Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)/Archive 3

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

This section seems to end rather abruptly. It ends with:

On August 21, 2006, Jill Carroll, a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor, published part 6 of her story detailing her capitivity in Iraq. In it, she describes how one of her captors, who identified himself as Abdullah Rashid and leader of the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq, conveyed to her that "The A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.4.239 (talk • contribs) 16:34, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

146.151.26.155 enjoys changing the number of caught foreign nationals please ban ty

Enemy attacks?

Under "rate of attacks" section, the resistance are characterized as an "Enemy". This is bias - to most of the population of this planet, the US and UK forces (hardly a "coalition" anymore) are the "Enemy". Best to characterise the attacks from both perspectives. Where's the easily obtainable data about the number of attacks being carried out by US/UK forces as a comparator. As usual, 300m North Americans believe that the English speaking world is "on their side" - when in fact, most Europeans want the US Military and influence of the warmongering Government off our continent, like the rest of the world.

Hey, we'd like to leave your continent too and let you spineless moochers take care of yourselves once and for all, right after you deceitful ingrates pay us back for all the money we gave you to rebuild after WW2, and for all the money we spent to protect YOU from the big cuddly Russian bear (but you probably are too uninformed to think that was a legitimate fear).

In fact, if US civilians knew how bestial their military were, I believe they'd exile their "can-do can-kill" murdering sons.

Oh I'd take them any day over the Iraqi idiots you call "freedom fighters" who target and kill their fellow Iraqis much more than they do coalition troops. Iraq has the first democratic government in the history of the Arab world, and instead of using their brains to try to make this thing work (and, thus, let Coalition troops LEAVE), all they can do is blow up their own country. True genius....68.164.3.7 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the US is the enemy of the rest of the world! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.149.172 (talk • contribs) 22:34, March 25, 2007 (UTC)

If that's true then you're just as stupid as George W. Bush.

Foreign Insurgents

Isn't this an oxymoron?

No, not really. It is the most commonly used term, although I suppose you could change it to "foreign fighters" if you see fit. However, I think this section is long enough to merit its own article; some of the text on the main article can be trimmed off and a new article can be created. There is a lot to explain about syria, Iran, et. al. Some pictures wouldn't hurt either.--Crucible Guardian 01:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be careful about using "the most commonly used term" because they can be misleading. In this instance you have to start from the basis that anyone who isn't Iraqi is a "foreigner". However the problem comes when you begin to attach a label to the term, because by definition you could say that US troops are "foreign fighters". Anyone interested by the misuse of language in politics and the media should take a look at a book called 'Unspeak' by Steven Pool. An interesting read.

Ongoing Edit War

Could people please use the talk page instead of having an ongoing edit war on this article? It barely lasted one or two days after being unprotected before it went right back to vprot.

A lot of the editing conflict seems to be about rather silly semantics, like the difference between "known by their supporters as the iraqi resistance" versus "also known as the iraqi resistance." Sounds to me like the war over what end of an egg should be broken from Gulliver's Travels.

To be a litle NPOV:NOT (or perhaps, super NPOV, depending on your impression of this) atm, the US is in Iraq to aggrandize its own political and power ends, and the insurgents/resistance/whatever is also serving its own, various political and power ends. The US wants a foothold in the middle east to control the region. The Sheites want to control the country. The Sunnis want to get back in power. A lot of the terrorists who are chopping people's heads off and blowing themselves and others up want to make the US look bad. It's another war over power, like people have had over . . . um . . . practically all of recorded history.

Anyway, if this keeps up, we'll need a wikipedia article just to document the crazy edit war going on in this article. . . just stick to the facts and try to avoid picking a side, and if there's a language problem, just use both of the terms, and avoid silly fights over whose term goes first. Or perhaps using terms like "insurgency" or "resistance" are a bad idea. Find something else to call it.

RudolfRadna 17:15 November 5, 2005 (UTC)

Irony of the Insurgency

Why was the passage deleted about the irony of the insurgency keeping the US in Iraq, rather than driving it out? I don't see how this is POV, and it is relevant.

If it's considered OR, then I think we have to do a better job of defining what OR is, because it's sort of unclear to me.

I could be wrong, and someone correct me if I am, but my impression of OR is that it is statements intended to communicate objective fact (such as what year a country was founded, or at what temperature the melting point of copper is) without any citation or support. That is obviously a threat to wikipedia's accuracy if it is allowed, since nobody could be sure if wikipedia's article communicating this objective information was accurate or not.

However, I don't see how an analysis of existing, established facts, without seeking to make an unsupported factual statement, can qualify as original research. This is merely thought. If we're going to be in the business of barring thought, then the rules on the WP:NOT page should be amended as such. Of course, in my opinion, that would turn wikipedia into wiktionary with a somewhat broader scope, but it's not my site, so it can be whatever the admins want.

However, it is my opinion that analysis of fact, that does not attempt to state facts that may or may not exist, is not a threat to wikipedia since there is no accuracy problem, and may encourage a deeper level of understanding of the factual material, as well as a better level of writing. It is certainly better to try to improve text that a user finds objectionable, rather than merely deleting it.

On a tangental note, I find that I am constantly disappointed at the repeated repeated repeated repeated failure of users to use the talk page to discuss deletions they want to implement before wiping them out, usually without even a two word comment to explain what the motivation for the deletion was. I personally see this as nothing more than removing text one merely doesn't like, without trying to actually improve the article, and without even trying to justify what you're doing, even though this is supposed to be a community of users, not a bunch of random people all doing their own thing.

From the Wikipedia NPOV page: (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

"Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased."

(Emphasis added)

RudolfRadna 12:32 November 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:Neolithic really User:Wik?

Is that you User:Wik? User:Neolithic's edit style in the insurgency article is very similar ... anyways ... the government and civilians are a primary targets nowadays, the international troops are not targeted as much. ALSO, the end the occupation occured @ the handover of sovergeinity. Sincerely, JDR

Of course it is Wik. -- Netoholic @ 14:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for page protection

Because of user:wik's sockpuppet, Neolithic, reverting this page I put a notice @ the RFP. Sincerely, JDR (PS., already over my limit in edits to it, I'm walking away (for atleast 12hrs) ... I am sorry for my conduct.)

Edits by User:Neolithic

I looked closer at Neolithic's recent edits. He is favoring the statement 'Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi' while others are opposing him and restoring the statement 'Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are not Iraqi' (emphasis mine). The reference given for that quote can be consulted and it is clear that the version favored by Neolithic is the correct one.

Please stop reverting to the incorrect version of this page. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony ... bzzt ... -50pts ... you misread the history. The occurs in one edit of the history. He is removing, mainly, these:

1. the entire Background section
2. "Terrorist groups are Iraqi insurgents who actively target civilian populations, in an attempt to communicate their political messages through violent means."

You didn't really look close at Neolithic's edits. As that citation was IN THE ARTICLE. The edits are not about that. Sincerely, JDR 19:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Tony, it is JDR/Reddi who is out of line here. I am not sure about the "background" paragraph, but in the intro JDR keeps reverting to language that is contested above as blatantly POV and Neolithic is changing it back to the version that is considered superior by others on this page. I believe JDR jumped the gun in calling Neolithic's edits vandalism. To see some of the discussion about these changes look above to the "AIF terminology" section and look for the most recent comments. I will go ahead and revert JDR's changes again, though I plan to leave the "background" section alone.--csloat 20:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Language that is blatantly POV? How is it POV? The UN say that the new Iraqi government is soverein! JDR

Please, sir. We're having that discussion above already in the "AIF terminology" section. Check the discussion and respond to the points there.--csloat 20:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much pointless ... when you focus on grammar citicism, ignore my questions, and make statements such as "cartoon caped crusaders in a toilet bowl cleaner advertisement" (kinda funny, but constructively useless). JDR 20:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually you're the one ignoring the arguments; sorry if you didn't like my joke, it wasn't meant to be offensive.csloat 02:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What points have I been ignoring? please tell me ... I do responses by me to your comments and do not see any that have been ignored ... but you have several times ignored direct questions.

And the "joke" wasn't 'offensive' ... just useless.

Sincerely, JDR 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Insurgency vs. Resistance (not again)

I think a reasonable solution to the back and forth with these words -- and the inclusion of nonencyclopedic comments whose only purpose seems to be to take a side on one of these terms -- might be to have a section called "Insurgency or Resistance?" that outlines different views. For example the David Enders quote under "Composition" does not belong there at all; it was obviously put there for POV reasons to preempt arguments about this. Why not have a section acknowledging that there are arguments about whether this is a "resistance"? Certainly many people see it that way, not just Saddam loyalists and European hippies. American counterterrorism experts and even people in the US military have referred to it that way. I don't see the point of going back and forth forever on this and obviously there are wikipedia editors who feel strongly enough on both sides that there will be constant struggle about this. --csloat 20:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article should remain named as "insurgency" simply for the fact that this is what it has been referred to as constantly in the media. People don't search for "Iraq resistance" as much as a result. You can point out that it is technically a resistance, and not an insurgency in the article.71.207.108.131 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

People ususally search for Grand Central Station rather than Grand Central Terminal, too. Should we rename all the articles that are named correctly to names that people are more likely to search for ? User:Pedant (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just put in a POV warning. The inclusion of encyclopedic comments is to delineate facts. Insurgency or Resistance? That would be great IMO. As to David Enders quote, he's a scholar! Wikipedia seeks scholarly opinions. JDR 20:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the quotation does not belong under "Composition"; it is simply not talking about that. A section devoted to the question of whether it should be called "resistance" would be the proper place for such quotes. The POV warning is a good idea; the POV problems are pretty bad throughout this article on all sides of the political spectrum. The revert war is just going to keep going on indefinitely (or until we invade Iran and everybody starts in on the Iranian Insurgency article :) --csloat 02:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be somewhere .. and the "Composition" is a good temporary place ... until a section devoted the the exact nature of "resistance", "rebel", "militant", "thug", "criminal" and/or "terrorist" can be made. It does talk about the "composition" in the sense as to "who is part of the insurgency".

Also, the POV problems aren't that bad (... POV problems are mostly in the intro; the removal of the background; and some of the scope and size of the insurgency ...) ... the rest of the article lists mostly facts and cites sources. (I agree that the revert war is just going to keep going on indefinitely until the United States and Great Britian invades Syria and Iran (because of thier meddling in Iraq) and people start in on the Iran War article =-])

Sincerely, JDR 17:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont feel this the bullet under "Composition": "Nonviolent resistance groups and political parties (not technically part of the insurgency)." Should be included. One could argue that this is an aspect of an insurgency (an argument that at the moment I would disagree with", however it does not accuratly describe a component of a violent insurgency, the kind which I feel this page is trying to describe. The portion in parentheses obviously shows this, so I just thought I would bring more attention to fixing this.

---

I remember clearly not so many years ago when NPR and other mainstream news sources went straight from routinely refered to those fighting the occupation of Iraq as "the Iraqi Resistance" to calling it an "insurgency." There was no public discussion of the matter that I could detect. It was as if someone running the NY Times issued a memo changing the policy there and everyone else just followed suit.

Above someone acknowledged that "technically" this is a resistance. "Resistance" connotes legitimacy, and "insurgency" connotes illegality. But the impartial, verifiable fact is that this IS a resistance because what they are doing to the occupying forces is legally legitimate. The second US invasion of Iraq and its justifications were analyzed extensively by Britain's Attorney General ( http://globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm ), who essentially concluded that without a clear UN Security Council resolution authorizing war, the legal use of force by the US could, at most, ONLY "have as its objective the enforcement of the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687..." The author unambiguously dismissed all other potentially legal justifications for re-invading Iraq.

The fact therefore is that the occupation is illegal, and resistance to it is legal under rulings by the UN Commission on Human rights, the International Court of Justice, and other bodies ( http://www.iacenter.org/iaon/resistance-legal100506.htm ). So, this is not just a "point of view": The most accurate, impartial term for those fighting the US occupation is "the Iraqi resistance."

Yet if inertia prevails over the facts, I would support at least having a section of this article discussing the central points of both sides of this controversy, as was suggested.

Nhcatsteve (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would understand that a "resistance" movement has the aim of forcing an occupying force to leave, whereas the "insurgents" in Iraq have so far effectively PREVENTED the coalition forces from leaving, for reasons which are not entirely clear in a purely rational sense. - Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To and fro between alternate POV versions

To me as an outsider it looks as if there's a lot of to-and-fro between different versions each of which has its own point of view.

One version seems to place statements as fact without any reference, such as: "However, even has this may have been the case in the short term after the removal of Saddams regime in 2003, the attraction of foreign Islamists and insurgent violence has pretty much destroyed what credibility left they had in defending the Iraqi people from Coalition 'brutality' when they enacted even more brutal acts themselves" and " During the operation Matador and Ensuring rights campaigns in Tall Afar and Mosul (2005) the Al Queda and insurgent groups inhabiting the area have been destroyed (80% of the network the insurgents used was dismantled in the two operations)".

The other version, while better in some ways, seems to omit some factual reports, such as the omission of: "In August to September 2005, there has been marked relevations of his army infiltrating the Police in Basra, this culminated into the arrest of Mahdi Army leaders, or aides, which lead to the capture of two SAS undercover operatives who were hence arrested and then transferred to a milita house of the Sadr movement..." etc. There should be some reports about the activities in Basra involving UK undercover agents, their capture and rescue, although the language of the omitted section does, I admit, leave much to be desired. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a danger here of editing from the point of view of a nation (US, Iraq, UK, Russia or other) whereas the wikipedia should be nationless, that is to say - there is no reason why edits should take the UN, US, UK or any other authority as the center of a moral compass. Objectivity is key, which is to analyse all available information, stay away from specific and direct reporting of incidents (described in press releases by both warring faction's propoganda machines) and to describe the generalities of current situations without falling into the trap of regurgitating contemporary history as described by Western academics, again largely informed by one side. The best analysis of current affairs is gained by seeing each situation from all the player's perspectives, with sympathy to each. The so-called revelations described above are clearly British army originated co-intel.

