Iraq battling more than 200,000 insurgents: intel chief [Archive]

Mcluhan

01-03-2005, 06:23 PM

check this out...

Click on:
Iraq battling more than 200,000 insurgents: intelligence chief ( http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=35545)

Snip from the article ~

BAGHDAD, Jan 3 (AFP) - Iraq's insurgency counts more than 200,000 active fighters and sympathisers, the country's national intelligence chief told AFP, in the bleakest assessment to date of the armed revolt waged by Sunni Muslims.
"I think the resistance is bigger than the US military in Iraq. I think the resistance is more than 200,000 people," Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said in an interview ahead of the January 30 elections.
Shahwani said the number includes at least 40,000 hardcore fighters but rises to more than 200,000 members counting part-time fighters and volunteers who provide rebels everything from intelligence and logistics to shelter.
The numbers far exceed any figure presented by the US military in Iraq, which has struggled to get a handle on the size of the resistance since toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003.

Mcluhan

01-03-2005, 07:32 PM

The insurgents are fighting against will of the American people...the American people are fighting against the will of Allah's people.

God has 59 million on his side, Allah considerably more.

One would think Allah and God could just sit down and work this out. Seems a lot simpler.

Asterix

01-03-2005, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Mcluhan

One would think Allah and God could just sit down and work this out. Seems a lot simpler.

Problem is they don't think each other exist.

onthebottom

01-03-2005, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by yychobbyist You know what's really freaky? I think Allah and God are the same thing. And, if I'm right then this whole thing is just about some power hungry zealots who want to destroy others who do not think exactly as they do.

The "Amerikkka" rabble will think you are speaking of neocons, I think you're talking about people who cut a womans head off in the name of "God".

OTB

Manji

01-04-2005, 02:31 AM

Mcluhan!!!

Your link does not work!!!

Just wondering on where the Iraqi Intelligence Service Director got that number?
The insurgents themselves probably don't know how many of them there are in total.
Lately, there have not been many American deaths and the insurgents have been targeting softer targets (Iraqi civilians and security forces).

Could be a sign that the United States military and Iraqi security forces are putting a hurt on the insurgents and curtailing their capabilities to launch effective attacks. Or then again, it could be just a lull til another major offensive is brought on by the insurgents.

Hopefully, for Iraq's sake it is the former!!!

Mcluhan

01-04-2005, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Manji
Mcluhan!!!

Your link does not work!!!

Just wondering on where the Iraqi Intelligence Service Director got that number?

Here's the link:

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=35545

If you read the entire article, you will see the opinions on the 200,000 number..

Mcluhan

01-04-2005, 07:21 AM

The above link was from a Turkish daily...now I just found an article from the UK www.timesonline.co.uk

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1425022,00.html

Same news item coverage, slightly different content.

I doubt CNN will report this somehow.

happywanderer

01-04-2005, 07:41 AM

Try this link... it would be quite comical and ironic if not for the whole mess both in Iraq and in Washington.

p.s. click on the photo on the left to see the banner in the background.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/politics/main582939.shtml

TTFN

onthebottom

01-04-2005, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by happywanderer
Try this link... it would be quite comical and ironic if not for the whole mess both in Iraq and in Washington.

p.s. click on the photo on the left to see the banner in the background.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/politics/main582939.shtml

TTFN

That is the same carrier that is delivering aid in Asia now.

OTB

Mcluhan

01-05-2005, 12:38 PM

ran into this on the national post website... seems this recent intel statement about the '200,000' resistance size is rippling thru the media in many variations

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=fa274c03-726b-413e-a3b1-1dca5e5c821a

Ned Parker
Agence France-Presse, with files from The Daily Telegraph

January 4, 2005

1 | 2 | NEXT >>

BAGHDAD - The Islamic Army in Iraq, one of the main armed groups fighting U.S. forces in the war-torn country, has threatened to carry out attacks inside the United States, according to a statement posted on a Web site yesterday.

This year "will bring woes on America. The mujahedeen [holy warriors] have prepared big surprises for your sons outside America and a big surprise for you inside America," said the statement, the authenticity of which could not be confirmed.

The statement appeared to mark a disturbing shift in strategy by the shadowy Sunni Muslim group that has claimed a number of attacks and killings of hostages in Iraq, including an Italian journalist and two Pakistanis.

The mujahedeen "will take the battle from inside our country [Iraq] to yours," the statement said.

