insurgents

[minx]

i just read a little tidbit about insurgents in iraq blowing up an oil well. there seems to be lots of this type of thing occurring in several parts of the country but from different groups.

 

are all the "insurgents" in iraq after the same thing. if not how does anyone ever figure out a way to establish a stable government there? if you find some happy ground w/one group you'd still have "insurgents" from another right?

 

i realize that spray is hardly the best place to get a good answer but none the less i'm asking...

[Greg_W]

Ask tele_nut for insight...

[lummox]

'insurgent' or 'freedom fighter' depends on who you are. i prefer 'well equipped vandal'. blowing up oilwells just increases the haliburton (or is it bechtel?) margins.

[arlen]

They fit into a term like insurgents about as well as islamist terror groups fit into a term like al quaeda. Not very well, and probably not a good idea if you're trying to actually stop them. Simpler's better for press releases.

[klenke]

They were insurgents to me. But that all changed when they started to indiscriminately kill innocent people (their own people). At that point they became terrorists.

[catbirdseat]

If all the "insurgents" got what they wanted, which is presumably for the Americans to leave immediately, you would very quickly have a bloodbath that would make the US Civil War look like a picnic.

[JGowans]

viva la revolution!!!

[scott_harpell]

If all the "insurgents" got what they wanted, which is presumably for the Americans to leave immediately, you would very quickly have a bloodbath that would make the US Civil War look like a picnic.

 

viva la revolution!!!

 

[MrDoolittle]

But that all changed when they started to indiscriminately kill innocent people. At that point they became terrorists.

 

So, the US troops are terrorists.

[Gripped]

But that all changed when they started to indiscriminately kill innocent people. At that point they became terrorists.

 

So, the US troops are terrorists.

 

Doolittle, The US kills innocent people, but it is not done "indiscriminately"

[Double_E]

one part of the Iraq occupation that sickened me bigtime the most when i heard a news story about how US troops were breaking up peaceful pro-Saddam demonstrations (this was like a few weeks before we caught the bastard).

 

anyway, according to the story (if you believe Nat'l Propaganda Radio, which I do) it was a totally civil, non-aggro demonstration. so it's like how the fuck are we expecting to teach these people democracy if we don't allow them the same democratic rights we enjoy in our own country?

[badvoodoo]

But that all changed when they started to indiscriminately kill innocent people. At that point they became terrorists.

 

So, the US troops are terrorists.

 

Doolittle, The US kills innocent people, but it is not done "indiscriminately"

 

Damn right, our boys know how to lead a target when it's running.

[MrDoolittle]

But that all changed when they started to indiscriminately kill innocent people. At that point they became terrorists.

 

So, the US troops are terrorists.

 

Doolittle, The US kills innocent people, but it is not done "indiscriminately"

 

So, it is OK to kill innocent people as long as it is done with discrimination, rather than without discrimination. But if the US troops are killing innocents with discrimination, as you are suggesting, than they can tell the difference between innocent and "enemy combatant". So, they kill innocents because they know they are innocents.

[stinkyclimber]

If all the "insurgents" got what they wanted, which is presumably for the Americans to leave immediately, you would very quickly have a bloodbath that would make the US Civil War look like a picnic.

That is why I doubt the "insurgents" want the US to leave. Rather, it seems to me, their aim is to make an orderly and peaceful transition to a true Iraqi-led government impossible. If that happens, then the US will have an "excuse" to stay (which has been a US goal all along...to build new military bases there as replacements to the ones in Saudi they want to vacate).

 

If the US stays and continues what might look like, to the average local person, a colonialist-type occupation, then the "insurgents" have won: the longer the US looks like a colonial power and an anti-Islamic aggressor, more and more of the Islamic world will turn against moderation and peace. Voila...instant terrorists.

 

Terrorist recruitment would seem to me the true aim of these "insurgents". Which is why the US should never have gone into the damn place. Now you are stuck where you don't belong, with no easy way out...plus, as long as you are there, you actually make the original problem (terrorism aimed at the US) worse. Nice work, Bushies.

[scott_harpell]

quit trying to mire the discussion in semantics. If you try and kill as many people as possible, you are indiscriminate. if you are attempting to kill only those taht you are supposed to kill, you are discriminate.

[Greg_W]

one part of the Iraq occupation that sickened me bigtime the most when i heard a news story about how US troops were breaking up peaceful pro-Saddam demonstrations (this was like a few weeks before we caught the bastard).

 

anyway, according to the story (if you believe Nat'l Propaganda Radio, which I do) it was a totally civil, non-aggro demonstration. so it's like how the fuck are we expecting to teach these people democracy if we don't allow them the same democratic rights we enjoy in our own country?

 

Presumably, the area is under some sort of curfew and/or military martial law simply to stabilize the area. If this were the case, then the command structure has protocols to follow as far as limiting gatherings and demonstrations in an effort to maintain order. Peaceful or no, large masses of people are hard to maintain and can get out of control rather easily. It's easy to armchair quarterback from the safety of you pathetic cubicle, but take the long view: stability needs to be achieved first, then democracy. We did the same thing in Europe in '45.

[JGowans]

stability needs to be achieved first, then democracy. We did the same thing in Europe in '45.

 

You're a misinformed pompous ass Greg! Are you claiming that the U.S. brought democracy to Europe?

[Double_E]

one part of the Iraq occupation that sickened me bigtime the most when i heard a news story about how US troops were breaking up peaceful pro-Saddam demonstrations (this was like a few weeks before we caught the bastard).

