Talk:Iraqi resistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think this page should include the stuff that keeps getting taken out of the Iraqi insurgency page about nonviolent resistance groups. Some of the information on polls on that page should be updated and included here as well. In addition, the historic protests on April 9, 2005 should be included here, or perhaps they need their own entry.--csloat 09:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, there is no "resistance". I can see where you're going... "broad-based, popular uprising" indeed. A popular uprising is what we saw in Ukraine, what we're seeing in Lebanon, etc. The only comparable event in Iraq were the elections. I wrote more about this earlier: [1]. What term to use was discussed, voted on and decided, and what you want to do certainly wasn't it. Nonviolent groups are political, and should go on a politics page, with a mention at the insurgency page (and by the way I've never deleted any info about them). There is no resistance. ObsidianOrder 21:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there's no resistance then why are there groups calling themselves "Resistance"? Your claims are bullshit. We talked about it on the Iraqi Insurgency page, the idea of creating a separate page for "resistance," of which "insurgents" would be a subset, seemed acceptable to people (including you I thought). If you want to edit this article, fine, but just deleting it to redirect back to insurgency is bullshit (especially when you want to delete evidence of nonviolent resistance from the insurgency too!) I understand if you don't like my wording because you can't possibly bring yourself to believe that there are many Iraqis who want the US out, but stop trying to change reality to conform to your opinion.

Let me ask you something personal -- what expertise do you actually have in this area, other than listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading littlegreenfootballs or whatever? Do you study Iraq or the Middle East in your non-wikipedia life? Do you get information from any regular newspapers or other regularly updated sources? Do you have any background in Middle East politics? I ask because your statements sometimes seem reasonable and informed, while at other times they are completely out of touch with reality. I get the sense that you only read about this stuff when you want to go out to find evidence to disprove something said by someone you perceive as liberal. When you say "there is no resistance", that is just hogwash. You may not like the resistance, you may not want there to be a resistance, you may have another name for the resistance ("insurgents,""terrorists," whatever), but to deny that there are self-identified resistance movements among real live Iraqis who oppose the U.S. occupation is ludicrous.

Just stop reverting this page. Or rename the other page "Iraqi Resistance." Or put the evidence of the resistance back in that page more prominently. Or build all this into the Iraq Poltiics page and delete the rest. But don't just delete facts that make you uncomfortable. If the facts are inconsistent with your worldview, it may be your worldview that needs to be looked at. --csloat 02:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"seemed acceptable to people" - no, not quite, creating a separate page for the non-violent opposition seemed acceptable (e.g. Political opposition to U.S. goals in Iraq or some such). Putting it at this page, I never agreed to, and I don't think anyone else did either.

"you may have another name for the resistance" - yes, I do. resistance="La Resistance", and the sorry thugs that take potshots at US/Iraqi troops/politicians/mosques/doctors/schoolbuses in Iraq are not that, and neither is anyone who gives them political cover. Certainly there are people who hate our guts and would be happy if we left immediately, but that doesn't make them "La Resistance", regardless of what they call themselves, because if you grant them that title, you are also (by analogy) implying we are the nazis in this little drama, which will not wash.

"especially when you want to delete evidence of nonviolent resistance from the insurgency too" - I certainly do not. Can you point to a single instance when I have done so, or even said that I want to?

"you can't possibly bring yourself to believe that there are many Iraqis who want the US out" - obviously, nobody likes a military occupation for very long. I think they know they need us for a while longer. you may note that Iraqis in areas we have let fall under the control of the insurgents are only too happy to see us back. the Iraqis who want the US out are now probably a majority in parliament and the government (in a sense UIA is "the resistance"), and we don't seem to have a problem with it. the problem, of course, is those few Iraqis (and foreigners) who want to impose their will on everyone by force of arms.

"don't just delete facts that make you uncomfortable" - when have I done so? facts I consider dubious, by all means, and I usually explain why. facts that "make me uncomfortable", no.

"put the evidence of the resistance back in that page more prominently" - what was taken out that you'd like to put back?

Of the solutions you propose, I think I'd prefer to keep that info on the insurgency page for nonviolent groups that have links with/support the insurgency (actually it's already there: Iraqi insurgency#Non-violent groups), and put the info for groups that oppose US goals in Politics of Iraq. Or put it all in one place at either page, it doesn't matter. It shouldn't be here. ObsidianOrder 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus. They're Iraqis, not French, and I never said they were "La Resistance." I am not calling them "resistance" to imply legitimacy or to call Americans Nazis, which is just stupid. I am using that term because they use that term themselves, and because many scholars and journalists who observe them use that term. Therefore it belongs in an encyclopedia (even if you want to add a paragraph explaining why some think they don't deserve the title!) Frankly, I think you are giving way too much positive valence to the term resistance. It just means those who resist foreign occupation. It doesn't have to glorify the resisters. And, like it or not, a hundred thousand (roughly) shiites marching in the streets chanting "death to America" constitutes resistance.

Perhaps you weren't the one who argued for removing the evidence of nonviolent resistance that was in the insurgency page? Sorry if I confused you with Silverback. Now that I think about it I do remember actually that you were ok with the sentence about the resistance in the intro paragraph, so my apologies. And in terms of what was deleted, what happened to the Sunni umbrella group that specifically ordered against attacking civilians?

You say the Iraqis who want us out form a majority "and we don't seem to have a problem with it." Why should we have a problem with it if we don't plan to leave no matter what they say? I think us "not having a problem" with doing thing against the wishes of the Iraqis is exactly the problem here.

Anyway, I'm not willing to keep fighting this battle forever -- I spend way more time on wikipedia than I should as it is. The point of this project is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for political debates that I really don't have time for. I'm actually fine with deleting this page and leaving things as they are on the other page, but I got the sense that you, silverback, and daniel11 wanted the evidence of peaceful resistance and the evidence of insurgents not attacking civilians to be put on a separate page, which is why I started this one. I'll back off it for now, but if such evidence starts disappearing from the insurgency page again I think it should be recreated.

By the way, where is the information about the vote that you mentioned on the naming of the page? How many people actually voted? I only see about 5 people active in the conversation, so I'm just curious how such votes are taken. --csloat 07:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll make this a redirect then. "if such evidence starts disappearing" - I guarantee I re-create it myself if necessary. Actually I'm going to dig up some much older versions to see if anything along those lines was deleted. I also have the feeling the Politics of Iraq page has big gaps in coverage in this and other areas. To get the ball rolling, I did some work on Association of Muslim Scholars. Btw the discussion of the move is here: Talk:Iraqi insurgency/Archive discussion of move. The vote was 21:10 in favor. ObsidianOrder 08:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No I think you're right csloat, developing this article is probably the best way to deal with POV warriors. —Christiaan 13:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)