"We address you after you finished celebrating the new year, hoping that you are no longer drunk.... We will give American civilians a taste of what civilians in our country go through," said the statement, presented as a "message to the American people."

The statement, which described Americans as "uncivilized" and "ignorant," claimed that "the whole world" hates the United States.

"Are you aware that the number of those who support striking America on its own turf has greatly increased?" it said.

"Last year was a picnic for your soldiers [in Iraq]. The year 2005 will witness a quantitative and qualitative change in the operations against your army, which will go down in history," the statement said.

The Islamic Army was one of three militant groups, along with the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sunna and the previously unknown Army of the Mujahedeen, that warned in an Internet statement last week that they would strike at anyone taking part in Iraqi elections this month.

"Those who participate in this dirty farce will not be sheltered from the blows of the mujahedeen," the statement said.

Militant groups have mounted an increasingly effective insurgency against U.S.-led troops inside Iraq, particularly on their home turf in Sunni Arab areas north and west of the capital.

A suicide bomber from Ansar al-Sunna managed to infiltrate a U.S. base in the northern city of Mosul last month and blow himself up inside the mess tent, killing 22 people in the deadliest single strike against the U.S. military since the March, 2003, invasion.

The Iraqi government's intelligence chief said yesterday he believes the insurgents wreaking havoc across the country outnumber the U.S. forces stationed there.

General Mohammad Shahwani said there are an estimated 200,000 partisans in Iraq, although he believed their hard-core fighters number about 40,000.

Asked whether the insurgents were winning, Gen. Shahwani said: "They are not losing."

But none of the insurgent groups has claimed an attack outside Iraq, and their ability to operate outside their home territory remains unproven.

The Islamic Army nevertheless boasts a grisly record of kidnapping and murder inside Iraq.

Since its first statements in March, it has rarely failed to deliver on its ultimatums and did not hesitate to execute Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni, correspondent for the weekly Diario della Settimana, and two Pakistanis it was holding.

More...

Ranger68

01-05-2005, 12:49 PM

The sooner the US is defeated and leaves, the better it will be for everyone.
Of course, if the US citizens really want more of their soldiers coming home in body-bags just to support the current President's campaign of militaristic expansionism, who am I to argue?

No, it's CLEAR the terrorist threat isn't growing.
:rolleyes:

onthebottom

01-05-2005, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Ranger68
The sooner the US is defeated and leaves, the better it will be for everyone.
.......

You're an asshat, an insignificant immature irresponsible asshat.

OTB

Ranger68

01-05-2005, 01:18 PM

Nice comeback.

onthebottom

01-05-2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Ranger68
Nice comeback.

And most likely short.

OTB

Ranger68

01-05-2005, 01:28 PM

LOL
Keep 'em coming.
Come on, tell us - does "onthebottom" refer to your test scores in school or your favourite gay sex position?
;)

Mcluhan

01-05-2005, 01:31 PM

Well, as Powell said, 'You break it, you own it'

Although I do not agree with the invasion, I think we have to get over that phase of the angst and deal with the fact that the US is there. Now what? Obviously they cannot turn tail and run. Obviously they have to rebuild Iraq. It is quagmire... The war debt will hit 1 trillion before this is over IMHO (maybe only 800 billion, but whatever, it a large sum). There is no one answer I think.

Consider if democracy was actually spread through out the M.E., it would topple most of the OPEC current regimes...can we over here afford that? I don't think so... can we afford oil at 120/b...'cause it could easily go there, if the M.E. applecart was upset a la Shaw of Iran style.

Like it or lump it, the US is in trouble, and it affects the world economy. I would rather be sitting sqabbling over what to do in Iraq, that looking down at a handful of Yuan in my pocket book.

onthebottom

01-05-2005, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Ranger68
LOL
Keep 'em coming.
Come on, tell us - does "onthebottom" refer to your test scores in school or your favourite gay sex position?
;)

Nice Comeback

OTB

Ranger68

01-05-2005, 01:34 PM

Now what??
The US should leave, and let the Iraqis rebuild the mess. No good is going to come of the US staying. Any situation they leave is going to crash down around the Iraqis shortly after they do. The US is merely prolonging the inevitable - the collapse of any government put into power by a foreign aggressor.
The longer the US stays, the more soldiers will come home in bags, the more Iraqis will be killed, the more terrorists will be created.

