Hail the US troops, change membername in YELLOW RIBBON. Or get banned.

[Avenger]

No, you asked why they attacked “heavily armoured American” troops and my answer was “they don’t.” The insurgents as a general rule do not engage US armor directly. Your use of the term “heavily armored” made me envision US Armor… i.e. tanks. The insugents hit “soft” targets. They hit supply trucks, they lob mortars, they set off roadside bombs.

Fair enough. Poor phrasing on my part, I didn’t mean ‘heavily armoured’ to distinguish a particular category of troops. I was more trying to say that even ‘soft’ US military targets are harder to hit than other targets that the insurgents might, and do, select.

As opposed to attacking with direct weapons fire and making sure they achieve a military objective. The insurgents have a motivation to attack US troops, but they have thus far been unwilling to really press an attack against US troops as they have been against Iraqi security forces.

I think you are off beam to deduce motivations from the tactics used. No the insurgents won’t face the US military in a set piece battle if they can help it. For the very simple reason that they’d get creamed. So the use the sort of tactics that every insurgent group in history has used. I don’t think that in any way gives us a guide to their aims.

[CarnalK]

Bearclaw:
This is partly because Iraqi security forces are an easier target, but I believe it is also because the real enemy the insurgents are fighting is an Iraqi government that they (the Sunni) do not control.

Perfectly reasonable of them don’t you think? How do you think the Sunni minority (big minority BTW ~20%) is going to fare in the new order? I honestly don’t assume the worst but I bet a few of them do.

As an aside, insurgents have attacked a number of Blackhawk helicopters which some would call “heavily armoured” though vulnerable. Attacks on convoys would sometimes include APCs I imagine.

[elucidator]

@Blackclaw

Sarcasm is an art form that eludes your grasp…

Perhaps. But on to substantive matters.

…But what the heck. I’ll claim to be an expert. … But generally the post war mess that has emerged should not have come as a surprise to anyone except perhaps the Bush administration…

Suitably impressed. But more by an admission of previous error, that speaks well.

It is of course impossible to read the minds of the insurgents to grasp their motives. Nor do I believe that all the insurgent groups are composed of single, coordinated organization. But the clear motivator for these groups, fear of a Shia dominated Iraq, is consistent for almost all of the insurgents. (Note: not all.)

Just so. I quite agree it is impossible. I also agree that there is scant evidence of a single, coordinated organization. But since the US occupation is so publicly committed to “democracy”, and since that democracy simply cannot help but put the Shia in the dominant position, how do you propose to distinguish between those insurgents who simply hate the invading infidels, and those motivated by fear of the Shia? Is the firebrand cleric al-Sadr motivated by fear of Shia domination? That wouldn’t make much sense, now would it?

Your articles are interesting, but they do little more than you have done: state expertise, make claims based on that expertise, and provide nothing more as proof but that expertise.

…I believe that the insurgency has a wider base than just former Baathists but am certain that the insurgency is almost entirely comprised of Sunni Iraqis with a few small elements of foreign religious extremists.

Is the aforementioned al Sadr a “foreign religious extremist”?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@gum

Right. I used the wrong word. They’re eating away our freedom.

Even aljazeera reports as such last Saturday.

The Netherlands has introduced a new law making it compulsory to produce identity documents in a government bid to crack down on crime and boost security.

I think it is a pity that we don’t hear from the other Dutch posters (the ones I know are Dutch) about the crisis facing the Netherlands today. And my fellow posters on this side of the Atlantic should remember that at one time we all thought we were immune from terrorist acts in the homeland.

[gum]

Thank you, grienspace. Yes. One of the ‘benefits’ of being a tolerant nation, huh.

I think it is a pity that we don’t hear from the other Dutch posters (the ones I know are Dutch) about the crisis facing the Netherlands today.

Like our recent government, most of the Dutch are petrified of being thought of as racist.

Even if you have worked your ass off trying to get the best for muslims, protesting on Dam square against populist right-wing politicians on behalf of muslims, giving up some of your spare time to interact with muslims and try to help muslim women, you still risk the chance of being called racist [see Zoe’s post] when you critise same muslims.

