":Ha! I know what you want to push in this article, Xeeron:)) I found this post in one of the forums, it's not yours, I'm sure, but it's logic fits your actions pretty well: ""South Ossetia is NOT independent. Russia needs to stay out of the conflict. What happened in Georgia was a CIVIL war. This should have played out on its own. Russia is NOT a peacekeeper but instead is biased and should be removed from South Ossetia immediately. Putin is pissed off because of Georgias plans of joining NATO and dropping CIS like a bad habit. Putin wants to keep South Ossetia under his wing that way he can build his Natural Gas Pipeline through South Ossetia without Georgians permissian. Russia is a BULLY and needs to repect Georgias sovereignty. Putin is too occupied with becoming the new OPEC.""

Now I see your logic behind calling it a ""civil war"".

And, what I like most about you, Xeeron, is you have a wonderful persistency in your mistakes. Let's look at your ""sources"".

1) The BBC tells ""Georgia accuses Russia of arming the South Ossetian authorities - who have been trying to break away since the civil war in the 1990s. Moscow denies the claim."" Nothing about ""civil war in Ossetia in 1991-1992"". It's about Georgian civil war, you must have missed this. So + 0 points for providing nothing.

2) The ""randbild.de-beta"" (sounds reliable:)) tells of civil war in 1990(???)-1992. Don't you claim it's ""1991-1992""? Anyway - the source is just a blog. Blog of a fotographer, having his contacts in huge letters on the 1st page: Timo Vogt, Fotograf, +49-5863-******, ***[at]randbild[punkt]de. Do you still consider blogs to be reliable sources?:)))) - 1 for providing a non-reliable source.

3) We're not going to discuss source that tells it's ""defending Marxism"", right? Why don't you just go and write an article about politics based on sources that underline they are ""created to defend neonazism"" or ""neocons"" then? I think reliable source should be at least not biased. Defending ""-ism"" is biased. So - 1 again for providing a source that is ""created to defend Marxism"".

4) Eurasia.net - wow. A really interesting source. Would it be their opinion, that would be almost enough to claim ""some sources say SO war of 1991-1992 was actually a civil war"". But, to my dissapointment, these are just words of another fotographer: ""Jonathan Alpeyrie is a war photographer for Getty Images."" I mean, I adore Getty, I'm even their client for the last two years, but I never knew they were a think tank, did you? A reliable server, but another fotographer that does not count. + 0 again.

Total: - 2 points. 

Now back to the point. See what sources do not consider 1991-1992 SO war to be a civil war: Radio Free Europe , openDemocracy.net (featuring an article of the English professor of Caucasus studies) , The Guardian , and - finally, that's what your beloved BBC thinks of the war:

''""In the twilight of the Soviet Union, as Georgian nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia came to prominence in Tbilisi, South Ossetia too flexed its separatist muscles. Soviet forces were sent to keep the peace in late 1989 following violent clashes between Georgians and Ossetians in the capital, Tskhinvali. Violence flared again as South Ossetia declared its intention to secede from Georgia in 1990 and, the following year, effective independe