Political Crossfire Forums

[Mr. Sunshine]

Bull wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bull wrote: I had to pull out the dictionary on this one... :lol:

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Civil War
Noun.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

There you have it.

The sectarian violence stems from a long history in cross populated tribal societies. Identify the factions outside of Sunni vs. Shia which extend beyond the borders of Iraq. Is the Middle East in a civil war. Buzz words change nothing. 8:)

You don't even know the meaning of the words you use. "Sectarian violence" is a gloss over of what is actually going on...CIVIL WAR.

Again...

Sectarian
Adjective

-Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.

A sect is "any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader." So in other words, it's a synonym for a faction. To put it plainly, "sectarian violence" = civil war in laymens terms. So all this time the adminstration has been calling what's going on in Iraq "sectarian violence" was all Orwellian mind games, because that's what they meant all along in so many words.

Mis-argue semantics all you wish. Unified sectarian violence by opposing sides in closer to what you are trying to define as a civil war. Identify the qualifying factors, their projected goals for victory, and governing hierarchy of each respective side to your Civil War. You can't. :rofl:

[Fiduciary]

beachbum bob wrote: finally MSM getting on board on where Iraq has been for a couple years now....can't wait for foxnews to follow.....someday....
10's of thousands of refugees
1000's killed every month
no Iraqi govt presence
militia rule vast areas


yep....the failure of bush Iraq war policy has given the iraqi people their civil war


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15921476/


NBC label of civil war at odds with White House
Pronouncement to increase public dismay over troop presence, analysts say
Updated: 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - NBC News Monday branded the Iraq conflict a civil war — a decision that put it at odds with the White House and that analysts said would increase public disillusionment with the U.S. troop presence there.

NBC said the Iraqi government's inability to stop spiraling violence between rival factions fit its definition of civil war.

I wonder what other conflicts will now classify as civil wars by this loose and ignorantly applied definition??

This essentially means ANY group taking shots at another group is now a civil war, regardless of whether the groups have functioning goverments, regular uniformed combatants, or formally possess territory.
It's funny watching you people embarass yourselves with your lack of thought or knowledge.

[Chymical]

I wonder if dictionary denial could work as a crime like holocaust denial?

[Bull]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bull wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bull wrote: I had to pull out the dictionary on this one... :lol:

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Civil War
Noun.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

There you have it.

The sectarian violence stems from a long history in cross populated tribal societies. Identify the factions outside of Sunni vs. Shia which extend beyond the borders of Iraq. Is the Middle East in a civil war. Buzz words change nothing. 8:)

You don't even know the meaning of the words you use. "Sectarian violence" is a gloss over of what is actually going on...CIVIL WAR.

Again...

Sectarian
Adjective

-Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.

A sect is "any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader." So in other words, it's a synonym for a faction. To put it plainly, "sectarian violence" = civil war in laymens terms. So all this time the adminstration has been calling what's going on in Iraq "sectarian violence" was all Orwellian mind games, because that's what they meant all along in so many words.

Mis-argue semantics all you wish. Unified sectarian violence by opposing sides in closer to what you are trying to define as a civil war. Identify the qualifying factors, their projected goals for victory, and governing hierarchy of each respective side to your Civil War. You can't. :rofl:

The only person playing semantics here is you...trying to redefine what a civil war is to justify your own denial. I broke down what sectarian violence means, and you throw in the word 'unified.'

[sLiPpY]

Bull wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bull wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bull wrote: I had to pull out the dictionary on this one... :lol:

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Civil War
Noun.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

There you have it.

The sectarian violence stems from a long history in cross populated tribal societies. Identify the factions outside of Sunni vs. Shia which extend beyond the borders of Iraq. Is the Middle East in a civil war. Buzz words change nothing. 8:)

You don't even know the meaning of the words you use. "Sectarian violence" is a gloss over of what is actually going on...CIVIL WAR.

Again...

Sectarian
Adjective

-Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.

A sect is "any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader." So in other words, it's a synonym for a faction. To put it plainly, "sectarian violence" = civil war in laymens terms. So all this time the adminstration has been calling what's going on in Iraq "sectarian violence" was all Orwellian mind games, because that's what they meant all along in so many words.

Mis-argue semantics all you wish. Unified sectarian violence by opposing sides in closer to what you are trying to define as a civil war. Identify the qualifying factors, their projected goals for victory, and governing hierarchy of each respective side to your Civil War. You can't. :rofl:

The only person playing semantics here is you...trying to redefine what a civil war is to justify your own denial. I broke down what sectarian violence means, and you throw in the word 'unified.'

