Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)

---

Archives

• Talk:Iraqi insurgency/Archive discussion of move - discussion of move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency on Wikipedia:Requested moves ObsidianOrder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi insurgency/archive

"Foreign occupation forces"

If this expression is to be used in the opening paragraph, it must be stated that it is an incorrect formulation. The multinational force is in Iraq at the request of the democratically elected Iraqi government and under the terms of a UN Security Council resolution. It is therefore not a "foreign occupation force." I don't dispute that the term is widely used, but it is incorrect and this needs to be noted. Adam 14:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. The question is, how to modify it. Who uses the term? The Iraqi insurgents. So that is why I suggest stating, "which Iraqi insurgents call foreign occupation forces" --Noitall 14:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

As an English term it is mainly used by the American and other "anti-war" movements. I don't know what Arabic expression the insurgents use. In any case the "insurgency" is mostly directed against Iraqi civilians these days. Adam 14:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The Foreign occupation forces thing is a legacy item, the points that Carr make is good though (eg., Iraqi gov't and the UN).

This should be iuncluded in the intro:

The ongoing insurgency during this reconstruction serve as a sign of a future sectarian civil war in the country.

As Carr states, "insurgency" is mostly against Iraqi civilians. JDR 15:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam's point is so blatantly POV that it's scarcely worth replying. But... that "democratically elected government" was obviously formed after the occupation and organized by the occupiers (those opposing the occupation would obviously not take part in those "elections" because it would mean legitimizing the occupation). It's like saying the Nazis didn't occupy Bohemia and Moravia because there was a "consenting" government there (Hácha). Even more nonsense is the suggestion that the insurgency is "directed against civilians" when most civilians are clearly killed by the occupying forces; and in both cases, civilians are usually just "collateral damage" and not the target in itself (except of course that the resistance targets those seen as collaborators, but not just random innocent people as you want to imply). NoPuzzleStranger 16:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

NoPuzzleStranger, Adam's points are mainly NPOV. The "democratically elected government" is still a democratically elected government; can't change the facts because you don't like them. The United Nations has recognized the formal end of occupation. The legitimcy of the interm government is recognized by the UN and several other individual nations which established diplomatic relations with the Allawi government.

As to the insurgency, it has been "directed against civilians" as of late. Most civilians are not killed by the occupying forces, the multinational forces have taken measures to prevent this (though death of innocents has happened even with the precautions; I wouldn't call them "collateral damage" but if you choose to that is your choice ).

Also, the violent insurgents have killed random innocent people (read up on the various homocidal bombing in the country), sometimes with the police and other civilians as the main target (sowing discord between the various groups in the population). JDR 17:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a democratic election under foreign military occupation. It is obviously impossible for a party to stand in such elections on a platform of kicking the occupiers out. Anyone publicly promoting that would have been declared a terrorist and arrested if not killed. Whether other countries or the UN now recognize the government is immaterial. An occupation is an occupation. If one country occupies another without any invitation, then it's an occupation - and that fact is not changed if the invading country installs a new government there and that government then (unsurprisingly) "invites" those occupying forces. As to the civilian casualties, studies have shown that four times as many victims died at the hands of the occupying forces than of the insurgents. And police are of course a legitimate target for the resistance. Again, random people may be caught up in attacks, but that happens on both sides. NoPuzzleStranger 17:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Funny NPS, last I checked Allawi and his Iraqi List party backed by the U.S. lost the election. And speaking of nonsense, I don't know about the Ba'athist component, but the foreign jihadist component most certainly targets Iraqi civilians, as any informed person knows. BTW, if we're gonna argue semantics, I personally don't know why there's that second paragraph in the intro, as the "insurgency" specifically refers to a violent campaign by definition. J. Parker Stone 17:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The differences between Allawi and Jaafari are of minor importance to the U.S. The point is that everyone standing in the election supported the occupation or at least tolerated it. However, it is clear that a sizable part of the population wants the occupiers out - and that portion is not represented in the parliament. NoPuzzleStranger 18:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're correct, Sunnis are not represented because they boycotted the elections and foreign jihadists are not represented because they don't believe in the democratic process. J. Parker Stone 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

NoPuzzleStranger says: "There is no such thing as a democratic election under foreign military occupation." What does s/he think happened in Germany, Italy and Japan after WW2? All conducted free elections in the 1940s under Allied occupation. Germany has been "under foreign occupation" ever since 1945 (there are still US and UK troops there now), yet no-one has ever disputed the legitimacy of German elections. Denmark actually conducted a free election under German occupation in 1942. The test for a democratic election is whether it was freely and fairly conducted, and all reputable foreign observers agreed (some quite reluctantly) that the Iraq election passed that test. NoPuzzleStranger says that anti-US parties were unable to contest the elections. This is a circular argument, since those Iraqis who oppose the Coalition presence in Iraq didn't recognise the election and didn't try to take part, and the Sunni leadership chose to boycott the elections rather than field a party. The great majority of Shia and virtually all the Kurds support the presence of Coalition troops until they achieve their political objectives, as was shown by their votes for parties co-operating with the transitional government. As J Parker Stone says, the candidates favoured by the US (first Chalabi and then Allawi) have actually been rejected by the Iraqis, which shows that the US has not been rigging the process. Adam 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a big difference between what happened in Germany/Italy/Japan after WW2 and what's happening in Iraq. Note that there was no insurgency in those countries - accordingly there wouldn't have been any significant political parties supporting a continued resistance either. So, the elections were democratic enough in that regard (ignoring things like the U.S. funding of the Italian Christian Democrats to ensure their victory). Now why were the conditions so different? It's obvious: Germany/Italy/Japan were the aggressors in WW2 and were defeated. The people accepted this outcome as something they ultimately brought upon themselves. Iraq, on the other hand, was the victim of an aggression and understandably the people are not so ready to accept defeat when it means submitting to an aggressor. NoPuzzleStranger 18:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

See this map at my website which shows the level of participation in the Iraqi election by province. The high turnout in the Shia and Kurdish regions is eveident. Adam 22:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As is the low turnout in the Sunni regions, what's your point? NoPuzzleStranger 18:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

If I may just interject. I am in favour (generally) of Adam's version, with one caveat - the word "incorrectly" may be POV, since it is coming down on the side that the insurgents or the anti-war movements are wrong in calling them occupational forces. Simply removing it takes nothing away and does not establish its validity or non-validity and is more NPOV, in my opinion. --khaosworks 15:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The point is that it is incorrect to call them that. That point is still true. The majority of Iraqis (eg., Shia and Kurds) support the presence of Coalition troops. Mabey putting in "commonly referred to, erroneously,". JDR

Perhaps to remove contention, we can explain why it is erroneous, i.e. by saying something on the lines of "Although they are common referred to as foreign occupation forces, this designation is no longer accurate as their presence is at the request of the elected Iraqi government." --khaosworks 16:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. But intro blotaing is a danger. NA the new Iraqi army got cut off. JDR 17:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the statement of support is quite false - where do you get your information? All recent polls over the past year that I am aware of show that the majority reject the occupying forces, including polls cited in this very article. Here are a couple of examples [1][2] [3][4]--csloat 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This 2004 myth vs fact may help. JDR 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• It seems there is a lot of agreement on the issues with khaosworks and JDR, but we do not have a good intro. Here is what is there:

The Iraqi insurgency comprises various guerrilla and insurgent groups who are engaged in a struggle, usually violent, against the multinational forces (a majority of whom are from the the United States and Great Britian; commonly referred to, erroneously, as "foreign occupation forces") and the new Iraqi Army.

It has several things wrong with it:

1. misleading to note U.S. and U.K. without going into the full context Coalition of the Willing, U.N. authority, Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi authority
2. insurgent groups have always targeted Iraqis and seek to start an Iraqi civil war, as we agree (we just don't agree on whether they have achieved anything in that regard) -- thus misleading to state that the insurgent groups are targeting "foreign occupasion forces"
3. "foreign occupasion forces" also misleading as to the authority they work under, which is currently Iraqi authority.
4. I'll think of others

--Noitall 16:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

1. These points should be somewhere ... but not here. They should go in the multinational forces article. BEWARE of intro bloating.
2. Insurgents initially didn't target other Iraqi. This phenonomena was born some time (~1/2+ yr) after the initial occupation (the existing civil war is the result of this increasing violence).
3. The authoirity is recgnized by the UN. Do you seriously suggest ignoring the UN?
4. Please think of others ...

17:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You recent edits are ok, we are getting there. Although an intro should be as brief as necessary, if necessary, they can be far longer than this. Insurgents did target other religious leaders and other those who assisted the the initial authorities and multinational forces, but it has ramped up as authority has returned to Iraqis. On the U.N. we totally agree. Structure of the intro -->it ought to be who now, who originally, then where it is going. --Noitall 17:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The US government under Reagan and Western media didn't let the presence of an Afghan "government" (probably recognised by the UN as the government) that supported the prescence of Soviet troops stop them from referring to a Soviet "occupation" and supporting the Islamist mujahadeen "resistance movement"--which included many non-Afghan fighters--as they fought Soviet and Afghan collaborationist soldiers (even when Islamist guerrillas shot down civilian airliners and murdered Afghan civilians).

Setting up a government to invite troops to stay is the oldest trick in the book for occupying powers. Any Iraqi politicians that stood in the elections knew that the security and continuing existence of their government depended on the presence of thousands of foreign soldiers--who are in Iraq against the wishes of the majority of the people.

Since the belief that there is still an occupation is shared by many people--including, probably, most Iraqis--it should be mentioned that the "multinational forces" are considered occupation forces by some. Kingal86 07:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The insurgency and political freedom

There's a big difference between what happened in Germany/Italy/Japan after WW2 and what's happening in Iraq. Note that there was no insurgency in those countries - accordingly there wouldn't have been any significant political parties supporting a continued resistance either. So, the elections were democratic enough in that regard (ignoring things like the U.S. funding of the Italian Christian Democrats to ensure their victory). Now why were the conditions so different? It's obvious: Germany/Italy/Japan were the aggressors in WW2 and were defeated. The people accepted this outcome as something they ultimately brought upon themselves. Iraq, on the other hand, was the victim of an aggression and understandably the people are not so ready to accept defeat when it means submitting to an aggressor. NoPuzzleStranger 18:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think it has less to do with the fact that they were the agressors per se. Most people were just exhausted by the amount of killing and bombing they had lived through over the 6 years, that they wanted it to end one way or another. They had done all they could and not prevailed. That is the big difference. The speed with which Saddam was toppled is the problem. There are too many left who profited from the Hussein Regime and too many who just don't want to accept the change. --Ebralph 13:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

the main barrier to the development of civil society has been the "resistance". Do you believe that there would be any prospect of free elections should the resistance win? Dejvid 18:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Should the resistance win, the Iraqi people can decide their own future without the interference of foreign interests which obviously have their own selfish agenda. If the people want a Western-style democracy, then, yes, they should be able to set it up and defend it themselves from internal enemies, don't you think? The idea that democracy must be forced on a people from outside seems rather self-contradictory to me. NoPuzzleStranger 18:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The resistance's actions are fully in line with demobilization as a strategy. That is to reduce independent political action so that they will not face opposition should they succeed see VP Gagnon "The myth of Ethnic War." Hence it makes sense that civilians should be targeted. That's why you don't get the point that it is in the interest of the coalition to "supports the development of opposition and resistance by political means". There is nothing self-contradictory in providing sufficient security to a people to develop their own democracy. Whether the coalition has always been consistent in that aim is another matter.Dejvid 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with your premise that the insurgents are anti-democracy (I think they are mainly anti-occupation), but even if that were so, why do you think they wouldn't face opposition if the occupiers left? If most people want democracy, they can form their own pro-democracy guerrillas, and then it would be seen which current is stronger. And I still don't get why the coalition would support resistance against itself except some sham that could never achieve anything, like a group that says "we're against the occupation, but, by all means, let's be non-violent". So can you provide some references for your claim? NoPuzzleStranger 20:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

That the neo Cons want Irak to be a democratic beacon is not really controversial. Their argument is that without opportunities for political opposition people become alienated and turn to terrorism. That things have not worked out as they hoped, in Iraq, doesn't gainsay that. I think it is more that you would have show that the coalition act to deny the right to non-violent opponents. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on the other hand, is very explicit that democracy puts the rule of man above the rule of God (ie those who will rule on God's behalf ie him). And if the guerrillas win it will because the constant bombings will have made the people of Irak so war-weary that will have become ready to accept any government, however bad, just so long as the war ends. Hence the prospect of the resistance, should they take power, facing pro-democracy guerrillas is slimDejvid 22:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

---

NoPuzzleStranger: what utter crap. If the insurgents win (ie, if the Coalition forces withdraw and the current Iraqi government is overthrown), there would probably be a civil war, followed either by a Sunni-jihadist regime rather like Afghanistan under the Taliban, or more likely an Iran-style Islamic republic (which would probably massacre the Sunnis). In neither case would there be the slightest chance of the Iraqi people deciding their own future (except the Kurds, who would secede from Iraq). That of course is why both the Kurds and the Shia leadership want the Coalition to stay until the new Iraqi Army is strong enough to keep an elected government in power. Adam 10:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is already a war going on, as even Jaafari just had to admit, so the argument "there would probably be a civil war" is not too convincing. Sometimes a civil war is the way for a people to decide its future. Anyway, we're descending into a general political discussion, not directly related to the disputed parts of the article. So let me just say that my latest version is a compromise, avoiding the word "occupation". It just speaks of the "forces that invaded in 2003" and of the "foreign military presence", which really can't be argued with. NoPuzzleStranger 11:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

there is no "civil war," civil war in Iraq would mean the essential collapse of government and fighting between the three sects. what there is right now is a three-pronged insurgency -- Sunnis, ex-Ba'athists, and foreign jihadis. i also have to find it amusing you dig out examples like "well the U.S. funded the anti-communists in the Italian 1948 elections!" to make your case, considering if the U.S. had had its way, Allawi and his party would still be in power. J. Parker Stone 08:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Civil war doesn't necessarily mean collapse of government any more than its authority is already collapsing. And insofar as there are conflicts between the three population groups, what there is right now is simply that the Shias and Kurds let the U.S. do their fighting for them. If the U.S. left, they would have to fight for their interests themselves. Only a fool would interpret the turnout pattern of the election in the way that the Shias are somehow intrinsically more democracy-minded than the Sunnis. It's just that the demographic reality means that democracy automatically translates to Shia power, so they're fine with it. I already responded to your comment about Allawi - in Italy the U.S. prevented the victory of the Communists, since they were fundamentally opposed to U.S. interests, but in Iraq all parties that ran supported the U.S. presence in the first place, so any outcome was good enough for the U.S.; it wasn't worth any big effort for them to rig the election in Allawi's favour for the marginal differences this would have meant. NoPuzzleStranger 18:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Those opposed to the U.S. presence chose to boycott the elections, your analogy makes no sense. J. Parker Stone 00:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course they boycotted the elections - what does that have to do with anything I said? NoPuzzleStranger 13:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

you used the incorrect Italian Communist Party example again -- it ran in a democratic election and the U.S. feared it would win. the insurgents (as the TERM "insurgent" implies) are engaging in violence and terror precisely because they cannot win in a democratic election. J. Parker Stone 09:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

---

to KingAl above - i read your user page - some pretty extreme left-wing stuff there - your bit in favour of the so-called "right of return" (a demographic weapon of mass destruction which no Israeli government could accept) and your rant against "Zionists" and against US "imperialism" - i'm a member of the Australian Labor Party and even i know your views are too far out. What is it that attracts extremists of both colours - right and left - like bees to honey - to edit the 'pedia?

NPOV means you _do not_ for example, stuff the feminism article with POV terms and atitude like faux-feminists (left about right) and feminazis (right about left) - whatever the political games either side wants to play over Iraq they can't do so here - IMO either you stick within NPOV or you don't edit until you learn.