Featured article status

This article is such an abominable mess that I'm summarily removing its featured article status. The writing is some of the worst I've seen on a Wikipedia article, it's in a state of flux, and it's full of unreferenced statements and opinion represented as fact. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree - for a long time I have suggested that the "featured article" status is an embarrassment. Unfortunately the article seems to have gotten worse since then, not better.--csloat 20:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Unilaterally de-featuring articles should not be done. I've added a nomination on WP:FARC, please comment there. Worldtraveller 12:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How did this article become a featured article in the first place? Couldn't one just reload the page of when it was featured-article approved?--Waxsin 01:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Iran British skirmish

I found this article funny. Basically, the article discuss the dynamics that was going on behind scene leading to British government accussing Iran of mischief.

"One cannot of course judge the accuracy of the accusation.

And there are questions to be asked about how Britain might have made the connection with Hezbollah.

The body of a British solider is carried to a military transport plane in Basra Fatal attacks have risen noticeably in the past few months Britain has no experience of Lebanon. So how would it know that bombs used in southern Iraq could be connected to bombs used by Hezbollah?

The answer has to involve the Israelis, with perhaps the Americans acting as intermediaries.

Who other than Israelis and Americans would know how Hezbollah makes a bomb? The Lebanese are unlikely to tell.

This in turn opens up all kinds of interesting issues. For one thing, the intelligence relationship between Britain and Israel, with or without the US, must be quite close these days.

This has not always been the case. But mutual dangers often bring mutual support." [1]

Image Use

I'm sorry, but I really have to question the taste in using the following image in the article, it seems to me we try to *avoid* messy pictures of gore when possible. The article is well-illustrated without the image, and it doesn't add anything NPOV to the article. (Note of course, that a 'equal but opposite' page like United States Army would never show a photo of the same vein)

File:Suicidebombcarnage.jpg

I don't think we should keep away from images that contain gore. Think picture might become useful as the article changes (I don't think it is useful now). --CalPaterson 09:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Land war in Ninevah province

How can this be a featured article? As far as I can see, it entirely omits mention of the ongoing land war in Ninevah province, which I should think almost anyone would call significant. I added a few notes about it just now in the Mosul article, and came here to see what writeup it had here, and cannot find any mention of it at all?? ~~

Revert war

Could somebody please explain what's going on with the 2/3 Nov revert war? This seems to involve going back and forth between different versions of the intro which don't differ greatly in substance as far as I can see, and neither one is that good anyway. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right. Here's the play-by-play.

There's a user who I'll call User:Hesketh Fortescue, although that's just one of his amny sockpuppets. Hesketh really doesn't like User:Reddi. Reddi originally made a change in the intro, a shown here, and Hesketh (at that time operating as User:Eoritwiethm) reverted. Reddi, along with User:Alex Bakharev, got into a revert war with Hesketh. 3RR violations were had all around. Whenever Hesketh's account would be blocked for violating the 3RR, he would just create a new account and go at it again. 6 so far, at least. Hesketh said as much here, responding to threats of bans with "Good luck. Perhaps I will run out of usernames or IPs."

I put up a notice about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Hesketh Fortescue and related sockpuppets. Many of us admins object to Hesketh's behavour on principle, and are reverting his changes and blocking his sockpuppets because he is violating Wikipedia guidelines about evading blocks and using sockpuppets. I personally don't have any opinion about whether Reddi's or Hesketh's version is better, but I don't think Hesketh's behaviour is tolerable. As the respected admin User:Ral315 said, "I would urge other administrators to treat all sockpuppets on that page with indefinite blocks, and treat all reversions by other users as simple vandalism fixes. Doing this change without consensus and then using sockpuppets to bait other users into 3RR while 'avoiding' it yourself is gaming the system and about 5 other policy violations." – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I see from User talk:Hesketh Fortescue that the extreme sockpuppetry related to concerns about others' alleged POV-pushing. This is what talk pages are for; if HF wishes to calm down and discuss, he stands a chance of getting his concerns addressed. Otherwise, his edits will rightly be treated as vandalism. Rd232 ^talk 15:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Message to Beatrice Hollandsworth, or whoever

You know, the tragedy about this is that I'm somewhat sympathetic to the change you keep wanting to make - I'm just not sympathetic to your methods. At last count, it looks like. . . no one approves of your methods. If you tried discussing the change on talk, like an adult, I'll bet you'd find it more effective. Unless your goal is to get people to disagree with you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The edits that the various sockpuppets are making are not acceptable .... the "Anti-Iraqi Forces" (AIF) is a term by the multinational coalition in general ... as search of the .mil sites and the .mod.uk sites show.

The violence is mainly call the Iraqi insurgency in the press with Iraqi resistance being used by more extreme left of center / ant-war proponents. It is not a continuation of the Iraq War The war of Iraq ended with the defeat of the old Iraqi army.

AND ... a telling POV-push is in the paragraph "A growing share of the Iraqi population" ...

Sincerely, JDR 21:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

AIF is only used by the US military and occasionally the Brits; it is not used "by the multinational coalition in general." It is also quite obviously an Orwellian euphemism since the folks using it are themselves non-Iraqi. The term "resistance" is not just used by the left: it is quite common in counterterrorism literature and even in US military publications. Obviously the invasion and insurgency are two separate phases of the same war; it is sheer POV and misleading semantics to suggest they are unrelated. Finally, the fact that a growing share of Iraqis support the insurgency and oppose the occupation is readily confirmed from looking at opinion polls going back to 2003.--csloat 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing "Orwellian" about using AIF. Spend a day in the military and you'd realize literally everything is given non-civilian sounding nomenclature. Virgil61 09:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is criticizing AIF for being "non-civilian sounding" -- if it were simply OPFOR, who could object? It's the fact that "Anti-Iraqi Forces" diverts attention from their real goal and motivation. jsnx 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my little piggie Virgil61, it looks like you absorbed your lessons well in basic training - I see you still drool at the dinner table when you hear the bell. Good to have you in the reserves Maureen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.149.172 (talk • contribs) 22:39, March 25, 2007 (UTC)

Insurgency Groups

The list of groups given is ... meaningless! I've never ever heared of a group called "The Snake Head"!! where the hell did they come from?
Some of the major main groups are:

• Islamic Resistance Movement, the 20th Revolution Brigades. (harakt al-moqawama al-islamiya, kata'eb thowrat al-ishreen)
• Islamic Army in Iraq (al jaish al islamy fil iraq)
• The Islamic Front of the Iraqi Resistance (al-jabha al-islamiya lil-moqawama al-iraqiya)
• Jaish al-Mujahideen (the army of mujahideen)
• Jaish al-Rashideen (the army of the ????)

edit the last is the rightly guided army --anon 06:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The easier thing to do here would be to have a link to the "Iraq Armed Group" section on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Armed_Iraqi_groups_in_the_Iraq_War_and_the_Iraq_Civil_War. This is a much more comprehensive list.

Failures of the insurgency

I think it is important to point out just how big of a failure the insurgency has been. They have failed to reach any political goal that they have set in Iraq. They failed to prevent the formation of a governing council, the writing of an interim constitution, the transfer of sovereignty, the general elections in January of this year, the writing of a democratic constitution, and then the passing (by a huge majority) of that constitution. They fought hard against all of these, and they were rebuffed at every step of the way by an overwhelming majority of Iraqis. They have only succeeded in killing people and, to a lesser extent, influencing US public support for the war. Thats not a very good track record. Here is a somewhat dated (June 2005) opinion piece about this from Amir Taheri. http://www.arabnews.com/?article=64848--192.55.52.2 20:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, shouldn't it also be added that the occupation and the US regime has also been disastrous failures, at least in its variously avowed goals (finding nuclear weapons, securing the country, promoting peaceful democracy, achieving stable US control of oil production, achieving stable and maintainable US military bases)? There is plenty of failure to go around :)

To be fair, few people are pleased with the outcome of the occupation. But "finding nuclear weapons" and "achieving stable US control of oil production" were not goals of the US regime. If you have some credible source that claimed the Saddam Hussein regime had nuclear weapons, I would like to know it. And for US oil control, you think Iraqis were going to put that in their constitution? I suppose Micheal Moore's "Bush-Saudi cabal" failed to achieve its goal of undercutting the Saudi oil monopoly. But it did undercut Sunni dominance in favor of Shiit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.87.0.11 (talk • contribs) 12:25, February 2, 2007 (UTC)

I'm very unconvinced by the categorisation of groups. How does 'nationalists' become conflated with 'sunni nationalists'? (I'm sure a majority of Iraqi Shia would consider themselves nationalists, militant or not) Why no mention of Shiite groups other than the Mahdi army? Won't edit this now, because it would involve reorganizing a lot of the page, but if somebody has the time and knowledge I think they should Danohuiginn 10:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Failures" of the insurgency? That post is a laugh riot, which does little more than trot out tired Bush/right-wing radio talking points. The insurgency, in fact, has been a spectacular success. The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq, folks. This should be clear to all but the most die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers. The insurgency fought the mighty U.S. military and won. In fact, the U.S. even lost the moral high ground in this war in the aftermath of the torture scandals (as well as other horrors such as U.S. troops gang-raping and killing a 13-year-old Iraqi child) and we lost the struggle for hearts and minds a long time ago. If a majority of Iraqis approve of attacks on coalition forces (which they do), then the insurgency has been a political, as well as military success.

And was that a joke post? The insurgency was never really a huge sucess. The Al Anbar province, mostly held by insurgents, are now fleeing the province as Coalition forces are taking over it, fleeing to another province. Also, they're not having military victories, they're losing many battles, not completely though, but most cities afterward are mostly secured by coalition troops. The only victories the insurgents have are propagandic victories i.e. they manage to get many foreigners to go into Iraq to fight the coalition troops. By the way, there are several former insurgent groups allying themselves with the coalition and Iraqi forces to attack Al-Qaida and their allies. I know there was scandals in the coalitions, but insurgents have done worse things: cleansing, suicide bombing, killing hostages slow and painfully, etc. Again, where the hell are you from anyway? France? Canada? The insurgents are definetely NOT winning, but they're not losing either. Also, there should be a section for problems the insurgents because obviously they have their own pros and cons. (76.81.227.88 14:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

It is difficult to see that the "Insurgency" has any rational objectives, other than wanton carnage (often of themselves), so it is difficult to assess success or failure in the sense that is generally understood. Even maximising their own casualties may be an aim of the Insurgents, in which they may have been said to have enjoyed some success--Streona (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to explain simple facts but it seems I have to. "They have failed to reach any political goal that they have set in Iraq" - I would have been very excited if they had reached their goals without forcing the invaders to leave - the plans of the insurgents can be realized only in the case of the enemy withdrawal from Iraq (in fact, the very enemy withdrawal is their main goal) and the only constructive way to reach this aim is to weaken the enemy and demonstrate the futility of the occupation - this is the work the insurgents are engaged in. "It is difficult to see that the "Insurgency" has any rational objectives" - the quoted conclusion can hardly be considered thoughtful (one should note also that someone's misunderstanding of facts presents no importance): it's well-known that the aim common to all the insurgent groups is to withdraw the foreign occupants from Iraq. The rebels have different views on the future of their land but Resistance is the thing that unites them. Asharidu (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the US and allies wanted to go in, eliminate Saddam Hussein and withdraw leaving a democratic, but suitably compliant pro US regime behind. The fact that they are still in occupation has been as a result of the "insurgency". It is a strange kind of "resistance" that seeks to prolong their country's occupation. Al-Qaeda in Iraq appear to have actually failed even to kill themselves, as most of their members have either defected or gone home.--Streona (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what makes you excited - it's a guerilla war where the resistance tries to 'weaken the enemy and demonstrate the futility of the occupation'. If you need a more simple explanation, here it is: to put it simply, what the rebels want the United States to understand is 'We'll always resist till you're here; you can't gain full control over our land, it will always remain a flashpoint, therefore you have to leave'. Compare this conflict with the unforgettable Vietnam war: the North waged seemingly endless guerilla war and won it, having demonstrated that the American involvement was a useless waste of money and lives - it's obvious that we have a similar case in Iraq. And what to al-Qaeda members, we shouldn't pay attention for them; in no way they represent the majority of the Iraqi Resistance, their fates don't determine the course of the war. So, I hope the conclusion seems certain to both of us: there's no need to mention the imaginary 'failures' of the Resistance in the article. Asharidu (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign fighters

A change regarding the definition of "foreign fighters" was reverted. I think the point the person was making with this addition was that U.S. and British troops, while technically foreign fighters, are not what is meant by the term. It really refers to foreign fighters fighting against the coalition. Maybe the point should be added? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ya, it needs fixing, because it looks really silly to say foreign fighters are Arabs, when the overwhelming majority of them are from the United States and are not Arabs at all. Its obviously used euphemistically, but such a euphemism needs to be spelled out, as it will become less and less understandable with time, as the current set of euphemists are lost to history. Although it is a euphemism, and obviously one with a political agenda, it is also in widespread use in the West (right?), so it probably belongs in the English article, I think? Alfar 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Error

> Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement;

