Author Topic: Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.  (Read 1181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Holy canolly!! 400 a week? That´s like about 70 a day! And they say the insurgence is dying out... Yeah, right!
After all the "insurgents" that the US army killed, the insurgency would be out of fresh bodies to go on if we were to take serious the claim that it´s only a small group of men. For the resistence to go on as it has, with the levels of daily attacks we are seeing, there has to be a very large percentage of the iraqi population that IS in fact resisting.
Even some of the officers of the US army admit that the claim that the resistence was being carried out by foreigners, is totally false.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7648280/

WASHINGTON - After a postelection respite, the pace of insurgent attacks in Iraq has increased in recent weeks to approach last year’s levels, U.S. Defense Department officials said Tuesday.

:blah:
No Freespace 3 ?!? Oh, bugger...

 

Offline Liberator

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 210
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Firstly, there is no "Iraqi" resistance.  The attacks are being organized and carried out by foreign(Iranian, Saudi, and others) terrorists who realize that if Iraq suceeds, their little tinpot dictatorships are boned.
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

There are only 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

Offline Andreas

  • Ai No Koriida
  • 27
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Good boy, now suck uncle George's lollipop a little more. ;7
(Yeah, I'm not really in a good mood right now).
"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." - Jonathan Swift
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

 

Offline Rictor

  • Murdered by Brazilian Psychopath
  • 29
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
I don't think so; the sheer size of the insurgency, suggests that the composition is mostly home-grown. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was being financed is large part from outside sources (wealthy individuals in Saudi etc).

 
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
Firstly, there is no "Iraqi" resistance.  The attacks are being organized and carried out by foreign(Iranian, Saudi, and others) terrorists who realize that if Iraq suceeds, their little tinpot dictatorships are boned.


Just keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day it might come true...
:lol:
No Freespace 3 ?!? Oh, bugger...

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
Firstly, there is no "Iraqi" resistance.  The attacks are being organized and carried out by foreign(Iranian, Saudi, and others) terrorists who realize that if Iraq suceeds, their little tinpot dictatorships are boned.


Saudi?  Boned?  By who?

I believe you're massively underestimating the Iraqi opposition; firstly, remember that Saddam was scarcely without a power base when he was in power, and there will doubtless be die hard Sunni loyalists.  Not to mention those Iraqis who - as a result of religion, collateral damage or foreign policy - have come to dislike or hate the US.  And finally the more 'amateur' lot - such as in Falluja - who take up arms in response to perceived attacks upon them during heavy handed US 'pacification' operations.

In Fallujah in particular, the US itself estimated 90% of the fighters there were Iraqis.  Of 8,000 guerilla suspects jailed across Iraq, only [bb]127[/b] have foreign passports.    During the Fallujah 'uprising', apparently it was being led by local clerics rather than foreigners; in fact, this can most definately be applied to al-Sadrs al-Mahdi Army.

There are certainly high-profile foreigners involved within the insurgency; al-Zarqawi being the obvious one.  But, at the same time, Us commanders have themselves estimated the number of foreign fighters at being only 5%.  I'd also suggest that it would be wrong to equate the Iraqis actively fighting the US occupation & coalition government as being the only Iraqis who oppose it.

Finally, I believe you're missing the point of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in general.  It's not to attack the US per se (it just happens the US is a particularly juicy target thanks to various foreign policy decisions), but to create 'spectacular' events or consequences that will inspire Islamic revolutions in their own countries; hence why so many foreign fighters were in Afghanistan and supporting the Taliban, in particular.  It's worth noting the training camps in Afghanistan were not just for 'international terrorists' as is usually implied, but also for domestic terrorists or guerillas.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
If they're doing 400 a week, their success rate ain't too good...
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline redmenace

  • 211
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
I think that liberator was trying to say that the foreign fighters in Iraq play a prominent role. They in no way make up a majority or a major portion. Especially in regaurds to training of others in such things as bomb making. I should also point out that kidnappers are paid per the person they kidnap and kill.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
              -Frederic Bastiat

 

Offline redmenace

  • 211
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing


Just keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day it might come true...
:lol:

I am always amazed at Swamp_Thing's inabillity to keep a civil tone.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
              -Frederic Bastiat

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
I think that liberator was trying to say that the foreign fighters in Iraq play a prominent role. They in no way make up a majority or a major portion. Especially in regaurds to training of others in such things as bomb making.


