Can we call it a civil war now?

[Drocket]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 42 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis, emergency police said.

...

Gunmen -- mostly "young reckless teenagers" -- started to pick up Sunni youth and execute them in public, while others went door-to-door looking for Sunni families who stayed behind, Makki said.

After warning one Iraqi woman she had 10 seconds to leave, the gunmen killed her and her children, Makki said.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/09/iraq.main/index.html)

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But no.
2. This is every day Islam.
3. They seem to be a very unstable religion.
4. In all parts of Islam they kill each other without an apparent cause.
5. Happens all over Islam.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

Chesswarsnow....I'd suggest some light reading on the different sects of Islam........then get back to us, when you know what you're talking about.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Sunnis and Shias have been killing each others for centuries.

I suggest some light reading on the subject... then get back to us, when you know what you're talking about.

[Alonzo]

PAD, are you suggesting that wherever muslims live/have lived, they regularly kill each other in sectarian violence? That's what you're defending:

2. This is every day Islam.
3. They seem to be a very unstable religion.
4. In all parts of Islam they kill each other without an apparent cause.
5. Happens all over Islam.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Not suggesting.

Stating as fact.

Sunnis and Shias have been killing one another since the original split of decided Mohammed's "true heir".

That's what the split is. It isn't ideological. It's the Shias saying they're the true heir of the Mohammedian blood line vs. the Sunnis saying the same thing.

There is no equal in Judiasm or Christianity.

[Drocket]

Assuming we go along with the bigotted idea that Muslims are heathen barbarians who just love to murder each other: the fact that this is a continuation of an older war changes the fact that this is a civil war how, exactly?

[BoogyMan]

Sunnis and Shias have been killing one another since the original split of decided Mohammed's "true heir".

That's what the split is.Â*Â*It isn't ideological.Â*Â*It's the Shias saying they're the true heir of the Mohammedian blood line vs. the Sunnis saying the same thing.

There is no equal in Judiasm or Christianity.

Oops, you have done it now.

Not only have you told the truth and properly represented what has been going on in the middle east for over a thousand years, and you said something about christianity that wasnt dripping with hatred and disrespect.

How dare you! :)

I notice that Drocket has already called you a bigot for presenting the facts.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Islam will always be in a constant civil war reality.
2. There will never be a day that Islam will be at peace within itself.
3. A religion that's founded on:
a) Oppression
b) Killings
c) Mass Murders
d) Persecution of Jews and Christians
e) Crimes against Humanity
4. Can do only one thing unto itself, all of the above.
5. Unless you have a fully developed brain as I do, you can not get past your own guilt to be able to see what the realities are of Islam.
6. That's why I'm here, to show you the way.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Alonzo]

Well, Boogey, I happen to agree with Drocket.

But I would like someone to present evidence to me that Islam is more prone to war than any other religion. The Middle East dealt with colonialism just like many other places that now face plenty of war, such as Africa (regardless of religion, and in Rwanda, for example, muslims did everything they could to protect civilians, while priests and nuns often rounded them up), Asia and South America.

Europe itself has had plenty of religious wars as well, be it among themselves or against others. And many of their conquests were done under the name of either racism (civilizing the savage) or God.

Almost every religious conflict has secular roots. I have yet to see anyone (let alone anyone on a message board) present a convincing argument that Islam is more prone to war when secular issues, regarding the regions where it exists, are accounted for. Secular issues cloaked in religious rhetoric are still secular issues.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Of course Drocket and 'zo have to circle jerk support for one another.

They can't admit that Islam has always had violent conflict between Sunnis and Shias.Â*Â*It would be detrimental to their continued well being. http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h35/MrSmorch/Political%20Pictures/blowup.gif

[Drocket]

Oh, I readily admit that the Sunnis and the Shias have quite a history of violence between them. The conflict, though, really isn't much about the religious differences between them and has long since morphed into repaying the last attack/insult/whatever against the other group. They've basically gotten stuck in a cycle of revenge. To claim that that sort of behavior is in any way unique to Islam, though, is simply stupid and willfully blind.

And again, regardless of what 'started' the conflict, there are two(/three) groups in Iraq that want to kill each other. That's what called a civil war. Look it up.

[rodeojones903]

And again, regardless of what 'started' the conflict, there are two(/three) groups in Iraq that want to kill each other. That's what called a civil war. Look it up.



Bloods and Crips want to kill each other, so I guess by your statement America is also having a civil war.

[Drocket]

If the Crips and Bloods start killing politicians with the goal of influencing the political landscape of the country to gain policies favorable to their positions, then yes, I'd call it a civil war.

[Nathan Brazil]

So what? A gang of thugs went on a rampage and killed some people. That don't make it a civil war, sorry.