That is so wrong I don't know how to fix it. I'd remove the pejorative reference to Salafi entirely, here. Actually, the reference to "Sunni Islamists" is not very correct either, but I'm not sure exactly what the article wants to say, so I can't quite fix it. Alfar 05:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Moqtada al-Sadr

This section is too much weighted by propaganda on one side. Moqtada al-Sadr probably is involved in violence (who doesn't believe it?), but it presents a misperception to leave out the important issue that his persecution was also heavily political. ~~

Also, I find the line Supporters of the young Shi'a Islamist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr are largely young, unemployed and often impoverished men from the Shi'a urban areas and slums in Baghdad and the southern Shi'a cities. rather POV unless we have actual statistics, from what I've seen they're largely men in their 20s and 30s (average age for men in the military, no younger than the Americans fighting them), and calling them unemployed is like calling a US soldier unemployed because he's not also working at McDonalds, the insurgency is their job. Sherurcij 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That is from various newspapers, Sherurcij. Did you read the papers @ the time of Moqtada al-Sadr's uprising? 20:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's from newspapers, source it with facts. As it stands, no. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Retooling the history section

Am I the only one who thinks it has become a tad ridiculous to just list the daily body count? There are sites that do that better and more accurately than us, and moreover wikipedia shouldn't focus on these relatively minor attacks and skirmishes. What wikipedia should detail is the overall trend and sweep of history with regards to the insurgency - mention should be made of repeated offensives in the Euphrates River valley in the fall of 2005 and the assaults on Tal Afar, but we don't need the operational names for these sweeps, nor do we need detailed statistics of which units participated and how many. In other words, the history section could be cleaned up and reduced, following general trends - the phase we seem to have fallen into now is a grinding, pair-of-bombs-a-day war, with general unrest rampant but the insurgency failing to hold any ground for a long stretch of time. We do not need dates for drive by shootings - I don't mean to imply that these shootings aren't important, but this is a war, and a history of war that details every minor skirmish and shoot-out isn't particularly useful, especially for lay students of the subject. So unless anyone protests, I'm going to change the history section some and clean it up with these thoughts in mind. --Kulindar 17:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't every one ... but the major ones that have been noted in current events .... history of war that details noteable skirmishs and shoot-out is useful (and if an editor put it on the current events page, it probably was "notable" to some extent).

We do need dates ... as in one year, the dating of these events will be "lost" if it isn't there (mabey not "lost" .... but definitely harder to find) .... AND for wikipedia to detail overall trends and sweep of history with regards to the insurgency, the details and dates are needed.

But, take a stab at a rewrite ... I'd like to see the results. Sincerely, JDR 17:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., I need to do a Oct 2005 history ... seems no one did that)

Why the insurgency??

I don't volunteer to write it, but it seems to me that this article is lacking one of the most important sections: why is there an insurgency? Is it because many ex-Baathists were driven into unemployment by the puppet government, and resent it? Is it because many ex-Baathists were driven out of power by the sweep to clean the government? (These first two are nearly the same, with wording suggesting different points of propaganda, for fun :)) Is it because many people resent the Shi control of the government? Is it because many people resent the US trying to take ownership of the oil industry? Is it because many people resent the corruption brought by Chalabi and so forth? Is it because many people hate US and British soldiers, or US and British people in general? Is it because many people resent the US using Saddam's torture facilities to torture Iraqi prisoners? Is it because many people never admitted defeat in the Second Gulf/US vs Iraq war? Is it... insert any number of explanatory hypotheses here :) ~~

The problem is such a section would be almost inherently full of speculation and original research. Not to mention it would likely be the site of even more vicious edit wars that we see on the article itself. But I agree that there should at least be a few quotations from authorities about the question; not necessarily in its own section.--csloat 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

":) ~~" Is that drool? .... "Please do not feed the trolls". JDR

AIF Redux

See Talk:Iraqi_insurgency/archive2#AIF_terminology for the prior conversation

I accidentally hit enter before finishing my edit summary. Almost nobody outside the US military uses the ridiculous phrase "Anti-Iraqi Forces" or AIF to talk about the insurgency. It is both Orwellian and imbecilic, which perhaps makes it perfect for Pentagon propaganda, but I am not aware of it being widespread enough among anyone normally interested in being understood. Since some 90% of the supposed AIF are Iraqi, it is just nonsensical. If we're going to include it at all in this entry we should be honest about who is actually using the phrase.--csloat 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you yourself should probably be 'honest' about who those 90% of Iraqis are; predominantely former Baathists and Sunnis who've lost their former status and power to the over 60% majority Shia. If you dislike AIF then your new definition should include the reality of who really constitutes the insurgency. Virgil61 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The coalition military uses the the phrase "Anti-Iraqi Forces" or AIF (be honest about who is actually using the phrase). .... and .... reguardless that 90% of the AIF are Iraqi, the AIF is fighting against the sovergein Iraqi Government. JDR 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is almost entirely the US military using that phrase. There are few instances of British military using it, and none of any other coalition member. Again, let's be honest. And please leave the "sovereign Iraqi government" issue to the side; they are also fighting the occupation. We've already had that discussion. It is moronic to insist on normalizing such Orwellian euphemisms when they aren't even used by the mainstream media. On another note, please stop changing the foreign fighters paragraph to an inferior version -- why would you change Pentagon to "non-independent" except to be intentionally vague? Please discuss major changes in talk.--csloat 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1at ... please refrain from language such as "moronic". 2nd ... It's not a "euphemisms" .. a "neologism" mabey ... nor is it "Orwellian". 3rd ... The Pentagon sourced information was not confirmed by an independent sourtce ... thus it's "non-independent". No other organization confirmed this particle story. 4th ... they are fighting the "Iraqi coalition" (eg., the "sovereign Iraqi government" and the "multinational forces"). Lastly ... prove that only the US military uses the phrase. There are instances of British military using it. It's likely that other coalition members use it too (I'll search around if I have time....). Sincerely, ''JDR''

Links to uses of AIF

• "great distinction in anti-Iraqi force counter-operations". globalsecurity.org
• "According to the coalition information center, al-Kut's governor has contacted the anti-Iraqi forces in hopes of putting an end to the fighting." CNN.com
• "Killed when anti-Iraqi forces attacked his combat patrol with an improvised explosive device near Ad Duluiyah, Iraq, on November 27, 2004" CNN.com
• "Asked about the letter Sunday, Iraq's national security adviser said "these people are the dark forces, the anti-Iraqi forces" CNN.com

1. I call them like I see them. 2. It is a euphemism as well as a neologism, and it is certainly Orwellian. It is, at the very least, a fine example of catechresis. 3. The pentagon information is from the pentagon, this is a much more specific and accurate representation than the ludicrous and tortured phrase "non-independent." I think Wikipedia should strive for clarity and decent writing. 4. Yes, you said that before, and it is a POV-pushing half-truth. They are fighting, first and foremost, the American occupation, as all of their propaganda clearly shows. 5. It is your burden to prove the phrase is used in a certain way, not mine to prove that it isn't. I do, however, accept your links above -- well, 2 of them anyway -- as evidence that some Iraqi commanders are participating in this abuse of language. (The other two are not as clear as to where the euphemism is coming from).--csloat 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Calling them like I see them" is not part of Wikipedia:Etiquette (and continued incivility will be noted). You are pushing "euphemism" and "Orwellian" clearly because you don't agree with the citable informaiton. It is your burden to prove the phrase is not used in a certain way, as I've proved that it is a phrase used in a certain way (see links and prior discussion)! Also ... "Non-independent" is used in the story (see citation)! It's not a wikipedia inspired "catechresis" ... and the "neologism" is from citable sources. ''JDR'' 01:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note what you like; "calling them like I see them" is simple honesty, and I believe Wikipedia etiquette involves not misrepresenting oneself. In any case the debate about whether AIF is a catechresis is a side point; had you actually read my changes before deleting, you would have noticed that I did accept the evidence you put forward, and changed the text accordingly. This will be my first revert to the compromise text; please do not change it back. You are unnecessarily deleting important information about the use of the term insurgency just so you can push this abuse of language. The fact that it is an Orwellian catechresis is not a point I made in the article, and my point is still correct as stands (all you are doing is asserting you are right without responding to my reasoning). But it doesn't matter, as I said. As for "nonindependent" - my problem is not that it is a catechresis (that was my point about AIF) but that it is simply imprecise and confusing. You have not responded to my point; where possible, Wikipedia should use terminology that is accurate and easy to understand rather than confusing and tedious.--csloat 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please STOP editing the intro as to not imply the Iraqi governement doesn't call the "insurgency" the AIF. You are asserting you are right without reason nor refernces. Your discussion's use of euphemism" and "Orwellian" (in Talk) plainly shows that you are editing with a POV (in the article). This is not "abuse of language". It's a citeable fact.''JDR'' 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my edits. My point is that the only sources using the catechresis are military -- coalition includes Iraqi, no? I have not denied that the term is used; I am only insisting that we be clear about who is using the term. It is you who is deleting the information that the term "insurgency" is used by those who oppose the insurgents. My discussion of the Orwellian euphemism shows that I care about how language is used - and abused - by those who wish to distort reality (in this case, the coalition military). And it is a fact, not a POV, that most of the "AIF" are actually Iraqi and that most of the forces they are fighting against are actually non-Iraqi. And, "it is generally agreed that" is correct; in fact, there is no credible source whatsoever that I am aware of that refutes the point that most -- roughly 90+% -- of the Iraqi insurgents are Iraqi and not foreign. The Pentagon admits this, commanders on the field admit (nay, insist!) on it, the CIA tells us this, etc. Your demand that the study be described as "non-independent" in the pentagon quote is redundant and misleading -- you put it in to cast doubt on the pentagon estimate, but if anything, the pentagon has incentive to get things wrong in the other direction (i.e, by overestimating foreign fighters). You are so insistent on planting your little flag there that you haven't bothered to notice that you are undermining the very POV you are pushing! I don't particularly care about your POV either way there but I do care about the fact that your edits make the passage demonstrably less understandable. I am going to leave it alone because I don't have time now and because your most recent edits at least addressed the readability problems you introduced. But a more careful review of the research available - as you yourself no doubt know, since you claim to be following this - will show that much stronger language about the makeup of the Iraqi insurgency will be called for. --csloat 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The September 7's news on 150 non-Iraqi Arabs is indicative of the larger non-iraqi forces. Some of the "AIF" are Iraqi and others are non-Iraqi Arabs (also the AIF is being lead by non-Iraqi Arabs). The forces the AIF are fighting against are Iraqi and non-Iraqi Non-Arabs. .... as to the "non-independent", that's what the news story stated! And the pentagon estimate doesn't have an "incentive to get things wrong in the other direction" (which BTW is a common refrain from the anti-war sector) ... the pentagon has an "incentive" to get the right figures (to sum up thier enemy the right way), ... an outside source would help comfirm this. Inaddition, term "insurgency" is not the only one used by those who oppose the insurgents ("terrorists", "criminals", and "thugs" are used quiet frequently too). ''JDR'' 04:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sentences like "The estimate by the Pentagon's own figures; in an analysis (which has not been independently analyzed) of over 1,000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 non-Iraqis were confirmed as "foreign fighters" (as stated by U.S. Ground Commander General George Casey)." are so turgid as to be nonsensical. Will you please sort out subject, verb, and predicate in that sentence? That is my problem with your sentence, not your narrow-minded assumptions about my politics.

As far as the number of non-Iraqi forces, can you please point to estimates that claim they make up more than "a small percentage of the insurgency"? Of course you can't, because everyone who is reporting from there, including the Pentagon, and including US commanders in the field, is reporting that. You want to include nonsensical phrases about "an analysis which has not been independently analyzed" in order to cast doubt on the Pentagon's own figures just because they don't agree with your politics. And to add insult to injury you're willing to sacrifice basic grammatical principles in order to make your rather obtuse point. It's more than a little frustrating; this is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a political forum.

