Talk:Iraqi civil war (2006–2008)/Archive 1

message: : This article survived a AfD nomination, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iraqi civil war. Eugene van der Pijll 22:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think the addition of the Opposing Views section by the author was a marvelous solution to the problem, I have changed my vote on the deletion of this article to 'Keep'. =) Xaa 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing Views =

message: I'm afraid I have to disagree with the most recent changes.  The opening has been watered down to the point where there is now no point for the article.  All links and all opinions have been removed, and the article now no longer contains any supporting statements - in essence, the article now puts forth the notion that nobody believes it is happening.  The problem is that if nobody believes that there is a civil war occurring, then there's no point for an article on it, now is there? =)  Please do not delete supporting statements from the article, particularly statements by Allawi and other politicians, they are the entire point of why the article exists.  Thank you! =) Xaa 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree. 

message: *It is unknown whether the establishment of a democratic government will gradually reduce or eliminate the passions that currently fuel the sectarian conflicts and violent civil unrest.
Reddi, There was no need to move that to the opening, it was fine where it was.  Your original edit of the opening was excellent - it concisely summarized the article and flowed smoothly into the introduction.  Please don't mess up your own work by over-editing!  The article as it stands is very good, and presents both of the opposing viewpoints fairly and neutrally. =) Xaa 20:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RE:  This Sentence in "Iraqi Civil War":

message: Hm, this appears to me to be another article (along with Mosul and Iraq Insurgency) where a discussion of the land war (or civil war, or sectarian war, or whatever you like) going on in Ninevah province seems appropriate. I'm starting to wonder, as I guess noone else thinks so, as there doesn't appear to be any mention of it here? Alrivet 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ninevah province

message: Actually, I find myself confused by this article--is the main theme a semantic argument over whether the term "civil war" is applicable or will soon be applicable? If so, the current title (Sectarian Violence) seems misleading. I can't quite make out if the article is primarily about sectarian violence, or about the semantic discussion of the term "civil war", or equally about both--actually, it appears to me to be an article in the middle of an identity crisis :) Alrivet 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theme of article

message: Please include prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/150306Rumsfeld.htm this] briliant comment. --Striver 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Should this be merged with this article on the Iraqi insurgancy? Balso Snell 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my understanding, insurgency is more Iraqis against Americans and sectarian violence is more Iraqis against Iraqis. KevinPuj 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: "Music and Popular Culture
The Los Angeles-based band 'Sectarian Violence' currently has no plans to tour Iraq as it seems pretty dangerous.[9]
Is this a joke? Even if it isn't, I'm going to "be bold" and remove it for now, as I don't see it has any place in this article. --Pauric 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture 

message: Hey! It's a silent civil war.. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/57F48164-B502-43A8-B892-CBFDCD494CC4.htm--TheFEARgod 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not any more. --TheFEARgod 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil war 

message: At what point in time can we move the page to Iraq civil war? Is it ready to be moved now, since the article discusses this a lot? Or wait some more?--Sonjaaa 12:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: The infobox is portraying this as a civil war rather than as sectarian violence. It is also making the erroneous claim that 16 million Iraqis are at war with 5 million others. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea of having an infobox is innappropriate in and of itself. It would be like making an infobox for Organized crime in Chicago. Infoboxes should be for armed conflicts where there are defined sides. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What a silly example. Organized crimes in Chicago is not a war. How can you say whats going on in Iraq today not a war? Chaldean 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe, however it wouldnt be the current infobox. As there are not defined sides, its difficult to portray anything as one side vs another in a simple infobox. Instead, just noting the casualties elsewhere might be a better way of handling it. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I added some content from a Washington Post article published on Sunday:
: Daniel L. Byman, and Kenneth M. Pollack. "A Domino Theory for the New Mideast: What Happens When Iraw Runneth Over"", The Washington Post, August 20, 2006.
I couldn't find an online version, but it is a two-full-page article discussing the potential effect of an Iraq civil war. The information is very relevant. Although the authors made some predictions, they are pretty convincing, and are based on historic data from nine civil wars in the past: Aghanistan, Bosnia, Congo, Croatia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Rwanda, Somalia, and Tajikistan. --Vsion 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Post article 

