Insurgents vs Terrorists

[Wanderer]

Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.

In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

[z]

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

7% of the insurgence are suicide bombers and/or non-Iraqis. He never says
that 7% of the population of Iraq is an insurgent or a terrorist.

[Wanderer]

Post by z

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

7% of the insurgence are suicide bombers and/or non-Iraqis. He never says
that 7% of the population of Iraq is an insurgent or a terrorist.

You don't read well, do you? He said, 7% of the insurgents are
terrorists. The rest of them are local population, Iraqis and
insurgents or resistants. I took an historical example of
the French resistance to show what such a resistance might look
like if translated to Iraq's population.

[z]

Post by Wanderer

Post by z

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

7% of the insurgence are suicide bombers and/or non-Iraqis. He never
says that 7% of the population of Iraq is an insurgent or a
terrorist.

You don't read well, do you?

I read well. Comprehension is another issue.

Post by Wanderer
He said, 7% of the insurgents are
terrorists. The rest of them are local population, Iraqis and
insurgents or resistants. I took an historical example of
the French resistance to show what such a resistance might look
like if translated to Iraq's population.

OK. I just didn't see where the 7% fit into the argument.

You are arguing that if Iraqis are resisting US occupation at rates
similar to the French in WWII than around 1.3 million Iraqis are in
direct oposition to US forces, and rougly 10 million who are aiding
forces in oposition.

So if the 7% is accurate and your 1.3 million is accurate there should be
91,000 terrorists in Iraq.

That seems a little high. I suspect there are many many fewer active
insurgents and many many more who are helping them or not opposing them.

But what the fuck do I know?

[Wanderer]

Post by z

Post by Wanderer

Post by z

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

7% of the insurgence are suicide bombers and/or non-Iraqis. He never
says that 7% of the population of Iraq is an insurgent or a
terrorist.

You don't read well, do you?

I read well. Comprehension is another issue.

Post by Wanderer
He said, 7% of the insurgents are
terrorists. The rest of them are local population, Iraqis and
insurgents or resistants. I took an historical example of
the French resistance to show what such a resistance might look
like if translated to Iraq's population.

OK. I just didn't see where the 7% fit into the argument.
You are arguing that if Iraqis are resisting US occupation at rates
similar to the French in WWII than around 1.3 million Iraqis are in
direct oposition to US forces, and rougly 10 million who are aiding
forces in oposition.
So if the 7% is accurate and your 1.3 million is accurate there should be
91,000 terrorists in Iraq.

Correct.

Post by z
That seems a little high. I suspect there are many many fewer active
insurgents and many many more who are helping them or not opposing them.

The 'active' vs 'passive' resistance would be those who throw some
sand in coalition vehicle's gas tank, or those who will tell
a resistant that the police are looking for them vs. not telling
the police they know where that person is.

Post by z
But what the fuck do I know?

Well, not just you, but WHO knows how big AQ is in Iraq, or
anywhere? The Sunnis are fighting for their lives, wouldn't you?
So, if we apply my figures above (actually my original figures
were taken from Shoenbrunners Soldiers of the Night on the French
Resistance) - then we see, 481,000 Sunni hardcore fighters and
3.32 million Sunni resistants. It's still a trainwreck.

[Bill]

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

Insurgents targeting civilians are terrorists. Of course, Murtha may believe
that a market place full of civilians are a legitamite target, hence how he
came up with such a low percentage.

Post by Wanderer
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.

Oh, I see. Another kook that correlates Nazi's to Americans. Problem with
your example is that the French resistance was fighting the Germans to
regain control of their country and give it back to the people, the
insurgents in Iraq are fighting to keep control away from the people. The
biggist complaint the Sunnis seem to have right now is that they could lose
control of oil profits they enjoyed under Saddam. Hardly a nationalistic
reason to fight.

Post by Wanderer
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

He wants out because elections are coming up, and it's suddenly become the
"in" thing to do to for the democrat party.

Bill J.

Post by Wanderer
--
Z-REX

[Wanderer]

Post by Bill

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

Insurgents targeting civilians are terrorists. Of course, Murtha may believe
that a market place full of civilians are a legitamite target, hence how he
came up with such a low percentage.

Post by Wanderer
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.

Oh, I see. Another kook that correlates Nazi's to Americans.

Not my view, mabye you should check with the Iraqis.

Problem with

Post by Bill
your example is that the French resistance was fighting the Germans to
regain control of their country and give it back to the people, the
insurgents in Iraq are fighting to keep control away from the people. The
biggist complaint the Sunnis seem to have right now is that they could lose
control of oil profits they enjoyed under Saddam. Hardly a nationalistic
reason to fight.

So, in Sunni terms, that would be:
'if we apply my figures above (actually my original figures
were taken from Shoenbrunners Soldiers of the Night on the French
Resistance) - then we see, 481,000 Sunni hardcore fighters and
3.32 million Sunni resistants. It's still a trainwreck. '

Post by Bill

Post by Wanderer
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

He wants out because elections are coming up, and it's suddenly become the
"in" thing to do to for the democrat party.

I think you're babbling partisan bs.

Post by Bill

Post by Wanderer
--
Z-REX

[Howeird Dean : Terrorist Best Freind]

Both are synonomous for " Democrat"

["" <Deaf Power>]

\
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:24:05 -0500, "Howeird Dean : Terrorist Best

Post by Howeird Dean : Terrorist Best Freind
Both are synonomous for " Democrat"

Bush is a terrorist since he's not with us Americans. You're siding
with a terrorist and must be hang.

--
A vote for republican is a vote for fascism!

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[Sam]

Post by "" <Deaf Power>
\
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:24:05 -0500, "Howeird Dean : Terrorist Best

Post by Howeird Dean : Terrorist Best Freind
Both are synonomous for " Democrat"

Bush is a terrorist since he's not with us Americans. You're siding
with a terrorist and must be hang.

"must be hang"?

I see the Democrats have got the illiterates' votes.

Post by "" <Deaf Power>
--
A vote for republican is a vote for fascism!
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

["" <Deaf Power>]

Post by Sam

Post by "" <Deaf Power>
\
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:24:05 -0500, "Howeird Dean : Terrorist Best

Post by Howeird Dean : Terrorist Best Freind
Both are synonomous for " Democrat"

Bush is a terrorist since he's not with us Americans. You're siding
with a terrorist and must be hang.

"must be hang"?
I see the Democrats have got the illiterates' votes.

Did I say I'm a democrat?

--
A vote for republican is a vote for fascism!

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[blazing laser]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

The problem with labeling someone a 'terrorist' is that people
(epecially administration people) tend to use the word very loosely.
A 'terrorist' might be someone who donated money to a legitimate
political organization, it might be someone who fought in Saddam's
army, someone who published a newspaper article that pissed off the
Bushies, some young Arabic man who's overstayed his visa, or it might
even be some random innocent bystander that Bush imprisoned and
tortured for 2 or 3 years before deciding he was no longer useful to
them.

The people fighting our occupation of Iraq, the spokesmen of the
administration have called them various things at various different
stages of the occupation. At different points they were the remains
of Saddam's army, 'dead-enders' who didn't understand that Saddam
wasn't coming back, foreign troublemakers sneaking across a porous
border (porous because we didn't have the force to seal it!),
'terrorists', etc. etc.

When we bomb a village and kill a bunch of people, they have someone
count the bodies and issue a press release that we've killed x-number
of terrorists. So there's another definition--'victim'.

So if Murtha said that 7% of the insurgents are terrorists, I'd have
to ask him first of all what he means by that term. What make an
insurgent a terrorist? Better yet, how could someone be an insurgent
and -not- be a terrorist?

Post by Wanderer
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

I don't think that's a good analogy because France wasn't having a
civil war concurrent with WWII (like the Russians during WWI).

