The Iraqi Insurgency - Who Are They and How Many?

[Scribbler1]

what are these iraqis made off. 250,000 rounds per dead iraqi.
it only tales 5, 8 or 11 rounds to kill a braziliam in london.

It sounds like typical overkill to me. For instance, if a car with 1 Iraqi is driving towards a U.S. Base and it looks suspicious the air probably turns black with bullets, or if a suspected insurgent ducks into a Baghdad alley every soldier in the vicinity probably unloads half a clip.
My feeling is they're nervous and they want to make sure what they are firing at doesn't live to come at them again.
Either that or they are the absolute WORST marksmen on the planet.

is this 250,000 figure based on every dead iraqi, including women and children?
or is it based on certified self-declared insurgentists, home grown or imported?

I would imagine they would filter out the "collateral damage" parts of that estimate and average bullets to bodies. But then again, if the numbers are from our own military I automatically judge them to be highly suspect.

[rmnunez]

There is no such thing as a "certified self-declared insurgentists", whether home grown or imported. The insurgents are what critical lefties call terrorists and these don't confess, the ones caught endure torture and the ones not caught tend to explode.

[Zeebadee]

The insurgents are what critical lefties call terrorists and these don't confess, the ones caught endure torture and the ones not caught tend to explode.

Well, Bush calls them terrorists too, does this make Bush one of the "critical lefties"??

[RickSp]

Labeling the insurgency is dangerous. Simply calling them terrorists is foolish and lazy. Some of the insurgency are nationalists. Some are Islamists. Some are Ba'athists. They only thing they have in common is a common enemy - the infidel army occupying their land. Deprived of a common enemy they might fight each other. A long as we continue our occupation, their numbers will continue to grow.

[rmnunez]

Labeling the insurgency is dangerous. Simply calling them terrorists is foolish and lazy. Some of the insurgency are nationalists. Some are Islamists. Some are Ba'athists...

And some are foreign terrorists from a variety of usually Muslim countries. Likely there are also some genuinely ideologically committed Islamic fundamentalists too.

...They only thing they have in common is a common enemy -the infidel army occupying their land.

Only with a rather expansive interpretation would one find "an infidel army occupying their land" when talking about the foreign terrorists.

If Islamists, Baathists, nationalists and foreign terrorists are in the insurgency, inevitably at least some of the insurgents are not at all animated by any patriotic feelings. If outrage over foreign presence on "their land" is read broadly to embrace a shared feeling of all Muslims over infidel presence in Muslim countries, then to the degree one sees this is a natural reaction, one sees Muslims generally as the enemy.

[Jack]

what are these iraqis made off. 250,000 rounds per dead iraqi.
it only tales 5, 8 or 11 rounds to kill a braziliam in london.

I know most people think of M-16s when they think of soldiers firing weapons. If that stat was about M-16s, it would truly be a sad situation.

But the majority of rounds fired in a modern firefight, especially in a war zone with a lot of tanks, come from M-60 machine guns. You use them for quantity over quality strafing of an area, sweeping gunfire without much precision. To kill a man at any distance with an M-60 can easily require 60 rounds or more on full-auto. We got into a firefight with a tree once. Thought a bird was a sniper. We were a tad nervous. I have no idea how many rounds were expended to unleaf that tree.

[Zeebadee]

And some are foreign terrorists from a variety of usually Muslim countries. Likely there are also some genuinely ideologically committed Islamic fundamentalists too.

Only with a rather expansive interpretation would one find "an infidel army occupying their land" when talking about the foreign terrorists.

If Islamists, Baathists, nationalists and foreign terrorists are in the insurgency, inevitably at least some of the insurgents are not at all animated by any patriotic feelings. If outrage over foreign presence on "their land" is read broadly to embrace a shared feeling of all Muslims over infidel presence in Muslim countries, then to the degree one sees this is a natural reaction, one sees Muslims generally as the enemy.

What babbling nonsense. The fact that some of the insurgents are not motivated by patriotism in no way makes Muslims in general "the enemy".

[rmnunez]

The fact that some of the insurgents are not motivated by patriotism in no way makes Muslims in general "the enemy".

But the perception insurgents, not animated by patriotism, are reacting in a 'natural' way, outraged over "infidels on their land", suggests it would be 'normal' to travel often thousands of miles to foreign countries to confront an "enemy" ascribed that condition merely because of his religious faith. It seems a rather fundamentalist perspective to me.

[RickSp]

But the perception insurgents, not animated by patriotism, are reacting in a 'natural' way, outraged over "infidels on their land", suggests it would be 'normal' to travel often thousands of miles to foreign countries to confront an "enemy" ascribed that condition merely because of his religious faith. It seems a rather fundamentalist perspective to me.

Here you go obsessing over fanatics "travel often thousands of miles to foreign countries to confront an "enemy" ascribed that condition merely because of his religious faith." Are you describing Islamists or Bush's General Boykin?

Of course one of the two news item that began this thread concerned the "myth" of the "foreign fighter". Foreign fighters are now thought to be only 4-6% of the insurgency.

[Scribbler1]

Here you go obsessing over fanatics "travel often thousands of miles to foreign countries to confront an "enemy" ascribed that condition merely because of his religious faith." Are you describing Islamists or Bush's General Boykin?

Supposition, what-ifs, alternate scenarios and guesswork are all valid discussion points. Just don't confuse them with facts. And more importantly, don't allow what-if to shift focus from the what-IS.

Of course one of the two news item that began this thread concerned the "myth" of the "foreign fighter". Foreign fighters are now thought to be only 4-6% of the insurgency.

Who cares, they're all terrorists anyway.

[Boetie]

How can you be an insurgent against a foreign occupier?

Insurgent: one who revolts against authority.

The United States has to establish themselves as the authority in order for the citizens of Iraq to be called insurgents. One question, why can't the people of Iraq be called freedom fighters against such an authority as the United States?

[RickSp]

How can you be an insurgent against a foreign occupier?

Insurgent: one who revolts against authority.

The United States has to establish themselves as the authority in order for the citizens of Iraq to be called insurgents. One question, why can't the people of Iraq be called freedom fighters against such an authority as the United States?

The word "insurgent" is just part of the PR war. They can't be called the "resistance" because that implies the possibility of some justification for resisting the occupation. They can't be called "guerillas" because Rummy has denied that we are fighting a guerilla war, even though that is exactly what we are fighting.

It could be worse. Early on the US military was referring the insurgents as the "anti-Iraqis" but gave up as the absurdity of "anti-Iraqi" Iraqis was immediately clear.