HOW are they going to "rebuild" Iraq? BTW, that's not even their goal. They've indicated MANY TIMES that the US "does not do nation-building".

They need to leave, and suffer the defeat.

Ranger68

01-05-2005, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by onthebottom
Nice Comeback

OTB

I think you're stuttering.

Mcluhan

01-05-2005, 01:37 PM

If they leave, the country will fall under the control if Iran, within a short time. Would you like to see that ranger68...I can't somehow believe you would. I wouldn't.

onthebottom

01-05-2005, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Well, as Powell said, 'You break it, you own it'

Although I do not agree with the invasion, I think we have to get over that phase of the angst and deal with the fact that the US is there. Now what? Obviously they cannot turn tail and run. Obviously they have to rebuild Iraq. It is quagmire... The war debt will hit 1 trillion before this is over IMHO (maybe only 800 billion, but whatever, it a large sum). There is no one answer I think.

Consider if democracy was actually spread through out the M.E., it would topple most of the OPEC current regimes...can we over here afford that? I don't think so... can we afford oil at 120/b...'cause it could easily go there, if the M.E. applecart was upset a la Shaw of Iran style.

Like it or lump it, the US is in trouble, and it affects the world economy. I would rather be sitting sqabbling over what to do in Iraq, that looking down at a handful of Yuan in my pocket book.

First PP is dead on, although I don't know about your fiscal forecast - could be right I just don't know.

Second PP I disagree, I think, regardless of political system, all those countries can do is pump oil, what other economic card do they have to play? Oil prices are more likely affected by Chinese expansion than by a change in governmental system in the ME.

You don't want Yuan, it can only go down with the dollar and then when/if it floats it will crash. A loose loose. Buy pounds (very strong economy), avoid Yen (Japan will not let it rise) or Euro (weak economy and you'd be buying high).

OTB

Ranger68

01-05-2005, 01:40 PM

Two questions:
What makes you say the Iranians could exercise so much power over the Iraqis? What's going to prevent that from happening when the Americans eventually *do* leave?

Of course, this may just be one of the unintended consequences of the American invasion - something their ridiculously short-sighted venture hands back to them.

onthebottom

01-05-2005, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Mcluhan
If they leave, the country will fall under the control if Iran, within a short time. Would you like to see that ranger68...I can't somehow believe you would. I wouldn't.

Ranger (or PAT) would roll on the floor in joy if the US is defeated in Iraq, it won't happen but that's what he desperately wants.

The liberals in the 1980s made all sorts of silly claims that Reagan was going to take us into WWIII bla bla bla - it was their worst nightmare that he basically won the cold war - they now have to fly out of an airport named after him in DC because of it. Those same liberals are worried that if things go well in Iraq over the next 4 years and the Palestinian / Israel deal gets done that Bush will get the historical credit for peace in the Middle East. The downside is that Dulles would then have to be renamed W.

Anyone who thinks Bush will cut and run has no clue at what makes the man tick – there is more a chance of Canada fielding a robust military – and we know that will never happen.

OTB

Mcluhan

01-05-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by onthebottom
First PP is dead on, although I don't know about your fiscal forecast - could be right I just don't know.

Second PP I disagree, I think, regardless of political system, all those countries can do is pump oil, what other economic card do they have to play? Oil prices are more likely affected by Chinese expansion than by a change in governmental system in the ME.

You don't want Yuan, it can only go down with the dollar and then when/if it floats it will crash. A loose loose. Buy pounds (very strong economy), avoid Yen (Japan will not let it rise) or Euro (weak economy and you'd be buying high).

OTB

You could be right about the price of oil being a non-issue...it will however be political leverage, and I for one, would not want riyadh under contol of religious extremists...lol..however, ironically it might actually be safer that way. Then no one is left to attack it.

I agree on the sterling...but sterling in my mind, is just another version of the USD.. personally, I think Euros are more solid. 500 million trading block...very solid. They will eventually work out their problems with the bureaucracy of trade with the eastern Europe Countries

Ranger68

01-05-2005, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by onthebottom
Ranger (or PAT) would roll on the floor in joy if the US is defeated in Iraq, it won't happen but that's what he desperately wants.

The liberals in the 1980s made all sorts of silly claims that Reagan was going to take us into WWIII bla bla bla - it was their worst nightmare that he basically won the cold war - they now have to fly out of an airport named after him in DC because of it. Those same liberals are worried that if things go well in Iraq over the next 4 years and the Palestinian / Israel deal gets done that Bush will get the historical credit for peace in the Middle East. The downside is that Dulles would then have to be renamed W.