[Wanderer]

Post by blazing laser
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

The problem with labeling someone a 'terrorist' is that people
(epecially administration people) tend to use the word very loosely.
A 'terrorist' might be someone who donated money to a legitimate
political organization, it might be someone who fought in Saddam's
army, someone who published a newspaper article that pissed off the
Bushies, some young Arabic man who's overstayed his visa, or it might
even be some random innocent bystander that Bush imprisoned and
tortured for 2 or 3 years before deciding he was no longer useful to
them.

Not at all. Murtha knows the difference between Al Qaeda and an
Iraqi insurgent.

Post by blazing laser
The people fighting our occupation of Iraq, the spokesmen of the
administration have called them various things at various different
stages of the occupation. At different points they were the remains
of Saddam's army, 'dead-enders' who didn't understand that Saddam
wasn't coming back, foreign troublemakers sneaking across a porous
border (porous because we didn't have the force to seal it!),
'terrorists', etc. etc.

7% of the resistance are the people you lable above as foreign
troublemakers.

Post by blazing laser
When we bomb a village and kill a bunch of people, they have someone
count the bodies and issue a press release that we've killed x-number
of terrorists. So there's another definition--'victim'.

No argument, but I am not sure where you are going with this.

Post by blazing laser
So if Murtha said that 7% of the insurgents are terrorists, I'd have
to ask him first of all what he means by that term. What make an
insurgent a terrorist? Better yet, how could someone be an insurgent
and -not- be a terrorist?

Someone who doesn't care about blowing up or killing Sunnis or
Shias and is not from Iraq, and has a different agenda to
Iraqi pro-Sunni or pro-Shia.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

I don't think that's a good analogy because France wasn't having a
civil war concurrent with WWII (like the Russians during WWI).

So if you apply it only to the Sunni population then you get:
if we apply my figures above (actually my original figures
were taken from Shoenbrunners Soldiers of the Night on the French
Resistance) - then we see, 481,000 Sunni hardcore fighters and
3.32 million Sunni resistants. It's still a trainwreck.

[blazing laser]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:06:45 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The problem with labeling someone a 'terrorist' is that people
(epecially administration people) tend to use the word very loosely.

Not at all. Murtha knows the difference between Al Qaeda and an
Iraqi insurgent.

I wasn't suggesting he couldn't tell the difference (though it's sure
hard for Rummy and Cheney and Gonzales!) Just suggesting that when we
use terms like that we have to agree on the definition for the
discussion to be meaningful. Many terms in political discussions are
deliberately kept vague, like 'family values'.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The people fighting our occupation of Iraq, the spokesmen of the
administration have called them various things at various different
stages of the occupation. At different points they were the remains
of Saddam's army, 'dead-enders' who didn't understand that Saddam
wasn't coming back, foreign troublemakers sneaking across a porous
border (porous because we didn't have the force to seal it!),
'terrorists', etc. etc.

7% of the resistance are the people you lable above as foreign
troublemakers.

That sounds about right. If so, though, it means that if you
eliminate the foreign troublemakers it won't make much difference.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
When we bomb a village and kill a bunch of people, they have someone
count the bodies and issue a press release that we've killed x-number
of terrorists. So there's another definition--'victim'.

No argument, but I am not sure where you are going with this.

Just pointing out another definition of 'terrorist'. In the news we
hear 'US forces swept a village today and killed 15 terrorists.' What
makes them 'terrorists' is only that we killed them.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
So if Murtha said that 7% of the insurgents are terrorists, I'd have
to ask him first of all what he means by that term. What make an
insurgent a terrorist? Better yet, how could someone be an insurgent
and -not- be a terrorist?

Someone who doesn't care about blowing up or killing Sunnis or
Shias and is not from Iraq, and has a different agenda to
Iraqi pro-Sunni or pro-Shia.

Wait a minute! If a disaffected Iraqi Sunni does a suicide bombing
and kills civilians, is he not a terrorist?

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

I don't think that's a good analogy because France wasn't having a
civil war concurrent with WWII (like the Russians during WWI).

if we apply my figures above (actually my original figures
were taken from Shoenbrunners Soldiers of the Night on the French
Resistance) - then we see, 481,000 Sunni hardcore fighters and
3.32 million Sunni resistants. It's still a trainwreck.

Well we agree on the trainwreck part. 8^)

[Wanderer]

Post by blazing laser
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:06:45 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The problem with labeling someone a 'terrorist' is that people
(epecially administration people) tend to use the word very loosely.

Not at all. Murtha knows the difference between Al Qaeda and an
Iraqi insurgent.

I wasn't suggesting he couldn't tell the difference (though it's sure
hard for Rummy and Cheney and Gonzales!) Just suggesting that when we
use terms like that we have to agree on the definition for the
discussion to be meaningful. Many terms in political discussions are
deliberately kept vague, like 'family values'.

The definitions are surely in the dictionary and in old and
established use by the military and security organizations?

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The people fighting our occupation of Iraq, the spokesmen of the
administration have called them various things at various different
stages of the occupation. At different points they were the remains
of Saddam's army, 'dead-enders' who didn't understand that Saddam
wasn't coming back, foreign troublemakers sneaking across a porous
border (porous because we didn't have the force to seal it!),
'terrorists', etc. etc.

7% of the resistance are the people you lable above as foreign
troublemakers.

That sounds about right. If so, though, it means that if you
eliminate the foreign troublemakers it won't make much difference.

It means too, that the majority of the attacks are coming
from Iraqis who are one or more of:
1) Iraqi nationalist patriots.
2) Iraqi Sunni patriots (purely in support of their group).
3) Iraqi Shia patriots (ditto).

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
When we bomb a village and kill a bunch of people, they have someone
count the bodies and issue a press release that we've killed x-number
of terrorists. So there's another definition--'victim'.

No argument, but I am not sure where you are going with this.

Just pointing out another definition of 'terrorist'. In the news we
hear 'US forces swept a village today and killed 15 terrorists.' What
makes them 'terrorists' is only that we killed them.

Military throughout the world have been doing that for quite some
time, it's a great catchall to explain away a smouldering village
littered with dead bodies of men, women and children.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
So if Murtha said that 7% of the insurgents are terrorists, I'd have
to ask him first of all what he means by that term. What make an
insurgent a terrorist? Better yet, how could someone be an insurgent
and -not- be a terrorist?

Someone who doesn't care about blowing up or killing Sunnis or
Shias and is not from Iraq, and has a different agenda to
Iraqi pro-Sunni or pro-Shia.

Wait a minute! If a disaffected Iraqi Sunni does a suicide bombing
and kills civilians, is he not a terrorist?

He's doing exactly what the Germans, Russians and Allies did during
WWII and since, bombing civilian and military targets in the name of
his cause. Since he doesn't have an airforce any more, that's his/her
alternative. So it really is a civil war. The media are not giving
us the real picture by showing us a score and a running tally of all the
bombings,e.g.
Sunni Dead and wounded: 22 (Total 12,810)
Shia Dead and wounded: 91 (Total 43,212)

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

I don't think that's a good analogy because France wasn't having a
civil war concurrent with WWII (like the Russians during WWI).

if we apply my figures above (actually my original figures
were taken from Shoenbrunners Soldiers of the Night on the French
Resistance) - then we see, 481,000 Sunni hardcore fighters and
3.32 million Sunni resistants. It's still a trainwreck.

Well we agree on the trainwreck part. 8^)

[blazing laser]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:32:48 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
I wasn't suggesting he couldn't tell the difference (though it's sure
hard for Rummy and Cheney and Gonzales!) Just suggesting that when we
use terms like that we have to agree on the definition for the
discussion to be meaningful. Many terms in political discussions are
deliberately kept vague, like 'family values'.