Now i have seen Ruy and Puzzle engaging in strong socialist/Marxist POV pushing over this article and i felt a need to stop it - as i said before as a Labor Party member i'm hardly a Samuel Griffith Society supporter - i just wanted to protect the integrity of the 'pedia against POV and biased edits. I'll get off my stool now. PMA 16:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Judging by Adam Carr and yourself, the Australian Labor Party is pretty far out on the right by international standards. To suggest that anything other than the official Pentagon line is "strong socialist/Marxist POV" pretty much disqualifies you from any serious discussion. And you better lay off those veiled threats - after you already wrongly blocked me once. It's not you who decides what's NPOV, you can take it to the proper dispute resolution procedures if you want to. Until then Ruy and I can revert as much as Adam and you. NoPuzzleStranger 18:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The ALP is a broad-based social-democratic party which contains a range of opinions. Its policy is to support the US-Australia alliance, and the previous ALP government sent forces to the 1991 Gulf war, but the party opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion. That was a position I and others disagreed with, as frequently happens in democratic parties. PMA and I do not claim to represent the ALP in our postings to Wikipedia. Adam 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

To PMA, how is supporting the Palestinian right of return "extreme left-wing"? If anything it's "extreme Palestinian nationialism". And the reason no Israeli government will agree to such a "demographic timebomb" is that it would reverse the ethnic cleansing that created an artificial Jewish majority in what is now Israel. How can Israel be a modern multiracial democracy if an influx of non-Jews (descended from people displaced or forcibly deported in 1948) apparently threatens the state's existance. Kingal86 17:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to raise the "right of return" issue, the example of the Germans is instructive, just as it is for the absence of an insurgency there post-WWII. At least ten times as many Germans were expelled/fled from lands that had been occupied by Germans for centuries in 1945 as Palestinians/Arabs in 1948. Yet Germany has given up on a right to return. Why? Their claim is just as strong as for the 1948 Palestinian/Arab refugees. In both cases the countries they have claims against did not start the wars that led to their displacement. Because (1) two wrongs don't make a right. Going back and kicking current residents out of formerly German homes would repeat the expulsions, even if it is true the original expellees received no compensation at the time. And (2), peace is actually worth something, even if you might be technically in the right. Poland and the Czechs would never agree to cede the land in question back to the Germans, despite the fact this would not destroy the ethnic identities of their states like Israel's would be under a general right of return. The Germans have decided to accept the situation and get on with improving their economic lives instead of nursing old grievances. But enough of that, which is tangential to the Iraqi insurgency. The problem with this article is that it fails to address the fact that insurgents have been deliberating trying to disrupt elections and the general imposition of democracy and/or a liberal constitution. The insurgents are effectively delaying the end of the occupation which would come with a solution to the security problem.Bdell555 03:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Number of AWOL?

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)

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)

I'm afraid you can't remove the sentence..."The Pentagon says more than 5,500 servicemen have deserted since the war started in Iraq," according to CBS News. [5] If you want more sources, you can go to the following sites, ranging from the UK's Daily Telegraph to Al-Jazeera...[6][7] [8] [9] I hope this will be sufficient. It's an estimate, but you should put weight into it; the Pentagon says more than 5,500 servicemen. So if you're going to note that it's an estimate, better put who it's by. --Devaka 13:57, 11 August 2005 (EST)

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 [10] , several service men say that their desertion stands in connection with the war in Iraq. --Ebralph 18:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good enough. --Devaka 17:45, 11 August 2005 (EST)

Objection: "The Pentagon says more than 5,500 servicemen have deserted since the war started in Iraq," - is that deserted in Iraq or deserted anywhere but since the war started? If the former, it is high. If the latter, it is normal (out of 1.4 million, over 2 years). The phrasing is misleading in any case. If this number are not substantially higher than the peacetime average, I would strongly question its use as propaganda which is also completely irrelevant to the current article. ObsidianOrder 23:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Image of militants

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)

NoPuzzleStranger reversions

User:NoPuzzleStranger has been reverting some amazing amount of times to a version from maybe a month ago. Everyone on this page reverts him as sort of an annoying editor. But is anyone else getting tired of this? --Noitall 04:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Very. Adam 04:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Lies are not going to help you here. For the record: (1) I am not reverting "to a version from maybe a month ago". I'm reverting a particular POV section, while leaving neutral edits in the rest of the article in place. No one has yet even made a claim as to what's supposedly wrong with my version. (2) "Everyone on this page" is not reverting me. A handful of POV pushers are - Adam, Reddi, Noitall in particular. On the other hand Ruy Lopez, Ril, Kingal86, and Thecunninglinguists have supported my version. So you won't get away that easy. I will continue to revert your ridiculous POV introduction three times a day until you discuss. NoPuzzleStranger 16:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Discuss what? please exactly list your concerns. JDR 16:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Discuss why you're reverting my introduction. NoPuzzleStranger 16:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

First, that is not listing your concerns.

Your version of 14:14, 13 August 2005 has several problems.

1. It has no context nor background of the situation for the reader.
2. Your image caption does not address the photo circumstances, it's some amorphous byline.
3. It's overly simplistic for a complicated topic.

That is just for starters. Could you list your concerns? Otherwise, you are just editing in your POV to the intro, IMO. JDR (The version @ 16:48 today addresses these deficiencies)

First, I listed my concerns before. Read up.

1. "groups who are engaged in a violent struggle against the multinational forces (mainly Americans) that invaded Iraq in 2003 and against the new Iraqi Army and government formed under the occupation" seems like a good context to me. I don't mind if you add any further facts, but what your version has beyond mine is just POV and repetition.

   You neglect the fact that the US forces are no in a minority in the coalition, with their new allies, the Iraqis taking over more and more of the security work.--Silverback 19:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

   You need to read more carefully. The Iraqi forces are obviously not among those "forces ... that invaded Iraq in 2003". The "new Iraqi Army" is mentioned separately. NoPuzzleStranger 19:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

2. It was Adam Carr who reverted your image caption [11]. I don't think your addition is necessary, but I don't mind it.
3. Very funny. If anything is simplistic, it's your black-and-white POV you're presenting in your version, you're not adding any objective facts.

I repeat my concerns:

• you constantly repeat the term "multinational forces", obscuring the fact it's 90% Americans; this should be mentioned in the introduction and thereafter it's better to use "foreign forces"; being multinational is hardly the most defining fact of those forces, it's as misleading as talking about a country's "multiethnic" population when in fact it's 90% homogeneous with only 10% minorities
• you say "Most of the insurgents' violence is now directed at the police and defence forces of the Iraqi government, although it still inflicts casualties on the multinational force" - in fact the most recent period has been among the deadliest for the Americans, you make it sound as if the U.S. casualties are going down
• you say the foreign forces "are in Iraq at its request" as if once upon a time there was a normal government in Iraq which suddenly invited foreign forces and then they obligingly came in, when in fact the foreign forces entered in an aggressive invasion in 2003, then organized a government which "invited" them (shall we also change articles about Norway to the effect that the Germans weren't occupying the country after 1942, because the Quisling government was fine with them?)
• you also adopt completely the U.S. terminology which describes the present period as the "reconstruction of Iraq" as if that was an objective fact; there is clearly a war going on, and reconstruction is something that comes after a war, not during it

[RESPONSE TO ABOVE LIST] I wanted to know the 'exact list. Then mabey a solution could be arrived @.

1. Your insistance that the insurgency is mainly against the multinational forces (eg., the Americans), the new Iraqi Army, and government formed under the occupation is misleading to me. The campaign of violence being waged is by various irregular forces, both Iraqi and external in origin. This isn't acknowlegde in your version. It is against the new Iraqi government (UN recognized), not an occupation government. Thier sovergeinty hs been turned over. The phrase you use implies that the Iraqi gov is illigatimate. You do not mention that the insurgents' violence is now being directed more and more at the police, Iraqi defence forces, and Iraqi civilian. This leads to poor context reflect the situation (and doesn't give the reader an Idea about the rest ofthe article). These are the facts .... not a POV.
2. The addition of a accurate is necessary for context of the image, otherwise it's more of a propagandistic image of "rejoicing" thugs in a car. It does seem in that edit Adam Carr removed the more detailed image caption, I am sorry for stating that you did so in the recent edits (though, IIRC, you removed it the initially [I'll look @ the history]).
3. As to which version is simplistic, we will have to agree to disagree. My version isn't "black-and-white", it is though more detailed as to the realities of the situation. The items in the 1st point here are objective facts.

