What is Digg?118 Comments
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31It is not a civil war it is just a Faith-Based Melee or an Internal Sovereignty Challenge.
In other words it is just prolonged violence between organized factions in which over thousands of people have died so you see it is not a civil war.
If it was a "civil war" it would be courteous and polite as defined when someone is civil to another thus we can see that the opposing factions are not courteous, so it does not reach the criteria of being "civil war". So let us not use that word civil war.
Was that clear enough for you all?
sarcasm - ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38Yup, that explains why so many people thought Iraq=bin laden and that saddam=WMD's
Now that the truth is finally sinking in, more and more people are realizing how deeply they've been lied to. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31In other news, 32% of Americans watch mainstream news.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32in otherwords, 68% of the people know the truth and 32% of people listen to Bush
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Well no duh its a civil war. It fits the very definition of a civil war:
civil war
n.
1) A war or large scale conflict between factions or regions of the same country.
2) A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell) - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13It is less important what the Americans think and more important what the Iraqis think about civil war.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Anyone else note that when Bush flew to meet the Iraqi president last week, they met in Jordan rather than Bagdad?
How out of control is it when you can no longer even keep the "green zone" safe for a foreign dignitary traveling with armed escort and occupying army? - CandidateZero, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15I think the point is that the administration's PR team, Fox included, is making the idea civil war in Iraq sound ridiculous and overblown. You know the dismissive language by now, so I don't need to repeat it.
The evening news tells you that you're thinking crazy thoughts while, unbeknownst to you, your neighbor and the majority of the country are thinking the same things you are. - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -18/+27Goebbles should have added . . . "for a short time". That would have wanred Bush & Company to prepare for trial and conviction and imprisonment :)
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary's definition:
civil war
• noun a war between citizens of the same country.
Seeing as how the radical Shi'ites and Sunnis tend to think of their clash as a "jihad," or "holy war," (after all, if it isn't a Jihad then it is a damnable sin to kill someone) it seems as if that definition is good enough. However, according, again, to the Oxford English Dictionary...
Jihad
• noun a holy war undertaken by Muslims against unbelievers.
However, because a Jihad can only be a war against ~unbelievers~ (perhaps, then, the Shi'ites and Sunnis each believe that the other is not "Muslim"? I suppose it could be a similar situation as how radical Christians don't believe that Catholics are "Christian," even though everyone knows that they are.), this definition isn't good enough. So we go to the definition of war...
war
• noun 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2 a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.
As we can see, the "Jihad" of each sect of Islam may not be a Jihad, but it is certainly a war because it is a 'state of armed conflict between armed groups.'
So, undeniably, the conflict in Iraq is, in fact, a Civil War. Unless you contest the English Language, you cannot contest that there is in fact a Civil War in Iraq, at the very least in the regions that the Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting. - mogus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Whether all or none of the people in the US or anywhere else believe that a state of civil war exists in Iraq is irrelevant. If people are really concerned about the political situation in Iraq (which we all should be), then maybe investigation into the situation is the answer and not what a random sampling of Americans deems it to be.
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Dugg for Faith-Based Melee....LOL
- thund3rstruck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Well you know people are morons.... 68% of people think Iraq had something to do with 9-11 and even better 68% of people think Elvis is still alive!
- mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@LoneRanger85
this what he really said
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Actually only 14% doesn't think it's a civil war.
The other 18% simply don't know or don't want to think about it. - positron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Indeed. Title is innacurate. It should say "32% of Americans delusional about Iraqi civil war".
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7More Americans "believe" that there is a civil war in Iraq? Interesting. The context in which the word is used suggests that the severity of the situation in Iraq is open for debate, which it is not. I would say that more Americans *understand* that there is a civil war in Iraq.
- ucbmckee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+768% of Americans probably think the capital of California is 'C'.
As much as I might -agree- that Iraq is a gawdawful mess, and probably a civil war, the American population has time and time again proven its complete inability to know what the hell is going on in the world. You do not decide these things through an opinion poll of uneducated, ignorant people who simply regurgitate whatever the talking head du jour parrots at them. - djcgmcse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Exactly, whether you label it a Civil War or not, the same thing is happening there.
I'm sure Iraqi's don't give a ***** if some farmer from South Dakota doesn't think it's a civil war. Their more concerned about keeping their family alive and healthy, just as we all would be if we were in the same situation. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Im not so sure that as someone who simply watches TV and browses digg, that I know whats going on in Iraq. It just seems like from both sides have far too much to gain by manipulating the media.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Who cares what its called? By calling it something different is it actually changing anything? Just by saying its a civil war makes it any different than what was going on? Who really cares? Its just a game of semantics.
- djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Apparently 68 percent of Digg users don't re-read their posts before they click the 'submit comment' button.
- DeadWisdom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Plus, now it's "Matt Lauer" approved.
- Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16It is nothing more than 2 or more sectarian groups in the same country fighting over proviences. Thats clearly not a civil war. Only when you see guys in blue and gray can we call it an offical civil war.