message: I think these should be mentioned too. Thogh I know little on the topic, these two other "factions" might have contributed to violence (either deliberately or indeliberately)... :/ --Cat out 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurds & Coalition involvement 

message: Now that the Mahdi Army has taken over an entire city from the American-backed government I'm not sure how we can avoid using the term "civil war." Wikipedia uses it for several other conflicts with less defined militas and far fewer casualties. I worry this constitutes a serious NPOV violation--that we're following White House rhetoric and not facts. I supported the war and have several friends/family members in Iraq--this isn't a political issue. It's an issue of the reality on the ground. Thoughts? Benzocane 16:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mahdi Army

message: I have deleted the following: 
"The violent actors have few of organizing elements normally seen that would qualify these conflicts as a true civil war, though many characteristics of the violence resembles anarchy (in the sense of political disorder, violence and confusion). Besides the two or three distinct factions (Kurd, Sunni, and Shi'ite), there are hundreds of subcategorization that can be made. These subcategorizations, as stated earlier, can be split along differences of social, political, and geographic differences. Some factions also seem to be more interested criminal action (such as ransom money; kidnapping foreigners and holding them for hostage) than in larger political goals. One such incident was that of hostage Minas Ibrahim al-Yussufi, whose abductors demanded (and apparently later received) a four million dollar ransom."
I've done this for a few reasons. 1) This sentence is highly controversial, but stated as fact, and violates npov (in addition to violating grammar): "The violent actors have few of organizing elements normally seen that would qualify these conflicts as a true civil war..." 2) The "organized crime" angle is unsourced and, given the scale of the organized violence, misleading in its emphasis. The  claim that kidnapping foreigners is somehow distinct from "larger political goals" is generally incorrect--no matter how terrible or confused those political goals. 
In addition to these particular issues, I think the section generally needs to be redone. Even the heading is confusing--what views are these views opposing? Presumably the idea that Iraq is in a civil war, but that's not even what this entry is titled. No doubt recent actions by the Mahdi Army and others make this material (at best) outdated...What do others think? Benzocane 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted the remainder of the "opposing views" section. It no longer seems germane with the rest of the entry. It had no clear principle of organization. Etc. Benzocane 03:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing views

message: I know that it's impossible to make out any closed groups, but why and for what are the combatants actually fighting? Of course the most plane answer would be 'power', however that doesn't reply to why people find themselves unable to solve this rather peacefully (or whatever would be appropriate for that area). Saying "they're Sunni and the others Shiite" isn't illumining either. 89.58.51.33 22:54, 30 October 2006 (CET)
:Undoubtedly, some of the militants in Iraq are being sectarian, but I don't believe they all are. At the very least it's POV to simplistically label it as exclusively sectarian. The conflict in Ireland is usually described inaccurately as sectarian, so why should I trust the media to be right about Iraq ? :-). The media generally don't have a clue how to report conflict accurately. I'd assume many Iraqis are prepared to fight for a independent, non-sectarian, Iraq free from external (US or Iranian) interference. But too many (including even the U.S.) would seem to have a vested interest in stopping that. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  18:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals? 