I think it's worth bearing in mind there's scarcely a shortage of information in how to make bombs; as well as the more obvious source of ex-Army personnel (i.e. disbanded post war) and the Fadayin paramilitaries (who would doubtless have been trained for exactly this sort of asymmetric warface scenario), there's also the simple availability of this information on the internet.

I'm not sure that you could make the connection Liberator is making, which implies the insurgency is completely dependent upon and driven by foreigners; IMO it's far more likely the insurgency - by its presence - has attracted foreign fighters, particularly as AFAIK as many of the foreign fighters caught are effectively untrained irregulars rather than being some form of terrorist mastermind.  I don't believe that the capture of, for example, al-Zarqawi would in any way curtail the momentum of the grass-roots, primarily Sunni, insurgency (in the military sense, i.e. improvised bombs and attacks upon Iraqi security forces / US army / government targets).

Basically, AFAIK Lib is taking the position that all Iraqis welcome the US Army presence, and that the only opposition to it and the general consequences of the war (including the new government) comes from outside forces 'scared' of further US invasions.  I think that's a somewhat arrogant and naive assumption; IMO US forces sent into any Muslim or Arab country might as well have giant bullseyes painted upon them, as trouble is inevitable for reasons that go beyond 'hating our freedom'*.

*As a CIA report pointed out, they don't actually hate US freedom or political structure some much as US foreign policy

Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
I should also point out that kidnappers are paid per the person they kidnap and kill.


Yeah, the distinction between kidnapping as an act of rebellion/political statement or as an act of crime is at best a narrow one....

 
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by redmenace

I am always amazed at Swamp_Thing's inabillity to keep a civil tone.


No, you are just pissed that you can´t make your points stick to the reality on the field.
Lib wasn´t trying to say foreigners play a vital role, he was saying foreigners are IT! And so are you. Wich begs the question, why do people choose to believe something that goes against every piece of report that emerges out of Iraq? Because of personal convictions? Political idealisms?
Face it, your claims don´t hold water. The resistence is iraqi, it´s not saudi, or syrian. It´s not Zarqawi´s resistence, it´s not Bin Laden´s resistence. It´s iraqi resistence.
The sooner you deal with that fact, the better.
No Freespace 3 ?!? Oh, bugger...

 
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
If they're doing 400 a week, their success rate ain't too good...


agreed

 

Offline Deepblue

  • Corporate Shill
  • 210
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Another agree.

But its primarily attacks by SUNNIS against everyone else, mostly the shiites.

Maybe this is a good time to mention that the US casualty rates in Iraq are the lowest they have been for a long while, mostly cause the insurgency has decided to focus on butchering shiites...

 

Offline redmenace

  • 211
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing


No, you are just pissed that you can´t make your points stick to the reality on the field.
Lib wasn´t trying to say foreigners play a vital role, he was saying foreigners are IT! And so are you. Wich begs the question, why do people choose to believe something that goes against every piece of report that emerges out of Iraq? Because of personal convictions? Political idealisms?
Face it, your claims don´t hold water. The resistence is iraqi, it´s not saudi, or syrian. It´s not Zarqawi´s resistence, it´s not Bin Laden´s resistence. It´s iraqi resistence.
The sooner you deal with that fact, the better.

Bullying people is hardly argument and neither is sarcasm.

Additionally, this has nothing to do with my opinion being right or wrong, but how you treat other people.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2005, 10:40:40 pm by 887 »
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
              -Frederic Bastiat

 
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Since when did sarcasm became the same thing as bullying or treating other people wrong?
Take a good look at what i wrote, and tell me you would say the same thing about someone with who you agree with politically. You wouldn´t. And you know why, don´t you? Because accusing other people with whom you don´t agree is all you have left to discredit them.
No Freespace 3 ?!? Oh, bugger...

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by Deepblue
Another agree.

But its primarily attacks by SUNNIS against everyone else, mostly the shiites.

Maybe this is a good time to mention that the US casualty rates in Iraq are the lowest they have been for a long while, mostly cause the insurgency has decided to focus on butchering shiites...


Or (more likely) because the US has begun pushing Iraqi army units further and further into the fray.  which'd be understandable, except they're not even particularly well-trained or equipped Iraqi army troops.

