Is it really "sectarian" violence?

[oldreliable67]

An interesting bit on "Back Talk" that seems like thread fodder for DP: The Effect of the Troop Surge on Casualties in Iraq (So Far)

First, a little background. the blogger characterizes himself as follows: "I am a professor at a major research university, a registered Democrat, a liberal by some measures, but a radical conservative relative to the large majority of my colleagues." Now, this is what he has to say...

My latest analysis shows that there is good news and bad news from Iraq concerning the troop surge. The good news is that casualties in Baghdad have come down very substantially. The bad news is that casualties elsewhere in Iraq have increased substantially. And, no, it's not because the civil war spilled over to the rest of the country. It's because al Qaeda started targeting innocent Shiite civilians where it was easier to do so. And, no, such attackes do not represent "sectarian violence" between Shiites and Sunnis. Only Democratic Senators and Representatives and mainstream media reporters believe that nonsense. The violence expanded beyond Baghdad because Sunni al Qaeda jihadists are doing everything in their power to get Shiites to kill Sunnis. Civil war is al Qaeda's goal (because it suits their jihadist objectives), and that's how this differs from the civil war schema that Democrats and reporters simply cannot get out of their heads.

Read the whole thing and tell us what you think...

 

[justone]

First, a little background. the blogger characterizes himself as follows: "I am a professor at a major research university, a registered Democrat, a liberal by some measures, but a radical conservative relative to the large majority of my colleagues." Now, this is what he has to say...

My latest analysis shows that there is good news and bad news from Iraq concerning the troop surge.

Read the whole thing and tell us what you think...

The words ‘’the troop surge’’ are ones of most ridiculous words concerning a war I have ever heard. ‘’the troop surge’’ is the bad news by itself.

Anyone who can use the construct “‘’the troop surge’’ does not deserved to be read any further.

Anyone who can use the construct “‘’the troop withdrawal’’ does not deserved to be read any further.

 

[oldreliable67]

The words ‘’the troop surge’’ are ones of most ridiculous words concerning a war I have ever heard. ‘’the troop surge’’ is the bad news by itself.

Anyone who can use the construct “‘’the troop surge’’ does not deserved to be read any further.

Anyone who can use the construct “‘’the troop withdrawal’’ does not deserved to be read any further.

Assertions but without any explanations to support them. Care to elucidate on why do you feel that way?

 

[Gladiator]

Dear Old Reliable,

I am trying to understand the Sunni-al Qaeda-Shiite dynamics. The BACK TALK blog was instructive. I posted an update link to the July BACK TALK in my thread: AL QAEDA FAILS IN PROMISES TO SUNNIS.

Good insights and wisdom.

Thanks

 

[VTA]

The words ‘’the troop surge’’ are ones of most ridiculous words concerning a war I have ever heard. ‘’the troop surge’’ is the bad news by itself.

Anyone who can use the construct “‘’the troop surge’’ does not deserved to be read any further.

Anyone who can use the construct “‘’the troop withdrawal’’ does not deserved to be read any further.

"Ones" of the most ridiculous?
Troop surge refers to the increase of troops, which is what occured. What's so ridiculous about it?

 

[DivineComedy]

What's so ridiculous about it?

I don‘t know either, maybe he is thinking of a big purple throbbing “Battle of the Bulge” thingy. Except in this case we whip it out and tell them it is coming. :shock:

 

[VTA]

I don‘t know either, maybe he is thinking of a big purple throbbing “Battle of the Bulge” thingy. Except in this case we whip it out and tell them it is coming. :shock:

:shock:


:rofl

 

[niftydrifty]

the author is a victim of "either/or," "black and white thinking." the author also selectively omits.

for example, the author says, "no, it's not because the civil war spilled over to the rest of the country. It's because al Qaeda started targeting innocent Shiite civilians where it was easier to do so. And, no, such attacks do not represent "sectarian violence" between Shiites and Sunnis."

the author selectively omits a portion of the group's name in order to make the group appear indistinguishable from the other non-Iraqi al Qaeda. DOH! ... al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia is mostly Iraqis. Iraqis killing other iraqis? say it ain't so!

the author attempts to paint a picture where sectarian violence resembling a civil war doesn't exist. but it does. and so does the al Qaeda (in-Mesopotamia) violence.

the author also says, "... you have to be careful because they occasionally throw in casualty reports that don't belong there." Um, reports that don't belong there? such as, oh, uh .... I don't know, uh, maybe, .... uh.... the number of US troop deaths? why does the author hate the troops?

dead enders try to paint Iraq with one color. it is in actual fact many, simultaneously. real life is like that. real life is totally different than a PNAC pdf, a Bush speech, or a Krauthammer op/ed.

this author isn't completely out-to-lunch, but he's definitely drunk on kool aid.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The big question is if the war in Iraq mainly is Al Quadia vs. Iraq and USA. Is why USA are so weak and Al Quadia so powerfull? Because today millions of Iraqies are internal and external refugee and the conflict has caused over onehundred Iraqies their lifes. So if you suggest it's mainly Al Quadia you make them seem very powerfull. I think it more accurate to see them as phyromaniacs that try to starts fires and USA as firefighter. That the country had alot of build tension between diffrent etnich groups. Al Quadia has been an succesful part in making those tension into violence. While USA has been an lousy firefighter that even some times even have became a phyromaniac. So today you have a situation their you have a countinius civilwar that will continue without Al Quadia. And also USA that seems to have no real plan to stop the violence. That it seems that the only reason USA staying is because they want to delay a defeat.

 

[Gladiator]

Are the Sunni Legislators still boycotting the Iraq Parliment?

What concessions do the Sunni's want?

How does the al Qaida and sectarian violence connect with the oil sharing revenue agreements, and food card District transfers?

.