To the other specific concerns:

{A} constantly repeat the term "multinational forces" : This isn't obscured. The wlnk article plainly states that there is a lot of Americans (and many British) in the force. It is also mentioned in the backround section (shortly after the intro) [eg., majority of whom are from the the United States and Great Britain)]. A mention of this in the introduction is unneeded (as the wlnk article and the background section mention this). It's poorer form to use "foreign forces", as the compostion of the force is multinational (and what is used to refer to the forces). It is a defining fact of those forces. The multinational factor some thing that those opposed to the war and it's reconstruction like to ignore or disreguard.

{B} The country's population has a varying demographics. It's only 90% homogeneous as respect to religion (eg., muslims). This homogenity though breaks on the particular sect (1/3 to 2 /3 divisional). It is only 80% Arab too. So, it is, in reality, multiethnic. To say otherwise is overly simplistic.

{C} "Most of the violence"? I think you have a point on the quantity of the violence. I changed it to "more" from "most". I would agree that is a valid point. The most recent period has seen a rise in attacks against coalition forces (mainly on convoys (these have doubled); not @ installations). This is a spike just recently. The multinational forces casualties have been staying steady or going down prior to this last 2-3 weeks. The prior tide of attacks on fellow Iraqis and the new government (including related diplomates) has increased, though.

{D} The multinational forces are in Iraq at the request of the sovergein government (recognized by the UN). It's not ""once upon a time" there was a government in Iraq which suddenly invited foreign forces". That is a straw man. The multinational forces invaded in 2003, then handed over sovergeinty to a newly established government, which was subsequently internationally recognized by the UN and other sovergein nations. It was this government which "invited" them to stay. Are you suggesting the Iraqi government is illegitimate? The UN recognition of the new Iraqi state would be a strong factor to say that it is a ligitmate state (as well as multiple recognitions from other sovergein independent states).

{D} The current reconstruction of Iraq is happening . That is an objective fact. The infrastructure is being rebuilt. The economy is rebuonding. A constitution is being written. A civil war may be looming (some state that it is going on), but reconstruction isoccuring (and will continue through the violence). This is somethig we will have to agree to disagree.

Sincerely, JDR 15:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

---

The term "POV" is meaningless unless User:NoPuzzleStranger states what the point of view is and why it it is not neutral. Everyone has been editing away on this article with no problems except for your daily 3 reverts. --Noitall 17:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Everyone" except the four other people that have reverted your POV. I further repeat, I'm only reverting the introduction, which causes no problems whatsoever to anyone working on the rest of the article. And as far as reverts of the introduction cause problems, well, that goes both ways. You can as well stop reverting my version, and things are fine. I'm annoyed at your daily 3 reverts as much as you're at mine. Incidentally, I don't see that much editing at all beyond the revert war. Reddi is just spamming the history by not using the preview button and saving after every comma he adds. NoPuzzleStranger 18:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

You think I am just spamming the history by not using the preview button and saving after every comma he adds? No. My last series of edits was to get the weblinks in the article into a reference section (an' formatted). I may get a edit there or here on a spelling mistake, but that is not the majority of the parts. I took a couple of edits to move the links. I also save incase my browser crashes (too many time I have been editing a large section and my browser crashes losing my work). JDR 14:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• We have all been very clear in asking you to explain your assertions of POV, any objections you have, and your actions. The fact that you still have not done so after being asked many times and have not explained a single POV issue, a single objection or made any rationale attept to explain your revertions does not help your case. Criticizing Reddi just compounds your problems. --Noitall 20:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm, could it be that you need some glasses? I have made my points multiple times now, it is you who is reverting without having ever raised a specific objection or otherwise explained your revertions. NoPuzzleStranger 20:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you truly want to be constructive here, then make your arguments below so that we can vote on them in the below poll. No one can vote since you have made extensive edits but only argued for one change (making it America's war). --Noitall 04:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

a few facts

In response to some of NPS's points above:

• I have no problem with "Coalition" forces if he objects to "multinational." The text says that these forces are mostly American.
• Coalition military casualties have been declining since last July, despite the recent spike, as was documented recently in The Economist. The great majority of people killed by the heroic resistance fighters this year have been defenceless Iraqi civilians.
• The ongoing reconstruction of Iraq is a fact, and is proceeding quite well despite frequent terrorist attacks. In fact 90% of these attacks are in Baghdad or the Sunni triangle, so that CNN and the BBC can film them without travelling too far from their hotels. In Kurdistan and the Shia south (where 75% of the population live), there are hardly any attacks. Adam 23:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the recent changes are bogus. You write:

Most of the insurgents' violence is now directed at the police and defence forces of the Iraqi government, although it still inflicts casualties on the multinational force. Insurgent groups also have attacked Iraqi civilians, usually of differing ethnic-religious heritage than the group's own

Actually, attacks on coalition military forces have been increasing, up to 68 per day in July '05 (I think this is up from 47 per day in July 04), and while there may be a slight decline in the casualty rate, that is likely due to the lack of a major offensive like 2004's attack on Fallujah. In either case, the claim that "most of the insurgent violence" is directed Iraqis is clearly false. That may be where most of the casualties are coming from, but that is a separate issue. I also am not sure there is evidence to support the claim that civilians are mostly Shiite (or other non-Sunni Iraqis). In any case we should be clear that insurgent attacks account for roughly 9% of the civilian casualties in the war, with the bulk of civilians (37%) having been killed by the U.S. military.--csloat 01:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In response:

• I didn't make the claim about "usually of differing ethnic-religious heritage than the group's own," and in fact I deleted it at my last reversion. I don't think carbombs can tell Sunnis from Shia.
• It may be that the number of attacks on Coalition forces has increased (this is a very "soft" figure and depends on a clear definition of an "attack"), but I stand by my assertion that the main focus of insurgent attacks over the past year has been on Iraqis.
• Your figures on overall casualties may be correct, but they are distorted by adding in casualties caused by aerial bombing during the 2003 war itelf. The great majority of civilians being killed in Iraq now are being killed by the insurgent terror campaign.

Adam 01:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

That's quite false (point #3). The great majority of civilians being killed right now are being killed either by criminals or by the coalition. Remember we're talking about 9% total -- if you exclude the actual war it is still not going to make that significant a difference (though you never make it clear how including the actual war is a "distortion"). A lot of civilians were killed by the coalition after the cessation of "major hostilities", esp. in the campaigns against Fallujah. Obviously attacks by insurgents against civilians are a big deal, so they get more press, but they don't necessarily account for the most significant numbers. Anyway even bringing the coalition total down does not change the total killed by criminals which is still over 3 times as high as the civilian death toll from insurgent violence. (Note that of course violence specifically aimed at civilians is even a smaller number). As for the second point, you're nitpicking -- I mean, you're right, it does depend on how you define "attack," but that figure comes from the Pentagon so you should be able to easily look up their definition of attack if you really thought it was distorting something. You can stand by your claim all you want, but it is false, and it should be changed in this article. --csloat 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In reply: How does one draw a distinction between "criminals" and "insurgents"? As we have seen in other contexts, these categories overlap, and one hides behind the other. In any case I don't see why deaths caused by criminal activities should be included in the total at all - do we include deaths from traffic accidents, or appendicitis? The question is, over (say) the past year, have more civilians been killed by terrorist bombs and shootings or by Coalition military action? I would bet on the terrorists. Even this avoids the question of intent - the Coalition doesn't deliberately kill civilians, whereas killing civilians is the essence of terror campaigns like this one, which is designed to undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and foment a civil war. Having said that, I am happy to consider a reworded opening section, just not the one NoPuzzle keeps reverting us to. Adam 02:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

CSloat,you cite the Iraq body count as though it were an objective source. Straight at the begining of the report it says that their dosier provides "an unique insight into the human costs of US led invasion". By the just war tradition all costs need to be taken into account but when they start putting that kind of spin right at the beggining it is difficult to resist the conclusion that there aims is simply to prove an anti US point. Why don't they say the human costs of the Iraqi resistance because such a spin is equally valid.

