what the heck is an "insurgent" anyway?

and how did that word become the catch-all phrase for the disparate groups operating in Iraq?

We've been taken over by the enemy and we still believe in our country enough to want it back.

But, alas alak, Zarqawi supposedly died in early March 2004. The US keeps using him to blame for Halliburton's attacks (destroying that which they can be paid to rebuild, over and over again).

Lori Price

a brand marketed by the neocon wing of the CIA

But Dems don't even have that

the most irrisponsible and inflamatory thing I have heard from a DUer. There is nothing funny, inspiring or heroic about driving a car full of explosives into a crowd of innocent people and blowing them up.

See the other posts.

I mean I wish we had a proactive "leader."

Even if he is just the latest boogeyman brand invented by the BFEE.

there was a whole different name for that sort of thing, vis-a-vis the Colonists trying to expel the Brits.

What did we used to call them...patriots?

"insurgent" means whatever is convenient for the bushturd's gang at the moment

they use these vague terms to allow themselves to characterize almost anyone at almost anytime in almost any circumstances as a "bad guy" if it suits their purposes.

Doublespeak is lying.

But you can't call them Iraqi citizens if you want them to sound "bad".

Same reason the bush admin keeps calling their previous government a "regime".

we called them Freedom Fighters.


Cheers
Drifter

the popular elected Sandanista government in Nicaragua "freedom fighters"

They own the labels, which is halfway to owning history.

they kill an "insurgent." Next thing you know, if it has PR value, the "insurgent' becomes a "terrorist." From there, it is one CNN headline away from al Qaeda. None of these labels has the slightest meaning in understanding what happened.

Peanut Brain also wanted the Redskins to drive the Sandinistas out of San Antonio when they invaded.

they'd certainly be seen as patriots . . . repelling the invading masses who are occupying their country . . . invaders who are also killing thousands of citizens, many with really sickening weapons that are banned by the Geneva Conventions . . .

and how did that word become the catch-all phrase for the disparate groups operating in Iraq?

It's shorter than trying to get into the details of what the various disparate groups really want. They have one thing in common - They aren't the ones in power and share a desire for power.

I'm sure I'll catch some flak for not having any sympathy for their POV, i.e. that their country has been taken over by a greedy and hostile superpower that puts its own economic interests over the lives of innocent people, but really the "insurgents" are no better than that.

do you also believe they are all al Qaeda?

"No" on all counts.

of their country?

The fact that we need a catch-all brand name for dozens of different groups casts suspicion on our aims and methods in Iraq.

Your opinion refuses to question the legitimacy of the occupation. You equate "power" with legitimacy. That is a fascist view. I can't believe that is your actual opinion. Can you clarify?

n/t

You would naturally assume that everyone fighting back was no better than the occupiers?

It's shorter than trying to get into the details of what the various disparate groups really want.

That is why one generalizes, why one picks a particular word is a different issue.

They have one thing in common - They aren't the ones in power and share a desire for power.

That certainly isnt the only thing they have in common, as the thing they have most in common, the thing that defines them as a unit, is thier resistance to the occupational forces.

As far as sharing a desire for power... Someone fighting for control of thier family and community is fighting for power. A Baathist fighting to regain control of the Iraqi government is fighting for power. An Al Queda recruit fighting for the victory of thier crusade is fighting for power. But are they really all fighting for the same thing? Its easy to generalize, but sometimes the details matter.

I'm sure I'll catch some flak for not having any sympathy for their POV, i.e.

I dont think anyone cares who or what you have sympathy for. That is your business. I think people may give you flack for not accurately charecterizing the situation in Iraq.

that their country has been taken over by a greedy and hostile superpower

How dare people fight back!

that puts its own economic interests over the lives of innocent people,

Oh is that what they were doing? I thought they were killing and torturing people.

really the "insurgents" are no better than that.

Moral weight is, of course, entirely subjetive.

By the way, I liked your subject line. That is a very good comparison. The term Barbarian comes from the Greek term meaning non-Greek. It was a term used to refer to and demean other supposedly inferior peoples who, Gods willing, would be subjigated by the Greeks.

Get back to me when they start targeting ONLY US military people.

A majority of the attacks by insurgents are on civilian targets? I havent read that before. I also havent seen any indication that all members of the insurgency target civillians. I would appreciate the information on which you base this.

How does a car bomb attack on a civilian hospital or shopping mall or hotel serve the cause of getting the US to leave Iraq?

that civillians were targeted more than the military and that all factions of the resistance target civillians, not just that some civillians are targeted by some in the resistance, which is all the daily news stories prove.

How does a car bomb attack on a civilian hospital or shopping mall or hotel serve the cause of getting the US to leave Iraq?