message: The tactics section must be updated. Right now, much of it is copied almost verbatim from the Iraqi insurgency article. Although some of the tactics are the same (e.g., suicide bombings--although the targets in the sectarian war are mostly nonmilitary), others are not, particularly the sections on ambushes and assassinations/kidnappings (mass kidnappings, torture, and executions are not mentioned). I myself will try to work on it, but it may be a while before I can turn to this. Black Falcon 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactics section

message: Should Abu Deraa be listed under Shiite commanders? He's supposedly the Shiite version of Zarqawi. Richard Cane 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders 

message: The decisions of NBC and WaPo notwithstanding, the term "Sectarian war" is almost never used compared to the term "Civil War".
Google search for "Sectarian War" -Iraq = 12,600 hits
Google search for "Civil War" -Iraq -American -"United States" = 7.8 million hits.
Even with respect to Iraq, Civil War is FAR more common.
Google search for "Sectarian War" AND Iraq = 226,000 hits
Google search for "Civil War" AND Iraq = 17.6 million hits
--DaveOinSF 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War 

message: To Iraqi Civil War (better) or Iraq Civil War. -- Toytoy 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved redirects of those titles to this page (somebody had them redirecting to Sectarian war in Iraq), but I think it's a good idea to re-title this page based on what major media outlets are calling this.   --Oakshade 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually going to propose the same thing. Iraqi Civil War is the best alternative in my view. TSO1D 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to rename this article 

message: What is the rationale behind identifying the start-date as November 23, 2006 instead of, say, February 22 (the Al-Aqsari Mosque bombing)? Is it even necessary to identify a specific date at all? If there is a particular reason for the Nov. 23 date, please specify it. Otherwise, I will change the starting date of the civil war to Feb. 22 or just to 2006 within a few days. I don't think it's accurate to consider the Nov. 23 Sadr City bombings (that killed 215) as the "start" of the civil war when 100+ people have been killed each day for at least a few months now. Black Falcon 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also for the beginning with the al-Askari event --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As per my comments above, I believe that giving any level of specificity in start time would be POV / OR. See my most recent comment in the above section for wording I think would be appropriate. - Che Nuevara 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Why can't we just say "some time during 2006" as the start date? Not all wars have a well-defined declaration marking their beginning or end. Bryan 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Come on- we all know that the _real_ start of the civil war was November 27, 2006, when Matt Lauer went on the today show and soberly declared that NBC was now going to call it a civil war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.173.21 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why November 23, 2006?

message: This is descending towards this, but won't be until Shia leaders (and/or Kurds) declare it too. Do not confuse sectarian violence (terrorism, pogroms) with the ongoing warfare of the Iraqi insurgency and other political violence. Believe me, you'll notice when it starts. --HanzoHattori 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT an ethnic/religious civil war (yet) 

message: Name should be changed to format Iraqi Civil War. see: Somali Civil War, Afghan Civil War, Lebanese Civil War, Georgian Civil War etc. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change 

message: :this is civil war, worse than Lebanon 1980s, saying sectarian violence would be Bush administration-POV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More terminology talk (T. Gun, mostly)

message: Sectarian or just insurgent? --HanzoHattori 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Limiting the description to just those terms seems like an attempt to discount the agree-upon term civil war.  To answer your question, part of a civil war in Iraq. --Oakshade 06:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University bombing 

message: I heard you can prove the things by google here. 
OK then. Screw the news media, the UN, the government(s) (OH NO, BUSH POV! BUSH! BUSH POV BUSHBUSH!), or these silly NGOs and what not. Let's assume you're right, they're all wrong because you're smarter (and have no BUSH POV the UN appearently have). So, let's hear opinion of the Internet, THE MAN. Blogs and crap:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+%22civil+war%22+2007&btnG=Google+Search (iraq "civil war" 2007 - so, what the people say about "civil war" now). The very search term is in your favour, as the "civil war" have to mentioned - somehow. So, the first 10:
*Wiki. OH SNAP.
*Ann Coulter On Iraq Civil War: "It's Like LA...You Have The Crips And The Bloods In Baghdad"... (oh, gang violence) +1 for team me (1) 
*John Bolton calls Iraq situation a Civil War Oh noes (0) (but it's funny the Bush's anti-UN guy in UN doesn't share the BUSH POV of the UN)
*If full-scale civil war breaks out in Iraq (...) ...then it will start. (1)
*2004 - you guys think it was not a civil war back then, as it somehow started late last year (1)
*Arab leaders expressed growing alarm Tuesday that Iraq could fall into all-out civil war Go me (2)
*an article about how to cope when it breaks loose (3)
*says it's on (-1) (2)
*Don't know his conclusion, since I have no subscription (2)
*Powell this, White House that - author no opinion given (2)
See? Even completely random Internet articles, in the search terms in favour of otherwise, say the civil war is a matter of future. Is this enough NOW? --HanzoHattori 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you heard that "you can prove the things by google here", whoever told you that was mistaken.  Take a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test to see where a Google test is considered to be most useful.  I have seen the Google test legitimately used to justify page moves, but rarely would it be appropriate as anything more than a cursory argument in a naming dispute.  There is a lot to be said on both sides of this naming dispute that couldn't possibly be rebutted with a Google test.  And, by the way, Google does have bias in some areas, just so you keep that in mind. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to prove the point about "majority opinion" 