All I can say is that some folks, can't achieve what they cannot perceive.

One has to be able to see a problem, before they can apply a solution.

The Bush Junta, formulates solutions that mostly have not a damn thing to do with the problem they imagine is being addressed. Therefore, their solutions only serve to create more problems where none existed before.

Damn, typing that made me dizzy.

[Timmytour]

Whether it's a civil war or not depends not on dictionary definitions so much as the way most people perceive it.

I think around the world now there is an increasing perception that it is a civil war.

Bush doesn't see it that way, he won't even have it that it is at least not far off civil war but that doesn't surprise me. He's seen bugger all to do with Iraq so far.

And first things first. The need to persuade him that Father Christmas doesn't really exist must surely be a priority :wink:

[Chingu]

So, MSNBC, thye lowest rated and most vocally and obsessively anti-Bush, anti-Republican news outlet takes it upon itself to editorialize what they want their viewers to believe. This is MSNBC's attempt - albeit, laughable, to be the modern day Walter Cronkite's and misinform the public and steer popular opinion away from the war.

[leftneckredwing]

Chingu wrote: So, MSNBC, thye lowest rated and most vocally and obsessively anti-Bush, anti-Republican news outlet takes it upon itself to editorialize what they want their viewers to believe. This is MSNBC's attempt - albeit, laughable, to be the modern day Walter Cronkite's and misinform the public and steer popular opinion away from the war.

Ah, don't sweat it. Your heroes are offering the counter version.

Bush Says Violence in Iraq is Not Civil War

When someone is in denial

Quote: The country is reeling from the deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began in March 2003.

"We've been in this phase for a while," Bush said.

Why bother saying we've been there for a while? Why not deny it altogether? There's plenty of people that would eat it up.

[Chingu]

leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: So, MSNBC, thye lowest rated and most vocally and obsessively anti-Bush, anti-Republican news outlet takes it upon itself to editorialize what they want their viewers to believe. This is MSNBC's attempt - albeit, laughable, to be the modern day Walter Cronkite's and misinform the public and steer popular opinion away from the war.

Ah, don't sweat it. Your heroes are offering the counter version.

Bush Says Violence in Iraq is Not Civil War

When someone is in denial

Quote: The country is reeling from the deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began in March 2003.

"We've been in this phase for a while," Bush said.

Why bother saying we've been there for a while? Why not deny it altogether? There's plenty of people that would eat it up.

There is a difference. Bush is right and MSNBC is wrong.
it's a nastly bit of a go over there - but it isn't a civil war. It's maybe an ongoing sectarian battle - it's maybe a lot of things. But a Civil War it is not.

When Iraqs freely elected goverment is one side of the fight and when one or more other sides form into some sort of cohesive force with a civil aim in mind - such as to topple this government and erect another - then I might call it a civil war. Until then - it is fighting.

[cool_chick]

leftneckredwing wrote:

Why bother saying we've been there for a while? Why not deny it altogether? There's plenty of people that would eat it up.

Because most people know better.......there are those who eat it up, sure, there always will be, but most know better.....

[Nine_Enigmas]

Bull wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bull wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bull wrote: I had to pull out the dictionary on this one... :lol:

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Civil War
Noun.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

There you have it.

The sectarian violence stems from a long history in cross populated tribal societies. Identify the factions outside of Sunni vs. Shia which extend beyond the borders of Iraq. Is the Middle East in a civil war. Buzz words change nothing. 8:)

You don't even know the meaning of the words you use. "Sectarian violence" is a gloss over of what is actually going on...CIVIL WAR.

Again...

Sectarian
Adjective

-Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.

A sect is "any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader." So in other words, it's a synonym for a faction. To put it plainly, "sectarian violence" = civil war in laymens terms. So all this time the adminstration has been calling what's going on in Iraq "sectarian violence" was all Orwellian mind games, because that's what they meant all along in so many words.

Mis-argue semantics all you wish. Unified sectarian violence by opposing sides in closer to what you are trying to define as a civil war. Identify the qualifying factors, their projected goals for victory, and governing hierarchy of each respective side to your Civil War. You can't. :rofl:

The only person playing semantics here is you...trying to redefine what a civil war is to justify your own denial. I broke down what sectarian violence means, and you throw in the word 'unified.'

Well, the argument is fundamentally semantic: It's an argument about words and definitions. And the added "unified" changes nothing. The rudiment of your disagreement, if indeed he is attempting to be rational, lies elsewhere.