Other than contributing the overall quagmire, it really doesnt. The logic behind attacking civillians is that it will scare them away from collaboration with or acceptance of the occupation/government. I personally think that such attacks do the opposite.

The logic behind attacking civillians is that it will scare them away from collaboration with or acceptance of the occupation/government. I personally think that such attacks do the opposite.

I agree with you. The Germans failed to suppress the British population by bombing them during the Battle of Britain. It only increased the Brits' resolve to win the war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051126123709

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051124/ts_nm/iraq_bomb_dc_3

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/051124/3/3wsqk.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051126210114

and you will have proven that all insurgents are dispicable terrorist.

But, if in fact it is only SOME of the insurgents who do so, generalizing all insurgents as terrorists is dishonest.

Meanwhile you claimed that a majority of insurgent attacks are on civillians and you still haven't produced a source.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but this is an important issue and I would like to see the information.

The ones who do are bad.

Meanwhile you claimed that a majority of insurgent attacks are on civillians and you still haven't produced a source.

You need only to look at the body counts of dead US service people vs. dead Iraqi civilians.

Those insurgents who are attacking only the troops who invaded and are occupying thier country? Those insurgents who are exercising a right protected by international law to struggle violently against occupation?

You need only to look at the body counts of dead US service people vs. dead Iraqi civilians.

Link?

Those insurgents who are attacking only the troops who invaded and are occupying thier country? Those insurgents who are exercising a right protected by international law to struggle violently against occupation?

While some of them may be technically or even morally in the right, their methods are flawed. They aren't going to win over peoples' hearts and minds by the tactics they are using. The only way any particular group is going to gain control of Iraq is through cooperation with the ongoing development of a constitutional government, no matter how flawed.

I wrote: You need only to look at the body counts of dead US service people vs. dead Iraqi civilians.

And K-W responded: Link?

U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 2107
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 7
Total 2114
DoD Confirmation List
Latest Coalition Fatality: Nov 30, 2005

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000
Insurgency Claiming About 20 People a Day

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A01

BAGHDAD, June 2 -- Insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis over the past 18 months, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks....

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060201098.html

Slackmaster analyzes the numbers: Since the civilian death toll due to insurgency is almost six times the total number of US troops killed in the war, the insurgents are doing a much better job of killing innocent people than they are at killing US soldiers.

You are entitled to your opinions about thier tactics. I would however disagree that they need to win anyones hearts and minds. A majority of Iraqi's already want the US to leave.

As far as the casualties, this is discussed a little lower on the thread. You pulled a bait and switch on me. First you claimed that the insurgents targetted civillians more. This would certainly prove that the insurgency is targetting civillians at a very high rate.

You did not however prove this point because it isnt true. There are far far more attacks on occupation forces than civillians.

So you switched to the casualty figures. Since civillians are far more likely to die in an attack, thier casualty figures are very high.

Now this does prove that there are people/groups who are targetting civilians and that they are doing damage and committing war crimes, but the figures on incidents very clearly show that most insurgent attacks are not against civillians.

The civillian deaths are a result of an ugly minority of insurgent actions. They do not charecterize the insurgency as a whole.

Perhaps someone can explain how one could tell a "good" insurgent from a "bad" one by inspection.

:shrug:

It seems to me their best course of action would be to renounce violence, turn in at least some token caches of weapons, and sit quietly until the US leaves. But I'm MUCH smarter than most people.

:D

Six-to-one ratio is a piss-poor record overall for the insurgency

I am not sure what you mean with this statement.

Perhaps someone can explain how one could tell a "good" insurgent from a "bad" one by inspection.

You cant, of course, exactly what point are you trying to make?

It seems to me their best course of action would be to renounce violence, turn in at least some token caches of weapons, and sit quietly until the US leaves.

Yes, sitting down, shutting up, and taking it can be considered the best course of action from the standpoint of personal preservation, but obviously some people are worried about more than saving thier own necks.

But regardless, what good is accomplished by us armchair quaterbacking for the insurgency? They are the ones on the ground, they were the ones invaded, you are entitled to your opinion, but Iraqi's have every right to defend themselves and the fact that you, millions of miles away, think that was the wrong choice or not, they dont deserve to be condemned or called terrorists for it (except of course for the minority that actually are terrorists).

I'm sure at least some of the insurgents aren't INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians, but even the sloppiest of military operations (other than those conducted in a context of total war or isolated massacres) have much better ratios of enemy combatants vs. civilians killed.

I'm sure at least some of the insurgents aren't INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians,

Actually the statistics show that a MAJORITY of the insurgents arent targetting civillians. Attacks on civillians constitute a small MINORITY of total attacks.

but even the sloppiest of military operations (other than those conducted in a context of total war or isolated massacres)have much better ratios of enemy combatants vs. civilians killed.

