NBC News: 'Cause WE say so

[motivez]

The people who refuse to call it a civil war are generally the same people who've had blinders on when it comes to Iraq for the last several years and think it's been going just swimmingly, that there's so much good going on there that's not being reported, if we just showed them painting schools, it'd all be worth it!

Those people have 0 credibility when it comes to Iraq because well, they've been wrong about everything else so far. This is no different.

Of course it's a civil war.

Look at history of deaths per day in civil wars and you'll find that the number of people killed in this back and forth between rival factions has been higher since last year than other recent civil wars, such as in El Salvador, etc..

Just because it's not being fought in a traditional way with an army wearing blue and an army wearing silver doesn't mean anything.

[Diamond Cross]

And people who say there is nothing good about us being there are only doing so because of their own personal bigotries, according to polls roughly 75% of conservatives support it and 86% of liberals don't.

PArtisan politics automatically renders people who call Iraq a complete mess and blame america have their own blinde4rs on due to their own prejudices and bigotries and are therefore rendered incredible because all they see is the death of the American soldier and do not acknowledge anything else happening in Iraq. They do not acknowledge the Iraqi people want a democracy. They do not acknowledge it is not a civil war.

Therefore they are not credible and are wrong period.

[motivez]

I've acknowledged that good things are going on there plenty of times, however, the reality is that those good things are heavily outweighed by the bad.

Rather than having a myopic view and seeing what I want to see without looking at the big picture, I'm looking at the facts about what's going on there in terms of the number of people who are dying in the military conflict between opposing political factions.

My view is hardly partisan.

Lets look at some of these facts.

El Salvador: 100,000 lives over ~12 years. That's 23 killed per day.
Algeria: 200,000 lives since 1988. That's 37ish killed per day.

Iraq: We're routinely seeing 50, 60, 70, even 100 bodies found every morning who've been killed by the "sectarian violence".

It shows no signs of slowing down. Sadly, the type of violence and the level of violence obviously qualify it as a civil war. There's no disputing it. It's a fact.

Of course, people with political desires to make Iraq look as benign and calm as possible will play semantic games, preferring to continue labeling it "sectarian violence"..

The democracy aspect is completely irrelevant to the discussion. We were a 'democracy' (don't stab me in the face, Libertarian 'zomg we're a representitive republic!11111111111' crew) while we had our civil war.

[Diamond Cross]

When America is bllamed, that's partisan. What's the proper term for something that happens with something else happening that isn't a cause and effect? For example, every time time Farmer brown's cucmber crops yield fifty percent more than normal, the 49ers win the superbowl. Does that mean Farmer Brown caused the 49ers to win the superbowl? Of course not.

When people just see American deaths without reporting the deaths of the enemy combatants, that's partisan. Because the true measure of victory in a military conflict is not how much damage of the home team, but how much damage is done to the oppsing side. That's how victory is determined.

Yes war is ugly and bad things happen. But if something is important enough, do you just quit because bad things happen? If you wanted to win the most important things in your life do you quit just because bad things happen? If too much bad things happens? How much is too much? Gold medalist in the Olympics don't quit just because someone may walk up and give them a bloody nose or say a few harsh words, but they strive for the gold medal.

Would you let somebody drive you out of your house if it was that important to you? Good people live in gang-ridden neighboorhoods face the possibility of violence every day and some have bullet holes in the walls in their house. But do they leave? No because it is important for them to live there so they don't quit. Do you quit on you child because they may want to become involved in a gang and commit some crimes? Many Parents do not quit on their children even if they've shot someone because their child is important to them to see their child do good and be a good person.

If something is important enough, people do not quit. But hay, maybe because the Constitution is constantly under attack that means it isn't worth having and the democracy has failed and we should just quit. Too many lives have been lost and too many people have been put in prison while fighting for the Constituion, so maybe the Constitution has failed because so much bad stuff has happened in its name.

Americans are not quitters. People still fight for the Constitution to mean something. There are still people who fight for the rights in our Constitution. The Constitution is that important. The Constitution means something to millions of people.

Now with that being said, because the Iraq government has asked us to leave, we should leave.

[JaJae]

If Iraq is in a civil war as NBC claims, why do they have to continue to lie to make that claim?

The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We’ll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase, civil war.

Video

If it's in a civil war, why can't they explain their position without lying?

It's my personal opinion that it is. But I'm willing to understand that it's my opinion, and if I'm going to back it up, I'd do so without presenting knowingly false reasons. They have already been informed this story is false and was asked to retract it, why do they keep running it and using it to justify their perspective?

[avsp]

Does it, in any way at all, matter what we call it?


Claims that the Coalition bear no responsibility for the current situation are, IMO, clearly bias inspired.