The definitions are surely in the dictionary and in old and
established use by the military and security organizations?

Not exactly. In politics terms are chosen for their usefulness, often
as much to hide meaning as to communicate meaning.

The term 'weapons of mass destruction', for instance. We all think we
know what it means, but look at the way politicians use it and you'll
see it's like a jazz riff, a rhetorical embellishment that is used
mostly only to evoke an emotion. After 9/11 I heard GOP leaders
calling -airplanes- WMD. The whole concept of WMD was created for the
purpose of justifying military action against countries that didn't
(yet) have nukes.

Terrorism used to mean military action directed against a civilian
population. It wasn't just violence inflicted by rag-tag guerrillas
but also by nations and armies. But the violence the US armed forces
does against civilian populations is NEVER called terrorism. And just
about any kind of activism against US imperialism or corporatism is
usually called terrorism. The woman who climbed a redwood tree in
California and lived in it for months or years, was called a
'terrorist'.

The insurgents in Iraq--well, now they're not even supposed to be
called that. They were called terrorists for a long time, whether
their violent actions were directed against American occupation forces
or Iraqi collaborators or civilians. Anyone who dissents can be
called a terrorist.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
7% of the resistance are the people you lable above as foreign
troublemakers.

That sounds about right. If so, though, it means that if you
eliminate the foreign troublemakers it won't make much difference.

It means too, that the majority of the attacks are coming
1) Iraqi nationalist patriots.
2) Iraqi Sunni patriots (purely in support of their group).
3) Iraqi Shia patriots (ditto).

I don't even know if 'patriots' is a good name, since they don't feel
they owe allegiance to a country. How many of them are actually
'nationalistic'? And how many are fighting for their own group? I'd
guess more of the latter. Other than that, I agree.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Just pointing out another definition of 'terrorist'. In the news we
hear 'US forces swept a village today and killed 15 terrorists.' What
makes them 'terrorists' is only that we killed them.

Military throughout the world have been doing that for quite some
time, it's a great catchall to explain away a smouldering village
littered with dead bodies of men, women and children.

Exactly. In Vietnam we'd hear 'US forces killed 150 communists
today'. In Afghanistan it was '150 Al Quaeda and Taliban'--as if the
people we killed must have been one or the other, who cares which?

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Wait a minute! If a disaffected Iraqi Sunni does a suicide bombing
and kills civilians, is he not a terrorist?

He's doing exactly what the Germans, Russians and Allies did during
WWII and since, bombing civilian and military targets in the name of
his cause. Since he doesn't have an airforce any more, that's his/her
alternative. So it really is a civil war. The media are not giving
us the real picture by showing us a score and a running tally of all the
bombings,e.g.
Sunni Dead and wounded: 22 (Total 12,810)
Shia Dead and wounded: 91 (Total 43,212)

It's three things all happening in the place. A civil war, yes. Also
a popular uprising against a new government most Iraqis see as
illegitimate. Also an insurgency against a foreign occupation.

Under the circumstances it's not easy to figure out who is killing who
and why. For instance when a bomb goes off in front of a police
station, is that Sunnis trying to kill Shia policemen? Or insurgents
trying to kill collaborators?

Running totals would be interesting but they're not really useful.
More useful is the fact that it's still going on. Every day there's a
bombing is one more day that we obviously don't have the situation
under control. When Rumsfeld said the insurgency was 'in its last
throes' what he was really trying to say was 'Hey, it doesn't matter
how many people were killed this week because it will soon be over, so
don't think about it.'

But I think by definition a suicide bomber who targets civilians is
fairly called a terrorist.

[Wanderer]

Post by blazing laser
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:32:48 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
I wasn't suggesting he couldn't tell the difference (though it's sure
hard for Rummy and Cheney and Gonzales!) Just suggesting that when we
use terms like that we have to agree on the definition for the
discussion to be meaningful. Many terms in political discussions are
deliberately kept vague, like 'family values'.

The definitions are surely in the dictionary and in old and
established use by the military and security organizations?

Not exactly. In politics terms are chosen for their usefulness, often
as much to hide meaning as to communicate meaning.

Well they are the terms I use to judge a situation and I am quite
familiar with all the techniques of disinformation, 'newspeak'
and the tricks used very effectively by Sefton Delmer during
WWII.

Post by blazing laser
The term 'weapons of mass destruction', for instance. We all think we
know what it means, but look at the way politicians use it and you'll
see it's like a jazz riff, a rhetorical embellishment that is used
mostly only to evoke an emotion. After 9/11 I heard GOP leaders
calling -airplanes- WMD. The whole concept of WMD was created for the
purpose of justifying military action against countries that didn't
(yet) have nukes.

Word games designed for digestion by the ignorant.

Post by blazing laser
Terrorism used to mean military action directed against a civilian
population.

The Germans used during WWII to describe resistance actions
by the Maquis.

It wasn't just violence inflicted by rag-tag guerrillas

Post by blazing laser
but also by nations and armies. But the violence the US armed forces
does against civilian populations is NEVER called terrorism. And just
about any kind of activism against US imperialism or corporatism is
usually called terrorism. The woman who climbed a redwood tree in
California and lived in it for months or years, was called a
'terrorist'.

Inflammatory term for influencing the ignorant.

Post by blazing laser
The insurgents in Iraq--well, now they're not even supposed to be
called that. They were called terrorists for a long time, whether
their violent actions were directed against American occupation forces
or Iraqi collaborators or civilians. Anyone who dissents can be
called a terrorist.

Doesn't mean that those aren't ignorant will accept it.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
7% of the resistance are the people you lable above as foreign
troublemakers.

That sounds about right. If so, though, it means that if you
eliminate the foreign troublemakers it won't make much difference.

It means too, that the majority of the attacks are coming
1) Iraqi nationalist patriots.
2) Iraqi Sunni patriots (purely in support of their group).
3) Iraqi Shia patriots (ditto).

I don't even know if 'patriots' is a good name, since they don't feel
they owe allegiance to a country.

You are wrong. They have a strong sense of national identity.
Many of these groups still have the Iraqi flag flying.

How many of them are actually

Post by blazing laser
'nationalistic'? And how many are fighting for their own group? I'd
guess more of the latter. Other than that, I agree.

Well if was only the Sunni and the French 5% extrapolation was
accurate then that would make 480k+ hard core resistants with
millions in the potential pool.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Just pointing out another definition of 'terrorist'. In the news we
hear 'US forces swept a village today and killed 15 terrorists.' What
makes them 'terrorists' is only that we killed them.

Military throughout the world have been doing that for quite some
time, it's a great catchall to explain away a smouldering village
littered with dead bodies of men, women and children.

Exactly. In Vietnam we'd hear 'US forces killed 150 communists
today'. In Afghanistan it was '150 Al Quaeda and Taliban'--as if the
people we killed must have been one or the other, who cares which?

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Wait a minute! If a disaffected Iraqi Sunni does a suicide bombing
and kills civilians, is he not a terrorist?

He's doing exactly what the Germans, Russians and Allies did during
WWII and since, bombing civilian and military targets in the name of
his cause. Since he doesn't have an airforce any more, that's his/her
alternative. So it really is a civil war. The media are not giving
us the real picture by showing us a score and a running tally of all the
bombings,e.g.
Sunni Dead and wounded: 22 (Total 12,810)
Shia Dead and wounded: 91 (Total 43,212)

It's three things all happening in the place. A civil war, yes. Also
a popular uprising against a new government most Iraqis see as
illegitimate. Also an insurgency against a foreign occupation.
Under the circumstances it's not easy to figure out who is killing who
and why.

No, the people on the ground and the journalists know.


For instance when a bomb goes off in front of a police

Post by blazing laser
station, is that Sunnis trying to kill Shia policemen?