message: This sentence has some problems:
:A 2006 study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has estimated that more than 601,000 Iraqis have died in this violence and that fewer than one third of these deaths came at the hands of Coalition forces.
I assume that the "more than 601,000" number either comes from the study or is calculated from the numbers in the summary linked from the reference on this page (654,965 additional deaths * 91.8% of additional deaths from violence > 601,000).  Either way, here are the two big problems, at least with the placement of this number, and possibly with its inclusion in this article at all:
* This article is about the period of time the Iraq has had what has been called by some a "civil war".  This term has not come into common currency until recently (and is still heavily disputed).  While some who are calling it a civil war now for the first time might apply the label all the way back to the first sectarian violence in 2003, I think this usage is probably very rare.  Therefore, I think the title "Civil war in Iraq" is incompatible with this number given here, without much more explanation of what the number really means.  In addition, no matter what the article is titled, casualties during the initial coalition invasion should not be counted here (this part was certainly not a "civil war" by anyone's definition), with the exception of deaths that can be clearly linked to sectarian violence, and probably, if it is possible to find the statistics, we should not count the deaths directly caused by coalition forces at any time since the invasion.  This article is about "Civil war in Iraq" or "sectarian violence in Iraq", not "Bad effects of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq".
* "this violence" in the sentence above refers to the sectarian violence mentioned in the introductory paragraph.  However, these are not the results of the study.  From the summary:
:While the survey collected information on the manner of death, the study did not examine the circumstances of the death, such as whether the deceased was actively involved in armed combat, terrorism, criminal activity or caught in the middle of the conflict.
:So the 91.8% of the additional deaths since March 2003 that were due to violence includes all violence: sectarian violence, and the murders and robberies that are part of the general lawlessness and chaos in parts of Iraq since the fall of Saddam.  Unless there is another study out there that does count only deaths due to sectarian violence, the placement of this sentence including a number of deaths due to all violence is bad (even if the problems pointed in in my first point are fixed), and again, deserves some further explanation.
On a slightly unrelated note, does anyone know of any responses to this study from other researchers?  I have some serious questions about methodological problems and a possible bias in this type of study that I would like to see included somewhere (even if this article is not the best place for it) if they have been brought up by researchers. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of casualties 

message: In the section referring to the stampede on Al-Aaimmah_bridge (see: Civil_war_in_Iraq#2005) there is a description of a heroic boy named Uthman al-Ubeydi, and an assertion that politicians have exploited his story... but I can find no reference to this name or this detail of the story.  Where did this come from, and how can we verify it? zadignose 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uthman al-Ubeydi, alleged Sunni rescuer on Al-Aaimmah bridge, citation needed 