The removal of Saddam 'took the lid off' long running sectarian resentments that his rule had exacerbated

The invasion was publically avowed to be part of a long term plan to unseat the neighbouring autocratic regimes, so obviously they are bound to intervene. The coalition forces have barely attempted to control the frontiers, ..., not least coz they dont have enough troops to do just that one task

The invading forces have failed to provide adequate everyday security right from the very point of the regime falling, ..., this was due to the failure of the 'flipping' of ISF which formed a major part of Coalition thinking & planning. NO REMEDIAL ACTION was taken to correct this failure

Thus the coalition set up the conditions for trhe current situation, & thus must take some of the responsibility. Especially as they made such grandiose claims about their motives & abilities beforehand, ..., such as having a strategy such as 'shock & awe', & naming it as such.

These things are so massively self-evident that any attempt to deny them is a sure sign of massively blatent bias.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

If Iraq is in a civil war as NBC claims, why do they have to continue to lie to make that claim?


Video

If it's in a civil war, why can't they explain their position without lying?

It's my personal opinion that it is. But I'm willing to understand that it's my opinion, and if I'm going to back it up, I'd do so without presenting knowingly false reasons. They have already been informed this story is false and was asked to retract it, why do they keep running it and using it to justify their perspective?

maybe they don't believe what they were "informed" of

Iraq isn't exactly the most reliable place

I mean, i keep looking on CNN and their liberal bias isn't telling us how the insurgency is in the last throes

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

maybe they don't believe what they were "informed" of

Iraq isn't exactly the most reliable place

I mean, i keep looking on CNN and their liberal bias isn't telling us how the insurgency is in the last throes

So they'd rather take the information from a guy who claims to work for the police, but in reality lied about his identity and numerous stories in the past he has given were never proven as well?

I mean, the notion that 6 men were burned alive in front of our troops, yet not a single witness was there to see it and the man who broke the story lied repeatedly in the past and also lied about his identity doesn't make one think.. hey maybe we should check this out?

It's amazing the great lengths people will go to prove to themselves that atrocities are happening in Iraq. There is much going wrong in Iraq, we don't need to be pushing these obviously false stories as reality. Well I guess some do...

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So they'd rather take the information from a guy who claims to work for the police, but in reality lied about his identity and numerous stories in the past he has given were never proven as well?

I mean, the notion that 6 men were burned alive in front of our troops, yet not a single witness was there to see it and the man who broke the story lied repeatedly in the past and also lied about his identity doesn't make one think.. hey maybe we should check this out?

It's amazing the great lengths people will go to prove to themselves that atrocities are happening in Iraq. There is much going wrong in Iraq, we don't need to be pushing these obviously false stories as reality. Well I guess some do...

The story was an IRAQI not US base

Maybe they confirmed it with another source...you usually don't drag out an article by saying "and we had another confirmation from...and another confirmation from..." its usually just assumed

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS...r-CivilWar.wmv

for laughs

[JaJae]

Your link didn't play.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

for laughs

yeah, ..., i p*ssed myself laughing at idiots bickering about how to describe the death & suffering of the Iraqi people

[WickedLou9]

I think people get too hung up on the language of what is happening. Is is a conflict? a war? sectarian violence? civil war? civil unrest? Terrorism?
Not to be trite but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, or in this case foul. We all know what is happening over there. It matters not what you choose to call it. I think if some people could get past lables that they might not like and try to simply look at what IS recognize the problem and talk about a solution we would all be in a better place. Bush for example refuses to talk about what is happening in Iraq in any sort of overtly negative terms. I think that limits him and limits his approach to the problem. If he can't see it for what it is, and won't recognize the deteriorating nature of what is happening then what can he do to fix it?
My point is you can call this conflict whatever you want. Alot of the terms are subjective anyway. Calling it one thing or another does not change the reality of what is happening.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

If Iraq is in a civil war as NBC claims, why do they have to continue to lie to make that claim?


Video

If it's in a civil war, why can't they explain their position without lying?

It's my personal opinion that it is. But I'm willing to understand that it's my opinion, and if I'm going to back it up, I'd do so without presenting knowingly false reasons. They have already been informed this story is false and was asked to retract it, why do they keep running it and using it to justify their perspective?

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The attack on the small Mustafa Sunni mosque began as worshippers were finishing Friday midday prayers. About 50 unarmed men, many in black uniforms and some wearing ski masks, walked through the district chanting "We are the Mahdi Army, shield of the Shiites."

ADVERTISEMENT

Fifteen minutes later, two white pickup trucks, a black BMW and a black Opel drove up to the marchers. The suspected Shiite militiamen took automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers from the vehicles. They then blasted open the front of the mosque, dragged six worshippers outside, doused them with kerosene and set them on fire.

This account of one of the most horrific alleged attacks of Iraq's sectarian war emerged Tuesday in separate interviews with residents of a Sunni enclave in the largely Shiite Hurriyah district of Baghdad.

The Associated Press first reported on Friday's incident that evening, based on the account of police Capt. Jamil Hussein and Imad al-Hashimi, a Sunni elder in Hurriyah, who told Al-Arabiya television he saw people who were soaked in kerosene, then set afire, burning before his eyes.

AP Television News also took video of the Mustafa mosque showing a large portion of the front wall around the door blown away. The interior of the mosque appeared to be badly damaged and there were signs of fire.