Pretty much.

Or insurgents

Post by blazing laser
trying to kill collaborators?

A fine distinction lost on the 2 collaborators blown
to bits with 54 Shia Iraqi policemen.

Post by blazing laser
Running totals would be interesting but they're not really useful.
More useful is the fact that it's still going on. Every day there's a
bombing is one more day that we obviously don't have the situation
under control. When Rumsfeld said the insurgency was 'in its last
throes' what he was really trying to say was 'Hey, it doesn't matter
how many people were killed this week because it will soon be over, so
don't think about it.'
But I think by definition a suicide bomber who targets civilians is
fairly called a terrorist.

So what is he if he targets military, police or infrastructure
and there is civilian collateral damage? Bomber Harris?

[blazing laser]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:56:47 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Not exactly. In politics terms are chosen for their usefulness, often
as much to hide meaning as to communicate meaning.

Well they are the terms I use to judge a situation and I am quite
familiar with all the techniques of disinformation, 'newspeak'
and the tricks used very effectively by Sefton Delmer during
WWII.

I'm mildly embarassed to say I never heard of him. But he didn't
invent the technique.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The term 'weapons of mass destruction', for instance. We all think we
know what it means, but look at the way politicians use it and you'll
see it's like a jazz riff, a rhetorical embellishment that is used
mostly only to evoke an emotion. After 9/11 I heard GOP leaders
calling -airplanes- WMD. The whole concept of WMD was created for the
purpose of justifying military action against countries that didn't
(yet) have nukes.

Word games designed for digestion by the ignorant.

Yes, and also to reinforce and reassure those who -want- to believe
it.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
I don't even know if 'patriots' is a good name, since they don't feel
they owe allegiance to a country.

You are wrong. They have a strong sense of national identity.
Many of these groups still have the Iraqi flag flying.

How can I be wrong when I say 'I don't know'? 8^) You mean I DO
know?

I just have my doubts, that's all. I hear many different views and
I'm not in a position to know whom to trust.

I tend to think they have all temporarily joined together against the
foreign oppressors. When the oppressors are gone they'll go back to
murdering each other as they've done for centuries. 8^) And the only
reason I think that is that it seems the most reasonable thing to
think. I could be completely wrong about it.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Under the circumstances it's not easy to figure out who is killing who
and why.

No, the people on the ground and the journalists know.

The Iraqis know, and I bet our military intelligence knows, but
journalists in this war are like mushrooms--kept in the dark and fed a
diet of manure.

Post by Wanderer
For instance when a bomb goes off in front of a police

Post by blazing laser
station, is that Sunnis trying to kill Shia policemen?

Pretty much.
Or insurgents

Post by blazing laser
trying to kill collaborators?

A fine distinction lost on the 2 collaborators blown
to bits with 54 Shia Iraqi policemen.

My point was that the Shia policemen are seen as collaborators.

If someone bombs Shia policemen their motivation could be:

1. Sunni and anti-Shia
2. Anti-US and anti-collaborator
3. Anti rule-of-law (e.g. wanting freedom to commit crimes).
4. (Stretching a bit) Terrorists from outside Iraq wanting to kill
Iraqis in authority, and newly-recruited police are the worst
protected.

The officials of our benighted administration will tell us whatever
serves their story in a given month. Last month it was 'insurgents'.
Now it's 'enemies of the legitimately elected government of Iraq'.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Running totals would be interesting but they're not really useful.
More useful is the fact that it's still going on. Every day there's a
bombing is one more day that we obviously don't have the situation
under control. When Rumsfeld said the insurgency was 'in its last
throes' what he was really trying to say was 'Hey, it doesn't matter
how many people were killed this week because it will soon be over, so
don't think about it.'
But I think by definition a suicide bomber who targets civilians is
fairly called a terrorist.

So what is he if he targets military, police or infrastructure
and there is civilian collateral damage? Bomber Harris?

Then he's not a terrorist in the strict definition. IMHO terrorism,
by definition, means targetting civilians for purposes of
demoralization. Like 9/11 or Flight 103. Or Dresden.

[Wanderer]

Post by blazing laser
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:56:47 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Not exactly. In politics terms are chosen for their usefulness, often
as much to hide meaning as to communicate meaning.

Well they are the terms I use to judge a situation and I am quite
familiar with all the techniques of disinformation, 'newspeak'
and the tricks used very effectively by Sefton Delmer during
WWII.

I'm mildly embarassed to say I never heard of him. But he didn't
invent the technique.

No, the techniques have been around forever, but he took it
up a notch. You can read Trial Sinister, Black Boomerang and
The Counterfeit Spy for a glimpse of British Black Ops
against the Nazis during WWII.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The term 'weapons of mass destruction', for instance. We all think we
know what it means, but look at the way politicians use it and you'll
see it's like a jazz riff, a rhetorical embellishment that is used
mostly only to evoke an emotion. After 9/11 I heard GOP leaders
calling -airplanes- WMD. The whole concept of WMD was created for the
purpose of justifying military action against countries that didn't
(yet) have nukes.

Word games designed for digestion by the ignorant.

Yes, and also to reinforce and reassure those who -want- to believe
it.

It's very disturbing in this day and age in a country like
America with all the modern technology at our disposal to
be using a term like 'ignorant'. I had hoped the 'dumbing down'
of the population was overstated rhetoric, but I am starting
to have my doubts.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
I don't even know if 'patriots' is a good name, since they don't feel
they owe allegiance to a country.

You are wrong. They have a strong sense of national identity.
Many of these groups still have the Iraqi flag flying.

How can I be wrong when I say 'I don't know'? 8^) You mean I DO
know?

You said '..since they don't feel they owe allegiance to a country'.
That's what I was responding to. That said, note that the people
who have taken the western aid workers hostage asked for the release
of ALL Iraqi prisoners in Iraq. No distinction between Kurd, Shia
or Sunni, so clearly nationalist in tone.

Post by blazing laser
I just have my doubts, that's all. I hear many different views and
I'm not in a position to know whom to trust.
I tend to think they have all temporarily joined together against the
foreign oppressors. When the oppressors are gone they'll go back to
murdering each other as they've done for centuries. 8^) And the only
reason I think that is that it seems the most reasonable thing to
think. I could be completely wrong about it.

Well, you may or may not remember the cartoon in Time magazine
after the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan: It depicted two different
Mujahedeen fighters both shooting a Russian soldier and then
opening fire on each other over the Russians body. Thing is though,
that situation allowed the Taliban to create their version of
Butch Cassidy's Hole in the Wall.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Under the circumstances it's not easy to figure out who is killing who
and why.

No, the people on the ground and the journalists know.

The Iraqis know, and I bet our military intelligence knows, but
journalists in this war are like mushrooms--kept in the dark and fed a
diet of manure.

As divorce attorney's say, "There's his story, her story, and then
there's the truth".

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
For instance when a bomb goes off in front of a police

Post by blazing laser
station, is that Sunnis trying to kill Shia policemen?

Pretty much.
Or insurgents

Post by blazing laser
trying to kill collaborators?

A fine distinction lost on the 2 collaborators blown
to bits with 54 Shia Iraqi policemen.

My point was that the Shia policemen are seen as collaborators.
1. Sunni and anti-Shia
2. Anti-US and anti-collaborator
3. Anti rule-of-law (e.g. wanting freedom to commit crimes).
4. (Stretching a bit) Terrorists from outside Iraq wanting to kill
Iraqis in authority, and newly-recruited police are the worst
protected.
The officials of our benighted administration will tell us whatever
serves their story in a given month. Last month it was 'insurgents'.
Now it's 'enemies of the legitimately elected government of Iraq'.