A lot of the deaths have been in the form of sectairian killings. There aren't any independent sources that reliably assign deaths to politically motivated sectairian killings (ie from elements of the resistance) or to pure criminal elements and indeed if we are talking about former Bathists then the disction may not be very meaningful. My suspician is that the body count just assigns every death not explicitly claimed by the resistance to criminal elements. This can be blamed on the "break down in law and order" due to the invasion. As if Iraq was a law based state before! But this is a page about the resitance. That the police do not have time to pursue ordinary criminals is due to the fact that they have to fight the resistance. Hence the high rate of deaths from criminal deaths (ie not random killings motivated by a desire to destabilize Iraq) is really down to the resistance.Dejvid 15:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at the methodology -- it is impeccable -- so I'm not concerned with the spin. Pure criminal elements means non-political killings. Your "suspicion" about their methodology is just not relevant -- look at the study instead of "suspecting." They are very careful about assigning things, and they only count civilian casualties that have at least two documented reportings -- meaning their figures are very conservative. Your speculation is also not relevant here -- I am just insisting that we post known facts or known information that has been reported. The claim that "most" insurgent attacks are against civilians is just false. The claim that insurgents are responsible for most civilian deaths is also false. You have provided no sources to back up this claim; all you're doing is nitpicking about the methodology of a study you didn't bother to read. --csloat 15:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

On page 11 they explain that they consider anti occupation forces to be those who are attacking a military target. "Unknown Agents" includes attacks which "apparently targetted only civilians and lacked any identifiable military target". This includes civilian suicide bombings against market places. Hence when this dosier seems to show that the resistance doesn't target civilians all that means is they automatically define anyone who targets civilians as not part of the resistance. You are right, they are conservative in that they seek to downplay the civilian victims of the resistance.Dejvid 16:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll regarding NoPuzzleStranger reversions and edits

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)

NoPuzzleStranger response

This paragraph is for NoPuzzleStranger to list his top 3 issues and to state why his version is best.

---

Figures on casualties

This is The Economist article I was referring to earlier [12]. Adam 06:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Violent insurgents are terrorists

An insurgent is an individual who rebels against an established authority. A terrorist is an indivudial who rebels against an established authority, but uses terror as a method to horrify a population into submission.

To call a terrorist an insurgent is a POV issue, because an insurgent is not necessarily a terrorist, but a terrorist is always an insurgent. The American Revolutionaries were insurgents, but they were not terrorists. They were a uniformed army, who attacked another uniform army. The terrorists we see in Iraq are ununiformed attackers, who kill anyone who they perceive to be a threat, including civilians. This fact is clearly stated throughout the article, both in pictures and words.

The term insurgent is an understatment. To call them that absolves them of the nature of their actions. It is not my point of view that the terrorists do what they do, it is a fact. So instead of neutralizing their actions, call them for what they are. Only then will this truly be an objective article. 128.194.54.244 05:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparing them to the American Revolution is actually a very good idea. Not all Americans wore a uniform when fighting against the Brits. They also shot at officers in an effort to disrubt the chain of command (a tactic that Americans have maintained to this day). That was considered to be against the rules of engagement at the time. No doubt the Brits considered most of the Americans terrorists because of such things. There also were enough Americans who opposed the revolution and probably felt terrorized by their neighbours.

As you have pointed out, the pictures and facts make it clear what they are without saying more and we should leave it at that. It is POV to say they are terrorists - it is connotated negatively.

--Ebralph 13:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In what positive light can someone view a terrorist? The word carries a negative connotation because random acts of violence are negative events. Yes, the American Revolutionaries did shoot at officers using snipers, at the time, this tactic was considered to be cowardly and ungentlemanly by the British. Also, guerrilla warfare was a radical concept compared to the Napoleonic-style tactics (although he came later) used in those days. But that was over 200 years ago, today's military forces view this as an acceptable tactic, due to the changes in military equipment and firepower.

The reason the term 'terrorist' is a more accurate term than 'insurgent' is because suicide bombing, IED's, random mortar fire, and using civilian centers for cover and concealment instill terror in a population by nature. This article goes to great detail to explain the tactics that are used by them.

A better example might be from the Vietnam War. The National Vietnamese Army (NVA) was a uniformed military force from North Vietnam. They engaged in guerrilla warfare tactics against American forces, although, I'm not sure if they terrorised any Southern sympathizers. I do know the Viet Cong (VC) did use terror to force villagers in the South to either fight against the Americans or die. The VC were ununiformed insurgents, who regarly were known to attack civilians, therefore, the VC were terrorists.

In short, the term insurgent is just too vague and inaccuate. If it is negative, that is because the nature of their acts is negative. If we were discussing serial killers, there's no neutral term in the dictionary that can nullify the nature of their crimes. 128.194.54.244 16:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is not to portrait what is happening as positive. What you are doing, is saying that not portraying these people as negative is making it positive. Guerrilla warfare wasn't new 200 years ago - already the Pathians engaged in that style against Romans. What has changed is the way it is fought because of the technical possibilities.

If I were an Iraqi and believed that the people who have come want to destroy my society, I would use every possibility I had. And no, I would not try to fight them in uniform and directly. I would use civilian centers for cover, etc - fighting the most powerful army on earth doesn't leave you much choice, does it?

Also, not all groups fighting against the coalition forces, target civilians. A lot of targets are police stations, oil pipelines, etc. Using your logic would force us to determine US soldiers as terrorists as well. Take the bombardment of the restaurant in which it was believed that Saddam had been. The death of civilians was determined as acceptable.

The problem lies not with the tactics used, though doing your best not to draw non-combatans into such violence is important. Modern technology draws everyone into a battle, unlike earlier ages in which such fighting was limited by its very nature.

Let me point out that I do not condone what these people do. And personaly I agree with you that they are terrorists and criminals. But: That is a conclusion and depending on who you ask they are terrorists or freedom fighters. "Insurgent" is neutral enough - as you again have made clear in your description - that a person reading about it can draw their own conclusions. What they are in the end is mostly determined by who wins - as history has always done. That is why the fighters of the American Revolution are Revolutionaries while the fighters of the Civil War are Rebels.

Neutral does not equal innaccuate

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)

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)

The problem is much bigger than this one article

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)

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)

The compromise

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)

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)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

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)

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)

Mahdi Army

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)

Al-Awda

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)

Fedayeen Saddam

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)

Jaish Ansar al-Sunna

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)

Snake Party

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

Black Banner Organization

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)

Mohammad's Army

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)

Iraqi National Islamic Resistance

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)

Definition of Terrorism

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 http://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)

Definition of Military occupation

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) Oooops seems, I misunderstood what the current edit war is about. :-<Dejvid 16:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the 'edit war' is over the term 'terrorist,' not 'territory,' but thanks anyway. You actually bring up a good point, I think I saw somewhere in one or more of these articles references to 'occupation forces.' That term might actually be inaccurate by your definition. Although the coalition did attack a 'sovereign' nation, they have clearly stated their intentions of creating a new, free government, as well as their intent to leave. I'm glad you brought that up, because I kinda missed it. BQAggie2004 20:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Occupation/Liberating/Coalition Forces

Actually, as I read through this, I wonder would it be appropriate to remove some references to 'occupation forces?' Technically, Iraq has a sovereign government, that could ask coalition forces to leave at any time. Since the handover of sovereignity, coalition presence has been more of a 'police action.' Much of the military presence exists to train the new Iraqi forces to handle the situation themselves, without coalition backup, thus attempting to speed up coalition withdrawl.