message: It should be named (dun dun dunn)... IRAQ WAR. Ever heard of it? Phase III, that is the sectarian conflict (after the invasion and the occupation), but also continuing Iraqi insurgency (which, news everybody, never ended, you know?). Or maybe, I don't know... TERRORISM IN IRAQ? and let's leave the Iraqi insurgency as really just the Phase II, starting back in April 2003.
The box implies no foreign forces (I guess all US soldiers packed out and left home, supposedly in 2004) are doing anything, there is only Iraqi Army as the "third force" (I guess someone lost Iraqi Police on the way, and it's also interesting it implies the Iraqi Army is fighting the Badr Corps, which is a militia of the government's leading SCIRI party). This all is completely ridiculous. 
In reality, the other (paramilitary) terrorists should be "the death squads", which are drawn from the official government forces too (more or less rogue). This similiar to the former sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland (the Troubles), where the Protestant paramilitaries often had links to the Belfast constabluary and such. As if everything with Iraq, this too is to the extreme (for example, incidents of the British and American forces rescuing detainees from the legal, semi-legal and completely illegal prisons/secret prisons/torture chambers run by the men of Iraqi Interior Ministry). 
The terrorists and the death squads most often don't really fight each other, unless a substantional part of these bodies dumped each day around Baghdad are really of insurgents the militias took prisoners/kidnapped. --HanzoHattori 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: These pages need cleaning up big time. Would anyone like to join me in doing this? I was thinking a WikiProject on post-Invasion Iraq would be useful. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'll help. A WikiProject sounds like a good idea. VolatileChemical 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've posted a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject GulfWars and they said it's within scope so the next stage is to draft a to-do for the work that needs doing. I'll keep you posted! AndrewRT(Talk) 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would help if you make clear the wikiproject page --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've moved the timeline section to the relevant pages as part of the cleanup.  Publicus 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: Why won't you listen to, say, BBC Baghdad? "And as the rash of dreadful bombings aimed at Shia pilgrims last week showed, some groups are as determined as ever to commit mass casualty attacks. They still see sparking a civil war as one of their best hopes of bringing down the government." 
I know, YOU KNOW BETTER (bunch of guys sitting in their chairs far from Iraq). --HanzoHattori 09:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, why is it STILL called "civil war"? "No original research", anyone? 

message: I have found today some reports in the news that the Pentagon is starting to describe the conflict in Iraq as Civil War, or at least some elements. Follow up this news report from NPR  or a link to the Pentagon report on Iraq in PDF format . This could be added to the article. Francisco Valverde 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't violate OR.  The anon user is trolling.  Ignore him, and post the refs. Eleemosynary 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  It's not WP:OR.  The user is citing and providing refernces, not writing them themselves.  --Oakshade 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pentagon is starting to call it a Civil War 

message: I proved several time exactly the otherwise: according to the Iraq, UN, US, EU, Iraq's neighbours, mainstream media, and even google.com search (including bloggers), there is no "civil war in Iraq" (unless this changed in the last few weeks, but I don't think so). The Iraqi insurgency is continuing, and so is the terrorism from the Arabs of both main Muslim sects (including rogue elements in the Iraqi state), inflicting indiscriminate and horrific violence on each other, but also on the minority Christians caught in "crossfire" (many churches were bombed or burned, Christians attacked). The people who do this are all declared criminals/terrorists in Iraq, if identified - very strange "civil war" indeed. 
I'm not even sure about what this article is, exactly. The Iraqi Army is listed as "combatant side" - does it mean the Army units are engaging in terrorism too (things like "Suicide bombings" or "Mosque attacks and occupations")? For a while I thought it's about the rogue elements in the Army (why not police?), but then the President and the PM are listed as the "commanders". If it's just regular warfare (I don't think much would apply, if any), what happened to the US-led Coalition forces - and why the Iraqi state is listed on the other side then the Shiite militias (of the government parties)? Just another thing mind-boggling. In reality your "civil war" (violence directed on civilians of the other sects) is work of just extremist elements among the Iraqi legal and illegal armed groups, and just one entirely extremist group (al-Qaeda in Iraq). 
Btw al-Qaeda, is the increasing Sunni-on-Qaeda violence (overally, fighting among the insurgent factions) the part of "civil war" too? What about Kurds, and their very real conflicts with the other ethnic groups? The Shiite-on-Shiite violence? All this is at least as much "civil war" as the Qaeda-alligned terrorists with a chlorine trucks bombs and the shadowy driller-killer death squads from the other side.
Seriously, this article is just weird. If it was simply "sectarian terrorism in Iraq" (there are already articles on both the whole war, and the insurgency part, and even a badly-done article on the terrorism in Iraq in general), all would be clear. But no, you need it the weird way. Just explain, why? Define what part of the ongoing Iraq War is "civil war" (and why it's not "terrorism" and not "insurgency"). It might be a good start. --HanzoHattori 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'scuse me? 