Murtha has apparently let the cat out of the bag by suggesting the
bill for next year's Iraq will be $100bn - the administration never
mentioned that in their brochure...

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Running totals would be interesting but they're not really useful.
More useful is the fact that it's still going on. Every day there's a
bombing is one more day that we obviously don't have the situation
under control. When Rumsfeld said the insurgency was 'in its last
throes' what he was really trying to say was 'Hey, it doesn't matter
how many people were killed this week because it will soon be over, so
don't think about it.'
But I think by definition a suicide bomber who targets civilians is
fairly called a terrorist.

So what is he if he targets military, police or infrastructure
and there is civilian collateral damage? Bomber Harris?

Then he's not a terrorist in the strict definition. IMHO terrorism,
by definition, means targetting civilians for purposes of
demoralization. Like 9/11 or Flight 103. Or Dresden.

Killing innocent civilians is detestable even when done accidentally.
Only the winners make the definitions, I suppose.

[blazing laser]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:20:07 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
I'm mildly embarassed to say I never heard of him. But he didn't
invent the technique.

No, the techniques have been around forever, but he took it
up a notch. You can read Trial Sinister, Black Boomerang and
The Counterfeit Spy for a glimpse of British Black Ops
against the Nazis during WWII.

The more I read the more I realize that atrocities and war crimes
happen in -every- war, and on both sides.

But usually people lie about it, try to hide it, try to pretend it was
just the other side that did it. I don't remember it ever being done
quite so openly before, so arrogantly. The Bush admin's attitude in
this, as in most things, seems to be "Yeah? So what? Who's gonna
stop us?"

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
Word games designed for digestion by the ignorant.

Yes, and also to reinforce and reassure those who -want- to believe
it.

It's very disturbing in this day and age in a country like
America with all the modern technology at our disposal to
be using a term like 'ignorant'. I had hoped the 'dumbing down'
of the population was overstated rhetoric, but I am starting
to have my doubts.

There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. The difference
is that ignorance can be corrected. But in this case 'ignorance'
doesn't mean that people don't know anything, it means that they know
it and -ignore- it. This is an effect of who controls the
conversation, who decides the terms used to discuss the issues, etc.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
You are wrong. They have a strong sense of national identity.
Many of these groups still have the Iraqi flag flying.

How can I be wrong when I say 'I don't know'? 8^) You mean I DO
know?

You said '..since they don't feel they owe allegiance to a country'.
That's what I was responding to. That said, note that the people
who have taken the western aid workers hostage asked for the release
of ALL Iraqi prisoners in Iraq. No distinction between Kurd, Shia
or Sunni, so clearly nationalist in tone.

Interesting! Well you make a good point. I can't say I dsagree with
you, only that I have my doubts.

Post by Wanderer
Well, you may or may not remember the cartoon in Time magazine
after the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan: It depicted two different
Mujahedeen fighters both shooting a Russian soldier and then
opening fire on each other over the Russians body. Thing is though,
that situation allowed the Taliban to create their version of
Butch Cassidy's Hole in the Wall.

We did the same thing--working with the Mujahadeed to get Russia out,
cooperating with them when they became the Taliban, then working to
throw them out.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The Iraqis know, and I bet our military intelligence knows, but
journalists in this war are like mushrooms--kept in the dark and fed a
diet of manure.

As divorce attorney's say, "There's his story, her story, and then
there's the truth".

At least a divorce has only two sides, and an attorney or judge has a
chance to listen to both sides and get some balance. In Iraq or
Afghanistan, I think nearly all the news we get is controlled. And
what sneaks through the censors is also suspect.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The officials of our benighted administration will tell us whatever
serves their story in a given month. Last month it was 'insurgents'.
Now it's 'enemies of the legitimately elected government of Iraq'.

Murtha has apparently let the cat out of the bag by suggesting the
bill for next year's Iraq will be $100bn - the administration never
mentioned that in their brochure...

They always de-emphasize the budget, of course. They don't put the
war in the big annual budget, they pass a supplemental bill in the
middle of the night on a day when some other big news happens.

Remember when we were told the entire war and reconstruction would be
paid for by Iraqi oil? Then some clown from the admin. showed up on TV
saying the entire reconstruction would cost $1.7 billion. If it cost
more than that, he said, tough, we would only pay $1.7 billion.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Then he's not a terrorist in the strict definition. IMHO terrorism,
by definition, means targetting civilians for purposes of
demoralization. Like 9/11 or Flight 103. Or Dresden.

Killing innocent civilians is detestable even when done accidentally.
Only the winners make the definitions, I suppose.

Like I say, we've defined it to be something -we- don't do. Like
torture. If Iraqis or the Taliban treated captured Americans like we
treat our prisoners, it would be a huge outrage in the American media.

Like Noam Chomsky says, a massive terror attack like 9/11 is not
unusual in the last 100 years or so. What's unusual is (1) it
happening -here-, and (2) terrorism on that scale of destruction is
usually not done by ragtag guerrillas but by powerful governments.

[Wanderer]

Post by blazing laser
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:20:07 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
I'm mildly embarassed to say I never heard of him. But he didn't
invent the technique.

No, the techniques have been around forever, but he took it
up a notch. You can read Trial Sinister, Black Boomerang and
The Counterfeit Spy for a glimpse of British Black Ops
against the Nazis during WWII.

The more I read the more I realize that atrocities and war crimes
happen in -every- war, and on both sides.
But usually people lie about it, try to hide it, try to pretend it was
just the other side that did it. I don't remember it ever being done
quite so openly before, so arrogantly. The Bush admin's attitude in
this, as in most things, seems to be "Yeah? So what? Who's gonna
stop us?"

Plainly based on the thought they they control the Presidency,
Congress and Senate, and no real sign that they may lose those
for another 3 years, only speculation.

Everyone should have realised that they weren't being entirely
straight when they abandoned a cornerstone of the 'contract with
America' to have term limits. Now we hear things like Tom Delay
wanted a permanent GOP majority in Texas by means of redistricting
and gerrymandering. That shows how closely he is attached to
democratic principles and understands that periodic change in government
and ideas is good. Otherwise you just become an entrenched, corrupt
dictatorship.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
Word games designed for digestion by the ignorant.

Yes, and also to reinforce and reassure those who -want- to believe
it.

It's very disturbing in this day and age in a country like
America with all the modern technology at our disposal to
be using a term like 'ignorant'. I had hoped the 'dumbing down'
of the population was overstated rhetoric, but I am starting
to have my doubts.

There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. The difference
is that ignorance can be corrected. But in this case 'ignorance'
doesn't mean that people don't know anything, it means that they know
it and -ignore- it. This is an effect of who controls the
conversation, who decides the terms used to discuss the issues, etc.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer
You are wrong. They have a strong sense of national identity.
Many of these groups still have the Iraqi flag flying.

How can I be wrong when I say 'I don't know'? 8^) You mean I DO
know?

You said '..since they don't feel they owe allegiance to a country'.
That's what I was responding to. That said, note that the people
who have taken the western aid workers hostage asked for the release
of ALL Iraqi prisoners in Iraq. No distinction between Kurd, Shia
or Sunni, so clearly nationalist in tone.

Interesting! Well you make a good point. I can't say I dsagree with
you, only that I have my doubts.

Post by Wanderer
Well, you may or may not remember the cartoon in Time magazine
after the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan: It depicted two different
Mujahedeen fighters both shooting a Russian soldier and then
opening fire on each other over the Russians body. Thing is though,
that situation allowed the Taliban to create their version of
Butch Cassidy's Hole in the Wall.

We did the same thing--working with the Mujahadeed to get Russia out,
cooperating with them when they became the Taliban, then working to
throw them out.