Anyone who thinks Bush will cut and run has no clue at what makes the man tick – there is more a chance of Canada fielding a robust military – and we know that will never happen.

OTB

Bottomboy, it's a historical certainty that this American invasion will fail. Reread that carefully - HISTORICAL CERTAINTY.

Moving on.

It's people like ME who clearly hope for peace in the Middle East - which is NOT going to be achieved by invading sovereign nations because you don't like who's in charge. Where does that naivete and hubris come from?

Keep building those straw men - as if everyone who opposes the Iraqi invasion is opposed to peace, or thought this about Reagan. LOL I guess you need SOMETHING to defend your position with.

Too much.

Dude, I think it's about time YOU went on Ignore now, too - you have NOTHING intelligent to contribute and I'm sure you'll get along well with bbk, n_v and Pansey.

Enjoy.

I'll leave it to others who make more sense and can construct (and understand) cogent arguments to take up your cause.

Buhbye.

onthebottom

01-05-2005, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Mcluhan
......

I agree on the sterling...but sterling in my mind, is just another version of the USD.. personally, I think Euros are more solid. 500 million trading block...very solid. They will eventually work out their problems with the bureaucracy of trade with the eastern Europe Countries

The UK has a strong economy, good growth, good finances, the most market based labor policies of the large EU countries - these are sustainable advantages. The EURO area can only grow by allowing in less developed countries that are in a less mature growth phase - the large countries (France, Germany) just can't seem to grow and have substantial structural problems. The WSJ reported today that the EU spends 1.3B on translating documents a year..... Go with the pub-crawlers - they have a strong track record.

OTB

Mcluhan

01-05-2005, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by onthebottom
Go with the pub-crawlers - they have a strong track record.

OTB

lol... maybe your experience at doing business with the brits is better than mine...the are even worse than Canadians as far as im concerned lol

But yes, they do seem to have a grip on it. I think there vast wealth in the off-shore is keeping them afloat... 30% of this wealth in Sterling...the remnants of 300 years of empire.

Drunken Master

01-05-2005, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Ranger68
Bottomboy, it's a historical certainty that this American invasion will fail. Reread that carefully - HISTORICAL CERTAINTY.

Oh, geeze. I thought the "historical certainty" crap went out with Spengler.

As much as I think the Iraq invasion looks more ill-conceived every day, unless there's a halo around your head you have no more insight into what is "historically certain" than a pet rock - none of us do.

onthebottom

01-05-2005, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Mcluhan
lol... maybe your experience at doing business with the brits is better than mine...the are even worse than Canadians as far as im concerned lol

But yes, they do seem to have a grip on it. I think there vast wealth in the off-shore is keeping them afloat... 30% of this wealth in Sterling...the remnants of 300 years of empire.

You'll notice I didn't tell you to hold Canadian Dollars. Hey, if you can't hold USD(and you may not want to for the next couple of years) Sterling is the next best thing - every other option is MUCH weaker.

OTB

onthebottom

01-05-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Oh, geeze. I thought the "historical certainty" crap went out with Spengler.

As much as I think the Iraq invasion looks more ill-conceived every day, unless there's a halo around your head you have no more insight into what is "historically certain" than a pet rock - none of us do.

Yeah, it won't be long before everyone over the age of 30 is on Ignore from Ranger.... he's just a silly kid.

OTB

Ranger68

01-05-2005, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Oh, geeze. I thought the "historical certainty" crap went out with Spengler.

As much as I think the Iraq invasion looks more ill-conceived every day, unless there's a halo around your head you have no more insight into what is "historically certain" than a pet rock - none of us do.

No action of this type has ever been successful. None. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Where does the hubris and naivete come from that would make anyone believe this has ANY chance to succeed?
It's ridiculous.
I stand by my statement that history speaks CATEGORICALLY AGAINST this action.

assoholic

01-05-2005, 05:19 PM

...the US does not have a hope in hell as any one with just a little bit of knowledge and commen sense could have predicted. As some of us did before they even went into Iraq. The only asshats are the dummies who were predicting the Iraquis would welcome the Americans with open arms.
You know who you are.
Unfortunately I personally believe the Americans knew this all along. They know they cannot control the Middle East for much longer. They have basically been running it for 50 years, now their plan is to leave behind a nice big mess for Russia, China exct to deal with.
Yes I could be wrong of course, but not about whether ir not in the end the Americans will have to get the hell out of there. That was a no brainer from the start.