As for the term "insurgency," I never said that was the only term used by those who oppose the insurgents; please re-read my comments if you doubt that. My problem is that you keep deleting it to pretend that it is not loaded as much as any other term. (And, just to clear up the record in terms of your assumptions about my politics, I use the term insurgents myself, as well as resistance, because I oppose them -- their methods and their goals -- but I am also not so naive as to believe that they are some homogenous mob controlled by some outside invading force, nor am I so naive as to believe that you can waltz into another country and force them to accept your political system at the point of a gun without expecting many of them (especially those who were treated well by the old regime) to rise up and fight you. ) But that is neither here nor there - my proposed edits are not about opposition to or support of the insurgency; they are attempts to get things right, as in accurate, and to uphold minimal standards for writing quality.--csloat 11:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh one more thing, I must object to your claim "the AIF is being lead by non-Iraqi Arabs" -- this is quite obviously false, or at least circular -- it depends who you define as the AIF. Though I suppose it's possible you believe that there are insurgents running around in uniforms that say AIF asking Zarqawi for orders. Zarqawi's thugs do more damage and attack more civilians than the rest of the insurgents, it's true, and they have had an influence on the others, but if you think the majority of insurgents are led by Zarqawi, you are giving that psychopath a lot of credit that he doesn't deserve. When interviewed insurgents say time and time again that they don't like Zarqawi's jihadists and they are only putting up with them to get their help fighting the Americans; they say they will have to fight the jihadists to kick them out after their insurgency is successful. (That they believe their insurgency will be successful is a dangerous fantasy, but that is another issue; they may drive the Americans out but they will never control Iraq). Even Bush admits (finally) that most of the insurgents are Iraqi, though he misleadingly calls them "Saddamists." But as wrong as that is, at least it is more accurate than "AIF." In either case, to believe the insurgents are run by the foreign fighters is ignorant; they may supply most of the suicide bombers, but the majority of insurgents are not suicide bombers, and they certainly don't take orders from those guys. The Baathists and Sunni insurgents know full well that the foreign jihadists can't survive in Iraq without their permission (they are dependent on the Iraqis for food, shelter, and knowledge of where things are; they are instantly recognizable as non-Iraqi; they are not welcome in most Shiite areas, etc.)--csloat 12:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Reddi, why won't you respond to these points instead of incessantly reverting? I waited several days before fixing your ridiculous grammar in the hopes that you would do it yourself; instead you just ignored the discussion page and waited for me to change it so you could revert it. At least this time you left it as a real sentence (sort of), but you insist on reverting to one that is still redundant and nonsensical. What value is the information that the Pentagon's analysis is "not independently analyzed"? We don't need "analyzed" twice, and we already know it is the Pentagon's analysis, not an "independently analyzed" analysis. WTF? Really? How many of the Pentagon's analyses are "independently analyzed"? Should we add this to every mention of a study that comes out of the Pentagon? And do we really need the extraneous "as stated by U.S. Ground Commander General George Casey," which is clear if anyone wants to know, they just have to follow the link? Does the information that General Casey communicated this Pentagon analysis help us better understand the Iraqi insurgency in some way? Please explain why you are so insistent on these changes, which make the sentence practically unreadable.--csloat 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence: "The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in an analysis (which has not been independently analyzed) of over 1,000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 non-Iraqis were confirmed as "foreign fighters" (as stated by U.S. Ground Commander General George Casey)." is fine ... and using "ridiculous", "turgid", and other such langauge in talk or in the edit comments is not necessary and not civil. Sincerely, J. D. Redding

I have pointed out what is wrong with the sentence, you have not responded. I am not intending to offend, but the sentence is in fact turgid. It is less readable than the sentence as I had it constructed and there is no reason for redundant or extraneous information. It is my feeling that Wikipedia should at least attempt to aim for minimal standards of writing quality. I am reverting.--csloat 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Jessica stern disagrees"

Regarding ObsidianOrder's recent edit:

Large-scale terrorist attacks against civilians carried out by foreign fighters, as well as the extreme interpretation of Islam that they attempt to impose on the local population in areas temporatily under their control, have increasingly turned Iraqis against them, in some cases breaking out into open fighting between different groups in the insurgency[2][3][4]. There are signs that local Islamist insurgent groups have also increasingly caused the population to turn against them [5][6] [7] [8] A few terrorism experts disagree, for example Jessica Stern: "in the run-up to the war, most Iraqis viewed the foreign volunteers who were rushing in to fight against America as troublemakers, and Saddam Hussein's forces reportedly killed many of them. Today, according to Mr. Alani, these foreigners are increasingly welcomed by the public, especially in the former Baathist strongholds north of Baghdad."[9]

I don't think Jessica Stern disagrees that the attacks on civilians have been increasingly rejected by the Iraqi people; she is talking about the acceptance of the militant Salafi ideologies by formerly secular Baathists who are already part of the insurgency. Her point is about secular insurgents becoming Islamist, not about the popularity of insurgency among Iraqi civilians. I'd like to see both these points made without the implication that they contradict -- these are different groups of people here. Any ideas on how to do this?--csloat 12:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, unfortunately I think you're giving Mrs Stern too much credit. She does say "welcomed by the public", does she not? ObsidianOrder 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I re-read that last night and you are right -- I was thinking of something I had read elsewhere when I wrote the above. I mentioned this in one of my edit summaries - Stern was writing in Aug 2003; probably accurately describing the situation then, but the articles you included are more recent, and the change makes sense given the increasing murderousness of Zarqawi's jihadists.--csloat 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Counterinsurgency

I think the section on the counterinsurgent attacks of coalition forces should have a separate page; it seems tangential here.

Also, Reddi, please stop putting in things that distort the realities. We've already discussed your improper use of the term "sovereignty." I don't want to debate whether Iraq is still occupied - we're not going to convince each other - but I think we should stick to the kinds of terms that are used by scholars and by the press rather than making up phrases to make our side sound more heroic. Precisely nobody refers to the Iraqi resistance as a "campaign against the new sovereignty." We should not coin such phrases in wikipedia.--csloat 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The counterinsurgent operations of Iraqi coalition forces should be on this page; it is directly related to the subject. J. D. Redding 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is related but there is too much detail for this page; it should have a separate page.--csloat 23:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a Civil war.

People love to downplay reality such as this so called "insurgency." What a fancy word for Iraqis killing each other. I say we refer to the American Civil war as the Confederate Insurgency.

lol

Sign your name. Please stop moving pages like this without discussion -- there has already been much discussion and the consensus was NOT to move the page to a different name like the one you propose. Please refrain from starting pointless political flamewars, the goal of Wikipedia is not to make your point, or to defeat those with whom you disagree -- nobody cares about your political opinions. --Daniel11 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, sign your name and participate in discussion. That said, I agree that as long as Iraqi Civil War and Iraq Civil War redirect to this article the scope needs to be widened somewhat, perhaps to include a section on Sectarian violence. For example, the recent destruction of the Al Askari Mosque in Sammara which has triggered dozens of reprisal attacks on Sunni sites is not mentioned here...Reflecting the complexity of the conflict more accurately will help this article become less Americocetric. Dev1n 00:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I was redirected to this article when I typed in "Iraq civil war". when I type in other civil wars I get the start and end dates, but the "warring factions" seems broad enough that no end date can ever be entered. If some disgruntled Sunni commits a terrorist act ten years from now would it still be considered part of this civil war? The media has declared the start of civil war in Iraq several times including May of 2005 and recently (February 2006). Are they wrong and the start date is actually the first day of the American invasion? How can a civil war not have a start and end date? How can a civil war be going on when some of those listed as warring factions are sitting in government with their enemies? This makes no sense. Also, why is the side they are fighting (the governing body of elected representatives-whether one believes the election was legitimate or not) not represented? They have a police force and military and are central targets of the "insurgency" but are not listed as participants in this "civil war"? How does that work exactly? Apple Rancher 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgents mainly don't even target any authority, they just kill civilians of the opposing side. To this day, there have not been confrontations between larger armed groups beyond perhaps a few skirmishes. Granted, the reason for that is probably the significant US firepower that would just love to have such a valuable military target in its' sights, but the fact remains: the Iraqi insurgents target primarily civilians of the opposing faction. Historically, the term for their activities has been "ethnic clensing" and "terrorism", and never "warfare". I can't see why don't we call them for what they are and what they do. 193.77.18.195 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgents mainly don't even target any authority, they just kill civilians of the opposing side - I'm afraid, it's not really a smart idea to believe that the majority of the insurgents is somehow responsible for the terrorist acts - the only group that has claimed its responsibility for these attacks is al-Qaeda. Asharidu (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed opening paragraph

Removed line about the insurgency being a "terror campaign". All goes back to the old adage... one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!

CanadianPhaedrus 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Changed to "unconventional war".... previous edit had insurgency defined as an "asymmetric war"... having never heard any conflict in history referred to as such.... changed it to something a little more pedestrian.

CanadianPhaedrus 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

see asymmetric warfare Gzuckier 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on reasons for insurgency

"Nationalists from the Sunni Arab regions are drawn from former members of the Iraqi military as well as other Sunnis. Their reasons for opposing the coalition vary between a rejection of the foreign presence as a matter of principle to the failure of the multinational forces to fully restore public services and to quickly restore complete sovereignty."

'The failure of the multinational forces to fully restore public services and to quickly restore complete sovereignty' sounds like original research/speculation and not very plausible speculation at that. As I understand it, the insurgents are deeply involved in disrupting the restoration of public services and the delay in restoration of complete sovreignty, so it doesn't seem plausible that they would be fighting an insurgency to solve a problem they themselves are largely responsible for. If there is evidence that the insurgents believe this, citations to such evidence should be placed. Otherwise this comment should be removed.--Porffiry 21:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with calling it a civil war. While it has many characteristics of a civil war it lacks some essential traits. For example, the insurgency is a broad term to group together numerous different group with various goals and agendas (if there was one major unified group which held legitimacy over large areas of the country, then I feel it would be more appropriate to call it a civil war). So im going to change it.

"Guerilla control" and Ramadi, etc.

I am changing the wording in a paragraph in the "Scope and size of the insurgency" section. It was previously very POV and partly not factual. It also doesn't have any references. I have attempted to make it more factual and less POV. Without references, I don't think it should be how it was. For example, the characterization of there being "half a dozen small forts operated by US Marines" in Ramadi is wrong. —Kenyon (t·c) 03:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling?

I want to do a copyedit on this entire page as it is loaded with typos. What is the feeling on spelling? Armour vs armor for example. I write in British English but will go along with the consensus here. It should at least be standardised! Guinnog 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

POV violation

"Insurgency," despite it being commonly used to refer en masse to militants in Iraq, is a POV term. We could do well to set a good example and use a less POV term like "rebel", etc. NPOV is of course Wikipedia's "unnegotiable" prime directive. It should follow that we then write articles in language which is neutral, and that using language which expresses a bias (or implies legitimacy or illegitimacy) impairs Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. -Ste|vertigo 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Insurgent" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government." Insurgency accurately describes the actions of the Iraqi insurgency. After all, they are rebelling against a now almost universally recognized government that has won and election (see Iraqi legislative election, December 2005) and now formed a cabinet (see Government of Iraq from 2006). Insurgency is the technically accurate term. --Tjss (Talk) 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

""OK, lets break down what you just said: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government" (MWD). Fine, but how is an invading force supposed to be, by any reasonable standard, considered an "authority" or "established," or even a "government?" The concept of legitimacy, which is at the root of all the above three terms, can be subjective even in an "established" "authority" (such as the U.S.), and is no doubt a bit controversial in the context of an invasion. That subjectivity no doubt extends to the subequent occupation. The legitimacy value of the "election", the "cabinet" the "prime minister" and the "government" are also subjective, and cannot be considered definitive. -Ste|vertigo 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

([10], [11], etc)

"Insurgency" applies to a revolt against a "civil authority." That authority does not have to be legit or benevolent to be an authority. Whatever you think of the new Iraqi government, it is a government operating under a constitution adopted overwhelmingly in a referandum, supported by an elected legislature, and now administered by a confirmed cabinet. In short, it is a government. I might have agreed with you if we called them insurgents during the actual invasion and before the government fell, for then the fighters were an opposing army. However, every credible source states that there is a government and the forces opposing it are an insurgency:

• Merriam Webster defines government as "the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions."
• Dictionary.com has a similar definition: "The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority."
• I encourage someone with access to an OED to find the defition for 'government.'

Based on available definitions, a government is an official body (like the elected government in Iraq, regardless of what one may think of the invasion) that exercies authority (makes/executes laws, as the Iraqi government is exclusively empowered to do under the constitution) over a specific area (Iraq has internationally recognized borders). It is not a legit complaint to say that the government is not a government because it was born from the invasion, since that itself is POV. Since there is a government, and the opposition forces in Iraq are fighting to overthrow it, they are an insurgency. --Tjss (Talk) 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the talk page, it's clear this issues was already voted on and so is not a legit POV claim (see Talk:Iraqi insurgency/Archive discussion of move). Unless there is strong objection from people besides Stevertigo, we should remove the POV tag. --Tjss (Talk) 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Government" is a creation of the people. Any imposed entity cannot be considered such, and will be rejected. If its accepted, then its legitimate -"legit" as you say). If its not, then its not. You wrote "'Insurgency applies to a revolt against a civil authority.' That authority does not have to be legit or benevolent to be an authority." An authority which has opposition is a contested authority --ie. a party in a dispute. An authority which is not "benevolent" is called a "'un-benevolent authority'." [sic] The opposition to an 'un-benevolent authority' is called a rebellion and its actors are called rebels. Rebels are only called "insurgents" from the point of view of an 'un-benevolent authority', hence the term "insurgency" is a POV term. I will review the previous discussion. -Ste|vertigo 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the government is operating under a constitution approved by a vote of the people means it was not imposed. What imposed was any new government, and the people chose this one. Although it should be irrelevant to POV disputes, I opposed the invasion, so I am not trying to be partisan in my disagreement. Since you now seem to accept that the fighters are rebelling against the government, the central part of my argument has now been stipulated. What seems to be the issue is what the best word for a group of people who rebel against a government is. You seem like "rebel" while I prefer the current "insurgent." "Rebel" could be a conventional army or a one-man show, "insurgency" correctly protrays the unconventional and decentralized nature of the opposition. Since you have not provided any sources to back up your claim that 'insurgency' is a loaded term, since the current term is the most commonly used term today, and since there was already a debate a vote on this issue, I suggest you either show why this is relevant, or pick different fights. Otherwise, this POV claim is not legit (or legitimate, if you prefer the full form). --Tjss(Talk) 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Insurgency" correctly protrays the unconventional and decentralized nature of the opposition" - this is an interpretation, and a glossy one at that. Consider that "insurgent" has connotations which are not a part of the definition - words like "insipid", "instigator", "inciteful", "insubordinate," and "insurrection" - none of which have any possibility for connoting valor or validity as the term rebel does. Remember, this is Pentagonese: Its a deliberate choice to invoke a term which sounds like something unpleasant, and to demonize "the enemy". "The enemy" was "evil" remember? And invasions are usually regarded as violations —unless of couse the are called "liberations." Sounds much nicer. All of these terms provide context for a proper definition of what the Iraqi resistance is, and allow us to have freedom to use terms which Teh Pentagon doesn't sycophantically select for us. -Ste|vertigo 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no choice but bring this to the arbitration committee. A vote has already been done on this and you have not provided a single source (other than your own intuition) to prove that it merits reconsideration. Insurgency is a technically accurate term. Provide a source to refute that if you have anything else to say, and then tell me why the previous vote is no longer valid. I am starting this article on a track (see Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes) that might lead to arbitration. --Tjss(Talk) 02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the only basis of the POV tag is the term "insurgency", the tag is inappropriate. "Iraqi insurgency" is a neutral description of the Iraqi insurgents, and the article acknowledges that the insurgents call themselves by different names. -- FRCP11 03:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo - This has been discussed to death before, resulting in the page move. Bottom line, while insurgency might not be perfectly NPOV, every alternative is worse. Additionally, insurgency is by far the most common term used for this worldwide. ObsidianOrder 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Insurgency is by far the most common term used for this worldwide." Is it? That seems like a rather overreaching claim. It may be the most common English term, but is it the same term used in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Dari, Syriac, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, etc? -Ste|vertigo 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is a policy for this problem (see Wikipedia:Naming_conflict). While it is all informative,there are three principles for pages of which the title is a proper noun:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence. Note that that a Google fight makes it clear that "insurgency" is the more common name. Other sources they recommend are media (all significant American outlets use "insurgent" and a Google News search for media sources in the UK showed they preferred insurgent to rebel by about 6-1). If someone wants to check other languages, feel free.
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names. Although I believe the evidence shows that insurgency is technically accurate, that debate is purely academic because insurgency is the more common name.
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. I imagine that Stevertigo's hopes were raised by this last one, but they shouldn't be. The key part is "if neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent." As we see above, the common name is prevalent. After all, Bush, Cheney, major American and British officials, and other pro-war commentators call the American forces "liberations," although wikipedia does not refer to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as the 2003 liberation of Iraq. After all, no major media refers to it as a liberation (besides Fox News, perhaps), so invasion is the term we use.