message: It is definitely not a civil war. The Shia Iraqi Army are fighting the Sunni insurgents(who used to blow up coalition troops but now try to blow up Shia troops/militias) who might also be Iraqi Police officers. These two groups are at each others throats while the Kurdish Peshmerga threatens to fight anyone who goes near Kurdistan, the borders of which no one agrees on because of the oil that everyone wants. And the Shia-run Ministry of Interior runs secret prisons full of Sunnis that have to be emptied by coalition forces so that the Sunnis can go blow up said coalition forces. This mess goes merrily along while the militias balkanize their respective provinces and neighborhoods on the basis of the Shia-Sunni split and fight the coalition forces who think they are terrorists. Meanwhile a couple thousand real wackos from out of the country ship themselves into this mess specifically to find a Western person and detonate themselves next to the Western person.
Oh yes, don't forget the neighbors with the Iranians possibly supporting the Shia militias and the Saudis threatening to support the Sunni militias which would take the burden off the Syrians who have been helping the Sunnis for the past few years. And Turkey is getting more and more pissed at those Kurds who keep flirting between the words "independence" and "autonomy."
Meanwhile a couple hundred thousand teen-aged strangers, 99% of whom don't speak the language or know anything of the history of the place, go bumbling around trying to stop all these various groups from killing each other without getting themselves killed before their year or 18 months are up. You're right, definitely not a civil war, more of an uncivil war. 
As such, I propose we change the title of this article to the Iraqi uncivil war. Publicus 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed title change to the Iraqi Uncivil War

message: It's (like I said many times before) not really warfare - this one is covered by the insurgency (there's quite a lot - raids, ambushes, non-terrorist bombings, even a real battles like these for Fallujah). And here, we got what? Just atrocities, and directed mostly at random civilians (of the other religion).
Police gun down dozens over Iraq blasts
Associated Press
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer
Shiite militants and police enraged by massive truck bombings in Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents in the northwestern town Wednesday, killing as many as 60 people, officials said.
The gunmen roamed Sunni neighborhoods in the city through the night, shooting at residents and homes, according to police and a local Sunni politician.
Witnesses said relatives of the Shiite victims in the truck bombings broke into the Sunni homes and killed the men inside or dragged them out and shot them in the streets.
Ali al-Talafari, a Sunni member of the local Turkomen Front Party, said the Iraqi army had arrested 18 policemen accused of being involved after they were identified by the Sunni families targeted. But he said the attackers included Shiite militiamen.
Wow, the Iraqi version of police brutality. But, as I ALSO said (and more than once), this is this kind of "civil war" when the "civil warriors" are arrested as criminals when identified (you expert editors identified "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki President Jalal Talabani General Babaker Shawkat B. Zebari" - do you think they should arrest themselves now? And yes, rogue members of the army murder Iraqis too, of course). Please tell me about the other "civil war" like this one, so I agree. Or, like I asked before, just define what you mean by this term, exactly. I'm waiting, you know.
Personnally, I just thought about articles of the "Sectarian terrorism in Iraq" and "Death squads in post-Saddam Iraq" (or compatible). --HanzoHattori 08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious sarcasm aside...

