NBC Labels Iraq a Civil War

NBC News has officially labeled Iraq a civil war. Dan Froomkin writes in the Washington Post:

Here's what Matt Lauer announced on NBC's Today Show this morning: "As you know, for months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war. And for the most part, news organizations, like NBC, have hesitated to characterize it as such. But, after careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted -- that the situation in Iraq, with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as civil war."

Think Progess has some video of MSNBC's Contessa Brewer announcing the decision was made to call it a civil war this weekend.

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer explained that “the White House continues to resist” the phrase, but that “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.”

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan says Iraq is on the brink of civil war.

"Given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact, we are almost there," Annan said when a reporter asked about the prospects of civil war in Iraq.

And an updated report on the Anbar province in Iraq by U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence finds:

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

In an unusually blunt paragraph of the report, obtained by the Washinton Post, the authors write:

"the potential for economic revival appears to be nonexistent" in Anbar, the report says.... "Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.

The five page secret report was authored by Col. Peter Devlin, "a senior and seasoned military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force."

Now that everyone agrees we can't solve Iraq's problems, and since the country wasn't a threat to us in the first place, can we just go home now?

Answer: Probably not until Bush finds a political solution so it doesn't look like we lost or fought for nothing.

< Inspector General to Investigate NSA Wiretapping Program | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nobody really gets it yet. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:19:41 AM EST
     What we see in Iraq is exactly what was intended by Bush/Cheney all along.

    It was never a war with Iraq. Iraq is incidental. The lives of Iraqis and US soldiers are nothbing to these guys.

    It is a war with Iran, and a war with the rest of the world for global energy dominance. It is a war to remain the worlds only superpower.

    Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East"

    The Map of the "New Middle East"

    The New Totalitarianism. Rule Through Barbaric Annihilation

    Nice job indeed

    It's worse than it appears. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:59:51 AM EST
    NEW YORK, NY [ ] - NBC News on Tuesday began referring to the George Bush "that lying little SOB", calling President Bush what many other news organizations have avoided.

    Matt Lauer said on the "Today" show that "after careful consideration, NBC News has decided that a change in terminology is warranted, because Mr. Bush is congenital liar, by anybody's book."

    Bush Tries To Think But Nothing Happens


    Things Will Get Worse If We Stay (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by john horse on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:03:52 AM EST
    I remember when those apologists for our occupation of Iraq were arguing that we needed to be in Iraq in order to prevent a civl war.  Since that hasn't worked they are now arguing that if we leave things will get worse.  I don't know if things will get worse if we leave but I do know that things have gotten worse every year we have stayed in Iraq.    

    You so right (4.66 / 3) (#12)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:45:32 AM EST
    The wingnuts have been moving the goal post so much they must have put wheels on it! If I remember these same kind of scare tactics were issued before the election I'm still for the Terrorists to begin marching down main street. They also told us the world would end if we withdrew from Vietnam.

    Yeah, (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    I love that new talking point, that the terrorists will follow us home.  Soon to be playing everywhere on the right.

    You'll love it (1.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:46:26 PM EST
    even better when they're living in your neighborhood.

    Don't forget to carry the prayer rug so you can knell when the call to prayer comes...


    These trolls are nothing. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:27:45 AM EST
    They are sick. And they are here for one reason.

    To deflect and divert the thread and the conversation away from the unbearable fact that main stream media is finally now stating publicly what anyone with an ounce of intelligence has known since 'mission accomplished'.

    Iraq is in a full blown civil war caused by George Bush and the rest of the psychotic neocons invading. The debacle gets worse every day. There is not one day since the invasion that the situation in Iraq has moved from bad to better.

    I was wrong when I said earlier that nobody really gets it yet. These psychotic trolls get it:  What we see in Iraq is exactly what was intended by Bush/Cheney all along. Which is why they show up to divert away from this very fact, and from the fact of the Iraqi civil war.

    It moves from bad to worse every single day, and will likely continue to do so as long as the country is occupied and their people live under the boot heel on the neck of their 'government'.

    And these trolls gleefully support the chaos and the death and maiming and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people that were never a threat to them, like they think they're watching a fu*king movie or a video game. The blood is on their hands, and the stink can never be washed off.

    They are accessories to the death and maimimg of tens of thousands of US troops.  The blood is on their hands, and the stink can never be washed off.

    What we see in Iraq is exactly what was intended by Bush/Cheney all along.