Put simply, Wikipedia is consensus driven, and a consensus has been reached. Is there someone out there who agrees with Stevertigo? After a lengthy discussion, no one has come forward. A poll has been taken, everyone besides you, Servertigo, has pointed that out, but you have not responded to that. Also, I note that you did not bother to do any research for any of your claims, despite my earlier request that you cite a source. According to the dispute policy, this am now a step closer to arbitration, having asked for third party opinions. Let's not take this further. --Tjss(Talk) 00:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

72.10.20.5 (talk)By some of the definitions thrown out here, the Coalition forces could be classified as "foreign insurgents" who came in to help those who opposed the Baathists. I concur with Stevertigo, "insurgent" is a POV term, but all terms for this are, depending on your POV. Ross —Preceding comment was added at 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ali Baba

I chopped this sentence from the intro paragraph because derogatory slang used by some soldiers seems out of place in the introduction. However, I can't work out a better place to put it. Ashmoo 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A term used by some coalition forces to refer to rebel Iraqis is "Ali Baba," and is less a reference to Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves than it is a derogatory nickname.

True, but the current version would appear by all reason to be false. It should be in a Other terms section at the bottom. -Ste|vertigo 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Updates?

It appears that the "History of the insurgency" project has been abandoned since Nov. 05. Is someone still working on that? Also, things in Iraq have now degenerated into a civil war. Even Iraqi government leaders are starting to call it that. Should we have a section on this development, or even an Iraqi civil war article?--csloat 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL... following my own link, it appears we do have a civil war article.--csloat 18:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Iraq Civil War redirects to Iraqi insurgency. Iraqi Civil War redirects to Sectarian war in Iraq. Shouldn't the two link to the same page? Well, what am I saying? Of course they should. What should be done? VolatileChemical 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Some benevolent...uh...guy...has fixed this problem. Forget all that stuff. VolatileChemical 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As media outlets such as NBC, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are referring to the Iraqi internal conflict as "civil war"[12] [13], it's now approriate to redirect Iraq Civil War and Civil war in Iraq to the proper Iraq civil war page (or perhaps even move the latter to "Iraqi Civil War." --Oakshade 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article states as a fact, without supporting evidence, that the insurgency is being waged by Iraqis. Do we know that to be a fact, or is there the possibility that the insurgency is in fact being waged by terrorist coming into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? Dullfig 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact, and the evidence is in the section on "Foreign insurgents" - even the US government's own estimates put non-Iraqis at well under 5% of insurgents. csloat 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do we keep the "Totally Disputed" template

Sorry but I don't understand. Why is this Template there? Could anybody tell me what is the current debate? (Alain10 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

Because no one noticed that it was added by an anon [14] who did not use an edit summary nor explain his addition [15] on the talk page. I've removed it. 70.20.238.31 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what they have to say,

it makes no difference anyway -

whatever it is, I'm against it!

No matter what it is or who commenced it,

I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good,

but let's have one thing understood -

whatever it is, I'm against it!

And even when you've changed it or condensed it,

I'm against it!

I'm opposed to it.

On general principles I'm opposed to it.

Horse Feathers Gzuckier 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

no reference to Abu Ghraib ?

The article should mention that the first signs of extreme violence against civilians came after the publication of the Abu Ghraib abuses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vyx (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree. James S. 03:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"According to a recent poll", and, "to date"...

The poll in question is one year old now, and it wasn't obvious on the referenced web page, i had to search for the blasted date at the end. So, when using such terms, please date your writing, so that the reader may better see the actuality of the information. Thank you.

Jerome Potts 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AIF

What ever happened to AIF? The insurgency "resistance" are "Anti-Iraqi Forces". Seems the POV pushers finally took out that references material. J. D. Redding

Missing: chlorine bombs and survey data

I suggest including these facts from Iraq War:

2007 chlorine bombings in Iraq[16] From January 28 through April 6, 2007, nine insurgent bombings have involved the release of chlorine gas, killing dozens and sending several hundred to hospitals. The US military has warned that this new tactic is a campaign to spread panic.

A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis commissioned by the BBC and three other news organizations found that 51% of the population consider attacks on coalition forces "acceptable," up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006.

James S. 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Armed / peaceful

Hi,

I have edited the first sentence of the article as it's a contradiction. Do we need to re-phrase it to indicate that resistance is conducted by partly by armed conflict and partly by peaceful means? If so perhaps someone would do the honours. Alexander-Scott 10:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Muqtada al-Sadr

Muqtada al-Sadr and Badr Organization is Iraqi insurgency >>>that lie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.5.77 (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

just Al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda in Iraq are Iraqi insurgency —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.5.77 (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

500 video

500 video and more made by Zarqawi group Al-Qaeda in Iraq against American Army :

500 videos

http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/1.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/2.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/3.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/4.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/5.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/6.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/7.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/8.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/9.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/10.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/11.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/13.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/14.flv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/15.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item9/16.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/17.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/18.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/19.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/20.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/21.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/22.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/23.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/24.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/25.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/26.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/27.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/28.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/29.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/30.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/31.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/32.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/33.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/34.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/35.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/36.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/37.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/38.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/39.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/40.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/41.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/42.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/43.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/44.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/45.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/46.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/47.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/48.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/49.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/50.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/51.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/52.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/53.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/54.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/55.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/56.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/57.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/58.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/59.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/60.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/61.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/62.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/63.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/64.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/65.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/66.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/67.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/68.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/69.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/70.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/71.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/72.MPG http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/73.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/74.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/75.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/76.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/77.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/78.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/79.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/80.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/81.mpeg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/82.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/83.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/84.mpeg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/85.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/86.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/87.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/88.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/89.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/90.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/91.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/92.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/93.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/94.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/95.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/96.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/97.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/98.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/99.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/100.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/102.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/103.WMV http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/104.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/105.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/106.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/107.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/108.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/109.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/110.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/111.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/112.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/113.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/114.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/115.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/116.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/117.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/118.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/119.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/120.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/121.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item4/122.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/123.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/124.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/125.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/126.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/127.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/128.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/129.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/130.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/131.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/132.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/133.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/134.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/135.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/136.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/137.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/138.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/139.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/140.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/141.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/142.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/143.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/144.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/145.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/146.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/147.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/148.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/149.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/150.WMV http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/151.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/152.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/153.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/154.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/155.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/156.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/157.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/158.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/159.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/160.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/161.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/162.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/163.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/164.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/165.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/166.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/167.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/168.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/169.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/170.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/180.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/181.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/182.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/183.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/184.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/185.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/186.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/187.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/188.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/189.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/190.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/191.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/195.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/193.WMV http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/194.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/195.WMV http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/196.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/197.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/198.WMV http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/199.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/200.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/201.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/202.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/203.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/204.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/205.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/206.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/207.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/208.divx http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/209.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/210.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/211.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/212.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/213.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/214.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/215.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/216.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/217.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/218.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/219.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/220.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/221.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/222.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/223.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/224.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/225.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/226.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/227.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/228.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/229.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/230.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/231.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/232.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item7/233.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/234.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/235.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/236.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/237.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/238.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/239.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/240.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/241.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/242.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/243.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/244.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/245.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/246.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/247.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/248.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/249.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/250.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/251.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/252.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/253.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item8/254.mpeg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/255.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/256.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/257.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/258.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/259.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/260.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/261.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/262.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/263.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/264.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/265.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/266.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/267.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/268.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/269.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/270.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/271.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/272.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/273.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/274.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/275.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/276.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/277.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/278.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/279.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/280.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/281.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/282.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/283.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/284.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/285.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/286.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/287.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/288.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/289.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/290.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/291.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/292.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/293.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/294.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/295.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/296.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/297.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/298.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/299.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/300.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/301.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/302.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/303.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/304.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/305.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item10/306.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/307.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/308.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/309.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/310.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/311.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/312.WMV http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/313.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/314.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/315.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/316.mpeg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/317.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/318.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/319.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/320.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/321.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/322.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/323.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/324.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/325.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/326.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/327.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/328.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/329.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/330.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/331.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/332.WMV http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/333.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/334.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/335.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/336.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/337.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/338.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/339.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/340.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/341.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/342.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/343.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/344.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/345.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/346.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/347.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/348.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/349.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/350.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/351.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/352.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/353.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/354.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/355.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item12/356.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item13/357.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item13/358.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item13/359.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item13/360.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/361.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/362.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/363.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/364.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/365.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/366.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/367.flv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/370.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/371.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/372.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/373.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/374.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/375.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/376.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/377.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/378.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/379.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/380.avi http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/381.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item14/382.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/383.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/384.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/385.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/386.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/387.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/388.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/389.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/390.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/391.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/392.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/393.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/394.avi http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/395.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/396.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/397.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/398.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/399.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item15/4-00.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/400.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/401.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/402.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/403.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/404.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/405.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/406.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/407.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/408.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/409.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/410.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/411.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/412.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/413.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/414.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/415.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/416.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/417.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/418.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/419.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/420.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/421.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/422.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/423.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/424.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/425.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/426.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/427.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/428.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/429.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/430.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/431.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/432.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/433.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/434.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/435.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/436.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/437.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/438.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/439.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/440.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/441.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/442.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/444.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/445.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/446.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/447.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/448.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/449.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/450.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/451.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/452.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/453.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/454.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/455.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/456.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/457.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/458.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/459.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/460.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/461.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/462.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/463.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/464.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/465.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/466.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/467.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/468.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/469.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/470.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/471.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/472.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/473.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/474.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/475.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/476.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/477.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/478.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/479.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/480.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/481.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/482.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/483.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/484.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/485.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/486.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/487.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/488.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/489.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/490.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/491.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/492.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/493.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/494.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/495.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/496.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/497.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/498.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/499.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/500.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/501.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/502.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/503.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/504.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/505.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/506.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/507.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/508.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/509.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/510.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/511.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/512.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/513.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/514.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/515.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/516.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/517.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/518.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/519.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/520.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/521.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/522.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/523.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/524.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/525.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/526.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/527.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/528.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/529.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/530.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/531.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/532.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/533.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/534.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/535.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/536.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/537.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/538.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/539.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/540.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/541.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/542.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/543.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/544.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/545.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/546.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/547.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/548.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/549.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/550.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/551.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/552.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/553.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/554.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/555.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/556.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/557.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/558.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/559.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/560.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/561.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item11/562.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/563.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/564.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/565.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/566.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/567.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/568.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/569.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/570.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/571.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/572.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/573.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/574.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/575.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/576.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/577.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/578.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/579.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/580.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item16/581.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/CUT-6.WMV http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/CUT-7.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-01.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-02.mpg http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-04.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-05.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-06.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-07.rm http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-08.rmvb http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-09.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item5/Down-10.ram http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item6/Down-11.wmv

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.5.77 (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank God! this is here. I was trying to figure out who the Insurgents were and this clarified it. i believe this article should be posted in every newspaper.

Lead statement

"The Iraqi Resistance has led to numerous human rights violations by both Resistance groups and coalition forces."