Once again, no plan for the post-Russian scenario.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The Iraqis know, and I bet our military intelligence knows, but
journalists in this war are like mushrooms--kept in the dark and fed a
diet of manure.

As divorce attorney's say, "There's his story, her story, and then
there's the truth".

At least a divorce has only two sides, and an attorney or judge has a
chance to listen to both sides and get some balance. In Iraq or
Afghanistan, I think nearly all the news we get is controlled. And
what sneaks through the censors is also suspect.

You just have to read as much as you can on the internet, from
international news media and bloggers to try and make sense of
it.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
The officials of our benighted administration will tell us whatever
serves their story in a given month. Last month it was 'insurgents'.
Now it's 'enemies of the legitimately elected government of Iraq'.

Murtha has apparently let the cat out of the bag by suggesting the
bill for next year's Iraq will be $100bn - the administration never
mentioned that in their brochure...

They always de-emphasize the budget, of course. They don't put the
war in the big annual budget, they pass a supplemental bill in the
middle of the night on a day when some other big news happens.
Remember when we were told the entire war and reconstruction would be
paid for by Iraqi oil? Then some clown from the admin. showed up on TV
saying the entire reconstruction would cost $1.7 billion. If it cost
more than that, he said, tough, we would only pay $1.7 billion.

Lying about the case for war has been prevalent in the news, but
lying about the cost of it has been MIA so far.

Post by blazing laser

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Then he's not a terrorist in the strict definition. IMHO terrorism,
by definition, means targetting civilians for purposes of
demoralization. Like 9/11 or Flight 103. Or Dresden.

Killing innocent civilians is detestable even when done accidentally.
Only the winners make the definitions, I suppose.

Like I say, we've defined it to be something -we- don't do. Like
torture. If Iraqis or the Taliban treated captured Americans like we
treat our prisoners, it would be a huge outrage in the American media.

Well, you have to wonder whether there is a thought that to treat
prisoners badly would provoke atrocities against American(or other)
prisoners and hence enrage public opinion against the Iraqi insurgents
or people. I don't think the Neocons are above that.

Post by blazing laser
Like Noam Chomsky says, a massive terror attack like 9/11 is not
unusual in the last 100 years or so. What's unusual is (1) it
happening -here-, and (2) terrorism on that scale of destruction is
usually not done by ragtag guerrillas but by powerful governments.

Some time ago, there was an article in the satirical magazine, The Onion
which mocked Iran (or one of the Arab states) weapons capability with
the headline "Iran has the car bomb!". Sadly, the truth of the matter
is, that multiple car bombs as suicide attacks can be hugely
demoralizing, especially to soldiers who are used to order and
method. When they are unable to use the systems, methods and MO
that they are trained in and have to venture into unknown
territory, it's a big adjustment, especially under fire.

[blazing laser]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:26:22 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
But usually people lie about it, try to hide it, try to pretend it was
just the other side that did it. I don't remember it ever being done
quite so openly before, so arrogantly. The Bush admin's attitude in
this, as in most things, seems to be "Yeah? So what? Who's gonna
stop us?"

Plainly based on the thought they they control the Presidency,
Congress and Senate, and no real sign that they may lose those
for another 3 years, only speculation.

I think it also has a lot to do with the planning and intellectual
control being given over to a bunch of inexperienced ideologues.
People like Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith. For some reason, government
is one of those things that everyone thinks looks easy. They see
politicians failing and think they could do better themselves. And
our problem (the American people) is that we believe them. Arnold
Schwartzenegger is another good example of this.

Post by Wanderer
Everyone should have realised that they weren't being entirely
straight when they abandoned a cornerstone of the 'contract with
America' to have term limits. Now we hear things like Tom Delay
wanted a permanent GOP majority in Texas by means of redistricting
and gerrymandering. That shows how closely he is attached to
democratic principles and understands that periodic change in government
and ideas is good. Otherwise you just become an entrenched, corrupt
dictatorship.

A big part of the Republican long-term plan is to get people to hate
government, to believe that government is bad somehow, that it can't
work. A party that pushes this philosophy, when they get into power,
they have no incentive to make it work! The term limits movement was
just an expression of anti-incumbency against the Democrats. When the
Repubs took over, they forgot all about term limits.

Also I think Delay's career shows how Christians who support the GOP
because they think it will further Christian values have really made a
faustian bargain. The GOP really worships Mammon!

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
We did the same thing--working with the Mujahadeed to get Russia out,
cooperating with them when they became the Taliban, then working to
throw them out.

Once again, no plan for the post-Russian scenario.

Well I think we had a plan but it went awry. We didn't want the
Russians to control it, we wanted a right-wing dictatorship there that
would play ball with us. The Taliban was perfect. When they no
longer served, we came up with a justification to go in and throw them
out and put in another puppet government. We built our permanent
bases along the planned route of the pipeline, declared victory, and
left. That's more or less analogous to what we're doing in Iraq. I
think there may be a nasty revolution brewing in Saudi Arabia, in
which case we will do it all again, bringing 'democracy' to the
largest oil supplier, along with a US-controlled government.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
At least a divorce has only two sides, and an attorney or judge has a
chance to listen to both sides and get some balance. In Iraq or
Afghanistan, I think nearly all the news we get is controlled. And
what sneaks through the censors is also suspect.

You just have to read as much as you can on the internet, from
international news media and bloggers to try and make sense of
it.

Yes, thank God for the Internet. But you know, there's no way to tell
who to trust. During the Viet Nam war there were many little
propaganda newspapers that sprung up with alternate views. I used to
go to protest rallies and collect them. Some were really crazy,
others seemed more trustworthy just in the way they were written. I
had a college professor who swore the US anti-war movement was
controlled and sponsored by Beijing, which I thought was just stupid.
But 'Astroturf', i.e. phoney grass roots, is not uncommon, and it's
easy to do by anyone who has a little money and some time. So I had
my suspicions of anything that sounded too wild.

These days it's all on the Internet. I figure the real story is
somewhere between the official Bush Admin. version and the most
virulent anti-US versions. Even so, that's pretty bad.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Remember when we were told the entire war and reconstruction would be
paid for by Iraqi oil? Then some clown from the admin. showed up on TV
saying the entire reconstruction would cost $1.7 billion. If it cost
more than that, he said, tough, we would only pay $1.7 billion.

Lying about the case for war has been prevalent in the news, but
lying about the cost of it has been MIA so far.

Yes, well we won't know the -total- cost for years. The admin. is
doing all they can to hide the -real- budget. Plus it's all being
borrowed so we'll pay interest for 30 or 40 years. Plus there's the
cost afterwards of replacing all the stuff we ruined and rebuilding
the armed forces. Much of the double-digit inflation of the late 70s
was a direct result of the Viet Nam war. Ironically it was that
inflationary period that helped Reagan come to power.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Like I say, we've defined it to be something -we- don't do. Like
torture. If Iraqis or the Taliban treated captured Americans like we
treat our prisoners, it would be a huge outrage in the American media.

Well, you have to wonder whether there is a thought that to treat
prisoners badly would provoke atrocities against American(or other)
prisoners and hence enrage public opinion against the Iraqi insurgents
or people. I don't think the Neocons are above that.

Certainly not. They don't really have a lot of respect for the
American people. But it turns out we've been operating secret prisons
and torturing prisoners for a long time, we just managed to keep it
secret. The Bush admin. is very secretive about a lot of things but
when it comes to treatment of prisoners they don't even feel it's
necessary to keep it secret. Their attitude is 'We have the right to
do this because we're the Good Guys'. Conservatives love it.

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
Like Noam Chomsky says, a massive terror attack like 9/11 is not
unusual in the last 100 years or so. What's unusual is (1) it
happening -here-, and (2) terrorism on that scale of destruction is
usually not done by ragtag guerrillas but by powerful governments.