As I think about it, wouldn't the term 'occupation forces' be as equally loaded as 'liberating forces?' I would think it would depend on your definition of the sovereignity/legitimacy of Saddam's regime. Also, the intent of coalition forces has been from the onset to establish a government of the Iraqi people's choosing, which was proven by handing sovereignity over to them. Also, the recent talk of establishing Islamic law as a foundation has not generated any disagreement from the coalition, despite what some private citizens might feel. Personally, I'd like to refer to them as 'liberating forces,' but in the intersts of neutrality, wouldn't changing many of these references to 'coalition forces' be more neutral? BQAggie2004 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, how about the word 'reconstruction?' This is more accurate than 'occupation,' since the aim of the coalition is to rebuild Iraq, not annex it. The reason I choose this word is because in the American South, after the Civil War, the 11 Confederate States were occupied by a Northern/Yankee military force. However, to this day in the North and South, this period was known as 'reconstruction.' It would be easy enough to say that this is because the victors write the history books, but even Southern schoolbooks tell the story of the "War Between the States" differently than the Northerners speak of the "Civil War." BQAggie2004 20:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I notice instances of "occupation" being either deleted or something added about how they are there at the request of a sovereign nation. It seems silly. The sovereign nation did not exist when the troops got there; in fact their role was to destroy a sovereign nation and build a new one. The govt is not to my knowledge asking the troops to be there but has simply not yet asked them to leave. I don't think anyone living in Iraq -- on "our" side or "theirs" -- would tell you that this is not an occupation force. It is Orwellian silliness to declare that it is suddenly not an occupation because they had an election. Iraq is occupied. Certainly most news articles around the world talk about it that way. --csloat 02:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The occupation officially ended either last summer or with the elections earlier this year. I forget the legal nuances, but it was thoroughly discussed on one of these Iraq talk pages.--Silverback 19:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

That is silly. Last I checked, U.S. troops were occupying Iraq. In fact I spoke to a couple of people this weekend who were returning to Iraq for duty. So I'm pretty sure the occupation did not officially end, or we would see troops (and much needed National Guards) coming home. The election did not change that, and mainstream press accounts both in the US and in Iraq (as well as throughout the rest of the world) continue to refer to the "occupation forces". Iraq has not (yet) asked us to leave but that does not make it any less an occupation.--csloat 10:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Taking the Art. 42. of the "The Hague Conventions 1907" as basis of the definition of "occupation" [13], they are in fact not "occupation forces" any more. The new Government has been internationaly recognized and thereby don't make the American forces "occupation forces" any more. Of course we are sticking to a definition which doesn't recognize the fact on the ground, but that is POV. The definition is not. --Ebralph 15:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So the facts are POV, even though all newspapers and world leaders around the globe recognize the fact? Is the Hague Convention the only relevant legal document? What about much more recent UN statements? What about as you say the "facts on the ground"?--csloat 19:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, not all newspapers and world leaders around the globe recognize the fact. If you can prove it, please source it. To be fair, I only ask you to show for North America, Europe and Middle East. The Hague Convention is the basis for the Geneva Convention - the framework for war. It should be considered authoritive on such matters, as that is the framework in which such things are conducted or at least evaluated. Which UN statements (Source)? The "facts on the ground" refer to the fact that although the US isn't an occupying force anymore, it hasn't changed the fact that they are the (semi-)stabilizing forces there. Names to not change that. --Ebralph 00:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So by "semi-stabilizing" you mean "destabilizing"? The point is US troops are there and are seen as an occupation force. Here are some UN sources using the phrase "occupation of iraq." Here's plenty of recent news articles using that phrase. It is quite commonly seen as occupation and while you;re right about the use of the term as a legalism, I think Wikipedia should make that distinction parenthetically but should indicate how the occupation of Iraq is viewed by the world, not just what language makes sense in a court of international law. --csloat 01:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No, with semi-stabilizing I was referring to the fact, that you can't call Iraq stable at the present. I'm sorry about the UN things, but they are insufficient. They refer to "occupation of Iraq" and because it seldomly has a specific context, could refer to the time following the invasion of Iraq. (I only checked about 3-4 articles at the beginning). That was an occupation under the definition. I couldn't find any reference to the forces specificly mentioning "occupation forces" (and I did search for that in the articles). Searching through the new references, I changed the search-item from the occupation of Iraq to "occupation forces" and hit exclusivly Arabic News (again checking only the first few pages) and then mostly in connection with Israel. I don't want to be a pedant about this, so I don't think it good to censor it all away especially as there is a segment of people out there who do still call them that. But so far I can't find the references of the UN or world leaders you were referring to. --Ebralph 02:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice one - redefine the search terms and the breadth of sources covered and then say you can't find any references. What do you mean Arabic News -- do you mean news only in the Arabic language? Why? Are English uses of the term invalid now? Anyway people in Iraq refer to the "occupation"; I don't know the Arabic word but speeches of Sistani, Sadr, and other leaders refer to the occupation. I saw at least a couple pages on the UN list that were post-January that referred to it. But aside from the UN there are all the news articles that you wave away by considering only Arab-language media and changing the terms. That's artificial. --csloat 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I was only trying to do you a favor. The Term we are talking about is "occupation forces". I first tried your search results and they do not fulfill the necessary conclusion. No where in the UN documents or the news articles you have referenced, did it use the term "occupation forces". As to the "occupation of Iraq", the term is always used (or it can be conclusively shown that it can be understood that way) to the time before Iraq was internationaly recognized. Something no one disputes. Now, what I was expecting, was a UN article or news articles that specificly reference the "occupation forces". That is why I went through the extra effort (in your favor instead of just rejecting it right out of hand) and did new searches. Fact is, that the only news outlets which call the American+ forces come from Arabic countries. I couldn't verify your claim that "world leaders", "UN" or "all the newspapers" call the American+ forces "occupation forces". Your claim still stands to be proven. --Ebralph 10:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Look I'm not trying to be dense but this seems like hair-splitting to me. Numerous of the news pages as well as the UN pages refer to the "occupation of Iraq" post-Jan 2005. You're wrong that those all refer to earlier periods, at least as far as I can tell, and your claim that the phrase "occupation forces" must be used is unnecessary hair-splitting -- your claim seems to be that the coalition presence in Iraq is not an occupation. I am saying that is what it is generally called in much of the world's media. I'm happy to include the proviso that it is not legally an occupation according to the Hague Convention if that is the consensus view but I don't think we can escape the *fact* of Iraq being occupied. If you don't think the phrase "occupation forces" has enough currency that is fine -- how about "forces occupying Iraq"? But even when I google for the phrase "occupation forces" like this in recent news reports I find numerous reports referring to the forces occupying Iraq as, lo and behold, "occupation forces." You're simply wrong that the phrase is not in use or that it only refers to pre-election Iraq. Look at the results yourself. --csloat 06:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Precision is not hair-splitting. Because these terms are politicly loaded, precision is important. Like I already acknowledged we are going through great lengths about terminiology. I pointed out, that if you do search in the news for the term "occupation forces" you mostely hit Arabic news outlets. Your search still shows mostly Arabic, a few Indian pages, one called "socialist watch", etc. The first american result pops up on page three "World Peace Herald, DC" and refers to Afghanistan. Neither European nor American, nor South American for that matter refer to them in that fashion. Let's take a look at the sentences in the UN portions:

• First Hit: Iraq’s representative said the “inverted logic” that suggested terrorism had been unleashed because of the occupation of Iraq and that it would have been better not to take military action to remove Saddam Hussein was nonsense. - this has no temporal reference. Undetermined. There is a reference to the same further down.
• Second Hit: 8 June 2004 – Hailing an end to the occupation of Iraq, the United Nations Security Council today welcomed the handover of full responsibility and authority to the country's "fully sovereign and independent" interim Government, while condemning ongoing violence. I would say that is quite a clear statement in my favor.
• Third Hit is a statement by Dr. Abubakr A. Al-Qirbi, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Yemen. Belongs to the Group, I referred to as Arabic.
• Fourth Hit: Hits because a footnote cites a book which again has no temporal reference. Undetermined.
• Fifth Hit: Ramcharan said that after the occupation of Iraq by Coalition Forces there have been some violations of human rights, and the governments concerned have condemned these violations and pledged to bring those responsible to justice. - no temporal reference. In fact this statement is issued on the 4th of June 2004 - 4 days before the official end on the 8th.