Drunken Master

01-05-2005, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Ranger68
No action of this type has ever been successful. None. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Where does the hubris and naivete come from that would make anyone believe this has ANY chance to succeed?
It's ridiculous.
I stand by my statement that history speaks CATEGORICALLY AGAINST this action.

Crossing the Alps was impossible until Hannibal did it. How many Romans were standing around at the time saying that since the Italian Peninsula had never been successfully invaded from the north it couldn't possibly happen?

I'm not sure what "type" of action you think this is. If it is a plain old occupation, then I'll agree they tend to fail - over time. Perhaps, say, the Chinese will find themselves leaving Tibet one day, but that hardly indicates we can form some kind of "historical law" which is true for all cases in all places.

Each historical situation is, to a degree, sui generis.

Mcluhan

01-05-2005, 08:51 PM

bbk thanks for the history lesson (seriously). This forum is remarkable, who would think that we pooners have more than one dimension to our lives! lol

I do not agree with you ranger68, that the US should pull out at this time. But I have to say, maybe I'm wrong too. The way I see it, (and I have been to the middle east, not that it makes me any more enlightened than the guy sitting next me who hasn't), the country is a sitting duck for a civil war that Iran would simply in the end, control.

I think the Iraqis have the potential to be a great nation ...I think that to some extent they were a serious contender for Arab nationalism under Saddam, but he simply over played the cards. Lets not forget that Saddam built Iraq into a show case Arab state. It had the top educational, medical, and transportation infrastructure in the middle east..all because of saddam. Sure he was dictator…just like all the other regimes in the Arab states..well, most of them anyway. When they have a construction labour revolt in Bahrain, the ten malcontents leading the charge, end up dead and disappear. Its just the way the country runs.

I was in the gulf just before 1990's Operation Desert Storm, and doing business there with the powers that be. I am firmly convinced that the US sucked Saddam into Kuwait (ranger68 you will no doubt love that notion) just so they could clobber him.

They wanted to test out the new generation of smart weapons among other things. Saddam would NEVER repeat NEVER have entered Kuwait, unless he thought that the US administration would have sat back and watched. The CIA baited him. He took the bait. And Bush senior clobbered him. The US got their bases in saudi, and the you know the rest of the story.

The question is what now?? And it is the question. I for one do not believe the US can win against this element. They do not have the staying power or the guts to stick it out. They do not have the troops to make that country secure, nor will they ever.

The regimes like Saudi do not truthfully want to see democracy take hold and so they are going to keep funneling money into the hands of the resistance. Where do you think this money is coming from? And there is no end to it. It is not in Saudi's interest to see a democracy work.

I feel very sorry for the Iraqi people, because they are truly between a rock and a hard place. If there are 40,000 hard core resistance fighters there now, in 6 months there will be 60,000 and so on. They will keep coming…it is a jihad. And wait! Round two on US soil has not occurred yet…that is coming any day now. One day soon, you will wake up in the morning, and CNN will be on the site of a smoking train wreck in kansas, or New York or some such place, or much worse than a train wreck, and it will have mujahdeen behind it. And for sure it will be no less horrible than Spain was. Its not a question of if, but a question of when. And so it will worsen.. both side working up more hostility to the other.

But the bloody fact is, the US cannot pull out. And this idea as we know is totally irrelevant anyway, because as OTB says, Bush will never pull out…he will stay to the bitter end. If you want my best guess it will be Hilory Clinton that pulls the plug on this war, if anybody. But by then, the US could very well be in Syria in four years. This war is going to go on for a very long time, and eventually could involve the Russians. We are only seeing the beginning of a very very long protracted war…which eventually could lead to an energy crisis and then a global depression. This war is not a trivial thing by any stretch. I for one would not want to be in GWB shoes.

The US foreign policy has wanted this move for 20 years. Now they are there. As OTB's tag line warns, They Got What They Wished For. But the question is, where will it lead? Because it ain’t going to wind itself backwards. And there is no victory that I can see, going forward.

Ranger68

01-06-2005, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Crossing the Alps was impossible until Hannibal did it. How many Romans were standing around at the time saying that since the Italian Peninsula had never been successfully invaded from the north it couldn't possibly happen?