When it becomes a civil war we'll be able to identify the sides, pick out the enemies, and kill them. Right now it's just a bunch of losers getting their rocks off killing civillians and soldiers.

[lily]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13806135/

As violence increases, Iraqis turn to fake IDs
Sectarian brutality has many carrying documents hiding their names

Updated: 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A bookstore in eastern Baghdad is getting more customers
these days, but they aren’t looking for something to read. The owner sells
fake IDs, a booming business as Iraqis try to hide their identities in hopes
of staying alive.

Although it’s nearly impossible to distinguish between a Sunni and a Shiite
by sight, names can be telling. Surnames refer to tribe and clan, while
first names are often chosen to honor historical figures revered by one sect
but sometimes despised by the other.

For about $35, someone with a common Sunni name like Omar could become
Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite name that might provide safe passage through dangerous
areas.



“I got a fake ID card to protect myself from the Shiite militias who are
deploying in Baghdad and hunt Sunnis at fake checkpoints,� said Omar Abdul
Rahman, a 22-year-old university student. He refused to give the name on his
fake ID.

The growing use of fake IDs reflects the spike in violence between Sunnis
and Shiites since the Feb. 22 bombing of a revered Shiite mosque in
Samarra — an attack that triggered reprisal killings of Sunnis and pushed
the country to the brink of civil war.

Interior Ministry Maj. Gen. Mahdi al-Gharawi said officials are aware fake
IDs are common but have more important things to focus on — such as stopping
violence.

‘It's illegal, but one can understand’
“They are issuing Sunni IDs in the Shiite areas and vice versa,� he said.
“It’s illegal, but one can understand why they do it.�

The problem was thrust into the spotlight Sunday when masked Shiite gunmen
ambushed Sunnis in western Baghdad, singling out those with names commonly
used by Sunnis to be killed.

Wissam Mohammad al-Ani, a 27-year-old Sunni calligrapher, said his false
identification card has a Shiite name and it saved his life when he was
approached by gunmen.

[Drocket]

When it becomes a civil war we'll be able to identify the sides, pick out the enemies, and kill them.

In other words: its not a civil war until the combatants *literally* wear blue and grey uniforms.

Its not that hard to pick out the two sides: one side is the Sunni. The other is the Shia. Anything beyond that is EXTREMELY hard, though, because neither side is actually our enemy. Or both sides are our enemy, depending on how you look at it - they both enjoy taking pot shots at US troops when they're not killing each other, though that's mostly just because we're in the way, at this point...

Ultimately, this revolves around the one question that Bush is completely incapable of answering - why are we in Iraq? Saying that we're there to give them freedom is a bigger load of BS than its ever been (and it was a pretty big load to start with.) It MIGHT at this point reasonably be called a peacekeeping mission in a violent region, but that's not how its being approached - we continue to throw gasoline on fires that are already out of control.

Iraq is in a very, very bad state, and it gets worse with every passing day. And, unfortunately, it looks pretty clear that its going to have to get a lot worse before a number of people pull their heads out of their asses and start to deal with the messy reality of the situation instead of their nice, neat fantasies.

[Nathan Brazil]

When it becomes a civil war we'll be able to identify the sides, pick out the enemies, and kill them.

In other words: its not a civil war until the combatants *literally* wear blue and grey uniforms.

Well, no. I think they'd look better in pink and chartreuse.

Its not that hard to pick out the two sides:Â*Â*one side is the Sunni.Â*Â*The other is the Shia.

Right, and it's the extremists on both sides, not the general mass of cultists on both sides rising up and participating or supporting it. That's why it ain't a civil war, it's just a gang war.

Ultimately, this revolves around the one question that Bush is completely incapable of answering - why are we in Iraq?Â*Â*Saying that we're there to give them freedom is a bigger load of BS than its ever been (and it was a pretty big load to start with.)Â*Â*It MIGHT at this point reasonably be called a peacekeeping mission in a violent region, but that's not how its being approached - we continue to throw gasoline on fires that are already out of control.

We're there because of Iran. That's not hard to figure out. It was never hard to figure out. Why do you think there were so many excuses, none of which made any sense? Go buy a map.

Iraq is in a very, very bad state, and it gets worse with every passing day.Â*Â*And, unfortunately, it looks pretty clear that its going to have to get a lot worse before a number of people pull their heads out of their asses and start to deal with the messy reality of the situation instead of their nice, neat fantasies.

Yeah, the nice neat fantasy that the US will be leaving Iraq anytime soon is something the surrender monkeys should give up. Their insistence for the impossible is fueling the belief among the various gangs in Iraq that if they keep trying they can succeed. Naturally, the surrender monkeys are trying hard to realize their prediction that Iraq would be like Vietnam. Surrender monkeys, after all, only live for Novembers of even numbered years.