    By supporting Bush and the mess he has created in Iraq these trolls are as guilty as if they had personally murdered each US Soldier who comes home to his family in a flag draped box.

    You're right, Edger (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:47:24 AM EST
    The only response that we will have is to attack Iran and her client states in the ME killing millions.

    It was just a setup for the main event.


    aw (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:58:34 PM EST
    aw - I just look up paranoid in the dictionary and found your picture.

    Did (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:22:58 PM EST
    My hair look okay?

    They are... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:58:49 AM EST
    Soulless. Psychotic. Programmed. Trolls.

    Jarober can get help. But he won't. He doesn't understand why he should.

    PPJ is beyond getting help. He understands why he should. But, he's not paranoid. He also understands that they are coming for him.


    Absolutely right, Edger, the trolls seem... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    ...to think that there are vast Islamic armies of well-trained and equipped troop with an Air Force and Navy that will permit them to storm the shores of America like it was Normandy on D-Day.

    They cannot be convinced that estimates show there are only between 20-60 THOUSAND terrorists, insufficient number to populate a small city, but enough to strike terror into the heart of every rightwing nutjob.

    I say to them, with all sincerity, that if you are that fearful and believe george bush alone can save you, then while you are cowering in fear under your bed, the collecting, naming, and sorting by size and color of dust bunnies can be an absolutely fascinating hobby, I am told.


    Its a civil war and the troops should come home (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Peaches on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:30:45 AM EST
    Nir Rosen said on Democracy Now yesterday,

    There is no solution. We've destroyed Iraq and we've destroyed the region, and Americans need to know this. This isn't Rwanda where we can just sit back and watch the Hutus and Tutsis kill each other, and be like wow this is terrible should we do something? We destroyed Iraq. There was no civil war in Iraq until we got there. And there was no civil war in Iraq, until we took certain steps to pit Sunnis against Shias. And now it is just too late. But, we need to know we are responsible for what's happening in Iraq today. I don't think Americans are aware of this. We've managed to make Saddam Hussein look good even to Shias at this point. And what we've managed to do is not only destabilize Iraq, but destabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. This is going to spread for decades, the region won't recover from this, I think for decades. And Americans are responsible .

    His Anatomy of a Civil War might be the most informative piece written on the current state of I raq, yet.

    Well said, Peaches... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    ...we need to know we are responsible for what's happening in Iraq today. I don't think Americans are aware of this. We've managed to make Saddam Hussein look good even to Shias at this point.

    ...and these trolls are here only to obfuscate this, to avoid the responsibility for what they, as accessories, have done.


    Good post, Peaches (none / 0) (#34)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    I wish we could get views like this featured in the mainstream media instead of the hemming and hawing about offending the White House by calling it civil war and giving hawks airtime to squawk that we can still "win".

    Excellent post, Peaches, that makes... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:39:18 PM EST
    ...some very crucial aspects of this glaringly clear.

    I agree with aw, if the "MSM" presented the fact as well and solidly as this article does, bush/cheney would be toast.


    Anyone else remember ... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Sailor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    ... when we said we'd leave when iraqis wanted us to?

    Of course it's a civil war, it has been for sometime. It's about time the MSM realizes the emperor has no clothes ... and no plan except 'stay and die.'

    Bush Living in a Parallel Universe (4.50 / 2) (#22)
    by MinorRipper on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:01:20 AM EST
    I'm continually shocked by this guy, even after 6 years. It's frightening because it seems like our president, the most powerful man on the earth, is inhabiting a place outside of reality--sort of like an alcoholic who thinks he can have 'just one drink'.  I mean if he really believes the stuff that he says, I can't help but believe he's beyond hope, borderline insane.  Let's just hope enough of his 'handlers', like his parents, are aware of this and step in.

    Hey... (4.00 / 1) (#25)
    by desertswine on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    Thanks for the Tuesday morning hate.

    I guess words speak louder than action. Fine. (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Pneumatikon on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    From the Ninth Surah, the next to the last one written:

    Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allâh and His Messenger (SAW) to those of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh), with whom you made a treaty

    So much for his word being his bond. But as for Christians:

    Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth![]

    It is an elementary principle of Muslim theology that later revelation trumps earlier revelation. Surahs quoted by Muslim defenders that imply mercy come from early in his ministry and are not operative.

    Jews do not believe Ezra is the son of God. Muhammad was factually wrong. In fact he got really ugly later in his ministry because too many people were on to him and they couldn't be converted through "reason."