If Civil War := "A war between factions or regions of the same country."

Sectarian violence, unified or otherwise breaks down as you said:

Sectarian := "of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect."

But the problem lay in that you have not equivaleted violence to war.

Violence := "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse" v "an instance of violent treatment or procedure"

War := "state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations" v "to be in active or vigorous conflict"

As such, in a strictly logical sense, Sectarian Violence =/= Sectarian War, but Sectarian War infers Sectarian Violence.

Why?

Because Sectarian Violence is referring to an isolated event. "He did violence to the young lady," even "There has been violence in the street" merely means there have been individual acts of violence, in the street or to the young lady, not that there was a sustained conflict.

A war, on the other hand, infers acts of violence (Obviously one can have a nonviolent war, price wars, word wars, cold wars and such)

So what you are in fact arguing is, how much violence constitutes a war. Is it one fight? Two fights with connected purpose? Three? Five? Ten? Hundreds? Thousands?

But yes, in essence, this whole argument is over "What do we call it?"

I think we could all settle on "A shi**y situation".

[leftneckredwing]

Chingu wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: So, MSNBC, thye lowest rated and most vocally and obsessively anti-Bush, anti-Republican news outlet takes it upon itself to editorialize what they want their viewers to believe. This is MSNBC's attempt - albeit, laughable, to be the modern day Walter Cronkite's and misinform the public and steer popular opinion away from the war.

Ah, don't sweat it. Your heroes are offering the counter version.

Bush Says Violence in Iraq is Not Civil War

When someone is in denial

Quote: The country is reeling from the deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began in March 2003.

"We've been in this phase for a while," Bush said.

Why bother saying we've been there for a while? Why not deny it altogether? There's plenty of people that would eat it up.

There is a difference. Bush is right and MSNBC is wrong.
it's a nastly bit of a go over there - but it isn't a civil war. It's maybe an ongoing sectarian battle - it's maybe a lot of things. But a Civil War it is not.

When Iraqs freely elected goverment is one side of the fight and when one or more other sides form into some sort of cohesive force with a civil aim in mind - such as to topple this government and erect another - then I might call it a civil war. Until then - it is fighting.

If MSNBC is the least viewed of the networks, what are you worried about anyway?

What is it when two or more factions line up to kill each other by the hundreds and thousands?

That some people are unwilling to say it is a civil war and say it out loud, is indicative of how this war has been conducted all along; by denying and altering what they know.

It's a green zone mentality. It's not a civil war in the green zone, so it can't be in the rest of Iraq. But most people don't live in the green zone. Many are living in the middle of a civil war. Just because there aren't that many factions lining up in the streets and shooting each other, they are still killing each other, by the dozens, hundreds and thousands.

[Nine_Enigmas]

Chingu wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: So, MSNBC, thye lowest rated and most vocally and obsessively anti-Bush, anti-Republican news outlet takes it upon itself to editorialize what they want their viewers to believe. This is MSNBC's attempt - albeit, laughable, to be the modern day Walter Cronkite's and misinform the public and steer popular opinion away from the war.

Ah, don't sweat it. Your heroes are offering the counter version.

Bush Says Violence in Iraq is Not Civil War

When someone is in denial

Quote: The country is reeling from the deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began in March 2003.

"We've been in this phase for a while," Bush said.

Why bother saying we've been there for a while? Why not deny it altogether? There's plenty of people that would eat it up.

There is a difference. Bush is right and MSNBC is wrong.
it's a nastly bit of a go over there - but it isn't a civil war. It's maybe an ongoing sectarian battle - it's maybe a lot of things. But a Civil War it is not.

When Iraqs freely elected goverment is one side of the fight and when one or more other sides form into some sort of cohesive force with a civil aim in mind - such as to topple this government and erect another - then I might call it a civil war. Until then - it is fighting.

But wait, I was told that the insurgents were there to staunch the spread of democracy and set up a terror friendly state.

Bush wouldn't lie when he said that the various insurgent factions had different ambitions, but the same short term goal, would he?

[Nathyn]

beachbum bob wrote: finally MSM getting on board on where Iraq has been for a couple years now....can't wait for foxnews to follow.....someday....
10's of thousands of refugees
1000's killed every month
no Iraqi govt presence
militia rule vast areas


yep....the failure of bush Iraq war policy has given the iraqi people their civil war


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15921476/


NBC label of civil war at odds with White House
Pronouncement to increase public dismay over troop presence, analysts say
Updated: 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - NBC News Monday branded the Iraq conflict a civil war — a decision that put it at odds with the White House and that analysts said would increase public disillusionment with the U.S. troop presence there.