However, the U.S. military said in a letter to the AP late Monday, three days after the incident, that it had checked with the Iraqi Interior Ministry and was told that no one by the name of Jamil Hussein works for the ministry or as a Baghdad police officer. Lt. Michael B. Dean, a public affairs officer of the U.S. Navy Multi-National Corps-Iraq Joint Operations Center, signed the letter, a text of which was published subsequently on several Internet blogs. The letter also reiterated an earlier statement from the U.S. military that it had been unable to confirm the report of immolation.

The AP received no comment Friday when it first asked the U.S. military for information. It then carried portions of a U.S. military statement Saturday that said the U.S. had been unable to confirm media reports that six Sunni civilians were allegedly dragged out of Friday prayers and burned to death. The U.S. military said that neither police nor coalition forces had reports of such an incident.

The Iraqi Defense Ministry later said that al-Hashimi, the Sunni elder in Hurriyah, had recanted his account of the attack after being visited by a representative of the defense minister.

The dispute comes at a time when the military is taking a more active role in dealing with the media.

The AP reported on Sept. 26 that a Washington-based firm, the Lincoln Group, had won a two-year contract to monitor reporting on the Iraq conflict in English-language and Arabic media outlets.

That contract succeeded one held by another Washington firm, The Rendon Group. Controversy had arisen around the Lincoln Group in 2005 when it was disclosed that it was part of a U.S. military operation to pay Iraqi newspapers to run positive stories about U.S. military activities.

Seeking further information about Friday's attack, an AP reporter contacted Hussein for a third time about the incident to confirm there was no error. The captain has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions. The captain, who gave his full name as Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, said six people were indeed set on fire.

On Tuesday, two AP reporters also went back to the Hurriyah neighborhood around the Mustafa mosque and found three witnesses who independently gave accounts of the attack. Others in the neighborhood said they were afraid to talk about what happened.

Those who would talk said the assault began about 2:15 p.m., and they believed the attackers were from the Mahdi Army militia loyal to radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He and the Shiite militia are deeply rooted in and control the Sadr City enclave in northeastern Baghdad where suspected Sunni insurgents attacked with a series of car bombs and mortar shells, killing at least 215 people a day before.

The witnesses refused to allow the use of their names because they feared retribution either from the original attackers or the police, whose ranks are infiltrated by Mahdi Army members or its associated death squads.

Two of the witnesses — a 45-year-old bookshop owner and a 48-year-old neighborhood grocery owner — gave nearly identical accounts of what happened. A third, a physician, said he saw the attack on the mosque from his home, saw it burning and heard people in the streets screaming that people had been set on fire. All three men are Sunni Muslims.

The two other witnesses said the mosque assault began in earnest about 2:30 p.m. after the arrival of the four vehicles filled with arms. They said the attackers fired into the mosque, then entered and set it on fire.

Then, the witnesses said, the attackers brought out six men, blindfolded and handcuffed, and lined them up on the street at the gate of the mosque. The witnesses said the six were doused with kerosene from a 1.3-gallon canister and set on fire at intervals, one after the other, with a torch made of rags. The fifth and sixth men in the line were set afire at the same time.

The witnesses said the burning victims rolled on the ground in agony until apparently dead, then the gunmen fired a single bullet into each of their heads.

The witnesses said residents, in the meantime, had taken up arms and began a gunbattle with the suspected militiamen that raged in the neighborhood until 4 p.m. They said eight to 10 gunmen were killed and left in the streets. Iraqi law allows each household to own an AK-47 assault rife for protection.

One witness said he and other people from the neighborhood took the six immolation victims to the Sunni cemetery near Baghdad's Abu Ghraib suburb and buried them after the gunbattle. That witness said one of the victims was the Mustafa mosque muezzin or prayer caller, Ahmed al-Mashadani. He did not know the names of the five others, but said they were all members of the al-Mashadani tribe.


Witnesses detail Iraq burning deaths - Yahoo! News

Total lies eh?

[lew]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Keep reading after the comma to avoid further confusion.

Naming the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[JaJae]

Kofi Annan says Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, but it's not there yet. Then again he isn't a very good source considering he doesn't call certain world events genocide. The fact that he says it's on the "verge" should mean the exact opposite that it is in my book.

[garbagemanlb]

Whether it is a fucking civil war or not, hundreds are dying weekly in Iraq because numerous factions are vying for control of the country. Wasting time debating semantics is fucking stupid. Call it a civil war or a friendly bar fight, it is going on and debates like this are pointless.

[MoTaVa]

Im guilty of not reading all the posts in this thread completely, am kinda rushed for time here at work. Just want to say about this whole civil war thing.
Its the shea and suni that are killing each other. There are suni and shea are living all over the middle eastern world. Since they are not isolated to Iraq it sort of negates the whole civil war label. This religeous fued has been on going for centuries. SO, has the 'civil war' been going on for centuries then?

[Thorgrim]

motava that would negate all the civil wars that happened years about between catholics and protestants when they were clashing around the world

so your objection doesn't work

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

motava that would negate all the civil wars that happened years about between catholics and protestants when they were clashing around the world

so your objection doesn't work

Excellent point, and I agree.