This is as old as 2001, Zoe. Things have gone far worse since then.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/541/in2.htm

A Moroccan imam, Khalil Al- Moumni, appeared on Dutch television recently and described homosexuality as a disease. “If the illness spreads, everybody will be infected! This will lead to extinction,” he said, while on a popular late night news show

The Netherlands is the only country in the world where gay couples have the same rights as straight couples: including the right to marry.

Two sacred cows of the Dutch constitution clash in the Al- Moumni case: freedom of religion and freedom of speech. In a similar case a couple of years ago, a fundamentalist Christian Protestant politician, who compared homosexuals to thieves, was taken to court, but was eventually acquitted.

Kok fears that imams may contribute to anti-gay violence. He publicly cited reports in the Dutch press about groups of young, second generation Dutch, of Moroccan descent, who attack gays in car-parks.

After his television appearance, a Dutch newspaper published excerpts from Al-Moumni’s Rotterdam sermons. In them, the imam, whose flight to Europe may have saved him from imprisonment in a Moroccan all-male jail, calls Europeans lower than pigs or dogs because they tolerate homosexuality. He also advises Muslims not to allow their daughters to mix with people of a different faith. “This will lead to big problems. Wake up, fathers. Guard your honour,” he preached. After nine years in the Netherlands, the Imam has still not learnt Dutch.

Nowadays, taking someone to court, apparently, is no longer an option for some people.
When a film maker insulted the Jewish, Christians, royaly, etc., he was indeed taken to court.
When he insulted muslims, he was butchered.

[Ryan_Liam]

@Avenger

You do know he’s dead, right??

Sure do. Still doesn’t mean what he did isn’t applicable.

Hang on, are you now defending the right of the insurgents to perform ‘immoral acts’ in pursuit of a goal they believe to be right. Or just talking out of your arse?

But what the insurgents are proposing for the people of Iraq, is totally unacceptable to us and them. So no, it doesn’t apply to them.

[Charlie_Tan]

@Ryan_Liam

But what the insurgents are proposing for the people of Iraq, is totally unacceptable to us and them. So no, it doesn’t apply to them.

Holy tunafish on a pogostick…

Cite for the will of the Iraqi people?

[Ryan_Liam]

@The Gaspode

Holy tunafish on a pogostick…

Cite for the will of the Iraqi people?

When did it seem that the Iraqis were so willing and wanting the Baa’thists back eh? Or some medeval theocracy to emerge because they weren’t strong enough to hold them back? I don’t see how the Iraqis would want either.

[Charlie_Tan]

Thought so.

[Blackclaw]

@elucidator

Just so. I quite agree it is impossible. I also agree that there is scant evidence of a single, coordinated organization. But since the US occupation is so publicly committed to “democracy”, and since that democracy simply cannot help but put the Shia in the dominant position, how do you propose to distinguish between those insurgents who simply hate the invading infidels, and those motivated by fear of the Shia? Is the firebrand cleric al-Sadr motivated by fear of Shia domination? That wouldn’t make much sense, now would it?

No it wouldn’t, which is why I tried to specify Sunni insurgents and even then made room for exceptions. Al-Sadr’s motivation is to take control of the Shia. He is quite in favor of a Shia dominated Iraq and even more in favor of an Iraq controlled by him. His attacks against US forces have been aimed at proving his worthiness as a leader who is willing to stand up against impossible odds on behalf of his people. Well, that’s the appearence he wants to give. While he doesn’t mind sening young believers out to do violence on his behalf, he certainly doesn’t want to get killed. In recent months he has kept a relatively low profile having apparently decided that a bit of patience for power might serve him better than risking his neck any further.

A bit of support for my claims:

Several months earlier, the moderate Abdel Majid Al-Khoei, son of deceased Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei, was shot inside the Imam Ali mosque. He was then dragged outside and hacked to death by a small crowd. Al-Khoei supporters are convinced the killers were Al-Sadr followers. Al-Sadr has denied any part in the killing.

A few days after this assassination, supporters of Al-Sadr surrounded the house in Najaf of
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, an Iranian-born cleric in his seventies recognised by many as the leading Shia religious authority in Iraq and elsewhere. Al-Sadr‘s supporters demanded that Sistani step down in favour of the young cleric. The stand-off was eventually defused without incident.