NBC said the Iraqi government's inability to stop spiraling violence between rival factions fit its definition of civil war.
ROFL.

CNN did a report on it. After citing Sunni and Shiite death-squads, CNN's correspondent in Iraq said that anybody who doesn't think there's a civil war in Iraq is simply deceived by distance from Iraq. The Bush admin and the U.N. say it's not a civil war, but that it's really close and could go that way (but they've been saying that for like at least 6 months now). A professor of political science CNN interviewed said Iraq is a civil war because the technical definition of a civil war is a competition for control over a given territory where there is over 1,000 civilian casualties. According to him, Iraq fits the bill.

It's kinda sad that Sunnis and Shiites can't come together, peacefully. Their only disagreement is over the proper Hadiths, not over the Koran. Well, it is a belief in the Koran which makes one a Muslim. And the Koran says killing one Muslim is as bad as killing all of humanity. Such a shame they can't work together.

I think we should try to wash ourselves clean of the matter. Not getting involved ensures that they can't blame us. Letting them duke it out will fuel liberal and secular movements within the Middle East the same way that medieval Christian conflicts fueled the Enlightenment.

[beachbum bob]

what makes more sense??

a new phase??

or

a civil war?? A no-brainer in this reality...Iraq has been a civil war for at least a year or better...
better get use to it along with everything else the bush admin has screwed up and denied in Iraq

[Chingu]

leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: So, MSNBC, thye lowest rated and most vocally and obsessively anti-Bush, anti-Republican news outlet takes it upon itself to editorialize what they want their viewers to believe. This is MSNBC's attempt - albeit, laughable, to be the modern day Walter Cronkite's and misinform the public and steer popular opinion away from the war.

Ah, don't sweat it. Your heroes are offering the counter version.

Bush Says Violence in Iraq is Not Civil War

When someone is in denial

Quote: The country is reeling from the deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began in March 2003.

"We've been in this phase for a while," Bush said.

Why bother saying we've been there for a while? Why not deny it altogether? There's plenty of people that would eat it up.

There is a difference. Bush is right and MSNBC is wrong.
it's a nastly bit of a go over there - but it isn't a civil war. It's maybe an ongoing sectarian battle - it's maybe a lot of things. But a Civil War it is not.

When Iraqs freely elected goverment is one side of the fight and when one or more other sides form into some sort of cohesive force with a civil aim in mind - such as to topple this government and erect another - then I might call it a civil war. Until then - it is fighting.

If MSNBC is the least viewed of the networks, what are you worried about anyway?

What is it when two or more factions line up to kill each other by the hundreds and thousands?

That some people are unwilling to say it is a civil war and say it out loud, is indicative of how this war has been conducted all along; by denying and altering what they know.

It's a green zone mentality. It's not a civil war in the green zone, so it can't be in the rest of Iraq. But most people don't live in the green zone. Many are living in the middle of a civil war. Just because there aren't that many factions lining up in the streets and shooting each other, they are still killing each other, by the dozens, hundreds and thousands.

LEftneck - there is a difference in how you and I - or my side of the argument and your side of the argument view things. I like to call things what they really are. In this case - I am calling the sectarian violence - sectarian violence rather than eagerly manufacturing a sensational title for it in order to further degrade popular opinion over a tough little scrap that's going on in Iraq.

it's the same sort of thing as where one poster, who I assume would be on your side of this argument eagerly pots about a US Helicopter firing on a funeral procession - picking that one bit out and thirstily getting it up in lights here on PCF so that everyone can read about how one of our helicopter crews might - and I stress "might" have made a mistake. In the middle of all the possible news - one side eagerly picks out - with a sense of glee, it seems - anything to paint America as the bad guys.

So I ask - where's the posts about Al Qeada inciting sectarian violence by murdering thirty five Shiite at a mosque? You don't see your side of the argument eagerly posting tht stuff do you?

That's what leads people like me to think that your side of the argument is more interested in America loosing this fight - and Iraqs freely elected government falling - than in seeing a successful outcome. That's what ticks people on my side of the argument off.

You wonder if the folks over there at MSNBC sat around and discussed using the term "civil war" or if they just blurted it out?

