Thursday, August 03, 2006
Rummy & his military still refuse to call it a civil war
It's not surprising. The Pigs in the White House and in all levels of our current government use Orwellian words to describe just about everything they talk about. Calling what is happening in Iraq right now, 'sectarian violence', is just another way of saying 'a civil war' but without upsetting the idiotic people of the United States who can't handle the truth. It's no different than Bush and Cheney calling the president's position the "Unitary Executive". Your mind immediately thinks, "Wow! One person at the top who is in charge", and it sounds so innocent, but really, the true meaning and their true intention means is the president is running the show like a dictator who spews out the rules and the laws where everyone must obey him without interruption! A dictator is what this term is implying, but again, it's to protect the fragile minds of Americans. Here is the definition of a civil war from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Two Large Groups Disagreeing on Ideologies and are Killing Each Other
Tribal Wars Breaking Out All Over the Place
War Between the Cripps & The Bloods
A War For Control of the Country
Killing By Two Groups of Different Ideologies
Two Soccer Teams Vying For the Championship
Religious Turmoil Resulting In Conflicts & All Out War A War Broke Out Between Simon & Garfunkel and Brooks & Dunn It doesn't matter what Rummy and others call it. They can sugarcoat it all they want, but the reality is the Sunnis and Shiites are in a civil war with each other to gain control of the country of Iraq and have been for quite some time now. That's it. That's what it is!
Main Entry: civil war: noun: a war between opposing groups of citizensSo, that got me thinking. What other ways can the worst government in the history of our nation call what is going on in Iraq instead of calling what it really is...a civil war? Here's a few I came up with: Two Large Groups of Different Ideologies Fighting Against Each Other
of the same countryhttp://reference.aol.com/dictionary?dword=civil+war
Two Large Groups Disagreeing on Ideologies and are Killing Each Other
Tribal Wars Breaking Out All Over the Place
War Between the Cripps & The Bloods
A War For Control of the Country
Killing By Two Groups of Different Ideologies
Two Soccer Teams Vying For the Championship
Religious Turmoil Resulting In Conflicts & All Out War A War Broke Out Between Simon & Garfunkel and Brooks & Dunn It doesn't matter what Rummy and others call it. They can sugarcoat it all they want, but the reality is the Sunnis and Shiites are in a civil war with each other to gain control of the country of Iraq and have been for quite some time now. That's it. That's what it is!
Comments:
<< Home
Rumfud says it's not a civil war til one side wears blue and the other gray. til then it's just a slight dis agreement between waring parties.
# posted by 
: 8/03/2006 10:50:00 PM
: 8/03/2006 10:50:00 PM
"A slight disagreement between waring parties"...I love that one Bill!!!! I also liked "Two Soccer Teams Vying for the Championship".
Hillary is asking for Dumsfeld's resignation and we all know he won't give his resignation to Bush, but he'll go up to him and say, "I'm not leaving you little Twerp!". Case closed.
Hillary is asking for Dumsfeld's resignation and we all know he won't give his resignation to Bush, but he'll go up to him and say, "I'm not leaving you little Twerp!". Case closed.
It's not civil war if a rebel group tries to attack government forces.... the key difference between rebellion, insurrection and a civil war is the political dimension. So far, the "insurgents" (Iraqis) and "terrorists (non-Iraqis) aren't the militant arm of a political party within the system.
If they were and they respresented the people of a specific region, and hence were fighting the central government, then it would be classic 'civil war'.
Otherwise, using your definition, every time someone rises up against "the man" you'd have to call it "civil war".
If they were and they respresented the people of a specific region, and hence were fighting the central government, then it would be classic 'civil war'.
Otherwise, using your definition, every time someone rises up against "the man" you'd have to call it "civil war".
# posted by : 8/04/2006 10:21:00 AM
: 8/04/2006 10:21:00 AM
PRIOR TO BUSH ILLEGALLY INVADING AND OCCUPYING IRAQ.......THE COUNTRY WAS DIVIDED INTO THREE SECTS: The Kurds, The Sunnis, and The Shiites!
And guess what....TWO OF THE GROUPS FROM THE SAME COUNTRY ARE FIGHTING EACH OTHER AND ACCORDING TO OUR NATION'S DICTIONARY......THAT MEANS IT'S A CIVIL WAR!
God you neocons are stupid and pathetic.
Also, AL-QAIDA WAS NOT IN IRAQ PRIOR TO BUSH ILLEGALLY INVADING. SADDAM, THOUGH NO ANGEL, DID NOT WANT OSAMA'S ILK IN HIS COUNTRY. HIS COUNTRY WAS DIVIDED UP TO KEEP THE PEACE! It was peaceful as peaceful goes prior to Bush smacking the bee's nest with a baseball bat!
Bush has never been interested in making Iraq a democracy. If he did, he would have made sure that after the invasion, the Iraqi people were protected. But he didn't. He decided (and it's still the case today) to PROTECT THE OIL FIELDS AND THE AMERICAN CORPORATIONS OVER THERE. This is why the place is in chaos!
It's all part of the White House's Evil Plan!
And guess what....TWO OF THE GROUPS FROM THE SAME COUNTRY ARE FIGHTING EACH OTHER AND ACCORDING TO OUR NATION'S DICTIONARY......THAT MEANS IT'S A CIVIL WAR!
God you neocons are stupid and pathetic.
Also, AL-QAIDA WAS NOT IN IRAQ PRIOR TO BUSH ILLEGALLY INVADING. SADDAM, THOUGH NO ANGEL, DID NOT WANT OSAMA'S ILK IN HIS COUNTRY. HIS COUNTRY WAS DIVIDED UP TO KEEP THE PEACE! It was peaceful as peaceful goes prior to Bush smacking the bee's nest with a baseball bat!
Bush has never been interested in making Iraq a democracy. If he did, he would have made sure that after the invasion, the Iraqi people were protected. But he didn't. He decided (and it's still the case today) to PROTECT THE OIL FIELDS AND THE AMERICAN CORPORATIONS OVER THERE. This is why the place is in chaos!
It's all part of the White House's Evil Plan!
Kay according to the analuseless definition,
(It's not civil war if a rebel group tries to attack government forces.... the key difference between rebellion, insurrection and a civil war is the political dimension. So far, the "insurgents" (Iraqis) and "terrorists (non-Iraqis) aren't the militant arm of a political party within the system.)
the Al Sadar militia which is controlling large sections of baghdad, and shite provinces are not insurgents because they do have seats in the legislature...
just like Hezbollah in Lebanon does...
which by his analogy means Israel is attacking Lebanon directally against the same UN rules we attacked Iraq whae they invaded Kuwait.
And the sunni insurgents must have absolutely NO connection with the sunni political parties...
BECAUSE the anal one extruded it from his brain droppings, instead of his ASS
But repug neo-cons do as stupid does
Post a Comment
(It's not civil war if a rebel group tries to attack government forces.... the key difference between rebellion, insurrection and a civil war is the political dimension. So far, the "insurgents" (Iraqis) and "terrorists (non-Iraqis) aren't the militant arm of a political party within the system.)
the Al Sadar militia which is controlling large sections of baghdad, and shite provinces are not insurgents because they do have seats in the legislature...
just like Hezbollah in Lebanon does...
which by his analogy means Israel is attacking Lebanon directally against the same UN rules we attacked Iraq whae they invaded Kuwait.
And the sunni insurgents must have absolutely NO connection with the sunni political parties...
BECAUSE the anal one extruded it from his brain droppings, instead of his ASS
But repug neo-cons do as stupid does
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]