    I am Gnostic. I do not hate. I know. I also take prophets at their word.


    Briefly, from wikipedia re: Spanish... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:55:49 PM EST

    The historian Hernando del Pulgar, contemporary of Ferdinand and Isabella, estimated that the Inquisition had burned at the stake 2,000 people and reconciled another 15,000 by 1490 (just one decade after the inquisition began).[37]
    The first quantitative estimates of the number processed and executed by the Spanish Inquisition were offered by Juan Antonio Llorente, who was the general secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801 and published, in 1822 in Paris his Historia critica de la Inquisición. According to Llorente, over the course of its history, the Inquisition processed a total of 341,021 people, of whom at least 10% (31,912) were executed. He wrote, "To calculate the number of victims of the Inquisition is the same as demonstrating, in practice, one of the most powerful and effective causes of the depopulation of Spain."[

    Oh, yeah, christians are much more civilized - not.


    christians are much more civilized (4.50 / 2) (#43)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    * The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."

    * What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:

    "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive."


    How about (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    the slaughter of the French Huegenots, 20,000 killed in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

    Not then. NOW (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:14:44 PM EST
    aw - The issue isn't who was killing who years ago, but who is the problem today.

    And that problem is islamic terrorists.


    Not Jews. Not Catholics. Not Pope Urban and the Crusades...

    But the Imams who are in their mosques teaching hatred, NOW.


    As opposed (none / 0) (#67)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    to liberating people by killing them?  

    Prophets at their word? (4.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    How is your aramaic, arabic and hebrew? Thought so.

    As Bill Arnet noted, your reading list is rather thin and rather right wing. Robert Spencer is veritable neocon wet dream.

    A smattering via google  here.


    That would make you happy (4.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Peaches on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    Paperbrain, wouldn't it? Perhaps you could even be the one to build the dirty bomb so you can be rid of the democrats forever and live in your totalitarian dream.

    That is... (4.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    ...just plain sick.

    by definition ... (4.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Sailor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    it is a civil war:
    The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

    So.. (1.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jarober on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:13:25 AM EST
    If we pull out, do you have some wild idea that things will improve?  Do you think Syria - the nation currently whacking Lebanese ministers, or Iran - the nation funding Hezbollah and Hamas, will help stabilize Iraq?

    I've said this before, but if you think things are bad now, wait until you get your wish.  Things will get a lot worse.  As in, 30 years war type of worse with modern weapons.

    The left will be stunned by this, and will blame it all on Bush.  Meanwhile, radical Islam will continue to commit violence far afield from the middle east, and be ignored by the left, since it "doesn't fit the story line".

    When are you shipping out to Iraq? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:19:08 AM EST
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jarober on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:35:02 AM EST
    I love Edger's stupid "when are you shipping out to Iraq" question.  If I can't opine in favor of the war without serving, then it follows that Edger cannot opine against without serving.  Do you really want a system where only the military (and former military) get to have their voices heard?  I sure don't, but the left seems to like playing with that idea.

    Second, I'm too old to serve.  I was too old on 9/11, and my age has stayed on the too old side of the equation even as the maximum age for enlistment has been raised.  So Edger - are you stating that anyone who did not serve in their youth (and is too old now) is banned from having an opinion on the war?  What you don't know is that I tried to go in when I was 18.  I had a Congressional nomination to West Point, but was found to be 4F - my vision, pre-lasik, was outside the acceptable range.

    If nothing else happens, I'd like to see the stupid notion that Edger is pushing here die.  It's a dangerous idea, and would lead to a system no one here would like.

    Cowards and Chicken Hawks (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:58:32 AM EST
    Why should anyone listen to a war supporter who doesn't actually believe in what he or she is supporting? ie. "I reccomend You buy that car but I would own one if you paid me". Before you advocate something that involves life and death you better be prepared to ante up your own life instead of others or expect to be told to STFU and don't complain if no one wants to listen to a cowardly hypocrite. Sorry but you reap what you so!

    P.S. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:05:52 AM EST
    If you're to old, you can send your children or grand kids or get the Bushbag twins to go in your stead! You could aways go over there as a civilian and volunteer to help all those who have been maimed. You are alway free to put your own life on the line before you put others at risk.

    I am hopeful (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    my grandchildren are accepted at the Naval Academy.

    If they don't make it, we still have NROTC, and if not that, you can always join and make it through the ranks.