The point is not that they used to term but that upon erroneously using it, as if they are the experts on what is and isn't a civil war - or as if they are more aaware of what is really going on in IRaq than everyone else - it is in that upon doing so - folks here pick it up as if it is news worth highlighting. NPR, in all their love of country can't wait another second to report on the report than erroneously says (source please) that we're in the middle of a civil war in IRaq.

I mean - if Al Qeada wanted cheerleaders - and if the bloodthirsty Shiite and Sunni want cheerleaders - and if that Iranian Nutjob of a President wanted sheerleaders - they certainly found them in the American left - and in the MSM - and in the socialist left round the world....

Rah rah rah - go terrorists and murderous thugs go! We'll be your right hand man cheering you on - demoralizing your enemies!!!! Wee Hoo - go go go!

[cool_chick]

Chingu wrote:

Rah rah rah - go terrorists and murderous thugs go! We'll be your right hand man cheering you on - demoralizing your enemies!!!! Wee Hoo - go go go!

Chingu, quite frankly, you guys are getting more and more outrageous by the day. Seriously.

Just yesterday, someone was told they want death and destruction in Iraq, a couple days ago, I was told I'm "ok" with genocide.....and now this. You guys have sunk to some seriously low places.

I have been calling it a civil war for a while now, because it is. Now because I and we all see reality, we're "rah rah for terrorists and murderous thugs?"

WTF is wrong with you guys anymore? You've seriously lost it. And with it, lost credibility. You guys can't control yourselves and be even remotely objective anymore, your credibility is lost.

[Trajan]

On the one hand, you have the gov't forces. On the other, you have those who don't want the gov't.

Both happen to be Iraqi. So it is a civil war? A revolution?

[leftneckredwing]

Chingu wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: So, MSNBC, thye lowest rated and most vocally and obsessively anti-Bush, anti-Republican news outlet takes it upon itself to editorialize what they want their viewers to believe. This is MSNBC's attempt - albeit, laughable, to be the modern day Walter Cronkite's and misinform the public and steer popular opinion away from the war.

Ah, don't sweat it. Your heroes are offering the counter version.

Bush Says Violence in Iraq is Not Civil War

When someone is in denial

Quote: The country is reeling from the deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began in March 2003.

"We've been in this phase for a while," Bush said.

Why bother saying we've been there for a while? Why not deny it altogether? There's plenty of people that would eat it up.

There is a difference. Bush is right and MSNBC is wrong.
it's a nastly bit of a go over there - but it isn't a civil war. It's maybe an ongoing sectarian battle - it's maybe a lot of things. But a Civil War it is not.

When Iraqs freely elected goverment is one side of the fight and when one or more other sides form into some sort of cohesive force with a civil aim in mind - such as to topple this government and erect another - then I might call it a civil war. Until then - it is fighting.

If MSNBC is the least viewed of the networks, what are you worried about anyway?

What is it when two or more factions line up to kill each other by the hundreds and thousands?

That some people are unwilling to say it is a civil war and say it out loud, is indicative of how this war has been conducted all along; by denying and altering what they know.

It's a green zone mentality. It's not a civil war in the green zone, so it can't be in the rest of Iraq. But most people don't live in the green zone. Many are living in the middle of a civil war. Just because there aren't that many factions lining up in the streets and shooting each other, they are still killing each other, by the dozens, hundreds and thousands.

LEftneck - there is a difference in how you and I - or my side of the argument and your side of the argument view things. I like to call things what they really are. In this case - I am calling the sectarian violence - sectarian violence rather than eagerly manufacturing a sensational title for it in order to further degrade popular opinion over a tough little scrap that's going on in Iraq.

it's the same sort of thing as where one poster, who I assume would be on your side of this argument eagerly pots about a US Helicopter firing on a funeral procession - picking that one bit out and thirstily getting it up in lights here on PCF so that everyone can read about how one of our helicopter crews might - and I stress "might" have made a mistake. In the middle of all the possible news - one side eagerly picks out - with a sense of glee, it seems - anything to paint America as the bad guys.

So I ask - where's the posts about Al Qeada inciting sectarian violence by murdering thirty five Shiite at a mosque? You don't see your side of the argument eagerly posting tht stuff do you?

That's what leads people like me to think that your side of the argument is more interested in America loosing this fight - and Iraqs freely elected government falling - than in seeing a successful outcome. That's what ticks people on my side of the argument off.

You wonder if the folks over there at MSNBC sat around and discussed using the term "civil war" or if they just blurted it out?