So even the sloppiest of military operations (except for the kinds of military operations that tend to kill civillians) have better ratios than the Iraqi insurgency, which is not a military operation?

Even if you accept the comparison between a military operation and an insurgency, the fact that you are excepting the kinds of military operations that target civillians makes your comparison invalid.

can you find a rebellion, freedom fighter, resurgence, insurgence, anything...from the Civil war, to the Revolution to whatever...where the "good guys" actually targetted or killed No innocents? Was there ever a time when our own revolutionary forefathers killed a house full of Englishmen/women/children or burned them out without really having a "good reason" if such is even possible?

I'm not defending the position. I'm asking though because I wonder if we can find any point where people (any people) have waged war against an oppressor and there haven't been ...evil, nasty, immoral killing of civilians and innocents?

That doesn't justify the action. But I think it's important to understand if it is or isn't unique to the process so that we don't overly villify another person's rebellion/revolution/insurgency/freedom fight...
while unrealistically mythologizing our own.

And yes...I think that any car bomb that blows up innocents is a bad bad bad bad thing.

is that starting a war of aggression is the supreme international crime because it encompasses all of the crimes and wrongs that happen during the war. War is hell, and this means that all people who wage war are responsible for the hell produced.

It is inevitable that once a war is started innocent people will die. This is just ONE of the reasons wars must be avoided at all costs.

but most casualties are Iraqi civilians - they congregate in large groups, and have no protection, so are far more vulnerable.

Illustrative Patterns in Targeting and Casualties (September 2003-October 2004)
Target  Number of Attacks/Incidents Killed Wounded

Coalition Forces               3227    451 1002
Coalition Air Convoy             49     55 32
CPA/US Officials/Green Zone      32     60 206
Diplomatic Mission               11      7 9
Local Authority                  31     56 81
Contractor                      113    210 203
Civilian                        180   1981 3467
Criminal & Suspect               49     31 972
ICDC                             58    191 310
Kurds Army                       31     25 8
Police                          209    480 1012
UN                               67      2 3
IO                                1      2 0
NGO                               5      5 11
Journalist                        8     27 38
Interpreter                       7     17 6
Public Property                 182      5 15
Unspecified                      43      1 1

source

I suspected as much when the poster changed the claim from "most attacks" to "look at the casualty numbers"

Those statistics quite clearly show that the lions share of attacks are on occupation forces.

For some it's an "Islamofascist" :wtf: (whatever that is)...but for most it's anyone in brown skin, wearing a towel and has a mustache (women included). These are "insurgents"...otherwise known as "A-rabs". :sarcasm:

This regime uses the Repugnican playbook of KISS...keep is simple, stupid...and finds simple answers and phrases for complex or invented problems. They've long found that creating demons...primarily imagined...can go a long way to accomplish a lot of goal. This started with "commies"...and this same boogie man game is now played with "terrorists" and "insurgents".

Just like the Commies were gonna march down our streets or were out to destroy our way of life and impose their ideologies, the "insurgents" represent the same evil, just wearing a different face. The same fears and the same "justifications" for destroying the "terrorists".

"Insurgents" are an easy one-stop catch-all name to simplify this invasion to whatever needs or purposes this regime deems the flavor of the moment. Originally they shunned this term...but now embrace it as they can't deny there's armed resistance to our military presence, and this makes it easy to demonize and marginalize both the enemy and the war. It also fuels for more conflicts in other places as it's obvious that this boogie man not only exists but is surely expanding.

Honestly, I haven't found anyone who can really describe who is firing at our military and why. This isn't a war with neatly named armies and so many conflicting interests. It's a shame so many of our young people...totally unaware of the real powers calling the shots here...are used as cannon fodder. Shamefull.

lots of different people and different groups with different motivations

they're "insurgents" only when that label furthers the war agenda

a government' (from dictionary.com). Hence, we are talking about 'resistance fighters,' in Iraq's case, as the Iraqi government is not legitimate. Same in the US.

Cheers,
Lori Price

The US?

The provisional authority?

The puppet Halliburtonized government?

The Shia?

The locally powerful mullah?

The bushturdgang's military uses the term to identify the armed resistance to US occupation, but also justify use of chemical weapons (WP), "collateral damage" (and equally disgusting abuse of the language), and whatever else they do that victimizes Iraqis. Then there are the armed "insurgents" who are actually opposing other Iraqis.

The Isurgency term is a part of an overall frame that attempts to cast what is going on in Iraq as a conflict between militants and the government where the US is there to protect the government from the militants.