I recognize that this statement is trying to be neutral, but it still needs work. It places a large part of the blame on the resistance by saying that the resistance "led to" human rights violations. "Led to" should be replaced with better wording. Wrad 23:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree: It doesn't make sense. It's like say "Jim led to Jim eating a burger" - it's logically nonsense. I'd suggesting something like, "During the period of the insurgency, there have been human rights violations by both insurgents and Coalition forces." BobFromBrockley 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I think that all refernce to resistance should be changed to insurgency, "resistance" legitimises the terrorism that they carry out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.95.109 (talk • contribs)

-War is a nasty thing friend. What theyre doing is fighting a foreign pressence in their country. Its resistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.142.252 (talk • contribs)

Insurgency is a neutral term, resistance is a POV term. BobFromBrockley 10:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And "dissidents", currently in the lede, is also a poor term. Dissidents is not normally used for armed struggle. BobFromBrockley 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Goals and objectives of the insurgents" section is badly needed

There is really a dearth of information in all Western media on the actual goals and objectives of all these insurgents. What specific purposes do they want to achieve? I'd be glad if anyone could add some more info on this -- 77.7.133.200 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Logo section

The logo section is out of place here. A list of these logos does nothing to illuminate the subject. It's also a gallery/list of copyrighted images that seems to violate WP:NONFREE (see WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use). They are fascinating logos, however, and would be perfectly appropriate either to illustrate articles about the specific groups in question, or else in a separate article to describe artwork / banners / insignia / propaganda of the Iraqi resistance. If so that should be split off into a separate article with appropriate commentary about these logos, where they came from, who designed them, what they mean, etc. Any thoughts? Wikidemo 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't they illustrating the subject? Use for identification and critical commentary is explicitly allowed as a non-free fair use. ←Ben^B4 12:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no critical commentary in the list. See WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use, first paragraph. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph refers to criterion #8, which forbids such use when it is "potentially replaceable." Any replacement of these logos will be the identical non-free image. Would you be satisfied if they were displayed throughout next to each organization? ←Ben^B4 13:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, #8 is 'significance'. Replaceablility is #1. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks -- I thought it was referring to the criterion below, not above. ←Ben^B4 13:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they would be appropriate either in the articles about the individual groups, or, if they don't have their own articles, next to the paragraph on the group. The problem is with using them in a list or gallery. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images are not allowed in galleries. Ever. Whether they are replaceable or not is immaterial. Fair use images are only used in conjunction with significant discussion or critical commentary, which galleries cannot provide. These logos can be used in articles about the organizations in question. In this article, they fail the significance criterion. —Angr 13:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true! These logos, per the significance criterion, "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" because they would allow readers to identify the group from the logo, a function that you would expect a comprehensive reference on the topic to serve. Logos are explicitly allowed for the purpose of identification, which is the purpose they serve in the gallery. The reason non-free logos may be used for identification under the fair-use guidelines is because they can not be effectively replaced except by the same non-free logo. Moreover, the whole idea that non-free images have to be interspersed with commentary is clearly the result of copyright paranoia, because that line of thought would forbid fair-use images in books that have picturs only on a limited number of pages (usually bound on glossy paper in the middle.) Several such books with fair-use images are on my shelf, and I see new ones at the book store all the time. ←Ben^B4 13:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to be asking for is a change in the policy, which isn't going to be decided on the talk page of this article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for any change in policy; read {{logo}} -- use of non-free logos for identification is explicitly permitted under the current policy. You read that non-free images aren't permitted in galleries because of the significance criterion, and decided that applies here without even thinking about the implications of the significance criterion in this instance. What you are asking for is an article with which people are unable to identify the particular insurgent group from their logo, which substantially degrades the value of the article as a reference work. Please review m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. I am going to ask Foundation General Counsel User:Mikegodwin and ask that you wait for his decision before you remove the logos again, please. ←Ben^B4 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect from Mike Godwin. Policy is decided by the community, not Wikimedia's lawyer. This has nothing to do with "copyright paranoia" (if such a thing even existed); Wikipedia's heavy restrictions on the use of nonfree material have nothing whatever to do with fear of getting sued, and everything to do with the mission of creating a free content encyclopedia. Every nonfree image uploaded impedes Wikipedia's success in pursuing that mission, so we are extremely careful about using them. —Angr 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the reasons for the policy, and if you look at my talk page you will see that I argue on the side of caution with regard to logos. In this case, however, there is no need for caution because it is abundantly clear that the significance criterion is met. The policy in question explicitly states that free-use galleries are not allowed because they usually do not meet the significance criterion. What evidence is there that the significance criterion is not met in this case? ←Ben^B4 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it isn't abundantly clear, or people would be agreeing with you, and they aren't. The lack of any discussion of the groups in question in the gallery is the evidence that the significance criterion is not met in this case. —Angr 14:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(back left) The Significance Criterion states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

1. Does the ability to identify insurgent groups by their logos significantly increase readers' understanding of the Iraqi insurgency?
2. Would inclusion of the gallery allow readers to identify insurgent groups by their logos?
3. Would exclusion of the gallery prevent readers from identifying insurgent groups by their logos?
4. Can readers identify groups by their logos with text alone?

←Ben^B4 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1. No.
2. Why should they need to? Readers can identify the different groups by their names; the logos are superfluous.
3. Ditto.
4. No, neither do they need to.

—Angr 15:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if someone has a logo and wants to know what group it belongs to, which they can do with the gallery and can't without it, being able to do so isn't a significant increase in understanding of the Insurgency? Why not? I think it's very obvious that it is. As for your question, it is not uncommon to see a logo which can be recognized by everyone in the midst of Arabic script which can't be understood by those who can't read it. If those people want to know which group the publication belongs to, I guess they're out of luck because being able to do so isn't a significant increase in understanding, according to your opinion. Nonsense! ←Ben^B4 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For "identification" don't think they had a lookup table in mind, it's one at a time. In answer to an earlier question, yes, I think the identification purpose would be a lot stronger if the logos were disbursed throughout the article to the section where it actually talks about the group. Identifying the name of the group doesn't really help identify the group because then you just have a logo and name together....and still need to look up what group that refers to. BUT then you run into a complaint that a single article should not have too much non-free content. The next step is that if you have a long list of groups, each with a header and a logo, you really should make separate articles. This article is already getting very long. Why not treat it as a parent article, then give each significant insurgent group its own baby article? Using the logos in each of the baby articles would be uncontroversial.Wikidemo 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Each one of them in the gallery were wikilinked to the article, so in fact they would be useful for identification as you describe it. (Why again, is identification not being able to identify the group from the logo?) With the gallery gone, nobody knows which of them have articles and which don't yet, and since orphan tags have been so diligently added to each image, some of them will never have a change to have articles created. ←Ben^B4 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:44, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the eleven logos were next to names of groups, five of which linked to articles and six of which were dead links. Using logos in that sense is a navigational aid, which is not an allowed use of non-free images either. For identification, it does not match the logo with the group, it matches the one identifier (the logo) with another identifier (the name). But there's no article there to show people what they've identified. I agree that this kind of list would be useful. But Wikipedia has made a decision not to allow copyrighted images used in this way. So you'll just have to use a list without the images, or a table of contents, or something. That is a subject that gets discussed often at the talk page for WP:NONFREE, and not everyone agrees. But that is the policy. It's not just this article. It applies to pictures of food products, works of art, everything. The overall goal is to reduce the amount of copyrighted material here. It's a strange thing to propose but if you can show that the owners of these logos -- the insurgent groups or the artists who created them -- agreed to release them into the public domain they would be allowable. Or if they are automatically public domain under Iraqi law (whatever that means these days) I think that works too. Wikidemo 08:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the record of this decision you say has been made? The only thing in WP:NONFREE which speaks against non-free image galleries references the significance criterion, and you admit the gallery would be useful. Useful for significantly enhancing the readers' understanding of insurgent groups, or useful for something else? ←Ben^B4 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE contains the following statement, under the heading "Examples of unacceptable use": The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and is thus unacceptable. That was first added to the policy page, WP:NFCC, around May 4, 2007. It has been the subject of conversation ever since. If you want to see the record you can look to extensive discussion in the page archives around May 4-10 and again June 28-July 14. It migrated from the policy page to the guideline page some time in July, I think. Wikidemo 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(back left) So, if the gallery passes the significance criterion, then do we agree that the prohibition does not apply? Are you saying that the galleries are useful, but they don't pass the significance criterion? ←Ben^B4 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think galleries are often useful, but the way this gallery was used is out of place in the article because it's an insert that merely ties logos to names. But that's just my opinion. I don't make the rules, I'm just reporting it. For whatever reason, they are considered as a class to fail the significance (rule 8) test so no, I don't think arguing for their significance would do any good. This does not seem like a special case to me. A special case might be using well-recognized highway shields for key details on a map, where you often need quick visual identifiers because words do not work. I do think these logos have some educational value, so to avoid having them deleted as orphan images I would insert them in appropriate articles...and perhaps download and save them locally in case they are deleted and you need to find them again.Wikidemo 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrorists have no copyright of own maps and flags, they must only die! 218.25.214.216 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is clear that nonfree images cannot be used in galleries. Please do not replace them. Second, to those who claim these groups have no rights, why give them an air of legitimacy by including their logos here? -- But|seriously|folks  14:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of nonfree images in galleries depends on whether they meet the significance criteria, and there are no reasons above that they don't, only opinions. Are you interested in making a great encyclopedia with which people are able to identify the groups from their logos, or are you more interested in not giving them "an air of legitimacy"? ←Ben^B4 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally care about whether they are here. They are fine in articles about the individual groups. They cannot appear here. The use of nonfree images in galleries is not permitted. If the images are significant enough, they don't belong in a gallery. In fact, they wouldn't fit in a gallery, because of all of the text necessary to make them significant. -- But|seriously|folks  14:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the relevant policies. ←Ben^B4 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign "resistance"

The term "foreign resistance" is both nonsensical and POV. If they are foreign, they cannot be resistance. BobFromBrockley 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Insurgency Group logos

I believe that since the article is on the Iraqi insurgency that at least listing the various groups currently fighting in Iraq is relevant to the article even if we don't display the logos on this page. In the case of the logos, as organizations whether recognized or not its doubtful that the use of the logo on wikipedia would be against any copyright or infringement laws. Additionally, its doubtfull that they have been copyrighted at all so therefore the use of them should not be an issue.--Kumioko 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to take any active steps to copyright something. Copyright applies automatically the instant a work is created. -- But|seriously|folks  15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there any room for common sense here? Is there any chance that these groups are going to take legal action because their logos are in a gallery instead of spread out through this article? Any chance at all? ←Ben^B4 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we might be able to get away with it without being sued does not justify disregard of Wikipedia's copyright policies. -- But|seriously|folks  16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like you are saying the policies are more important than the fact that disregarding them entails no risk at all. Would you please review WP:IAR? ←Ben^B4 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIARM - "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia.". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you believe that including the images is contrary to building a free encyclopedia without believing that the insurgent groups might take legal action? ←Ben^B4 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about whether the Foundation will be sued. It's about creating a free-content encyclopedia. Please read the Foundation's resolution regarding this matter. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Free content means free of restrictions, not just free of potential liability. The goal is to have users be able to use as much as possible for any purpose, and nonfree content interferes with that goal. -- But|seriously|folks  16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(back left) The Foundation's resolution says, "[A project Exemption Doctrine Policy's] use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos...." (emphasis added.) And the significance criterion is part of the EnWiki's Exemption Doctrine Policy. The Foundation specifically anticipated that we would need to show logos for the purpose of identification as they were used here. ←Ben^B4 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why the logo would be acceptable in an article about a group (like Al Qaeda in Iraq). It might even be acceptable here if a substantial subsection were dedicated to one of these group. But use in a gallery is clearly unacceptable per WP:NONFREE - it's the very first example of unacceptable use given there. You're not going to change policy by arguing on the talk page of this article, I'm sorry. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So you accept that finding the associated logo from the name is identification, but you reject that finding the name from the logo is identification -- how is that consistent? You keep conveniently neglecting that the "very first example of unacceptable use" specifically states that the policy turns on whether such a gallery of non-free images meets the significance criterion. And you have presented no evidence that being able to identify the groups from their logo does not increase reader's understanding of the insurgency. Not one whit! Is that why you keep telling me that you're sorry? ←Ben^B4 18:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Recording

Because this article has lost its Featured Article status, I refuse to record it for spoken wiki. Good luck and thanks for messing it up. Davumaya 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. -- But|seriously|folks  17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A little slow off the mark, aren't we? It lost its FA status almost two years ago. —Angr 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• lol i just saw it now, i got this page off of the wiki spoken requests page is y and i came here n i'm like wtf why is this article being requested for a recording. well go at it, fix it so I can record a better one! Davumaya 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I see no need to spend any more time updating this article until the debate and content stabilizes. I for 1, will not be making any more changes or comments to this article.--Kumioko 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Coalition counter-insurgency operations

The content of this section, which is quite late in the article is:

Toward the end of June 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority transferred the sovereignty of Iraq to a caretaker government, whose first act was to begin the trial of Saddam Hussein. Fighting continued in the form of an Resistance rebellion against the occupying forces as well as the new Iraqi government, with a small fraction of the Resistance composed of non-Iraqi Muslim militant groups like Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda (see "Foreign Resistance" above). The new government began the process of moving towards open elections, though the Resistance and the lack of cohesion within the government itself, has led to delays. Militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr took control of Najaf and Coalition forces attempted to dislodge him. Through July and August a series of skirmishes in and around Najaf culminated with the Imman Ali Mosque under siege, only to have a peace deal brokered by al-Sistani in late August. Al-Sadr then declared a national cease fire, and opened negotiations with the American and government forces on disbanding his militia and entering the political process.