The point is not that they used to term but that upon erroneously using it, as if they are the experts on what is and isn't a civil war - or as if they are more aaware of what is really going on in IRaq than everyone else - it is in that upon doing so - folks here pick it up as if it is news worth highlighting. NPR, in all their love of country can't wait another second to report on the report than erroneously says (source please) that we're in the middle of a civil war in IRaq.

I mean - if Al Qeada wanted cheerleaders - and if the bloodthirsty Shiite and Sunni want cheerleaders - and if that Iranian Nutjob of a President wanted sheerleaders - they certainly found them in the American left - and in the MSM - and in the socialist left round the world....

Rah rah rah - go terrorists and murderous thugs go! We'll be your right hand man cheering you on - demoralizing your enemies!!!! Wee Hoo - go go go!

Trying very hard to become relevant, aren't you?

Succees is within your reach. As long as it only requires insults.

[Trajan]

leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Chingu wrote: So, MSNBC, thye lowest rated and most vocally and obsessively anti-Bush, anti-Republican news outlet takes it upon itself to editorialize what they want their viewers to believe. This is MSNBC's attempt - albeit, laughable, to be the modern day Walter Cronkite's and misinform the public and steer popular opinion away from the war.

Ah, don't sweat it. Your heroes are offering the counter version.

Bush Says Violence in Iraq is Not Civil War

When someone is in denial

Quote: The country is reeling from the deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began in March 2003.

"We've been in this phase for a while," Bush said.

Why bother saying we've been there for a while? Why not deny it altogether? There's plenty of people that would eat it up.

There is a difference. Bush is right and MSNBC is wrong.
it's a nastly bit of a go over there - but it isn't a civil war. It's maybe an ongoing sectarian battle - it's maybe a lot of things. But a Civil War it is not.

When Iraqs freely elected goverment is one side of the fight and when one or more other sides form into some sort of cohesive force with a civil aim in mind - such as to topple this government and erect another - then I might call it a civil war. Until then - it is fighting.

If MSNBC is the least viewed of the networks, what are you worried about anyway?

What is it when two or more factions line up to kill each other by the hundreds and thousands?

That some people are unwilling to say it is a civil war and say it out loud, is indicative of how this war has been conducted all along; by denying and altering what they know.

It's a green zone mentality. It's not a civil war in the green zone, so it can't be in the rest of Iraq. But most people don't live in the green zone. Many are living in the middle of a civil war. Just because there aren't that many factions lining up in the streets and shooting each other, they are still killing each other, by the dozens, hundreds and thousands.

LEftneck - there is a difference in how you and I - or my side of the argument and your side of the argument view things. I like to call things what they really are. In this case - I am calling the sectarian violence - sectarian violence rather than eagerly manufacturing a sensational title for it in order to further degrade popular opinion over a tough little scrap that's going on in Iraq.

it's the same sort of thing as where one poster, who I assume would be on your side of this argument eagerly pots about a US Helicopter firing on a funeral procession - picking that one bit out and thirstily getting it up in lights here on PCF so that everyone can read about how one of our helicopter crews might - and I stress "might" have made a mistake. In the middle of all the possible news - one side eagerly picks out - with a sense of glee, it seems - anything to paint America as the bad guys.

So I ask - where's the posts about Al Qeada inciting sectarian violence by murdering thirty five Shiite at a mosque? You don't see your side of the argument eagerly posting tht stuff do you?

That's what leads people like me to think that your side of the argument is more interested in America loosing this fight - and Iraqs freely elected government falling - than in seeing a successful outcome. That's what ticks people on my side of the argument off.

You wonder if the folks over there at MSNBC sat around and discussed using the term "civil war" or if they just blurted it out?

The point is not that they used to term but that upon erroneously using it, as if they are the experts on what is and isn't a civil war - or as if they are more aaware of what is really going on in IRaq than everyone else - it is in that upon doing so - folks here pick it up as if it is news worth highlighting. NPR, in all their love of country can't wait another second to report on the report than erroneously says (source please) that we're in the middle of a civil war in IRaq.

I mean - if Al Qeada wanted cheerleaders - and if the bloodthirsty Shiite and Sunni want cheerleaders - and if that Iranian Nutjob of a President wanted sheerleaders - they certainly found them in the American left - and in the MSM - and in the socialist left round the world....

Rah rah rah - go terrorists and murderous thugs go! We'll be your right hand man cheering you on - demoralizing your enemies!!!! Wee Hoo - go go go!

Trying very hard to become relevant, aren't you?

Succees is within your reach. As long as it only requires insults.

That's all that can be used as that is all that remains.