message: None, exactly. Okay, one more additional question then:
Armed men in several cars stopped the bus as it was carrying workers from the Mosul Textile Factory to their hometown of Bashika, which has a mixed Christian and Yazidi population. The gunmen checked passengers' identification and then asked all Christians to get off the bus, said police Brigadier Mohammed al-Wagga.
They hijacked the bus with all the Yazidis still inside and drove them to eastern Mosul, where they were lined up along a wall and shot dead execution-style, Mr al-Wagga said.
After the killings, hundreds of Yazidis took to the streets of Bashika. Shops were shuttered and many Muslim residents locked themselves in their homes, fearing reprisal attacks. Police set up additional checkpoints across the city.
A police spokesman for Ninevah province, of which Mosul is the provincial capital, said the executions were in response to the killing two weeks ago of a Yazidi woman who had recently converted to Islam.
The woman had fallen in love with a Muslim man, then converted to Islam and ran off with him, said police spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf. Her relatives disapproved of the match and dragged her back to Bashika, where she was stoned to death, he said.
A grainy video showing gruesome scenes of the woman's killing was distributed on Iraqi websites in recent weeks, but its authenticity could not be independently confirmed.
These latests killings by Muslim extremists were an attempt to avenge the woman's death, Mr Khalaf said.
Was this (24 dead) part of "Iraqi civil war" too, and if so, the Yazidi being which side exactly, and "Muslim extremists" which? (of these three I see in the infobox) How about Turkoman-Kurdish conflict? How about (I'm repeating myself, I know), say, the Americans? 
So (one more time), when this thing, you know, the "Iraq War" ended, so you need another? I think I missed the news. I mean, there was something about "the end of major hostilities" some time ago already, but I thought it was pretty bogus. You should also tell me why, say, the WWII in Balkans wasn't "civil war in Yugoslavia". Yes, it was worse than Iraq now (and possibly even more multisided). Maybe because it was "World War II in Balkans", ever since Germany and Italy invaded? This sounds like a reason, but maybe I'm not intelectually honest enough, so you tell me.
I'm waiting for you intelectually honest people. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I missed "commanders" like Jalal Talabani declaring the "civil war" against, um, Muslim extremists I guess. 
Also, here have a story about fighting between various Sunni insurgents and the al-Qaeda. "This is a big turning point," U.S. Maj. David Baker said Friday in the Diyala provincial capital of Baqouba. "If they are fighting against each other, it's better than them fighting against us." - ZOMG CIVIL WAR? OH NOES/YES! but I can't see this here in your article at all (even after all my corrections - mostly because I have the other vision what this article should be about, and it's ye olde terrorism and also death squads).
Yes, this war (Iraq War) has so many sides and fronts, and it's evolving still. "Tommorow", the Americans and their allies may be gone (yes, they're still there), but the Turks may be in, or the Saudis and Iranians. MAYBE this will called an another war, but it's not for you to decide. --HanzoHattori 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I see many "intelectually honest" responses

message: Many articles floating from very reliable sources that Turkey is planning on invading Iraqi Kurdistan due to the massive amount of Turk deaths in the country, and Iran is planning summer strikes to push a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.  I feel both countries' stated goals should be placed on either this page or on their own page.  Thoughts? John D'Adamo 16:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are hardly their stated goals, and both are speculation. We can note the speculation, and should, however it must be stated as such and not passed off as a certainty. Further, it would not belong in this article, but probably the general Iraq War article. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran and Turkey's Involvement

message: A recently released report stated that Saudi Arabia has been responsible for more of the foreign insurgents that Iran and Syria combined. Does anyone have any thoughts about how this should be incorporated in to the article? Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined --68.23.10.68 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi Arabia's Involvement

message: Sources to substantiate the title
===Academic Sources===
*Daniel L. Byman, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy and Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writing for The National Interest
*Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation
*Stephen Biddle, Senior Fellow in Defense Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Military Power, for Foreign Affairs
*[http://www.stanford.edu/group/ir_workshop/fearon%20testimony.pdf James D. Fearon,
Professor of Political Science at Stanford, testifying before Congress]
*Matthew Lee for Yale Global
*Raja Kamal for the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
*Chaim Kamal for the Harvard International Review
*Kevin Drum and Marc Lynch for Foreign Affairs
--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources to substantiate the title 