I'll go on if you want, but I guess you see my point. My personal view is that neither occupation or liberating forces is free of politics and shouldn't be used. As occupation forces is correct to the time before the 8th of June and is still used by news outlets in the Arab world (as well as that Iraqis might see it that way - I don't know), we shouldn't totally ban it in the right connection. Your original assertion "even though all newspapers and world leaders around the globe recognize the fact" stays unproven. --Ebralph 00:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

And conveniently European sources get left out of your little typology of usage. I saw sources from Spain, German, and Turkey in the list when I looked. Yes you're right my statement about all newspapers and world leaders was too far reaching -- but my point nevertheless stands. You haven't offered any compelling reason to ignore what the Arab world and some of the European newspapers call these forces. I am also happy using the term "occupation of Iraq," which is more common in non-Arab sources. Again I think your distinction is hair-splitting -- what precision is advanced by ignoring "occupation of Iraq" and only looking at "occupation forces", precisely? csloat 02:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not look at the "occupation forces" only. The forementioned lists referred to your searches - not mine. There were References from Turkey and one called "Arab Monitor" from Italy. Also from "New Socialist Group" in Canada, uruknet.info in Italy, I know Turks would be upset if I put it that way, but I counted them to the "Arab" News, because they are a predominately Muslim Nation. (I know, I know there are differences). That covers the first 3 pages pretty much. Hits do not translate into quality material.

The point is following: to use the expression "occupation forces" is inprecise and incorrect. No "World Leader" uses it, not the UN and most news outlets who do are politicly charged. Referring to the forces after the 8th of June 2004 the best probably is to use "coalition forces", because that is true, people know who are referenced and is free of political motivation. --Ebralph 10:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I began my comments in this discussion asking about "occupation", not "occupation forces". Do you agree then that "occupation" is accurate? Also there are not "differences" between Arab and Muslim; one is a language and the other is a religion -- they are apples and oranges. Actually, apples and pickup trucks. Also, the google hits are just the last few days - a lexis nexis search of the past 6 months is much more revealing. I see "occupation forces" used by Russian, British, French, German, Irish, Australian, and other sources. AFP quotes Iraqis using it quite often too. 207 hits in European papers, the first few I looked at all used it in this way. 626 for "occupation of Iraq" though some of those (3 out of the first 10 I looked at) used it in a more ambiguous way.csloat 11:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No, occupation is not accurate for the time after the 8th of June 2004. Actually I stood under the impression that "Arab" also referred to a indigenous people. Anyways the "difference" lies in the fact that the one is apples and the others oranges. The expression doesn't exclude that. I'm aware that the Turks belong to a different race. I don't doubt that a lot of Iraqis think of it that way and the fact that a lot of Arab news outlets refer to it that way, is an indicator. The term is inprecise and formally incorrect. Formal doesn't change the way people think and talk about it and there are enough people who do, but a Wikipedia article should be precise. --Ebralph 12:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be precise about the fact that the word occupied or occupation is used in the mass media, at least outside the US, and especially in Iraq (where it is very clear). Does this look like what happens in a "sovereign" nation? By the way here's one British leader using the phrase just today.csloat 13:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that is good formula. The problem how to refer to the forces inside the article stay of course, but that is why I suggested coalition forces. You should read the article about the British leader closer. It is the former Prime Minister of Malaysia who says that and he co-chairs a committee backing Saddam Hussein’s defence at his forthcoming trial.

I have never disputed the fact that the current acknowledged Government of Iraq isn't up to standard. That doesn't change the fact that it is the current acknowledged Government. --Ebralph 13:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My point is not that the government "isn't up to standard." My point is they don't have control over their own country. Which means they are "occupied" by those who do have control. What other country does not even control its own national airport? Also, check lexis/nexis yourself for uses of "occupation" or "occupation forces" if you don't believe me. We're not just talking about "Arab" sources, although I still don't understand why we should exclude those according to your logic. I am not surprised the former PM of Malaysia supports Saddam - what does that have to do with the issue at hand? The point is not pro- or anti-Saddam; it is about whether the current (non-Saddam-run) government is occupied by coalition forces. I believe they are. -csloat 20:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

There are enough examples of Governments which can't control the whole country - look at South America. Some Countries in Asia and China have some problems in that direction as well. In how much control the Iraqi Government has or doesn't is really irrelevant to determine if a force is occupying or not. One might view it as assistance forces as well. It's a matter of view. That is why I choose to keep to the official line. The reason why I think that we should be careful (not excluding, mind) with Arab sources is that they are one POV. The issue with the PM of Malaysia is the fact that the link about the one British leader was not about a British Leader but the PM of Malaysia. --Ebralph 21:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

To say Arab sources are one POV is foolish and ignorant. The Malaysian PM thing was my bad - a British leader walked out. Again we have many non-Arab sources using these phrases as well. As for whether the occupation forces can be viewed as "assistance", that seems a hard sell when the overwhelming majority of the population, at least according to polls, view it as an occupation. The POV you insist on for this page is one-sided and you wish to exclude everything except the Pentagon's point of view. It's absurd.--csloat 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No, to believe American Sources are not POV would be foolish and ignorant. Ask any person working in the "higher echolons" of Power in Iraq and you might find several Iraqis who say the Americans are "assisting". The point is, that there are many views and I do not plead for surpressing the one or the other. I would kindly ask you to stop suggesting an action I am not taking. The official designation by the American Government, the UN and most other European Nations is not occupation any more. It isn't according to the Geneva Convention. I have not insisted on a POV but suggested a neutral term which takes into account both views. And, I might note, I have said that the term "occupation forces" shoud also continued to be used where appropriate, e.g. when describing Insurgents fighting - because that is the way they view them. You are insisting on your POV. You've repeatedly made claims about your POV which weren't verified and turned out less then you initially thought.

Using the Term "occupation forces" is as much POV as "liberating forces". You've not once tried to compromise nor have you shown that you can understand people not viewing it as occupation. If someone is POVing it is you, not me. --Ebralph 13:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think "occupation" is a more objective (i.e. observable from outside) condition than "liberation". Also if you look at the sources using "liberating forces" they are few and far between, almost all American right wing sources. Whereas "occupation" is used by a large number of sources from various perspectives -- not just Arab. When I looked at lexis-nexis, I found Russian, British, French, German, Irish, Australian, Canadian sources as well as AFP using it. Your comment that one "might find several Iraqis" at the "higher echelons" of power who don't use occupation is telling -- the fact is the overwhelming majority do. You claim not to be insisting on not using occupation yet you are vehemently arguing against me for bringing it up - perhaps you could spell out your position more clearly. I agree that "occupation forces" should not be the only term used, but it should not be avoided at all costs, like "liberation forces", which would be much more clearly POV. I can understand people not viewing it as occupation - I never said I couldn't. I objected to the whitewashing of the article to remove all instances of "occupation."--csloat 18:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, but what we think is unimportant for Wikipedia. Only the source count. My point is: according to the Geneva Convention, Iraq is not occupied any more. Like I said, I know this is a technicality argument, but one that is important for a precise Article. I think that a lot of people are unaware of that fact because the technical situation differs from what people perceive. The correct term, one which avoids the most POVing, is "coalition forces". Of course that is open to discussion. My personal view is that that should be the basic term of use. The intention is not to whitewash an article and therefore totally removing the term "occupation" or "occupation forces", but to make it as above partisan fighting as possible. I would think those terms appropriate when describing the Iraqi and other organizations fighting the American+ forces, because that is the way they obviously view them. --Ebralph 10:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the claim that "coalition forces" is reasonable, but I think you're wrong that only Iraqis believe it is an occupation. I have provided a host of evidence to support that claim, from various sources worldwide. It is not the role of Wikipedia to correct what people perceive by privileging the "technical situation" over the language usually used worldwide. I just got a letter from my Congressman that starts out talking about "our ongoing occupation of Iraq." I think it is bogus to pretend that the phrase is only used by Iraqis (or, previously, you claimed only "Arabs" used it).csloat 19:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with csloat.