    Can you tell us why (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    or perhaps if, you haven't served? And if not, why not? Do you fail to do so because you oppose the war? And if so, do you think you have the right to pick and choose the war you will fight?? Or is it merely that you are too busy making lots of money, or pursuing others activities??

    And if you haven't, invoking edgr's law, I suggest you give up commenting on the war.

    Far is far, eh??


    You just keep stepping in it (none / 0) (#64)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    I think you really need to read comment #10 for the answer.

    Jarober (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:59:49 AM EST
    You can opine all you want.

    But when all your opining amounts to nothing more than a cowardly and sick psychotic wish to see other peoples children forced to stay in Iraq and die caught in the crossfire between two sides in a civil war caused by Bush invading a country that could not and had not attacked you - then you'd better be out there leading the charge, jarober.

    Run along Jarober. Get some help. As I pointed out once before - no one here can help you:

    You have a serious problem, jarober. The problem itself is making you unable to comprehend that you have a problem.

    I am not qualified to, nor am I am able to, cure your problem in this discussion. There is nothing that I can do for you.

    Engaging you is exacerbating your problem. I apologize for doing so.

    Get help, jarober. The fact that you cannot see any reason to is the main reason you need


    Civil War... (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jarober on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:37:37 AM EST
    If you believe that a death toll of under 100 a day counts as a civil war, then your knowledge of history is sadly lacking.  Right now, there's nasty levels of sectarian strife.  There aren't organized anti-government forces vying to grab power.  There are anti-government forces that want to drive the US out and create Somalia on the Tigris.  

    Yeah, that would be a good thing to have.  We had something like that in Afghanistan before 9/11, only without oil money.  Worked out well, as I recall.

    Civil war, sectarian strife (none / 0) (#16)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:18:40 AM EST
    Whatever.  Just who is the enemy we're fighting?  What are we doing there?  To me, it looks like we're down to lethal busywork now.  What would you call it?

    Not organized??? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    You wrote:

    There aren't organized anti-government forces vying to grab power.

    The notion there are no forces that are organized and vying for power outside the government is beyond ridiculous.  It's the dead-enders theory come back to miserable life.

    There is no good ending for us here.  When you f*ck up as badly as we have, you don't get any happy ending, you get no amount of pleasant resolution.  You are left with the sh*t you made and can no longer help unmake.  The vast majority of Iraqis want us out, do you simply consider them children who don't know what's best for them?  Sure seems like it.

    Years of tyranny we long supported, then making war on them with NO plan for helping Iraqis remake their nation, this is how you eliminate any possibility of peaceful transition.  We can do nothing to help but offer the kind of self-criticism and restitution free enlightened peoples are supposed to offer.

    Putting off the inevitable is merely building more pressure in the cooker.  The sooner we leave, the sooner the nightmare can be played out and end.  And Iraq will only end up like Taliban Afghanistan because we decided to invade her without the slightest bit of justification or long-term strategy, destroying any credibility with the occupied population, and destroying the nation.  

    Staying because we fantasize reality is otherwise is an arrogance of power, a violently misplaced pride.    


    There aren't organized anti-government forces (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    Incredible level of denial. He even ignored this when I posted it in reply to one of his own comments the other day:

    They are so firmly in denial that they can't even comprehend things like this...

    And, jarober, if YOU believe that... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    ... "only" 100 people a day are dying in Iraq you are as naive and uninformed as a person could possibly be.

    Civil War? (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:51:52 AM EST
    Civil War - A war between factions or regions of the same country

    I guess technically you could call it that but compared to more traditional civil wars this is not really one.  You have a new government that isn't really in place yet, competing factions of Sunni and Shiite malitias that are simply causing strife and don't appear to intend to have a unified leader and then Al Queada who doesn't want to rule at all just cause trouble.

    Obviously it s a mess and NBC deciding on their own to call it what they want to call it instead of simply reporting what's happening on the ground shows that the news media has decided that they are the judge and jury on current events instead of simply a reporting orginization that states the facts.

    Why not simply say that some call it a civil war and some don't.  Why is NBC the foreign expert as opposed to scholars and historians that can provide facts and data?  

    Its all really just symantics anyway.  Those against the war will say aaahaa and those for the war will criticize the media.   In the end it doesn't matter because the democrats really don't have a plan and neither does Bush for ending this in an acceptable way.

