Sectorgame

HIG... it's already a civil war in all but name...

I would hardly call is a civil war when it is being encoraged by a foreigner(I think a Jordanian-correct me if I am wrong) What I see is an orcastrated attempt to create a islamic state like that of afganistan, by outside and inside forces. They say it is all about fighting the US and forcing us out of Iraq. I am sure that comes into it, but it is more llikly the former that is the real reason behind the uprising.

Never mind...

By definition it is not a civil war.
But it is iraqi "freedom fighter" vs security forces and US soldiers. Ultimatly this is the culmination of 50 years of screwed up foreign policy in the middle east starting with the recognition of Israel as a state(STUPID HARRY TRUMAN).Lets not forget this is also Europe's fault also for not wanting the jews or letting stay in Europe.(stupid anti semitism)

They aren't Freedom Fighters, they aren't guerillas, they aren't insurgents, they are women-murdering cowards. They deserve no other title other than what they do.

I was being sarcastic about freedom fighter.

Redemance, I was exagerating the situation for effect.

Come off it, please. The attitude isn't appreciated. You don't know everything, and you seem to be acting like you think you do.

redmenace wrote:I would hardly call is a civil war when it is being encoraged by a foreigner(I think a Jordanian-correct me if I am wrong) What I see is an orcastrated attempt to create a islamic state like that of afganistan, by outside and inside forces. They say it is all about fighting the US and forcing us out of Iraq. I am sure that comes into it, but it is more llikly the former that is the real reason behind the uprising.

Don;t make the mistake of assuming one man or group is responsible for the 'insurgency'. Al -zaqwari (sp?) only has command of 50-500 men, a paltry amount. As well as terrorists / foreign fighters, there are former Baathists (fed-a-yim ... er, phoentic spelling obviously), the supporters of the previous regime (any dictatorship still will retain some common support, such as in Tikrit), and probably ethnic / tribal tensions. And, of couse, those loyal to al-Sadr (which is religious / ethnic).

There were also at least 2 terrorist groups within Iraq prior to the invasion, of course - one who were fighting against Saddam to create an Islamic state, and another group who are fighting the ruling clergy in Iran (the US initally bombed the latter, and then signed a 'non-agggression' type agreement with them).

So you have a hotch-potch of different groups involved.... at the moment it's concentrated against the occupying forces (primarily the US), but it's quite probable they would turn on each other if/once the coalition troops withdrew.

They aren't even insurgents, they are all fools and cowards led and motivated by foreign(Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi primarily) terrorists.

I don't know everything, but I know enough. But what action have I taken to make my self appear as I do? My speach on Israel and the western world? It is all verifiable fact.

50-500 people is a large disparity of a number. I am not so certain that all these groups are independent of each other.

liberator wrote:They aren't even insurgents, they are all fools and cowards led and motivated by foreign(Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi primarily) terrorists.

a type of military conflict in which irregular soldiers rise up against an established regime.
Subversive political activity, civil rebellion, revolt, or insurrection designed to weaken and overthrow a duly constituted authority by its own people.
an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict
(definitions of insurgency)

Calling your enemies fools and cowards it the easiest way to underestimate them, BTW - and that leads to defeat. what you have to understand is that some of these people have greivance.... they're expressing it in by far the wrong way (there is no excuse for terrorism), but if you fail to understand why they do it you can never really defeat them.

redmenace wrote:I don't know everything, but I know enough. But what action have I taken to make my self appear as I do? My speach on Israel and the western world? It is all verifiable fact.

50-500 people is a large disparity of a number. I am not so certain that all these groups are independent of each other.

What would you expect - a census?

The 50-500 (20-500, actually) number will reflect the loose ties that exist between various terrorist groups, and rough guesses as to how many foreign fighters and local recruits there are.

Some groups will be co-operating together vs the US, yes. But that doesn't imply a lasting 'alliance' or ideological similarity.

as for the alliances, yes it might not be "lasting"

but honestly and if the US left now there would be a huge civil war....those wanted a islamic state and those that would not. But I think that many of these splinter groups will unite together under this banner.

Maybe it's just the way you came across to me in that post... wouldn't be the first time someone's been misread (literally and figuratively) on the Internet...

Oh, and I agree with you on the last part there. But which exact banner are you referring to?

banner of a islamic regiem.

oh s###
killing all those unarmed men.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/ ... index.html

"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- Unification and Jihad" No way that these individual groups are not working together.