In other words, it more or less restates the whole article, with no reference to Counter-insurgency operations. I plan to completely replace it with a brief summary of Coalition military operations of the Iraq War article. BobFromBrockley 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

: Thank you BobFromBrockley for making some initial major improvements. I initiated the WP:NPOV WP:NOR and WP:SYN discussion. Some main points follows:

• NPOV: Firstly it is undisputed this article is heavily biased in some places (in reference to previous talk comments). Neutrality means arranging facts to speak for themselves, not pushing a certain point. Though sourced, some facts are presented as conclusions (ie: Nationalists section quotes a former gov minister who makes a statement about the Iraqi resistance. The quote IS the SOURCE, a quote cannot be sourced.) Foreign participants section also misuses quotes. NPOV also fails in say Shia militia sub-sections where it inadequately talks about each militia, sometimes speaking about the leader only or allegations or writing them as current events. Encyclopedic is dry-stuff and the militias are going to need to be put on a balanced scale with each other (standard writing format or chart).

• WP:NOR: No original research bizziches -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the epitomy of this violation. It states events as if they are known to be occurring when actually they are premises or surmised by the intelligence community. THIS ISN'T encyclopedic material. Maybe go to wikia.com and find a play-Wiki but not here. Also the tone of some sections is incorrect, it assumes people know what this "schism" or "wahhabi" is. Wahhabi is mentioned frequently in this article without a short summary as demanded by Wiki policy. It seems to be an important facet to what the Iraqi insurgency is.

• A blatant WP:SYN is "Since most combatants are civilians fighting against an organized domestic army and a foreign occupying army, many consider them to be guerrillas." A) civilian combatants B) foreign army = C) guerrilla fighters -- Perhaps they are guerrilla fighters, but this is not the way to come to that statement.

• Section names and placement are misleading. The United States position section for example makes me want to have an emo cry. The United States position of what? Attacking iran is a result of the Iraqi insurgency topic, the section should be titled perhaps "United States reactions." Perhaps a "position" section on the Iraqi insurgency would talk about the official stances of United States in terms of defeating or quelling the insurgency and how the U.S. Army officially views the insurgency. The placement of this section with a single quote about attacking Iran, for example, may lead one to believe at the synthesis of the entire article, the United States wants to go to war with Iran. NOT! Sure you can put that quote in but it belongs better in the Analysis section (as much as we love that section). The last topic is not suppose to be a shocker but miscellaneous information. The most important topics and revelations should always be addressed first.

Anyway this doesn't even touch half the crap. Go at it. Davumaya 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of these points. The US position section is particularly ludicrous. The section puts one single US politician's view (and not even a member of the ruling party) on something that is not actually the Iraqi insurgency but war with Iran, another topic. I am going to delete that section entirely. Here is the quote, in case someone wants to work it into an Analysis section:

==United States position==

On June 10, 2007, United States Senator Joseph Lieberman speaking on the CBS program, Face the Nation has gone on record stating that the United States should seriously consider a military strike against Iran because of their involvement with the Iraqi insurgency.

We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. By some estimates they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers. And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers. They can’t believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans. We cannot let them get away with it.

— Joseph Lieberman

BobFromBrockley 10:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Marxists"

The section currently called "Marxists", although fairly sizeable, currently only mentions one group, the Iraqi Armed Revolutionary Resistance. The section more or less reproduces exactly that group's WP article. There is only one on-line source for the existence of this group, IraqSlogger, which reports that leaflets were distributed under their name. I don't know whether or not the source is reliable, and am in no position to know whether they exist in anything other than those leaflets, but I'd suggest that they are not notable enough to be mentioned in this general article - or at least that they don't merit more than a brief sentence. Are there any other known "Marxist" insurgent groups that could add meat to this section? BobFromBrockley 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi "resistance" has been replaced with Iraqi "insurgency"

I just came from Wikipedia, every mention of the technically-correct Iraqi "resistance" has been replaced with Iraqi "insurgency" as part of efforts to control dialogue on the war and rewrite history. (en.wikipedia.org).

This is unbelievable. Wikipedia has to preserve a NEUTRAL point of view. This is a clear violation of this.

If it keels going the way it is I won't be surprised if the rightwings here will lock down the article completely.. --BorisFromStockdale 04:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, I removed your first iteration of this comment and left the 2nd one that has your signature (so that is why it is missing.) Second, please provide verifiable sources that can give the name as 'resistance' instead of 'insurgency' that isn't a thread from Reddit. Thanks --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 05:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus here is that 'insurgency' is NPOV or at least less POV, suggesting a revolt against authority, as opposed to 'resistance', which implies justification. -- But|seriously|folks  05:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So should we change the article French Resistance to 'French Insurgency' to keep it NPOV?!? - KevB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.95.181 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are implying that there is no justification...--BorisFromStockdale 07:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• insurgency: an illegitimate attack on legitimate authority
• resistance: legitimate use of force against an illegitimate occupying army —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisFromStockdale (talk • contribs) 07:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly not the intent. Merriam-Webster says: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government". Here it would be the civil authority. I googled your definition of "insurgency" and got 0 hits. What is your source? -- But|seriously|folks  08:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a good quote from reddit's discussion:"Wikipedia is intentionally limited to reflecting the mainstream consensus. If there is a bias in media coverage of the Iraq insurgence/resistance, then the same bias will exist on Wikipedia.

The idea is to prevent people from "correcting" an article's bias with their own, which leads to endless revert wars since there is no fool-proof way to determine who is correct. There is a fool-proof way to determine what the media has to say about it, so Wikipedia follows their lead, for better or worse.

Wikipedia relies on published sources not because they're right, but because the only other options are even worse. It is a known and inescapable blind spot." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisFromStockdale (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I argue that your definitions are wrong and that 'insurgency' is MORE POV. From Wikipedia's own article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency#Contemporary_political_discourse): "The term "Iraqi insurgency", has been used by US military spokespersons and embraced by various politicians and the media in the Western world to describe the guerilla resistance (restorationists insurgency[1]) to the occupying US-led coalition forces and the new Iraqi Government in post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2007...This sudden popularization of the term makes it difficult to distinguish historically accepted uses of the term from those that have been influenced by its specific application to post-invasion Iraq...This characterization of 'insurgency" contrasts markedly with historically accepted definitions of the term." Numerous sources support this summary.

The point is that "resistance" is more expansive then "insurgency". "Resistance" describes a use of force against an occupying force. "Insurgency" implies that the occupying force or the local authority they have set up is legitimate and is therefore a more restrictive definition. Since the legitimacy of the US occupation and Iraqi government are disputed, "resistance" is the denotatively appropriate word, although connotatively more favorable to itself. For an articulation of this point, please see http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan110106.htm. Wikipedia should be beholden to academic accuracy rather than the word's method of use in the commercial media or, to be more accurate, its predominant use in the commercial media.Vm2058 08:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that the dictionaries are wrong, and you're citing Wikipedia? Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. -- But|seriously|folks  08:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not required to answer my question, but it might help persuade others that you are correct. -- But|seriously|folks  08:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your question exactly? My point is that the term 'Insurgency' is used as a propaganda tool by the United States government through the media that 'demonizes' the Iraqis. Since Wikipedia is an international website, it has to use a more neutral reference to the issue. You have to recognize that there are other points of view out there than those given out by the U.S. media. Google Resistance and you get: the action of opposing something that you disapprove or disagree with; "he encountered a general feeling of resistance from many citizens ...--BorisFromStockdale 08:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The question was what is your source for the definition of insurgency you cited above? -- But|seriously|folks  08:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant... But here is a direct link to the answer--BorisFromStockdale 08:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't come up with a rebuttal can you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisFromStockdale (talk • contribs) 08:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not while you keep saving the page, creating edit conflicts . . . -- But|seriously|folks  08:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My question may seem irrelevant to you, but if you use a POV definition of the term at issue, from a POV article on this very topic that does not qualify as a reliable source, you will not get a NPOV answer. (In other words, GIGO.) Judging by neutral, respected dictionary definitions, the term "insurgency" is neutral, while the term "resistance" is not. At least, that is the consensus evident on this page. -- But|seriously|folks  08:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How does the article not qualify as a reliable source? --BorisFromStockdale 09:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Per WP:RS#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F. It's one person's opinion, per the disclaimer at the foot of the article. -- But|seriously|folks  09:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in, as someone that edited out some "resistance"s. The article continues to use a mix of terms, including "resistance". Previous editors had in fact done a global find/replace to turn all instances of "insurgency"/"insurgent"/etc into "Resistance", including quotes, titles of sources, even urls, which constitutes vandalism. I spent a lot of time changing going through instances of the word "resistance" and changing some. I also weeded out uses of the word "terrorist" to mean the same thing. To me, insurgency is a very neutral word, implying neither endorsement nor condemnation, whereas "resistance" implies (1) opposition to an occupying force (while the insurgency has also targeted the elected government) and (2) legitimacy. BobFromBrockley 11:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's where we disagree. I consider the resistance legitimate...--BorisFromStockdale|Discussion|Contributions 06:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and you're entitled to believe that, but the Wikipedia article should neither endorse nor refute its legitimacy. It should just state that it exists and sum up the issues as neutrally as possible. -- But|seriously|folks  07:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Whether or not the legitimacy of the US/UK invasion forces is disputed, the "insurgents" are "resisting" the authority of the Iraqi Government which was democratically elected- desoite the attempts of the insurgents to disrupt elections. Furthermore it follows that the US/UK forces have remained in Iraq.

(1). because the "insurgents" actions have delayed their departure- which would appear to be counter-productive to the notion of "resistance".

(2).on the authority of the legitimate Iraq Government.

The insurgency also covers groups that have no political or even religious agenda, but criminal gangs who extort money for profit.

To compare these people with the French Resistance is interesting only in that French and especially Italian Resistance was to some extent connected with organised crime, through, amongst others, "Lucky Luciano", but given the similarity of Ba'athism to Nazism. I would suggest a comparison to neo-Nazi terrorists.

Also given the explicit opposition of many Islamic extremist groups to the concept of "freedom" and even "reason", it would be wrong and insulting to them to term them "freedom fighters",as some of their Western apologists would like to imagine.

Streona 14:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the term "insurgent" is very POV. How would the US right-wing feel if it were applied to the US revolutionaries? How about Aung San Suu Kyi, or the pro-democracy campaigners in other countries? The dictionary definition doesn't make the term incorrect here, but that doesn't mean it isn't highly emotive. The dictionary doesn't comment on the presence or absence of emotional connotations which are at the heart of the "point of view" debate.

I would imagine that the elections were delayed as they were seen as trying to give a veneer of legitimacy to a puppet government (cf Vichy). A US official said recently that the US would have to get rid of the current government unless they got better at controlling Iraq -- that certainly shows that the US regards the Iraqi government as being under their control. That is certainly compatible with a "resistance" disrupting elections. I'm willing to believe that not all insurgents in Iraq are resistance, since some are simply profiteers. However, I don't see how delaying an election would be very profitable.

A better solution than "global search and replace" on insurgent would be for the article itself to distinguish between those who actually do want to free Iraq from the US puppet government versus those who are profiteers. Until that is done, I think the NPOV tag should definitely stay. $0.02 LachlanA (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the quote from Richard Dannatt, who says of the "militants" that "not all are insurgents or terrorists or criminals", clearly suggests that the term is POV to him... Should the article use the term "militant" instead? That's much less POV than "resistance" or "insurgents". LachlanA (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Insurgent targets

The article currently says: "From at least 2004, and as of May 2007, the insurgency has primarily targeted occupation forces and, latterly, Iraqi security forces seen as collaborators. During this period, only 10% of significant attacks have targeted Iraqi civilians (see Tactics of the Iraqi insurgency)." Source given: "Meeting Resistance: New Doc Follows Iraqis Fighting U.S. Occupation of Their Country" |Democracy Now! | http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/18/1419205 | Retrieved 21/10/07| "Know Thine Enemy" | New York Times| Oct. 21, 2007| Retrieved 21/10/07 The first source says: "“Meeting Resistance” is directed by acclaimed photojournalists Molly Bingham and Steve Connors. In a video op-ed for the New York Times published Wednesday, they cite Department of Defense reports between 2004 and 2007 to claim that 74% of attacks by Iraqi insurgents target US-led occupation forces." The second source, then, is this video op ed (i.e. not a news article) - which is at http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8e9862a9f3a8216027ef2f9ecd1c3bc5345b4134 - which says the same thing, adding that 16% of targets are Iraqi forces and that the percentages are for significant attacks, whatever that means (minute 3:59). I have tried looking but I can't find the original Dept of Defence figures. Indeed, I can't find any other news source quoting the Defence Dept figures. It would be helpful to have original source, as this would give context. BobFromBrockley 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob, although the video is an Op-Ed, it is published by the NYT. Ordinarily, I would be careful about citing an Op-Ed as evidence, since they generally deal with opinion. In this case, however, I cited the statistics quoted in the Op-Ed, which would have been verified using the same process as for a news article. All NYT Op-Eds go through a very thorough fact-checking process before they are published or syndicated. According to David Shipley, then editor of the NYT Op-eds (writing in 2005):

Just like Times news articles and editorials, Op-Ed essays are edited. Before something appears in our pages, you can bet that questions have been asked, arguments have been clarified, cuts have been suggested - as have additions - and factual, typographical and grammatical errors have been caught. (We hope.)