    We're there its a mess and we should try to fix it.  Simply pulling out now will only make it worse.   This is not Vietnam.  There is no one ready to assume power.   We simply can't say we give up and just leave.  What would happen then?

    Sure we need to do something different bu IMHO simply leaving won't make things better.

    We're there... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    ...its a mess and we should try to fix it.

    Well...you're right on the first part. On the second, you need to understand that the Iraqi's are not interested whatsoever in any US plans for them.

    They all want the US out of their country, and they will continue doing their best to kill all the US troops they can kill.

    All the denial in the world is not going to change that, Slado.


    Iran Syria (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:02:39 PM EST
    Hate to disagree, but Iran and Syria are both ready to assume control.

    Everyone needs to read this book: (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Pneumatikon on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer. This book is relentless and damning. Verse after verse after law after law after history after history. All from original sources. And this post is coming from a guy who up to this point had only read flattering histories of Muhammad and his religion. I blog about the book on MySpace, as well as long term options for dealing with Islam.

    Invading Iraq was not one of them. I thought it was stupid before I read the book and I think it's stupid now.

    But just in case you think Muhammad wasn't such a bad guy, here are some choice bits:

    Muhammmad married a 9 year old girl. He made laws that to this day let old pedophiles follow his holy example. And rape their slaves, too.

    He put a hit on three poets because they didn't like his religion. One was a young Jewish poet who made fun of Muslim women, one was an old man approaching 100, and the other was a pregnant woman.

    He told his followers to go out and kill Jews. When one of them killed a Jewish merchant who'd been friendly with the Muslims for years, his brother (who hadn't converted yet) was aghast. Then the murderer told his brother that he'd murder him too if the prophet commanded him. His brother thought it was great that this new religion could make you that crazy so he became a Muslim.

    Muhammad taught Muslims that treaties were to only last 10 years and could be violated if made with unbelievers.

    (Oh wait -- Allah told Muhammad that; he just passed it on.)

    One of his conquered victims begged for mercy and asked who would take care of his family. Muhammad said his family would be taken care of in hell and then he cut his head off. After he stuffed the body of this guy and his friend down into a well he made fun of his them. He did all this while he was in the process of raiding their caravan and stealing their property.

    When he died he was getting ready to invade Christian lands.

    The other simple truth about Muhammad is his religion is ridiculous and a lot of people laughed at him. This is why he turned murderous. All the inclusive verses from the Koran Muslims quote are early, and are all superceded by Surah 9. It was just about the last written. Allah is not appealed to as merciful and compassionate -- the only surah in the Koran that doesn't start that way.

    His own scribe, a Jewish convert to Christianity, later said he taught Muhammad everything he wrote in the Koran, which frankly shows in its kooky theology. Mary is not the third person of the trinity. Jews do not worship Ezra as the Son of God. According to legend the earth was so disgusted with the guy it kept spitting his body up so his family couldn't bury him.

    Muslims and their stories...

    I think you place WAY too much faith... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    ...in this one book, published by Regnery, a well known publisher of rightwing books with a wingnut agenda. Is is also generally not wise to consider you have had the secrets of the universe revealed to you by a single author.

    How many books have you read by, say, Juan Cole, or any other numbers of scholars who have written on the subject of Islam?

    If your answer is, "None." then I fear you have much research to do to make sure you get a balanced viewpoint.

    And if you are purposely LOOKING for examples of violence in religions read the Old Testament of the Bible, about the Spanish Inquisition, about bring christianity to the new world, and the genocide carried out by christians.


    Levin is right! (none / 0) (#3)
    by plumberboy on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:16:28 AM EST
    Carl levin the U.s. senator from Michigan has said many times if the Iraqi's want peace and democracy they're going to have to start controlling the desinty of there country themselves they have to want freedom and stability for themselves as bad as we want it for them.I think Mr.Levin's ideas where quite accurate.I think we really screwed up by going into Iraq we have giving Iran more power and really they are much greater terrorist threat than Iraq ever was I personally think the Iraq war was away for Bush to get even with and old foe of his fathers settle the score so to speak.

    Like many bad ideas (1.00 / 4) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:11:17 AM EST
    Levin has it partially right. And like most bad ideas, the devil is in the detais.

    He is right in saying Iraq must protect themselves.

    He is wrong in his timing.

    The Left wanted to compare Iraq to Vietnam. They have done so, including their own terrible self-defeating actions that told the terrorists that if the could hang on, as in Vietnam, the Left would give them a huge victory.

