between the parties do and do not operate under the auspices of the provisional government.  Take Sistani for example, one can almost say that the United Iraqi Alliance is his right arm, and Moqtada al-Sadr is his left arm.  --Bletch 16:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the creation of a new article as well.  There is no "popular uprising".  Indeed, there are a lot of people who would like the US to have less influence, and to leave soon-ish, but that is quite completely different from the insurgency.  There is not much evidence of the political opposition and the insurgency working together, except Al-Sadr who is an ex- insurgent (or perhaps defeated insurgent) and wannabe politician. Anything along those lines should go in Politics of Iraq or Iraqi opposition (post-occupation).   ObsidianOrder 05:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and re: the April 9 demonstration (apparently organized and primarily composed of Al-Sadr's men), it is not "the biggest since 1958" since for example the anti-terrorist demonstrations in Baghdad on Nov 28 and Dec 10, 2003 were probably larger (and of course the elections were quite a bit larger too).  Al-Sadr *and* the AMS together can bring a few thousand guys out on the street, that's no surprise, actually that's a pretty poor showing.  Btw I'll believe the number claimed in the LA Times (and the World Socialist Web Site, among others) when I see a photo like this.  But such a photo doesn't exist, now does it? ObsidianOrder 05:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, the photos are not bad.  As it happens, you can count the number of people in them, one photo shows 2-3k and the other 4k, approximately.  Surprising how there are no women present, and more than half the slogans are in English, eh?  ObsidianOrder 01:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi Resistance 

message: I deleted a mention of "mercenaries", just a quick rationale... mercenaries by definition (a) serve the same function as regular soldiers and (b) do so primarily for pay (they would switch sides for more pay).  Neither is true in the case of any of the contractors operating in Iraq, even the ones who carry weapons.  In particular, their rules of engagement are (in theory, and most of the time in practice) the same as for civilians: they may only return fire in response to an attack, but they may not initiate an attack.  They are also under the jurisdiction of civilian courts.  "Private guards" or the euphemistic "security contractors" is more accurate.  ObsidianOrder 04:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mercenaries? 

message: I would like to see the info on non-violent parties and protests to be moved to Politics of Iraq for the following reasons:
#The current article is oversized; it is 49k long when 32k is preferable.
#Current info on non-violent parties and protests appear currently in only a single section (1.6) and what almost appears to be an afterthought in the intro.
#The current Politics of Iraq article currently has no references to protests, opposition parties that do not participate in the provisional government and other clandestine politics.  Or even a single link to the Iraqi insurgency (!!!).
I'm not going to do this under the duress of a revert war so I'd like to to hear opinions. --Bletch 14:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a move back to the broader term of Iraqi resistance will do the trick. ?Christiaan 23:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving info on non-violent parties and protests to Politics of Iraq 

message: csloat - you mentioned there was some info that may have been deleted on Sunni groups who had issued statements against attacking civilians.  Is this it?  "Other insurgent groups have claimed to avoid targeting civilians, and to attack only the foreign military forces ."  (quoting JAMA).  That's in the current version under "Insurgency Tactics".  I looked in the old versions but I can't find anything else.  ObsidianOrder 03:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  did we lose any info? 