• Allawi's administration was one of clearly limited sovereignty.
• The current administration clearly has limited sovereignty. Are US forces under the administration of the Iraqi Minister of Defense? Or are Iraqi forces under the control of US forces? The Iraqis are under the control of US forces, a clear sign that Iraq is an occupied country.
• Bremer's stupid decrees remain in effect. Including the one where American GIs are not subject to Iraqi law. There are other nations where the USA has a treaty that specifies that the locals don't get jurisdiction. But those agreements have reciprocal clauses. And the local can claim jurisdiction, after all, if the US military investigators don't do a satisfactory job. The agreements lay out those conditions too. Iraq is not the only country with US forces which doesn't have that kind of reciprocal agreement. Afghanistan also doens't have an agreement. It is a sign that both of these countries aren't fully sovereign -- an occupied country.
• Bremer's stupid decrees protects American contractors from Iraqi law. This decree remains in effect. This is another sign that Iraq is not a fully sovereign nation -- an occupied country.
• Didn't we see Iraqi voters waving their purple stained fingers? Yes. Does that signify that the current government was legitimately elected? A free vote is part of what is required for a legitimately elected government. An informed populace is another requirement. For security reasons the political parties were not allowed to publicize their platforms, or the biographies of their candidates. They have a proportional representation system. That meant there were literally hundreds of candidates -- most of them completely unknown to the voters? The new voters got to vote, but they couldn't really know what they were voting for.
• Iraq doesn't have a full constitution yet. It is under the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period. Article 61 sets out certain dates, August 15th, October 15th, December 15th. August 15th was the deadline for preparing a draft of the real constitution. Article 61(A) said: "The National Assembly shall write the draft of the permanent constitution by no later than 15 August 2005". Article 61(F) said: "If necessary, the president of the National Assembly, with the agreement of a majority of the members’ votes, may certify to the Presidency Council no later than 1 August 2005 that there is a need for additional time to complete the writing of the draft constitution". Did the National Assembly vote to certify the need for more time prior to August 1st? Nope. Did they prepare a draft constitution by August 15th? Nope. Some people suggest this meant the National Assembly should have dissolved itself, and called for another election, just as if the voting public had turned down the draft constitution referendum. -- Geo Swan 04:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This country hasn't had sovereignty since the beginning of the occupation, said Saleh Mutlaq, who was one of the four principal Sunni negotiators in the drafting of Iraq's constitution. [14]. Meggar 04:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't all governments have "limited sovereignty"? That's not a bad thing. What is at issue here, is the word "occupation". It has a specific definition under international law, and we've already had the discussion with legal text and everything on one of the original Iraqi war or invasion pages. A UN resolution gave "legitimacy" to the interim Iraqi governments and processes, and to the US role. At that time, or some argued, that later at the time of the elections, the occupation ended. You should review the language of international law on occupation.--Silverback 04:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Read the above discussion. The issue here is not whether legal technicalities support a particular definition of the term "occupation"; the issue is that much of the world's media and leaders, as well as most of the population of Iraq, refer to it as an "occupation" and this entry should reflect that. U.S. and coalition troops are occupying the country. I don't know why people have to make this into a political issue; it is simply the fact on the ground. Streets are patrolled by American military vehicles, U.S. forces act under U.S. authority (they are decidedly not under Iraqi control), etc. Many politicians, leaders, newspapers, etc. refer to this as an "occupation." --csloat 07:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The definition of occupation is not fulfilled. As we all together know, reality has a tendency to catch up with any definition we decide to cling to. That is why I suggested the compromise solution: generally refer to American+ forces as "coalition forces". That is not incorrect. When describing insurgents, one can use the term "occupation forces", if one chooses to as long as it is clear that that is the view of the insugents. That would fulfill the requirement of staying objective, acknowleding that there are people who view it as occupation and keeping the discussion off that issue. --Ebralph 09:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It is not just the view of the insurgents; it is the view of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis. It is the view of U.S. Congresspersons! And it's the term used by much of the media. I'm not saying we shouldn't use "coalition forces" -- I am just saying that we should not avoid calling it what it is when everyone else in the world recognizes what it is.csloat 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we should be above the "occupation" propaganda. The current Iraqi leader welcomes the coalition there, and has even openly proposed permanent bases much to the embarrassment of coalition leaders. The Shia majority appreciates their historic opportunity and the coalition sacrifices, but is also taking over more of the security, including taking the lead in the current significant operations near the Syrian border. The coalition is definitely not an occupying presence and has even come under criticism for hunkering down in their bases. Yes, they are necessary for security in the Sunni triangle. Just because others misuse the language for ulterior motives, is no reason for us to. Perhaps as a compromise, later in the article, we can have a list of people who misuse the word, although I suspect that most people who are cited as using the word, speak a foreign language and are being mis-translated into this term of art. If the original foreign word was not a legal term of art in that language, then the correct translation into english might be something like "military presence", etc.--Silverback 08:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't propaganda; it is a word commonly used around the world. It's not political as I said above. And there is an Iraqi leader quoted by someone else above - one of the constitution's drafters - calling it an occupation, so don't pretend your comment about "the current Iraqi leader" is definitive. You have no clue what "the shia majority appreciates." To accuse people using the term occupation of catechresis is complete hypocrisy. The term occupation is accurate. The fact that Iraq is a security nightmare and that many appreciate the presence of troops in the face of the nightmare (esp. after today for example) does not change the fact that most Iraqis blame the occupation for the security nightmare in the first place. As for mistranslations, your suspicions are not enough to constitute evidence for an argument, sorry.-csloat 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A couple other things

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)

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)

You may be correct on the term 'occupation' in this sense. I believe we did refer to the 'German Occupation' and the 'Japanese Occupation.' There is one major difference between the Nazi occupation of France and the Allied occupation of Germany (I know, you're not comparing the US to Nazi's)---when the Nazi's occupied France, Poland, Belgium, and pretty much the better half of Europe, they did so with the intent to steal the land and resources from their rightful owners. The Nazi occupation was a true military occupation--a hostile military force exploited with the intent to own the land. The Allied occupations of Germany and Japan follow a tradition of American 'reconstruction' of occupied lands, going back to the end of the Civil War. This was actually the same policy Wilson fought for at the end of WWI before his death and the Treaty of Versailles, but of course, things didn't work out that way. Just like in Japan, Germany, and the Confederacy, the coalition is occupying Iraq to rebuild it for Iraqis. I think that if nothing else, this point should be made clear. This is why I think 'coalition forces' sounds better, but again, I think you're right on this one.

The reason that I suggest using the term terrorist, where applicable, is because all terrorists are insurgents, but not all insurgents are terrorists. Definition of Terrorism lists enough definitions of a terrorist to have a good consensus on the true meaning. There are insurgents who do not care to attack civilians, but there are some, like Zarqawi, who are encouraging it. When they are attacking women and children, that is clearly a terroristic act, and should be called as such.

How about the term 'collaborator?' This term implies that the current Iraqi government is a US-puppet regime. It implies that the people participating in it are selling out their own to the West. How can we use this term?

The facts that we do now, and can prove include that Iraq was under full military occupation, Iraq has regained sovereignity and can ask coalition forces to leave at any time (I'll have to find it, but I remember the Bush administration state that if asked to leave, the US would), and that the current Iraqi government has received recognition from pretty much every other government and the UN. This included Iran, Syria, France, Russia, Germany, and others. We can also prove that the coalition's aims are to leave as soon as possible.

These facts lead me to believe that these 'collaborators' are working for a new, legitimate 'Iraqi' government. Yes, the legitimacy depends on your point of view, but because this government has been recognized as legitimate by world players on all sides of the issue, it must be legitimate.

This is why I removed the term 'resistance.' A resistance implies that the government is illegitimate. Not quite the same thing as a 'revolution,' where there is an attempt to break away/set up a new government. People call it a 'resistance' based on their point of view. Since 'insurgency' is neutral, mentioning another point of view is unneccessary. To be completly fair, if we say that some call it a resistance, then we should also say that others call all resistors terrorists. There are other parts in this article where the original writers made neutral statements, then followed them with only one side of the insurgency. BQAggie2004 00:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yeah, I caught that as I was writing comments on the other page, I just did this one first, and didn't change it :) BQAggie2004 03:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact several groups use the targeting of civilians as a weapon. My personal feeling is that there should be a discussion about this - maybe some subsection. The targeting of bystanders with the goal to reach maximum damage is terrorstic. Compare that with the IRA - a group that isn't exactly known for its peaceful ways. Though the British state viewed them as Terrorists, their targets were seldomly the civilians. Of course they risked the lives of bystanders but in principle, the civilians weren't targets. Contrast that with the pronounced brutality in Iraq. I think that should find a wider discussion on these pages. --Ebralph 02:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What is Terrorism?

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)