Rivalry between clerics can be intense as each one seeks to secure power and influence. Such standing within the community brings with it economic reward. Shia believers pay khoms tax to the ayatollah they choose as their marja al-taqlid (source of emulation). The tax has represented power in Shiite politics for centuries, and it is no different today. In essence, whoever has the largest following has access to the most money and the influence that comes with distributing it.

Not all Shia are happy with the new-found activism of the young clerics. Uday Shamraan, a grave-digger in in Najaf‘s cemetery, provides a view that many may share but still dare not say: “Now we have all these turbaned people! They never spoke out when Saddam was in power. Now that he‘s gone they suddenly remember they have a religion. They‘re just after power.”

http://www.globalprofile.co.uk/60

Your articles are interesting, but they do little more than you have done: state expertise, make claims based on that expertise, and provide nothing more as proof but that expertise.

There is no way to definitively “prove” a motivation especially when trying to apply that motivation to thousands of people. Some insurgents might be motivated because they see the US as foreign invaders, some might see it as a chance for martyrdom against infidels, some are motivated by payments offered by the insurgency, maybe one out there thinks he’s attacking Elvis. In general, I believe that the insurgency is primarily motivated by the concern of who shall control Iraq next. I base this on the past history of Iraq’s dangerous internal politics. It’s not “proof” but analysis. It’s the best that can be offered at this time.

What I objected to seeing in this thread is the idea that most insurgents are fighting because of a foreign threat to their nation. Perhaps some were in the beginning of the US led invasion, but that has changed. I believe that the insurgency is about control of Iraq. The US cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely so ultimately the insurgency is not about fighting the US but about fighting other Iraqis who stand in the way of gaining that control. Anyone that choses to fight on behalf of an insurgency group in Iraq will find themselves killing Iraqis and I thought that was what was upsetting the OP in the first place.

[CarnalK]

Blackclaw said:
In general, I believe that the insurgency is primarily motivated by the concern of who shall control Iraq next. I base this on the past history of Iraq’s dangerous internal politics. It’s not “proof” but analysis. It’s the best that can be offered at this time.

What I objected to seeing in this thread is the idea that most insurgents are fighting because of a foreign threat to their nation. Perhaps some were in the beginning of the US led invasion, but that has changed. I believe that the insurgency is about control of Iraq. The US cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely so ultimately the insurgency is not about fighting the US but about fighting other Iraqis who stand in the way of gaining that control.

Well that’s pretty hard to argue with- except the final conclusion. The departure time of the US forces is anything but certain. Attacks on US forces will likely affect that date- effecting a change in power balance in Iraq.

Anyone that choses to fight on behalf of an insurgency group in Iraq will find themselves killing Iraqis and I thought that was what was upsetting the OP in the first place.

Actually the OP was upset about getting a warning about wanting to join the insurgency. All your responses would have been more appropriate in the thread where he got the warning (see page 1 for link:) ).

[Skywatcher]

If anyone happens to be missing Aldebaran, he’s taken refuge on Opal’s board.

[Starving_Artist]

Well, I for one would like to talk to him. How does one get to Opal’s board?

[Mehitabel]

Those poor bastards. Those poor, poor bastards. </Clerks>

[FinnAgain]

Is Opal’s www.theteamingmillions.com ?

Mehitabel: For the love of Og, get a hobby!

[jayjay]

@Starving Artist

Well, I for one would like to talk to him. How does one get to Opal’s board?

The Fabulous Forums of Fathom

[Skywatcher]

@FinnAgain

Is Opal’s www.theteamingmillions.com ?

http://fff.fathom.org/forums/index.php?s=

[Starving_Artist]

jayjay, Lute, thanks.

[TVeblen]

@Mehitabel

Those poor bastards. Those poor, poor bastards. </Clerks>

You just couldn’t resist one final cheap shot, huh, Mehitabel?

Enough and too much. Whatever discussion value this thread ever claimed has degenerated badly.

Locked.

TVeblen
Pit mod