I'm not sure what "type" of action you think this is. If it is a plain old occupation, then I'll agree they tend to fail - over time. Perhaps, say, the Chinese will find themselves leaving Tibet one day, but that hardly indicates we can form some kind of "historical law" which is true for all cases in all places.

Each historical situation is, to a degree, sui generis.

Why was it impossible to cross the Alps? Had anyone ever tried it?

This type of action is one where a nation invades another and occupies to impose regime change. Yes, they ALL fail, over time, where they're aggressively resisted - *unlike* Tibet.

I otherwise agree with your last sentence.

Ranger68

01-06-2005, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by bbking
Gee Ranger, you really need to read more history. The Boxer Rebellion comes to mind. After China's defeat by Japan in 1895, the Western powers decided to carve up the China melon. This resulted in a rebellion that was brutally put down by the European powers and resulted in the Boxer Protocols which allowed the Europeans to station their military in the capital and thus putting the Imperial Government under house arrest. Other things the Protocols did was to suspend the civil service examination, they demanded a huge indemnity to be paid to the European powers for allege losses and required that Government officials be prosecuted for their role in the rebellion. Doesn't sound like this is an insurgency that worked out well.

See we didn't even have to go 100 years to find an example of how wrong your statement about history is. In fact Ranger you will find plenty of examples through out history of these small rebellions being crushed by a superior military. Grant it there examples where a rebellion is successful but it is hardly certain as you seem to think it is.

On a positive note - well somewhat, China's upperclass came to understand from the loss to Japan and the resulting humiliation of the Boxer Protocols, that China needed to rid itself of it's Royal family and for a time China went down the road of a democracy of sorts until the change was hi-jacked by Mao and his Commie Party. Anyways China was never the same after the failed Boxer Revolt.

bbk

Lots of examples? Name some.

I'm not talking about "rebellions" - where one power is already in control of another. I'm talking about "foreign invasions" which are resisted by large-scale guerilla and terrorist tactics.
Clear now?

onthebottom

01-06-2005, 07:44 AM

onthebottom

01-06-2005, 07:46 AM

Magister

01-06-2005, 08:57 AM

assoholic

01-06-2005, 05:03 PM

.. a year ago the Americans said the Insurgents numbered 5,000, now its up to 200,000. I'll say it again, any one who actually believes that this will end in anything but the Americans having to turn tail and run live in la la land, and I'm not talking about the City of Angels.

onthebottom

01-06-2005, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by assoholic .. a year ago the Americans said the Insurgents numbered 5,000, now its up to 200,000. I'll say it again, any one who actually believes that this will end in anything but the Americans having to turn tail and run live in la la land, and I'm not talking about the City of Angels.

Thanks for the difinitve prediction, I'll put it in the "Kerry by 10%" folder.

OTB

assoholic

01-06-2005, 05:16 PM

..I predicted no such thing.

onthebottom

01-06-2005, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by assoholic ..I predicted no such thing.

No you didn't, I should have attributed that to bbking - but both predictions shared certinty in a highly uncertain situation - thus my post.

OTB

strange1

01-06-2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Ranger68
Lots of examples? Name some.

I'm not talking about "rebellions" - where one power is already in control of another. I'm talking about "foreign invasions" which are resisted by large-scale guerilla and terrorist tactics.
Clear now?

So no foreign invasions have succeeded except where the resistance was too weak? What kind of statement is this? It's comparable to saying that The Leafs have won every game except those where they weren't able to win.

As for successful conquerors, I think there are more than enough examples where the foreign invaders have kept control for 10, 50 , 400 years. Include every empire (most recently GB. France, Spain, Austria and Russia), European conquest of the Americas and Boers in South Africa, the Anglo Saxons, the Normans, Prussia, the Ottomans, Rome, Ancient Egypt, Tibet (as was mentioned), the various Steppe horse people (Mongols, Huns, Turks, Muhgal, etc. in India, Northern China, Mesopotamia, Middle East, the Balkans, and Russia.)

Many of these occupiers were in control long enough that the native culture was eliminated or merged with the occupiers. Others held power for enough generations that close ties existed for a long time after.