    The terrorists are not fools, so they took the gift from the Left.

    Now the Left wants to cut and run away as in Vietnam, leaving our allies to be destroyed by the millions by an evil regime.

    The difference is that North Vietnam's mentor, the Soviets and, to some degree Communist China, could not launch them against us, and had no real way of attacking us without triggering Mutally Assured Destruction.

    That is not true in this conflict. If we fold and leave the terrorists will follow us home, Iran will complete their nuclear weapons and we will be attacked inside the US with deaths in the hundreds of thousands.

    The only response that we will have is to attack Iran and her client states in the ME killing millions.

    That is what Levin and the Left is buying us right now. This morning. The cold war had another term that either Lenin or Stalin supposedly coined. It described the fellow travelers, USA Communist members, hollywood sympathizers and some reporters, especially Walter Duranty of the NYT. These people never saw an bad act of the Soviets and never say a good act by the US and the west.
    "Useful Idoits" is what the Soviets called them.

    One of the most deadly traits of these people was their belief that it was possible to cut a deal with the Soviets. That everything was equal. There was no good, no bad. Everything could be worked out if the Cold Warriors would just give the Soviets a little more terrority, a few more people...just a little love and understanding.

    History has proved the "Cold Warriors" right and the "Useful Idoits" wrong. History will prove the current crop of people who are always ready to condemn the US and give our enemies what they want, wrong.


    War terminology. (none / 0) (#23)
    by JSN on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:15:57 AM EST
    The conflict appears to be directed which implies a rudimentary command and control system with orgainized armed units with comanders. If they have long range weapons (rockets and artillery) they have not used them so far. They do have antiaircraft rockets but they have not used from them inside cities that I can recall.

    In any case the conflict has most of the attributes of a war so the issue is what type of war (religious or civil). My view is that the term "civil war" is the best choice.

    DEFINE WINNING. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    Besides as setting up a secure base from which to attack Iran and do the rest of this.

    That's quite some Fantasy Land you... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:25:15 PM EST
    ...have constructed for yourself. As its sole resident are you BOTH the Mayor AND the dogcatcher?

    But congratulations on becoming the newest troll on TL.

    Your comments are becoming ever... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    ...more specious, strident, and insulting in the manner of a true troll.

    Did you happen to peruse the warning that, "Trolling is not tolerated here."?

    You very unwisely ignore history as well, as the Democratic President FDR won WWII in a most exemplary fashion against much larger forces on two continents simultaneously, while in contrast, bush is becoming the first American president to lose two wars simultaneously.

    So, kindly knock off the troll attitude and, if you have something reasonable to contribute, please do so, but the trolling must stop.


    FDR (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:26:52 PM EST
    Bill - You need to do a bit of reading... FDR imprisoned Japense Americans, declared the Germans who came ashore on NJ from the sub "illegal combatants," ignored the SC, gave them tribunals and executed all but one..(my memory on the exact number may be off)...

    But the key point is made in this link.

    In disputing Mr. Bush's authority in this way, the Court ignored its own 1942 ruling in Ex parte Quirin (317 U. S. 1), which upheld U. S. military tribunal jurisdiction for the trials of several German saboteurs apprehended in the USA. (Quirin has been cited as precedent for execution of any non-legitimate combatant against the United States.) In part, the decision states:

    FDR had a country behind him.

    Bush has the Left againstr him.


    Well, Opie, there ain't... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    ...not hardly much left of the right, I guess.

    Everybody that's left is against Bush:

    Historical Bush Approval Ratings


    Minor difference... (none / 0) (#70)
    by sphealey on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    = Bill - You need to do a bit of reading... FDR imprisoned Japense Americans, declared the Germans who came ashore on NJ from the sub "illegal combatants," ignored the SC, gave them tribunals and executed all but one.. =

    Interesing how you conflate the (IMHO) shameful treatment of American citizens with that of non-citizen spys caught with demolition equipment and forged papers.  I don't approve of FDR's ignoring the Supreme Court in the latter case, but the precedent of summary execution of non-citizen spies is older than the Constitution.



    Paperhead... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    ...you need to read thru the Talkleft archives. You are starting where all the other discredited trolls here were finished off a couple of years ago.

    They jes' don't make 'em like they used to, I guess. ;-)


    BTW, 'Mornin, everybody! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:57:33 PM EST

    Good afternoon, Bill (none / 0) (#47)
    by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    G'Day, Bill! (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:30:47 PM EST