[Drocket]

Right, and it's the extremists on both sides, not the general mass of cultists on both sides rising up and participating or supporting it.Â*Â*That's why it ain't a civil war, it's just a gang war.
Because every single solitary person in the US participated directly in the US civil war, right?

We're there because of Iran.
We're there because Cheney's stock needed some padding. If Iran was the problem, we could have/should have invaded them. Instead, we've gotten bogged down in complete mess that's going to be nearly impossible to get out of, while Iran and North Korea basically thumb their noses at us because they know perfectly well that we can't do shit about it. If we'd try ANYTHING against Iran at this point, we'd be remembering fondly the days of $5/gallon gas while our economy ceases to exist - and they know it.

If invading Iraq was some sort of super-secret plan to get ready for Iran, it is without a doubt one of the biggest military blunders in human history. Hell, its one of the biggest blunders anyway...


Yeah, the nice neat fantasy that the US will be leaving Iraq anytime soon is something the surrender monkeys should give up.
Unfortunately, you're quite correct. Bush's little escapade is going to be the gift that keeps on giving. Generation after generation after generation... Have fun explaining to your grandchildren how you supported the start of this whole mess when they're being shipped off in a half-century or so.

[Nathan Brazil]

Right, and it's the extremists on both sides, not the general mass of cultists on both sides rising up and participating or supporting it.Â*Â*That's why it ain't a civil war, it's just a gang war.
Because every single solitary person in the US participated directly in the US civil war, right?

They sure did, just about. For the most part, they took real sides and real interest. There wasn't a big middle ground, you were either secesh or you weren't.

By comparison, Iraq's a squabble and most people are trying to stay out of it completely.


We're there because of Iran.
We're there because Cheney's stock needed some padding.

Ah, the foul smell of stale talking points. What a drone.

If Iran was the problem, we could have/should have invaded them.

Haven't bought that map, I see.

Let me know when you find one.

If we'd try ANYTHING against Iran at this point, we'd be remembering fondly the days of $5/gallon gas while our economy ceases to exist - and they know it.

Ah, ignorance. It's such a sweet thing in one so young. Market forces are a mystery....

If invading Iraq was some sort of super-secret plan to get ready for Iran, it is without a doubt one of the biggest military blunders in human history.Â*Â*Hell, its one of the biggest blunders anyway...

So far it's worked well. Got that map yet?

Yeah, the nice neat fantasy that the US will be leaving Iraq anytime soon is something the surrender monkeys should give up.
Unfortunately, you're quite correct.

Nothing unfortunate about it. That's my normal condition.



Have fun explaining to your grandchildren how you supported the start of this whole mess when they're being shipped off in a half-century or so.

Double dipping on your serving of ignorance? What have I said that indicates I supported intervening in Iraq? Nothing. But I guess people without arguments have to find something besides stale talking points to sling around.

[Drocket]

Haven't bought that map, I see.

Let me know when you find one.

First off: I'm 99% certain that you have no clue *AT ALL* about what any 'super secret alternative plan' might be, and are simply throwing out the 'buy a map' comment so that you won't actually have to describe any such theoretical plan because you know doing so will only make you look stupider than you normally do. But fine: I'll pretend I take you seriously.


Yeah, they're side-by-side. So the question is - so fucking what? Are you saying that Iran's military might is so great that the only way we could attack them would be some sort of complicated pincer attack? Puh-leaze. Iran's military isn't the rusty bucket of junk that Iraqs was, but its not nearly state-of-the-art, either. They could have easily been taken care of with an invasion from Afganistan - key word being 'could have'.

There's so many major problems with the scenario you're suggesting that its hard to know where to begin. At the most basic level, the US military has nearly abandoned Afganistan (which is why the Taliban is rather quickly retaking the country), so any attack would be pretty much only from the Iraq side anyway, making the entire thing pretty much moot. Secondly, invading Iran at this point in time would pretty much confirm to the Muslim world that we're there as conquerers, leading to an insurgency that makes what's going on in Iraq right now look like a cakewalk ('cause Iraq is going so well, right?) Even aside from the fact that we'd inflame the Muslim world 1000% times more than we arleady have, we can't even control the land we already have in Iraq - trying to occupy Iran as well would be pure insanity.

No matter how you slice it, invading Iraq was a monumental military blunder.

[Nathan Brazil]

Yeah, they're side-by-side.Â*Â*So the question is - so fucking what?

Better buy a bigger map.Â*Â*That'll help you get a bigger picture.

Are you saying that Iran's military might is so great that the only way we could attack them would be some sort of complicated pincer attack?Â*Â*Puh-leaze.Â*Â*Iran's military isn't the rusty bucket of junk that Iraqs was, but its not nearly state-of-the-art, either.Â*Â*They could have easily been taken care of with an invasion from Afganistan - key word being 'could have'.

Would it have been easier to state your ignorance of the logistical factors in so many words?