Some time ago, there was an article in the satirical magazine, The Onion
which mocked Iran (or one of the Arab states) weapons capability with
the headline "Iran has the car bomb!". Sadly, the truth of the matter
is, that multiple car bombs as suicide attacks can be hugely
demoralizing, especially to soldiers who are used to order and
method. When they are unable to use the systems, methods and MO
that they are trained in and have to venture into unknown
territory, it's a big adjustment, especially under fire.

We were supposed to have learned this in Vietnam. We were propping up
a corrupt dictator, fighting another country's civil war, and it was a
guerrilla war where we couldn't tell the good guys from the bad guys.
We had every -military- advantage but we still couldn't make progress.
We ended up just doing as much damage as we could--wiping out whole
villages, for instance, if it was suspected they were hiding some of
our enemies.

The cabal running the White House didn't learn this lesson. They
really thought a show of greatly superior force would cow the Iraqis
into sitting back and letting us just take over the country. And as
the war dragged on and on, it became more and more clear that they
never planned for any real resistance. This is in keeping with the
new GOP motto: "Who's gonna stop us?"

[Dag]

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

Just to expand on the comparison a little, by the end of 1945 that
insurgency had completely evaporated. I wonder why?

dag

[Wanderer]

Post by Dag

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.
To take an historical example: France at the end of 1942,
it was estimated that 5% of the population had left home
and family to join, in one form or another, the French
resistance, Liberation, Combat, Franc-Tireur or the Maquis.
In Iraq's case that would translate to 1.3 million insurgents
or resistants. It was also estaimated in France that 40%
of the population would do things to screw the Nazis one way
or another. That would be 10.4 million in Iraq's case.
No wonder Murtha wants out.

Just to expand on the comparison a little, by the end of 1945 that
insurgency had completely evaporated. I wonder why?

Because the Allies had invaded and taken France back for the French by
the end of 1944??

[penny]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

According to The Guardian , terrorists make up only about 4 to 10
percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents. Foreign fighters are not
the backbone of the insurgency as BushCo would have us believe. Check
out the following :
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

Penny

[Belfry M~ö~~ö~nbats]

Post by blazing laser
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

Technically OBL is an insurgent...there are insurgents in
Iraq. Pretty clear to me Saddam bombed the WTC by all
by himself...he was the 20th hijacker ;)

[Wanderer]

Post by Belfry M~ö~~ö~nbats

Post by blazing laser
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

Technically OBL is an insurgent...there are insurgents in
Iraq. Pretty clear to me Saddam bombed the WTC by all
by himself...he was the 20th hijacker ;)

Remove the content and minimize it. Nice trick.
Your statement that OBL is an insurgent is false and shows
ignorance. Bottom line is that even if only the Sunnis
are restiting, then you still have:
if we apply my figures above (actually my original figures
were taken from Shoenbrunners Soldiers of the Night on the French
Resistance) - then we see, 481,000 Sunni hardcore fighters and
3.32 million Sunni resistants. It's still a trainwreck.

[Wanderer]

Post by blazing laser
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

According to The Guardian , terrorists make up only about 4 to 10
percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

Who estimated that number and what did they base their figures on?
Who knows how many members are in Al Qaeda?

Foreign fighters are not

Post by blazing laser
the backbone of the insurgency as BushCo would have us believe. Check
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

I believe that's precisely what I said.

[penny]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:16:58 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

According to The Guardian , terrorists make up only about 4 to 10
percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

Who estimated that number and what did they base their figures on?
Who knows how many members are in Al Qaeda?
Foreign fighters are not

Post by blazing laser
the backbone of the insurgency as BushCo would have us believe. Check
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

I believe that's precisely what I said.

It was worth repeating. :-)

Penny

[Wanderer]

Post by penny
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:16:58 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by blazing laser
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

According to The Guardian , terrorists make up only about 4 to 10
percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

Who estimated that number and what did they base their figures on?
Who knows how many members are in Al Qaeda?
Foreign fighters are not

Post by blazing laser
the backbone of the insurgency as BushCo would have us believe. Check
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

I believe that's precisely what I said.

It was worth repeating. :-)

Fair enough!

[Steve Hayes]

Post by blazing laser
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

According to The Guardian , terrorists make up only about 4 to 10
percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents. Foreign fighters are not
the backbone of the insurgency as BushCo would have us believe. Check

How do they know?

The other 90-96% could easily become terrorists if they commit acts of
terror. Invaders and occupiers tend to view most acts of resistance as
"terrorism", whether they actually use terrorist methods or not, so
where does one draw the line?

[Wanderer]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by blazing laser
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:29:08 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer
Murtha stated today that only 7% of the insurgents are terrorists.
If that's so, that paints a pretty bleak picture of what's facing
the military.

According to The Guardian , terrorists make up only about 4 to 10
percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents. Foreign fighters are not
the backbone of the insurgency as BushCo would have us believe. Check

How do they know?
The other 90-96% could easily become terrorists if they commit acts of
terror. Invaders and occupiers tend to view most acts of resistance as
"terrorism", whether they actually use terrorist methods or not, so
where does one draw the line?

They don't know the number. My extrapolation to the French Resistance
in '42 is probably a more accurate guess - a minimum of 400k Sunnis
actively resisting and over 5mill prepared to passively resist the new
government and American coalition forces. This doesn't even begin to
take into account the Shias. Question is: Why would they treat the
Infidel USA any differently from the Infidel Russians in Afghanistan?
Because we're better, nicer..??

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:09:10 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
How do they know?
The other 90-96% could easily become terrorists if they commit acts of
terror. Invaders and occupiers tend to view most acts of resistance as
"terrorism", whether they actually use terrorist methods or not, so
where does one draw the line?

They don't know the number. My extrapolation to the French Resistance
in '42 is probably a more accurate guess - a minimum of 400k Sunnis
actively resisting and over 5mill prepared to passively resist the new
government and American coalition forces. This doesn't even begin to
take into account the Shias. Question is: Why would they treat the
Infidel USA any differently from the Infidel Russians in Afghanistan?
Because we're better, nicer..??

That's not the question, because the answer is obvious.

The question is what proportion of the resistance engage in terrorism.
As in other places, there are various factors to take into account.
It's usually easier to attack collaborators rather than attacking the
forces of the occupying power directly. Attacking collaborators is
less likely to bring repisals.

In Yugoslavia in 1941, when the resistance attacked the German
occupying forces, reprisals were immediate and harsh. Villages near
the attacks were decimated. Eventually the Chetniks (ryoalists) were
deterred by this. The Partisans under Tito were less squeamish.
Eventually this led to most of the military assistance from Britain
and allies going to the Partisans, since they were seen as a more
effective opposition to the Germans. In Iraq there is probably an
analgous distinction between Shia and Sunni as there was in Yugoslavia
between Chetniks and Partisans.

[Wanderer]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:09:10 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
How do they know?
The other 90-96% could easily become terrorists if they commit acts of
terror. Invaders and occupiers tend to view most acts of resistance as
"terrorism", whether they actually use terrorist methods or not, so
where does one draw the line?

They don't know the number. My extrapolation to the French Resistance
in '42 is probably a more accurate guess - a minimum of 400k Sunnis
actively resisting and over 5mill prepared to passively resist the new
government and American coalition forces. This doesn't even begin to
take into account the Shias. Question is: Why would they treat the
Infidel USA any differently from the Infidel Russians in Afghanistan?
Because we're better, nicer..??

That's not the question, because the answer is obvious.
The question is what proportion of the resistance engage in terrorism.

We only have history to extrapolate from at this point.
Since the Sunnis have fiercely resisted participation in
the new government, it's safe to assume that 5% may even be too
low. Still, 480k active and 5 million passive, is a major problem.