Specifically, they:

• Fact-check the article. While it is the author's responsibility to ensure that everything written for us is accurate, we still check facts - names, dates, places, quotations. We also check assertions. If news articles - from The Times and other publications - are at odds with a point or an example in an essay, we need to resolve whatever discrepancy exists. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/opinion/31shipley.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

If you'd like further detail on DoD figures, plus more citations, please check the Tactics of the Iraqi insurgency page -I've included several further links and citations, including DoD material and a bar graph. Dwtray2007 12:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if the ratio of attacks on civilians cf. "military" targets, the attacks on military targets have frequently included ridiculously high collateral damage- for example; in Baghdad some years back now, a U.S. marine was giving out gum to 26 local Shi'ite children and a suicide bomber drove a car into them blowing everyone to pieces, so their parents had to recover severed hands and feet from rooftops. So was this an attack on a Marine or upon 26 "collaborators". Perhaps the dead bomber is as we speak arguing the finer points with his maker. Streona 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any reliable statistics for the ratio of collateral deaths from insurgent attacks. My guess is that they've never been collated so it's not possible to make a relevant determination. Unfortunately collateral damage is, as a matter of common sense, much harder to avoid in urban areas that on a conventional battlefield and it is the urban battlefield that has come to characterise modern warfare. A little over a century ago, the ratio of military casualties to civilian casualties was approximately 10:1. That figure is now almost the mirror opposite, with 10 civilians dying for every 1 soldier -mostly as a result of aerial bombing. The Iraqi insurgents/resistence are in the invidious position of having their battlefield thrust upon them -they were invaded and so have no choice but to resist that invasion where it is happening. Indeed, it was George Bush himself who advocated the invasion partly on the grounds that it would allow the US to fight 'the terrorists' 'over there' rather than at home (known as the flypaper scenario in some quarters). To anyone who regards Iraqis as being as human as Americans, that's a pretty depraved notion, but few seemed to notice at the time. It's also a matter of commonsense that, while the Iraqi insurgents have a moral duty to minimise collateral damage where possible, they are under far less of a duty than the invasion forces, since the former have had their actions forced upon them, while for the latter it was a matter of choice.

In the instance you cite, I'd say it was fairly obvious, even from your own account, that the attack was targeted against the soldier and not the children, dreadful as their deaths were.

In any case, your point about collateral damage, though it may be correct (though we cannot tell) has no bearing on the issue of targeting since collateral damage is precisely that: collateral. Dwtray2007 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Although of course in Najaf and Kerbala the hundreds of Shi'ite pilgrims blown apart in co ordinated car bomb attacks appear to have had no Allied personnel present at all. But hold on- are you really defending the killing of 26 children ? What if they were English or American children ? But obviously Iraqis are more expendable because Saddam was murdering them by the miilion and nobody went on demos about that. Streona 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Margaret Hassan, of course, was murdered on purely racial grounds. Streona 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Streona, I don't really see what relevance your comments have to the article (and that is the purpose of this article). The US targeting data is relevant because it refutes the widely held perception that the bulk of violence in Iraq is sectarian. It clearly is not.

As far as your comments are concerned, I agree that there are a minority of al-qaida-inspired extremists in Iraq who target civilians. I have not disputed that and in fact I wrote part of the header, which acknowledges that. That minority is a tiny minority however, approximately 5% of the insurgency according to some estimates. Much of the Iraqi resistance is opposed to those attacks as well, as is the vast bulk (60%) of the Iraqi population, who do support the resistance and armed attacks on the occupiers. The recent BBC/ABC poll is evidence of this. You can cite several examples of clear sectarian violence, I'm sure, but they don't affect the validity of the statistics I cite -indeed, they will be included in those statistics. I realise that citing statistics may appear cold but they are important because they blow away the fog of propaganda in the mainstream: that the Iraqi insurgency is focused on killing Iraqis. It is not: it is a national resistance movement. To quote General Sir Richard Dannett, the head of UK armed forces, in a speecg he gave a few weeks ago:

"The militants (and I use the word deliberately because not all are insurgents, or terrorists, or criminals; they are a mixture of them all) are well armed – probably with outside help, and probably from Iran. By motivation, essentially, and with the exception of the Al Qaeda in Iraq element who have endeavoured to exploit the situation for their own ends, our opponents are Iraqi Nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs – jobs, money, security – and the majority are not bad people."

A well armed militant force, the majority of whom are not bad people. If one puts that together with the statistical evidence, that the majority of attacks are still directed against the occupation and that the resistance has the strong support of the Iraqi people, you have the reality of the 'insurgency' in Iraq. Not Islamofascists committed to the destruction of our way of life but an authentic, nationalist resistance, focused on expelling the occupiers and protecting their way of life from our imperialism.

As to your question about whether I'm defending the killing of 26 children, no of course not. What I am pointing out is that collateral damage is inevitable in war, especially a messy urban war. Indeed, the US-UK invasion has produced plenty of collateral damage itself but that doesn't mean I think everyone who supported the invasion defends the huge number of children (and adults) killed by the Americans and British. Nor do I consider Iraqis expendable, which is why I never supported the invasion in the first place. I would say that the people who really have to answer for their apparent contempt for the value of Iraqi lives are the people who instigated and defend the invasion itself, since it is they who manufactured the situation as it is now.

Finally, it may surprise you to know that there were frequent demonstrations in the UK during the 1980s, protesting Saddam's barbarism -which at that time was enthusiastically and knowingly supported by the British and American governments (up to and after the Gulf War). So it is more accurate to say when Saddam and the US and UK were murdering Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands (not millions).

If you have something to say about the article itself, go ahead but this really is not the place simply to voice general opinions about the rights and wrongs of the invasion and its aftermath Dwtray2007 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It does surprise me that there were demonstrations against Saddam. They must have been very low profile as I live in central London, have been involved in Left wing politics and know numbers of Iraqis and I have not noticed them. Most Iraqis kept a low profile for fear of reprisals. As to whether Saddam's persecution resulted in millions or only hundreds of thousands, this depends on whether the war with Iran is included. Certainly the population declined in millions, large numbers of which left the country. The opinion of numbers of these at the time was that the US, UK - and others, including the French & Germans, were responsible for Saddam and that getting rid of him was part of their duty for clearing up the mess they had created. Perhaps you are right, this is not the place for a general discussion but if the "insurgents" are to be considered a "resistance" in protecting the people, the issue of whether they are killing them, or are even entirely indifferent about their deaths, is relevent to the determination of this issue. Coalition forces should be held accountable, but if they claim some kind of moral equivalence (and I suggest there is none) then so should they. It is noticeable that recently there have been gun battles between Sunni militants and Al Qaeda over this very point. Streona 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the insurgency should be considered a resistance or not is not within the remit of this article, so it's not something we should be discussing at any length. My own personal view is that the only people whose opinion matters on the subject are the Iraqis themselves. For this question, what data we have (in terms of polling) is pretty conclusive: they support the resistance and consider the US-UK troop presence an occupation that they want to end (and they support armed force to end it). I don't accept the validity of the concept of 'moral equivalence' -I follow Noam Chomsky on that in considering it to be a propaganda device to prevent people from judging themselves by the same standards they apply to others. In my view, as an occupying force, which invaded other country for dishonest reasons, I consider the US-UK occupation forces to be illegitimate and Iraqis entirely justified in exercising their right under international law to resist occupation by a foreign power. That is my personal opinion, however, and has no bearing on the article. Dwtray2007 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that "insurgents" or even "rebels" is NPOV whereas "resistance" is a positive term. Also the general idea of resistance is that they wish an occupying force to leave, whereas this is not clear from the actions of the insurgents, as they seem to want the Coalition Forces to stay, so that they can figh them some more. Streona (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can we take down the "neutrality is disputed" tag on the top of the article? I have been through the article, and changed the language in it to be more NPOV. I believe that now the language is NPOV unlike before. Go through it, and determine for your self. Thanks for your time.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 07:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it probably can go. BobFromBrockley 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Question: Why did the number of captured Iranians change from 13 to 0 on Nov 4? Archetypical 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It shouldn't have.--SJP 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Question (bis): Why did the number of captured Iranians change from 13 to 308 in Feb 2008? It seems to me that someone has intentionally reverted Iran and Saudi Arabia in the tables just to demonize the Iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.196.42 (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just finished reading the article for the first time. I had no problem with the article until I got to the 'Opinion Section'. Some of the statistics that have no citation don't even make sense. Then on the "Scope and Size of the Insurgency', there is a lot of speculative numbers with no citations to back them up. And upon reviewing the information for the map (which is terribly outdated) the selection criteria was almost arbitrary. And what is with the part that tries to convince the reader that Zarqawi was never a bad guy (also no citation)? I think that once all of the unsourced information is taken out, there should be no problem with POV.Angncon (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunni extremists

Why has this reference been reverted? I am not sure of the point that is being made in the reason given "no such thing". Is this that all Sunnis support the tactics of the insurgents (I don't) or that the tactics are not extreme?--Streona (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurdistan Worker's Party

There is no evidence that the PKK has fought coalition forces in iraq. (No coalition forces have been killed in the kurdish region so far.) PKK fights turkish and Iranian forces.--Vindheim (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

insurgency is the wrong term

if you look up insurgency it means people rising up against their OWN government forces, a "resistance" is a more correct term, considering it means people rising up against an occupying force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanDeryk (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

More than 12 million Iraqis voted for the parliament from which the goverment of Nouri al-Maliki has its mandate. --Vindheim (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Resistance forces usually want the occupiers to leave, which most of these forces seem to want to keep the Coalition Forces there by constantly destabilsing the country. "Terrorists" would be more apprpriate. Perhaps "insurgency" seems a good NPOV compromise--Streona (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is no secret that the principal force driving the attacks is an occupying army (from which country you ask?). As such resistance sounds apt, accurate and NPOV.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This does not fit the facts. Yesterday there were attacks on shiite pilgrims, presumably by al Qaeda or their kindred sunni extremists; and attacks on kurdish demonstrators in Kirkuk, presumably also by sunni arabs. Neither attack was targeted at foreign forces. --Vindheim (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So if every Iraqi murdered by insurgents is "driven" by foreign forces, perhaps the slogan of these extremist groups (probably no longer Al Qaeda)should be "See, now look what you made me do!" Do Americans or British "make" suicide bombers blow up groups of children playing in the street or cut prisoners' heads off? Not only are the majority of casualties the direct result of "resistance" terrorists, but the vast majority of Al-Qaeda victims are Muslims- including the staff of the Pakistan Habib Bank in New York on 9/11. I am not going to claim that atrocities committed by Coalition troops are "driven" by the "resistance", but such a claim would merely illustrate the absurdity of the opposite assertion.--Streona (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been debated again and again at this talk page, and consensus remains firm. Insurgency is clearly a more neutral term than the two non-neutral alternatives, terrorism and resistance. The Insurgency article is highly problematic, as a fairly recent (politically motivated) edit by Bodybagger has redefined insurgency to only refer to uprisings against one's own government, which is a highly controversial and non-standard definition. Insurgency is regularly used to refer to uprisings against occupying forces. The Iraqi insurgency is clearly, as this article notes, heterogeneous: it involves an uprising against a democratically elected sovereign state in Iraq AND against foreign troops (who could be defined as occupying or not, depending on definition). And it involves disparate Iraqi forces - as well as foreign jihadists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? How can you suggest that the current Iraqi puppet government is "democratically elected." The "democratic electors" were forced at gunpoint to vote for pre-arranged vassal-puppets. Was it democracy when Sam Giancana gained JFK election votes through fraud and intimidation? Whether or not the modern Iraqi government is democratic or legitimate is not for an objective encyclopedia to decide. Political activists need to take a hike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is bollocks. Nobody was forced at gunpoint to vote; some people were warned by armed militias NOT to vote, but that does not bolster your claims now, does it? There are more different political parties in the Iraqi parliament than in the British or American ones, and arguably the voters had more real choice in Iraq. . --Vindheim (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you arguing politics on Wikipedia? Shouldn't editors at least pretend to maintain a scholarly distance from their subject? If we deem the military occupation and the American army-installed government in Iraq as "right" or "wrong", good for the West or good for Israel, good for socialist progress, etc., is irrelevant, we are only supposed to report objective information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.16.22 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And the objective fact is that the Iraqis for the first time in their history have a democratically elected parliament and a government which derives its authority from that parliament. --Vindheim (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You clearly havent the slightest understanding as to the difference between facts and opinions. Most people learn these things in kindergarten. Personally, I find your delusional, conceited arrogance insulting in asserting that Iraqis have never enjoyed democratic or self-governing institutions until American gangster-soldiers (Abu Ghraib-ethics--it sure is "fun" to sodomize and to shoot Iraqi civilians in combat while listening to Drowning Pool, right? at least, according to your enlightened Marines) forced at gunpoint "democracy" (submissive vassal-puppet state) on the unwilling populace. What is democracy stand for in America, anyhow, except pornocratic nihilism? The rule of conscienceless pornographers like Hugh Heifner, NAMBLA, and the anarchist ACLU? Is this the noble essence of democracy America must spread? Do you believe Iraqis belong to an inferior race or something? I am ethnically half-Iraqi and am no racially inferior dog. This self-serving mythology of America as a neo-Judaic, neo-messianic "light unto the nations" doesnt fool anyone with half a brain, and especially the multitudes of Iraqi patriots who meet this megalomaniac "light unto the nations" superiority complex with a defensive just warfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.91.35 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

one thing you learn from wikipeda (and the internet in general) is that anonymous user sure have a lot of adjectives they like to use. Me, I have never neen to America, and certainly have little respect for US policies in general. But, to the point; when did Iraq have a democratic election before 2005 ? --Vindheim (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and al-Qaeda in Iraq articles need to me merged

As al-Qaeda in Iraq (see Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb). Preferrably in the writing style of al-Qaeda in Iraq article (Tawhid is more of a list than an article). --RamboKadyrov (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Total 619

Total 619

That's not even true by our own listed numbers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)