 

anyway, according to the story (if you believe Nat'l Propaganda Radio, which I do) it was a totally civil, non-aggro demonstration. so it's like how the fuck are we expecting to teach these people democracy if we don't allow them the same democratic rights we enjoy in our own country?

 

Presumably, the area is under some sort of curfew and/or military martial law simply to stabilize the area. If this were the case, then the command structure has protocols to follow as far as limiting gatherings and demonstrations in an effort to maintain order. Peaceful or no, large masses of people are hard to maintain and can get out of control rather easily. It's easy to armchair quarterback from the safety of you pathetic cubicle, but take the long view: stability needs to be achieved first, then democracy. We did the same thing in Europe in '45.

 

stability and then democracy huh? well that was the lofty dream we had for Indochina back in the 50s... and look where that got us!

them countries eventually came around and learned to like democracy... but not till many years after they'ed kicked us out.

 

and Europe in '45?... in that day/age/place, the occupation of Europe and the Mar$hall Plan was definitely something the world needed. not so with Iraq in '04.

 

and BTW, I ain't in the cubicle; got the day off, sucka!

[Greg_W]

stability needs to be achieved first, then democracy. We did the same thing in Europe in '45.

 

You're a misinformed pompous ass Greg! Are you claiming that the U.S. brought democracy to Europe?

 

No, the martial law thing. As we liberated Europe, the rear areas were placed under martial law until local governance could be established/re-established.

 

This coming from a guy who's people were subjugated by the British of all people.

[lummox]

those fukers bloweding stuff up just hate modern appliances.

[Dru]

didn't erik used to be an insurgent adjuster?

[JGowans]

[quoteThis coming from a guy who's people were subjugated by the British of all people.

 

alas, a sad but true factoid. touche you wanker.

[Gripped]

So, they kill innocents because they know they are innocents.

 

No, rather - they kill innocents IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they are innocents. And they do so with misgiving. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it's not terrorism.

 

Terrorist = objective hazzard

They might blow you up at the mall

 

US. Military = subjective hazzard

They might blow you up if you stand next to the Soviet supplied Mig-21

[tele_nut]

What we are seeing over there is a mix of insurgency and classic guerrilla warfare. There is also a certain amount of criminal behavior that is exasperated by the amount of heavy weapons still in the hands of the average Iraqi. As a comparison, the North Hollywood bank robbers did more damage than the average raid or sabotage attempt by an Iraqi insurgent.

 

If you know history, there are many accounts of countries under foreign military occupation. One of the most recent and telling was the German occupation of France during the 2nd World War. Despite a heavy troop presence (Over 1,000,000 German troops in France and Belgium) and a light handed approach to occupation, a determined and effective resistance sprang up. Retribution was swift and massive where partisan raids and damage were conducted. Estimates put it at about 30,000 French executed for being members of the French resistance. Some 650,000 French were forced to work in labor camps under Teutonic eyes.

 

This was by no means as heavy handed as the retribution on the Eastern Front (Russia) where whole towns and populations were razed to the ground. An est. 20 million Russians perished on the Eastern Front. This was 1/3 of the number that Stalin killed after the war.

 

You see similar tactics used by the Israelis who often target the close associates and living quarters of Palestinians associated with Hamas bombings. The message is clear. Associate with members of the resistance who are killing us, and we will also target you as a result.

 

In Iraq the tactics are nowhere near as profound, nor is the resistance as effective. There are approx. 130,000 US troops in an area the size of Morrocco, and slightly bigger than the entire land mass of Japan.

 

The coalition purposely maintains a low presence in many areas so as to not disrupt the local populations daily lives. I have flown over huge tracts of Iraq and never once seen a US patrol or a military presence whatsoever. There are certain hotspots such as Fallujah where the military patrols aggressively, and they should. ROE's are restrictive (Rules of Engagement) and limit the amount and type of response a soldier can use for a certain type of event.

 

The allegations of indiscriminate killings are unfounded. I see GI's everyday interacting with the locals and building relationships. If some elements want to come out and bang heads, well then, they get what's coming to them. Militarily we cannot be fu<#ed with. You would be amazed, as some of the Somalia veterans can attest to, how many people will come out to see the big gunfight and get pasted for their overt interest. Most sane people would run and hide in a deep dark hole, but not these guys. It's like going to the 4th of July show.

 

Retribution is not a tactic the US is using. Instead it seems, we prefer to lay low and let them come to us. Some units, such as CAG (Combined Arms Group/DELTA/SEAL DEV GROUP/CIA/FBI HRT) have very specific mission parameters which allow them to actively hunt certain targets based on valid intel. I am not aware that their ROE allows them to kill if they can capture their targets live. We are just not as insidious as some of the lefties on this board like to promote. You should feel ashamed for being so judgemental of something you really know nothing about. However, I understand there is a media gap between the microscopic facts, and the details put out by jounalists who rarely venture outside of the safety of the Al Rasheed hotel.

 

Well, I hope that clears some things up for you. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

 

Tele

[arlen]

You see similar tactics used by the Israelis who often target the close associates and living quarters of Palestinians associated with Hamas bombings. The message is clear. Associate with members of the resistance who are killing us, and we will also target you as a result.

 

You don't have to be a freedom-loving American to get the real message from a policy like that: it's plain injustice, and it's exactly what many terrorists want us to do.