Post by Steve Hayes
As in other places, there are various factors to take into account.
It's usually easier to attack collaborators rather than attacking the
forces of the occupying power directly. Attacking collaborators is
less likely to bring repisals.

Well they're doing that too, and it only takes a 3 man team
consisting of a spotter, lookout and shooter with an RPG to
stop a major convoy dead in its tracks for an hour or more,
tying up roads and coalition forces (not to mention the effects
of IEDs). If you recall, 20k Boers tied up 180k British for
2 years before Kitchener burned all their families farms and
put them into concentration camps. I am suggesting that the
active part of the Iraqi resistance is 20x higher than the
Boer 'bitter einders'.

Post by Steve Hayes
In Yugoslavia in 1941, when the resistance attacked the German
occupying forces, reprisals were immediate and harsh. Villages near
the attacks were decimated.

We don't know that this is happening in Iraq at present.

Eventually the Chetniks (ryoalists) were

Post by Steve Hayes
deterred by this. The Partisans under Tito were less squeamish.
Eventually this led to most of the military assistance from Britain
and allies going to the Partisans, since they were seen as a more
effective opposition to the Germans. In Iraq there is probably an
analgous distinction between Shia and Sunni as there was in Yugoslavia
between Chetniks and Partisans.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:41:32 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
As in other places, there are various factors to take into account.
It's usually easier to attack collaborators rather than attacking the
forces of the occupying power directly. Attacking collaborators is
less likely to bring repisals.

Well they're doing that too, and it only takes a 3 man team
consisting of a spotter, lookout and shooter with an RPG to
stop a major convoy dead in its tracks for an hour or more,
tying up roads and coalition forces (not to mention the effects
of IEDs). If you recall, 20k Boers tied up 180k British for
2 years before Kitchener burned all their families farms and
put them into concentration camps. I am suggesting that the
active part of the Iraqi resistance is 20x higher than the
Boer 'bitter einders'.

That was one of the historical examples being bandied about before the
US invasion of Iraq, to try to point out the folloy of such a course
of action.

The Boers were less harsh on the hensoppers and National Scouts,
though. Their equivalent of the Sunni/Shia divide (three Dutch
Reformed Churches) didn't go quite as deep politically.

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
In Yugoslavia in 1941, when the resistance attacked the German
occupying forces, reprisals were immediate and harsh. Villages near
the attacks were decimated.

We don't know that this is happening in Iraq at present.

It has happened, though -- eg Fallujah. And so it could happen again.

[Wanderer]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:41:32 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
As in other places, there are various factors to take into account.
It's usually easier to attack collaborators rather than attacking the
forces of the occupying power directly. Attacking collaborators is
less likely to bring repisals.

Well they're doing that too, and it only takes a 3 man team
consisting of a spotter, lookout and shooter with an RPG to
stop a major convoy dead in its tracks for an hour or more,
tying up roads and coalition forces (not to mention the effects
of IEDs). If you recall, 20k Boers tied up 180k British for
2 years before Kitchener burned all their families farms and
put them into concentration camps. I am suggesting that the
active part of the Iraqi resistance is 20x higher than the
Boer 'bitter einders'.

That was one of the historical examples being bandied about before the
US invasion of Iraq, to try to point out the folloy of such a course
of action.
The Boers were less harsh on the hensoppers and National Scouts,
though. Their equivalent of the Sunni/Shia divide (three Dutch
Reformed Churches) didn't go quite as deep politically.

The reality is that American and coalition forces are faced with
a complex insurgency that contains nationalist and duelling tribal
forces, and which is further complicated by the presence of terrorists.

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
In Yugoslavia in 1941, when the resistance attacked the German
occupying forces, reprisals were immediate and harsh. Villages near
the attacks were decimated.

We don't know that this is happening in Iraq at present.

It has happened, though -- eg Fallujah. And so it could happen again.

You have evidence of pre-mediated 'decimation' in Fallujah?

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:43:42 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
In Yugoslavia in 1941, when the resistance attacked the German
occupying forces, reprisals were immediate and harsh. Villages near
the attacks were decimated.

We don't know that this is happening in Iraq at present.

It has happened, though -- eg Fallujah. And so it could happen again.

You have evidence of pre-mediated 'decimation' in Fallujah?

Well, I don't know if anyone was counting -- I believe it's policy NOT
to count. But the effect is much the same.

[Wanderer]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:43:42 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
In Yugoslavia in 1941, when the resistance attacked the German
occupying forces, reprisals were immediate and harsh. Villages near
the attacks were decimated.

We don't know that this is happening in Iraq at present.

It has happened, though -- eg Fallujah. And so it could happen again.

You have evidence of pre-mediated 'decimation' in Fallujah?

Well, I don't know if anyone was counting -- I believe it's policy NOT
to count. But the effect is much the same.

Steve, there's a BIG difference between pre-meditated decimation
(as the Italians carried out during their Abyssinian campaign)
and collateral damage. We all know that these insurgents or
the terrorists have no compunction in setting up a shooting
position in a house packed with women and kids and when that
gets taken out by an Abrams tank, then there is much wailing
and gnashing of teeth and the US/Coalition forces get all
the blame.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:10:38 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:43:42 -0500, Wanderer

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Wanderer

Post by Steve Hayes
In Yugoslavia in 1941, when the resistance attacked the German
occupying forces, reprisals were immediate and harsh. Villages near
the attacks were decimated.

We don't know that this is happening in Iraq at present.

It has happened, though -- eg Fallujah. And so it could happen again.

You have evidence of pre-mediated 'decimation' in Fallujah?

Well, I don't know if anyone was counting -- I believe it's policy NOT
to count. But the effect is much the same.

Steve, there's a BIG difference between pre-meditated decimation
(as the Italians carried out during their Abyssinian campaign)
and collateral damage. We all know that these insurgents or
the terrorists have no compunction in setting up a shooting
position in a house packed with women and kids and when that
gets taken out by an Abrams tank, then there is much wailing
and gnashing of teeth and the US/Coalition forces get all
the blame.

I disafree. There's a very minor difference that some killers believes
makes them morally superior to other killers.

A "big" difference would be if one set of victims was less dead than
the other.

[unknown]

... women and kids ...

Why do you support maiming and killing them
for no good reason whatsoever?

[unknown]

We need to know what your definition of "terrorist" is.

We need to know what your defiition of Canadian is.

NNTP-Posting-Host: group6.vcn.bc.ca

[Well Done]

Post by unknown

We need to know what your definition of "terrorist" is.

We need to know what your defiition of Canadian is.

A Canadian is a person who is a Canadian citizen.

We need to know what your definition of "terrorist" is.

We already know that lefty geeks think terrorists are "freedom
fighters". Kinda lets them out of any rational discussion.
Are you a lefty geek?
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)

[unknown]

We need to know what your definition of "terrorist" is.

Osama Bin Goldstein.

Read 1984.

[unknown]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:25:42 -0800, WShel Scott likes his Iraqi baby meat Well Done

...Still need to know what your definition of "terrorist" is.

You're so stupid you can't even use a dictionary.

No wonder you're a bushkultie.

[unknown]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:29:59 -0800, Shel Scott likes his Iraqi baby meat Well Done

We need to know what your definition of "terrorist" is.

Bush and Cheney qualify by any definition.

[unknown]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:25:43 -0800, Shel Scott likes his Iraqi baby meat Well Done

Give us a definition ...

Why don't you know how to use a dictionary?

Too busy to learn?

queerbait... just look a fool.

So that's your excuse.

It's a poor one, but you never do perform well.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:29:59 -0800, Shel Scott likes his Iraqi baby meat Well Done

We need to know what your definition of "terrorist" is.

Bush and Cheney qualify by any definition.