Is that enough examples or do you want more Ranger?

assoholic

01-06-2005, 05:35 PM

..an election in which the participants each go in with 49 % popularity is highly unpredictable. A Guerilla War in which in a little over a year the Insurgents go from approx 5,000 to 200,000, in a country with a history of resisting foriegn domination. With the invaders a different religion and haveing a past history of meddling in the affairs of that country. I would say it is pretty predictable that the Insurgency will only continue to grow.

onthebottom

01-06-2005, 05:41 PM

Ass,

We have you down as a no.

OTB

onthebottom

01-07-2005, 09:28 AM

I love it, Iraqi "intelligence" can count insurgents (or as I like to think of them, murdering terrorist asswipes) but can't kill them? Hint, anytime a number has five zeros in it, there is a good chance it's wrong.

OTB

Mcluhan

01-07-2005, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by onthebottom
I love it, Iraqi "intelligence" can count insurgents (or as I like to think of them, murdering terrorist asswipes) but can't kill them? Hint, anytime a number has five zeros in it, there is a good chance it's wrong.

OTB

There are how many American troops in Iraq? Something is keeping them corralled tightly into a few small areas within this large country, and it is not the weather or insects. Even in Bagdad they are not safe outside the greenzone. I suggest one reads Scott Tayor’s report, to understand how the country’s police force is in collusion with the resistance. Part of the problem is misunderstanding the issue, it is due to the American (and UK) media’s lack of telling the real story. And unfortunately, independent Western media is not safe any where in Iraq. This condition extends even to Turkish Muslims. The bottom line is, the coalition forces, cannot secure Iraq. It might be useful to understand why.

Mcluhan

01-07-2005, 11:34 AM

yet another article... from HindustanTimes.com

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1184694,001300180038.htm

Intelligence chief says 20,000 to 30,000 terrorists in Iraq

Associated Press

Cairo, January 6, 2005|11:16 IST

Between 20,000 and 30,000 terrorists are operating throughout Iraq, led by Syria-based former regime leaders, Iraq's intelligence chief told a pan-Arab newspaper.

Major General Mohammed Abdullah al-Shahwani told Asharq Al-Awsat that he expected the armed attacks would decrease and end within a year.

"We officially call them terrorists," he said. "They are between 20,000 and 30,000 armed men operating all over Iraq, mainly in the Sunni areas where they receive moral support from about 2,00,000 people."

Al-Shahwani said the men, who are well organised and trained, include former Baath party members, some Islamic militant groups and former Army members who lost their jobs.

He said terrorist attacks would negatively affect the January 30 election because some people would not be able to reach polling stations.

"Whether these attacks would increase or decrease, this depends on the elections result, but our expectation, as a security organ, is that the attacks will recede and end in one year," Al-Shahwani said.

He did not elaborate.

He said the insurgents get good financial support from former leading Baathist Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed and Sabaawi al-Hassan, a half brother of Saddam Hussein, who he said are in Syria and are easily moving in and out of Iraq. Saddam's former deputy Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is also working with insurgents, he said.

langeweile

01-07-2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Mcluhan
yet another article... from HindustanTimes.com

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1184694,001300180038.htm

Where is the news in this article? The US goverment has repeatedly complained about Syria's involvement. It has been clear for a while that Syria has been tolerating former Baath' members in their country.

BTW, IMHO there is where we should look for those WMD's.

Mcluhan

01-07-2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by langeweile
Where is the news in this article?

Let me axe you a question. Have you seen this same article based on a common news source printed in the main stream American press? I have not looked BTW...

yychobbyist

01-07-2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Thank you. By posting reference articles, all quoting the same source, reported from India, the UK, and Turkey there was a point to be found...and that, I think, is the news..

news on news

I've done a lot of research around issues in the Middle East in my life and I've always found that you really have to dig to find out the entire story. The western press - North American or European in general - really have very few sources over there and there is some amazingly interesting and important stuff that gets reported out of Turkey and India and some other area states. If I recall, there was a Journal called "Asian Times' or something to that effect that always had really interesting stuff on the Middle East.

Mcluhan

01-07-2005, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by yychobbyist
If I recall, there was a Journal called "Asian Times' or something to that effect that always had really interesting stuff on the Middle East.

Could it be the Times of India, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/?

which I read quite often.

I usually do a reality check with the Asian press, sometimes check the UK and Aussy point of view. I don't think Rupert Murdock owns the India Times!