Â*Â*
There's so many major problems with the scenario you're suggesting that its hard to know where to begin.

I haven't suggested a scenario, you're fighting figments of your own imagination.

And losing.

At the most basic level, the US military has nearly abandoned Afganistan (which is why the Taliban is rather quickly retaking the country), so any attack would be pretty much only from the Iraq side anyway, making the entire thing pretty much moot.

Haven't made any assertions.

Secondly, invading Iran at this point in time

Discussions on intentions prior to the invasion of Iraq should probably stick with conditions existing at that time, because otherwise you're just rambling because you can't beat the scenarios you yourself are making up.

would pretty much confirm to the Muslim world that we're there as conquerers, leading to an insurgency that makes what's going on in Iraq right now look like a cakewalk ('cause Iraq is going so well, right?)Â*

Iraq's not going too badly.Â*Â*It's about what I expected when they started marching in.Â*Â*No big surprises at all, in fact.Â*Â*

Even aside from the fact that we'd inflame the Muslim world 1000% times more than we arleady have, we can't even control the land we already have in Iraq - trying to occupy Iran as well would be pure insanity.

Ya gotta stick to the situation as it was in 2003 if you're going to argue about intentions.

No matter how you slice it, invading Iraq was a monumental military blunder.

No, not really.Â*Â*Muslims are dying in droves, and they're being killed by other muslims.Â*Â*That's a pretty good thing.Â*Â*Saddam Hussein is out of power.Â*Â*That's a pretty good thing.

The mistakes made in the liberation of Iraq are:

Failure to secure Iraqi government buildings, especially police buildings, from "looting", much of which was the destruction of records of informers, collaborators, foreign contacts, and covert ops.Â*Â*This let the French, Germans, and Russians off the hook, enabled a significant disaffected population to remain unidentified and thus unrestrained, and failed to identify links for foreign operations.

The US refused to secure Iraq's borders with Jordan, Syria, and Iran.Â*Â*Apparently the Bush people really really like open borders everywhere, and not just with Mexico.Â*Â*People crossing into Iraq from Syria and Iran and Jordan should have been shot on sight, Halliburton should have gotten a contract to build walls and fences, or to just lay minefields in those areas.

The US refused to treat terrorists as they promised.Â*Â*Zarqawi was allowed to hide in a fort for days, and then his escape was negotiated with the US and the interim Iraqi government because the fort he was in was actually a centuries old mosque he was blaspheming with his presence.Â*Â*Clearly the proper thing to have done was to drop a dozen thousand pound bombs on Zarqawi's head then, and told the muslim world that if they're going to use their mosques as forts, the US will treat them like forts, and if they want the US to respect their mosques, they need to show that their mosques are respectable.

And finally, the US is all bent out of shape over the concept of "torture".Â*Â*The archaic means of torture the amateurs at Abu Ghraib used were bad because they were inefficient.Â*Â*Torture scientifically applied, ie, hooking the specimen up to a polygraph, using drugs, and conditioning the specimen against lying with mild electric shocks, can yield useful information fairly quickly, and not leave a mark.Â*Â*The info still needs independent checking, but there's no reason to waste time on warehousing the animals in the hopes that they'll talk.Â*Â*Oh, and since they're in Iraq, use the information gathered against the specimen, and execute promptly those specimens confessing to terrorist crimes or terrorist support. And needless to say, it should be left to trained professionals as part of a coherent intel extraction plan, and not delegated to a bunch of weekend warriors.

That's what Bush's "no tolerance" policy on terrorism should mean.Â*Â*Iraq is predictably bogged down because Bush is a liberal who's more worried about feelings than results.

Oh, and btw, Iraq is at the center of the Islamo-terrorist world.Â*Â*Look at the map.Â*Â*Then think game theory.

[Drocket]

No, not really.Â*Â*Muslims are dying in droves, and they're being killed by other muslims.Â*Â*That's a pretty good thing.Â*

And this conversation is over. Not only are you a ignorant fool, you're a bigoted ignorant fool.

[Nathan Brazil]

No, not really.Â*Â*Muslims are dying in droves, and they're being killed by other muslims.Â*Â*That's a pretty good thing.Â*

And this conversation is over.Â*Â*Not only are you a ignorant fool, you're a bigoted ignorant fool.


I'd've said the argument was over when you couldn't figure out the strategic advantages of invading Iraq. It's certainly over when your only response is ad hominem attacks, especially wrong ad hominem attacks.

[Alonzo]

Of course Drocket and 'zo have to circle jerk support for one another.

They can't admit that Islam has always had violent conflict between Sunnis and Shias.Â*Â*It would be detrimental to their continued well being. http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h35/MrSmorch/Political%20Pictures/blowup.gif


Typical PAD. Just make an attack instead of actually trying to prove your point.