message: I realise now we've got it back to front. When merging Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency we should have made Iraqi resistance the default and redirected the insurgency to resistance, because this is the broader term. It was a mistake to do it the other way round, and this has become obvious via the efforts of some editors to remove any mention resistance other than that of the insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency is a part of the resistance, not the other way round. It's silly to describe peaceful resistance in an article about insurgents, but of course it's not silly to describe armed resistance in an article about resistance. Clearly we need to swap the names. Anyone now how to do this? ?Christiaan 13:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To talk about the resistance as if it was a monolithic group is pretty erroneous.  As I said before, if the scope of this article is to be expanded to anyone opposing the US in any degree, groups like the United Iraqi Alliance would be included.  If anything, splitting this article up is much more preferable.  --Bletch 14:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, just as it is erroneous to talk about the insurgency as if it was a monolithic group, neither of which anyone is suggesting. You're just introducing a straw man. There's no need to split the articles if everything can fit in one, which I think it can. ?Christiaan 17:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a straw man argument at all, as the unmonolithic nature of the group you describe as 'the resistance' is precisely why there should not be a single broad article.  Having a broad article that encompasses anybody that does not kowtow to the coalition is way too broad.  Its akin to having an article about "Everybody that dislikes George W. Bush".  Just because something is broader does not mean that it is a good idea.  --Bletch 18:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Christiaan, I agree with the spirit of your proposal, but it simply does not do enough to correct this grave injustice.  We should call them what they usually call themselves, "the lions of the martyr brigades" ("lions of Al-Qaeda" and "lions of Anbar" is also acceptable)... and of course we should refer to the traitors in the puppet government as "apostates", "collaborators" or "snakes".  The Americans should be referred to as "crusaders" or "mercenaries", naturally. ObsidianOrder 15:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, OO, he makes a reasonable point.  The article itself even says "resistance" is the broader term. --csloat 17:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not a reasonable point.  To use the term "resistance" is to imply several things, basically: people who are fighting against a foreign and/or oppressive and/or illegitimate power.  The insurgents are fighting primarily against the new Iraqi government and only secondarily against the US/coalition troops (which support that government); the government and troops are neither illegitimate nor oppressive.  The term is pure propaganda, and it is obnoxious.  I think you have completely bought into the idea of an "uprising" or a popular movement, but it just doesn't exist.  The popular movements are the people who won the election, and they are also targets of the insurgents and allies (perhaps allies-of-convenience) to the US.   ObsidianOrder 17:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's unreasonable then why do we conflate resistance with insurgency in the opening paragraph? They ARE fighting against a foreign oppressive power. It's rich in the extreme for you to sit there telling us we have "completely bought into the idea of an "uprising" or a popular movement" while you are saturated in propaganda the likes of which the world has never seen. May I suggest you get off your ass and go take a look for yourself. The people voted because they called Bush & Cos bluff; they voted because they want the U.S. out of their country. Clearly the reason you don't want the word resistance used is because you believe some level of legitimacy is attached to this word. In making this political decision you have managed to exclude the non-violent aspects of resistance and now we have the laughable situation of describing non-violent aspects of resistance in an article whose name refers to the violent aspects of resistance. ?Christiaan 18:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Well of course Obsidian, we wouldn't want to refer to opposition to the U.S. as resistance now would we... that might give the game away. ?Christiaan 17:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Found it: Help:Renaming (moving) a page#Swapping two pages
Christiaan - you can't do this without a broad agreement to such a move.  It is not a technical issue, it is that people don't agree with you.  We voted on this, and you should respect the community of wikipedia, which made its preferences quite clear.  I think trying to re-run such a vote is in bad faith, it is a huge waste of time, and the results will be the same as before.  ObsidianOrder 18:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually much has happened since that vote, primarily the realisation that it was a mistake because editors have since tried to narrow down the content of the article to exclude certain aspects of the resistance. I don't even believe a vote is needed; if you had a ounce of credibility you would admit that it was a mistake purely on the grounds that an insurgency is only a part of resistance not "also known as" as we currently state. ?Christiaan 18:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Which is of course the problem csloat, because an insurgency is violent by definition. ?Christiaan 18:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: csloat - "encompasses" - that assumes that they are in fact part of a single entity.  "only fight against the occupation" - or say they do, anyway.  there is not much reason to believe that, since attacks against iraqis are far, far more common.  "do not seek to create chaos" - if their goal was to get the US out, and they had majority support, the fastest way would be to peacefully elect a perfectly legitimate government which would then peacefully ask us to leave - and we will have to leave.  logically, their goal is something else, namely: in the short term - provoke overreaction from the government/US which will bring more of the population on their side, against the government/US;  in the long term - seize power in as large an area as they can hold and then implement the rest of their agenda (return of baath/iran-like theocracy/al-qaeda sanctuary/etc).  al-sadr and his supporters are terrorists   , so for them to shout "no to terrorism" is just too ironic.  zarqawi and sadr may be rivals, but they are very much birds of a feather.  ObsidianOrder 19:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance is the broader term 

message: In response to the posting of "A New York Post article from June 1, 2005 states that research indicates only 9% of so-called insurgent fighters are Iraqi-born ", user:Commander Sloat: rv false claim from bad source -- it says suicide bombers, not insurgents, and it's a NY Post poll with no methodology. Most estimates are the other way around - perhaps 9% foreign fighters at most. However, it is not a poll from the NY Post, but instead research discussed in the article conducted by a research organization, the SITE Group. ~ Dpr 10:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Fighters 

message: An anonymous editor made substantial changes to the article with very little explanation and no discussion on the discussion page.  I reverted some of these but I am wondering if we should just go ahead and revert the whole thing back to the last reasonable version.  Some of the changes seemed ok but others erased important information.  I don't have time to go over every change with a fine tooth comb; I ask for others to input about whether we should do that or just revert the whole thing.  I was particularly disturbed by the slashing of the "foreign fighters" section, eliminating important information.  Significant rewrites are ok but each of the major changes should be justified, at least with a brief summary.--csloat 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it would help to sign your work so your butchery isn't anonymous ;)  I'm fine with seeing changes as long as they are justified clearly so they can be discussed if necessary.  You made a host of dramatic changes with no indication of why you thought they were useful changes.  Many of them I thought removed valuable information.  The intro may be clumsy but your changes removed all sign that the insurgency is seen by some as a resistance movement and that many (esp. in Iraq) use the term "resistance" rather than "insurgency."  Your changes to the foreign fighters section eliminated important information about the number of foreign fighters and about the controversial nature of the term "foreign fighters" (which is what many Iraqis call the American troops there).  You also removed the documentation cited and replaced it with unsupported assertions (e.g. the 5-10% figure, which is possibly accurate, but had no source cited).  You eliminated important chunks of the peaceful resistance section.  etc. -- these are major changes and should be justified here so they can be disputed if necessary.--csloat 04:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: PS it would help to discuss why you think this article has "fallen" to "depths" -- what problems existed that you tried to change?  I understand the desire to shorten it but that should be done without just deleting accurate information -- make sub-articles if necessary (e.g. foreign fighters in Iraq or some such).  I have seen this article improve in various ways over the past few months so it's odd to see that you think it has fallen to depths.  Most of the major changes that have taken place have done so after discussion, or at least with clear justifications in the edit summaries.  Your approach was far too aggressive and heavy-handed -- lots of massive editing with no explanation or discussion at all.  That is why it struck me as "butchery."--csloat 04:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Butchery