I eventually gave up on Der Spiegel, because my german is just nicht gut!

yychobbyist

01-07-2005, 04:33 PM

Der Spiegel is an excellent source of info but my German is slipping enough lately to make understanding it pretty difficult. There's some good Aussie stuff too as I think they're coming to terms with forcing Mr. Murdock on the world.

langeweile

01-13-2005, 10:56 AM

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/

The myth of the 200000 fighters......it is a myth according to one of McLuhans sources...have fun reading..

Ranger68

01-13-2005, 11:44 AM

How many fighters do people think there are, and do you think the US is capable of or willing to kill them all?
How many will rise to take their places afterwards?

Please.
You're arguing such trivial things.

langeweile

01-13-2005, 12:52 PM

Come on man...make it fun..don't be so obvious..funny ..you quote a source..it is the gospel (at least this is what you think) I quote the very same source...it is irrelevant.....hmmmmm

You are so full of yourself...

Ranger68

01-13-2005, 01:10 PM

Please put me back on Ignore, lange.
LOL
I didn't quote *any* source.

Let's take the guy at his word - that there are 20 to 30 THOUSAND fighters - RIGHT NOW. With almost 200 000 more providing emotional support if nothing else. What do you think those 200 000 MORE people are going to do if the US kills all the existing thousands plus countless more civilians.

Come on, it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
LOL

langeweile

01-13-2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Ranger68
Please put me back on Ignore, lange.
LOL
I didn't quote *any* source.

Let's take the guy at his word - that there are 20 to 30 THOUSAND fighters - RIGHT NOW. With almost 200 000 more providing emotional support if nothing else. What do you think those 200 000 MORE people are going to do if the US kills all the existing thousands plus countless more civilians.

Come on, it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
LOL

Au contraire mon ami

You are in full support of the article below....

BAGHDAD, Jan 3 (AFP) - Iraq's insurgency counts more than 200,000 active fighters and sympathisers, the country's national intelligence chief told AFP, in the bleakest assessment to date of the armed revolt waged by Sunni Muslims.
"I think the resistance is bigger than the US military in Iraq. I think the resistance is more than 200,000 people," Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said in an interview ahead of the January 30 elections.
Shahwani said the number includes at least 40,000 hardcore fighters but rises to more than 200,000 members counting part-time fighters and volunteers who provide rebels everything from intelligence and logistics to shelter.
The numbers far exceed any figure presented by the US military in Iraq, which has struggled to get a handle on the size of the resistance since toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003.

Ranger68

01-13-2005, 01:35 PM

Okay, I guess you're not ignoring me anymore.
Show me the post where I quoted that source.
I'll wait.

You didn't answer any of my questions.

And, to be frank, the translation link *you* posted doesn't differ remarkably from that. It purports that he said there were "20 to 30 thousand hard-core fighters" and that the "200 000" number was for just people who lived in the area and probably at least emotionally supported that smaller number. How is this so different from what's posted above? LOL
"Shahwani said the number includes at least 40,000 hardcore fighters but rises to more than 200,000 members counting part-time fighters and volunteers who provide rebels everything from intelligence and logistics to shelter"

???
I fail to understand any of what you're implying.
What else is new?
LOL

Ranger68

01-13-2005, 01:45 PM

From the first post (from Mcluhan, lange, not me - learn to read more carefully):
"Iraq's insurgency counts more than 200,000 active fighters and sympathisers, the country's national intelligence chief told AFP, in the bleakest assessment to date of the armed revolt waged by Sunni Muslims. ... Shahwani said the number includes at least 40,000 hardcore fighters but rises to more than 200,000 members counting part-time fighters and volunteers who provide rebels everything from intelligence and logistics to shelter."

From your post:
"Their number is between 20,000 and 30,000, in all of Iraq, distributed in the Sunni area. And the people who live in this area and emotionally support them, are about 200,000 without offering them money or logistic support. As an example, they don't give any information about their activities if they have this information."

So, what's the big scoop? Both agree on a number of 200,000 who live in that area and *at least* emotionally support the opposition. Both agree that there are somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 hard-core fighters among that 200,000. The only serious disagreement - if you want to call it that - is what level of support the rest of the 200,000 provide. Are they merely philosophically and emotionally aligned, or do they provide logistical and financial support? To support 30,000 hard-core fighters requires a reasonable infrastructure. It's impossible to believe that a decent number of the remaining don't provide more than mere lip-service to the fighters.

The author of your link admits that, even if they do provide more than lip service, they don't admit it.

Anything else?