message: *Daniel L. Byman, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy and Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writing for The National Interest
*Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation
*Stephen Biddle, Senior Fellow in Defense Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Military Power, for Foreign Affairs
*[http://www.stanford.edu/group/ir_workshop/fearon%20testimony.pdf James D. Fearon,
Professor of Political Science at Stanford, testifying before Congress]
*Matthew Lee for Yale Global
*Raja Kamal for the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
*Chaim Kamal for the Harvard International Review
*Kevin Drum and Marc Lynch for Foreign Affairs
--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic Sources

message: *Former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi
*Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell
*Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
*Current GOP Senator Chuck Hagel
*Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
*Lawrence Korb, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense, at Harvard's KSG
*Army Maj. Gen William L. Nash for ABC
*Lt. Gen. William E. Odom for Foreign Policy Magazine
--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Former (and some Current) Officials

message: *CBS: Undeclared Civil War in Iraq
*Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack for the Washington Post
*IHT: Scholars agree Iraq meets definition of 'civil war'
*NBC News brands the Iraq conflict a civil war
*Ofra Bengio for the Jerusalem Post
*Edward Wong, for the New York Times
--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Outlets

message: *03/06 AP: 77% of Americans think Iraqi civil war likely
*09/06 Gallup: 72% of Americans think Iraq is in a state of civil war right now
*11/06 WSJ: 68% of Americans say Civil War
*12/06 CBS: 85% of Americans now characterize the situation in Iraq as a Civil War
--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polling Data

message: As can be inferred from the sources above, there is widespead consensus about this issue outside of the administration and its subordinates. If other editors feel that the administatrion's claims should be included, then they should be included as well with citations. --68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The Sectarian violence in Iraq is caused by militants from other nearby country Who don't want a free Iraq. Weapons and supplies given to extremists in Iraq are supplied by Iran. The small group of extremists cause the deaths of a few Iraqis from a ethnic group of who then take revenge on the extremists ethnic group, who have no connection to the extremist. The few extremists cause the Iraqis to retaliate over and over causing violence in Iraq.
A few extremists and foreigners supplied by foreign nations are causing this violence today. The ordinary people of Iraq are mot the cause of this violence but foreign nations who want control of Iraq for themselves. The War in Iraq is not a civil war it is a satellite war. Without foreign involvement and with help from the United States military Iraqis will be able to take control of their nation in the near future. With the continued involvement of foreign nations who do not want Iraq to be free the Iraqis will not be able to control their country.
This war seems more of a satellite war like the Korean War and the United states' involvement in the Vietnam War and should not be called a civil war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.244.81 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a civil war 

message: The John Hopkins study that puts the number of Iraqi deaths at 610,000, and left totally unchallenged in the article, is totally unacceptable.  The "Iraq Body Count" <http://www.iraqbodycount.org/>, hardly a tool for the administration, listes the number at 78,000 at most.  I find it unbelieveable that such a difference in numbers would go completely unmentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.166.162 (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq civilian casualties 

message: The overwhelming majority of comments on this page seem to end in July of 2006. Not coincidentally, this was about the time the rift occurred between the indigenous Sunni insurgency, and the foreign-led umbrella group Al Qaeda in Iraq. This implies to me that parties interested in exploiting a proposed Iraq Civil War, (various international politicians, etc.) realized they were barking up the wrong tree, and turned their attention elsewhere. The level of civil strife in Iraq has metamorphosed into something else, and is certainly still high, ("unacceptably high" to paraphrase Petraeus to Katie Couric last week,) but not useful to political opportunists in opposition, (e.g. Reid, Pelosi, etc.) Therefore, I propose we either delete this entry, or close the date of the "Iraq Civil War" sometime last July. 71.215.183.90 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see what happens after the Petraeus report.  Isaac Pankonin 06:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's close this page of history