What you'd have to first define is what constitutes 'success' for an insurgent attack.  Is it killing the target?  Is it hitting the target?  Or is it just escaping in one piece?  Bearing in mind, of course, that a military victory is pretty much impossible for the insurgency; even if it had equal numbers, it doesn't have the same level of hi-tech equipment to fight in that way.  So it's fighting - through illegal or legal means - in a way to harass and prolong conflict rather than resolve it.

The question of the insurgency is ultimately, perhaps, not whether it can 'win', but what the long term consequences of fighting it will be - will a predominately Sunni insurgency be able to inflame religious tension and lead to civil war?  Will use of excessive force by the US (as seen previously in Falluja, Mosul and smaller single incidents) raise support for the insurgency/dissent against the occupation of Iraq and undermine the government in place there?  Can the US even leave whilst any Sunni dissent against the Shia-Kurdish government exists?

 

Offline redmenace

  • 211
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Since when did sarcasm became the same thing as bullying or treating other people wrong?
Take a good look at what i wrote, and tell me you would say the same thing about someone with who you agree with politically. You wouldn´t. And you know why, don´t you? Because accusing other people with whom you don´t agree is all you have left to discredit them.

I would actually. Tha doesn't mean I go around on these boards looking for injustice.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
              -Frederic Bastiat

 

Offline Nuclear1

  • 211
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Thanks to everyone who's made such wonderful, contributive posts here. :rolleyes: Seriously people, cut the crap. Can we have a discussion and not a competition on who can be the biggest tit?

On the topic: I'll agree that the attacks are being carried out by Iraqis. It's just any other resistance formed when a foreign power takes over; the resistance in France, the Vietcong, the mujahideen, etc. These Iraqis simply see foreign invaders and oppressors (not that I'm saying that's what America is) and they will fight tooth-and-nail for their country.
Spoon - I stand in awe by your flawless fredding. Truely, never before have I witnessed such magnificant display of beamz.
Axem -  I don't know what I'll do with my life now. Maybe I'll become a Nun, or take up Macrame. But where ever I go... I will remember you!
Axem - Sorry to post again when I said I was leaving for good, but something was nagging me. I don't want to say it in a way that shames the campaign but I think we can all agree it is actually.. incomplete. It is missing... Voice Acting.
Quanto - I for one would love to lend my beautiful singing voice into this wholesome project.
Nuclear1 - I want a duet.
AndrewofDoom - Make it a trio!

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
For defining success, I agree there are certain degrees to it, and in some cases just getting out alive may be enough.

However, for them to generate support, they must appear to be effectual. This generally dictates that success must mean people die or are injured, buildings blow up or fall down, etc.

By those standards, at 400 attacks a week, perhaps (generously, I suspect the figure hovers around 50 more likely) 100 of them are succeeding. A one-in-four success rate either means that they are the most inept terrorists/guerillas in the world, or the US forces and their Iraqi allies have become quite adept at what the military refers to as "force protection".
« Last Edit: April 28, 2005, 05:22:13 pm by 2191 »
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

  

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Iraq resistence: 400 attacks a week.
Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
For defining success, I agree there are certain degrees to it, and in some cases just getting out alive may be enough.

However, for them to generate support, they must appear to be effectual. This generally dictates that success must mean people die or are injured, buildings blow up or fall down, etc.

By those standards, at 400 attacks a week, perhaps (generously, I suspect the figure hovers around 50 more likely) 100 of them are succeeding. A one-in-four success rate either means that they are the most inept terrorists/guerillas in the world, or the US forces and their Iraqi allies have become quite adept at what the military refers to as "force protection".


I'm not sure about that; on average 20 Iraqi soldiers and 2 coalition have died every day this month.  Reportedly there have been numerous police and (Iraqi) army desertions as well.

You'll note the initial article (with the 400 per-week value) gave the success rate at half (i.e. half cause significant damage or kill someone).

Reportedly, the insurgency has switched to more organized large scale attacks; arguably a sign of growing confidence or strength, even if it suits the US to fight 'conventional' with larger forces (an insurgency is normally seen as having 3 phases; recruitment and armament, followed by small scale guerilla attacks, and finally large scale direct attacks on the government or occupying force).