It is yet another play from the empire playbook we should all recognize from other imperial adventures.

is another man's innocent bystander

and then some bushturdgang flack gets to wrap the poor sod in whatever label provides the greatest PR benefit to the bushturd.

They can't very well deny it, can they?

definition. If we killed them, children included, they're insurgents. They must have been "insurging".

Since they are our counterparts in Iraq. Like us they're fighting a fraudulent election perpetrated in the name of oil interests.

Their biggest issue is for us to leave. So why Iraqi insurgents attack Iraqis??? :wtf:

and others think they can get to us indirectly through Iraqis

and others think that by targeting other Iraqis that more and more Iraqis will begin to hate us and stop collaborating with our occupation

:shrug: During the old Soviet days, they were called "freedom fighters" when they used Molotov cocktails against Soviet troops.

Iraqi Insurgency

In January 2005 Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said that Iraq's insurgency consited of at least 40,000 hardcore fighters, out of a total of more than 200,000 part-time fighters and volunteers who provide intelligence, logistics and shelter. Shahwani said the resistance enjoyed wide backing in the Sunni provinces of Baghdad, Babel, Salahuddin, Diyala, Nineveh and Tamim. Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions.

The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam.

A picture of the composition of the insurgency, though in constant flux, has come into somewhat greater focus. London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings. However, American officials believe that the greatest obstacles to stability are the native insurgents that predominate in the Sunni triangle. Significantly, many secular Sunni leaders were being surpassed in influence by Sunni militants. This development mirrors the rise of militant Shia cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr vis-à-vis the more moderate Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurge...


"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)

Thanks.

down. Erm, um, never mind. Weren't some insurgents recently shown to be planted U.S. and British soldiers? Eh, I'm sure that was a fluke, nothing serious like that going on routinely I'm sure. NOT.

as a way of shutting off thought. Mind-numbing buzzwords. We don't normally talk that way.

One appropriate term that hasn't been used at all so far is "guerrilla". You'd almost think they were trying to avoid the idea that they've gotten us involved in a guerrilla war in Asia.

That would be a tough one to sell to the public. It would remind too many people of Viet Nam. I wonder if they try these things out on focus groups?

Frank Lund is the RW champion of this

something they obviously pay a lot of attention to. Their every statement sounds calculated somehow. I think that's what tipped me off to their basic dishonesty from day one. My friends now think I'm politically prescient, but I tell them it's really just a literary issue. These people write bad fiction...

I googled Frank Lund and didn't find very much. I'd like to learn more about him. Can you point me to a good reference?

Thanks,

Roy

Ailes' and Atwater's heir:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Frank_Luntz

I'm brain damaged lately

Number 1 word never to use? "Government". People tend to like theirs. Instead, use "Washington". Easier to demonize.

I wasn't surprised to see that he was in bed with that destructive amoral swine Newt Gingrich.

After reading about Luntz I feel like I have to go take another shower...

LOL

a while back that was editable? I seem to recall that the army clearly made a distinction between "insurgents" and "terrorists" when we killed them.

Insurgents = Iraqis
Terrorists = Al-Queda or other outside agitators

The 'in' of 'insurgent' does imply an internal rebellion. A 'terrorist' is someone using the tactics of terrorism - aiming to wound and kill non-combatants (whether you'd put police in that category is arguable) with the purpose of forcing a change in policy, rather than attacking armed forces (or their assets) who have control over a place. So an insurgent could also be a terrorist, depending on the tactics they use. But a non-Iraqi isn't really an insurgent - unless, perhaps, they have placed themselves under the command of an Iraqi.

That could be hardcore terrorists, grieving Iraqi civilians, factions that hate America for what it is doing in Iraq. I just wish the rest of the world could tell the difference between Boosh and Us, the people.

Nowadays I can't help but feel very guilty for everything that has happen in Iraq. I know our troops are defending themselves from deadly force, but it hurts to know that they also kill innocent civilians time and time again.

The catch-all phrase is one that changes to convince us of an "enemy" that must be fought at all costs. Commies, VC, some word to instill fear and apprehension.

but many are labeled "insurgent" who attack other Iraqis or even who attack no one at all, not coalition forces.

and soon in Iran and Syria as well.

Dictionaries are cool.

They used to be called guerrillas, but then we all know that Bush would be out to bomb Rwanda and kill all those silver-backs there, so they don't come here and steal all our bananas..

they've also been called "freedom-fighters", but that's "fuzzy" too since that's what St.Ronnie of Reagan called the mujahadin when bin Laden was their leader and OUR boy..

We need to bring our military home in order to fight them here! With many terrorists like Osama Bin Reilly and Talibornagains like Falwell, our troops have a lot of work cut out for them.