This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
It has several things wrong with it:
-- Noitall 16:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
17:13, 5 August 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)
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)
---
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
In response to some of NPS's points above:
In response:
Adam 01:24, 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)
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.
This paragraph is for NoPuzzleStranger to list his top 3 issues and to state why his version is best.
This is The Economist article I was referring to earlier [12]. Adam 06:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
-- 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)
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
-- Ebralph 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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.
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?'
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.
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'.
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.
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.'
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)
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.
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."
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Not much info on them yet. BQAggie2004 05:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
This is a direct quote from https://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html, a CIA FAQ on terrorism. I think that the definition is accurate.
The key points are that the attack is political, it is targeting random civilians, and most importantly, it is intended as a way to communicate the political message. Communicating a political message is the underlying motive. BQAggie2004 06:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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)
In section 2 (composition [of insurgency]) there is an untelligible quote from David Enders (nor does the reference clarify what he said).
I have reparsed and punctuated it as follows:
If anyone has a better idea of what he might have meant please fix it. Incomprehensible quotes don't help us.
Just a note ... this was from the CSPAN interview of Ender concerning his book. Someone else put the text of his talk in though. JDR (ps., I didn't write the above comment)
AIF is not a euphemism by the Coalition military or US armed forces. It's not an "expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces". It's a classification of the insurgents (eg., forces against the new 'UN sactioned' Iraqi government). It is a common term, as the search of .mil sites here shows. Sincerely, JDR
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
It has several things wrong with it:
-- Noitall 16:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
17:13, 5 August 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)
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)
---
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
In response to some of NPS's points above:
In response:
Adam 01:24, 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)
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.
This paragraph is for NoPuzzleStranger to list his top 3 issues and to state why his version is best.
This is The Economist article I was referring to earlier [12]. Adam 06:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
-- 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)
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
-- Ebralph 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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.
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?'
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.
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'.
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.
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.'
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)
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.
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."
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Not much info on them yet. BQAggie2004 05:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
This is a direct quote from https://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html, a CIA FAQ on terrorism. I think that the definition is accurate.
The key points are that the attack is political, it is targeting random civilians, and most importantly, it is intended as a way to communicate the political message. Communicating a political message is the underlying motive. BQAggie2004 06:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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)
In section 2 (composition [of insurgency]) there is an untelligible quote from David Enders (nor does the reference clarify what he said).
I have reparsed and punctuated it as follows:
If anyone has a better idea of what he might have meant please fix it. Incomprehensible quotes don't help us.
Just a note ... this was from the CSPAN interview of Ender concerning his book. Someone else put the text of his talk in though. JDR (ps., I didn't write the above comment)
AIF is not a euphemism by the Coalition military or US armed forces. It's not an "expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces". It's a classification of the insurgents (eg., forces against the new 'UN sactioned' Iraqi government). It is a common term, as the search of .mil sites here shows. Sincerely, JDR