"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Political scientists use two criteria: 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 criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_wars - Punisher2K, on 10/12/2007, -2/+632% more and it will equal how many Iraqis think there is a civil war.
- fotuenti, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6i think OED needs to update their definition of jihad. i was under the impression the one could jihad against evil within themselves.....
- elmofrosti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What people don't seem to realize is calling this a civil war or not calling it a civil war has serious legal and diplomatic implications. It's not just a matter of semantics. There is a body of law surrounding what a country can and cannot do to aid or ultimately recognize a government that emerges from civil war. That is why people like Jimmy Carter are cautious before using the term regarding the situation in Iraq.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because that's what we did the first time around. Now we're there again, so... Let's do that again!!!!???
- GLJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3All polls are pure BS. The media uses them and reports them as news but what is a poll really? In this context, it is nothing more than the media measuring the effectiveness of their propaganda. How many people will spout back to us (in a poll) what we have been feeding them for weeks, months or years.
Without taking a stand for or against the war, this poll means nothing other than, 68% of Americans are buying into whatever the network news tells them, right or wrong. - TheLastProphet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8UN Annan stated it was worse than civil war
http://www.ealchemy.org - antigravit42, on 06/14/2009, -0/+3Idiots that’s what they want you to believe.
What happens after you blame your blunders on a civil war?
SLICE!
Hint #1: North Vietnam & South Vietnam
Hint #2: North Korea & South Korea
Understand politics bitches. - wizbor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Absolutely correct. Since when is a "poll" equal "the truth", oh wait I forgot this is Digg. And in the meantime Iran bans You-tube but diggers wont think that's an infringement on free speech either. Amazing how stupid people in a free society can be about people who have no freedoms and want it. Guess that comes from never having to sacrifice or even no what that means.
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4But you understand that, and you are looking to multiple news sources for your news. And from the way you speak, are applying critical thinking to what you have learned. You're doing better than the avg joe.
- canada1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"68% of Americans believe that there is now a civil war in Iraq"
Well, DUH! - Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nice to know that all 300million Americans were questioned....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What does it really matter what you call it? The situation there positively SUCKS!!!
At this point are we really more worried about splitting hairs over semantics than we are that many people's lives are in danger?!?!
WTF! - truck87bp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Harris Poll didn't ask me anything, did they you?
- pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2surprisingly, 68% of americans also believe capt. jamil hussein is one of iraq's finest.
- evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well Duh...That's what the news media is telling us, so it must be true.
- chaimpot0k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+289% of Americans will believe anything they hear on TV.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ mikesbaker
Wow, dive right into the insults shall we?
I've been noticing that the blogosphere and the "left" are about a year ahead of the mainstream media when it comes to how they assess the facts and what they want to do next. Lefties are talking about criminal indictments now.
So, in a year or so (unless we really do pull out or there's another terrorist attack) I'm expecting the broader nation will be demanding criminal indictments as well.
I'd love trials in Geneva cause that's where war criminals should be tried. But its OK with me if we try these guys in our courts.
Its illegal (really and trully illegal) to lie to the entire nation and to all of congress and the senate about the justifications for war. Its illegal to torture people (and to _order_ the torture of people) in US-run prisions. Presidents have to abide by the treaties other presidents have signed.
Its also illegal to violate national laws and regulations regarding military contractors, to wiretap the whole country by monitoring phone calls domestically as well as internationally . . . and so on.
At the moment most people just want to stop the fighting . . . but they'll be mad as hell in the months and years to come, and frankly the folks on the _right_ are the ones Bush & Company have to worry the most about. Those folks are really vindictive. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"In other words, a majority of Americans agrees with NBC."
Either that or most people just believe whatever they are told. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I understand that people are anxious to point out the severity of Iraq's unrest. There is no doubt in my mind what is going on there is "civil war" or worse. What I want to point out though is that we often get hung up on naming things. We think...
Step one: Name the thing. Step 2: Know the name. Outcome: Know the thing.
Don't fall into the trap of knowing "the name." Learn about "the thing" the extreme violence and death that is terrible regardless of its name. Otherwise you will think it is a victory when Bush admits it is civil war. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@fotuenti:
You are correct. Jihad's direct literal translation means 'to struggle'. The Islamic Jihad is a struggle against the 'evil' in oneself. The OEM reflects the general uninformed definition of 'Jihad' and should be updated. - Busbee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What this poll really tells us is how many Americans are hearing and believing that the fighting in Iraq is turning into a "Civil War". Very few Americans have first-hand experience, so we rely on the media (TV, newspapers, magazines, web) to shape our opinions. The poll is a measure of what message is getting through to the American people, and little else.
Tidbits from the same article (fwiw):
- 53% of the same people surveyed think "Taking military action against Iraq was the right thing to do"
- 42% think "It was a mistake to take military action against Iraq"
- From the disclaimer at the bottom: "All surveys are subject to several sources of error."
- ibid. - "With one exception (sampling error) the magnitude of the errors that result cannot be estimated. There is, therefore, no way to calculate a finite 'margin of error' ".
This poll was taken online, and the "margin of error" is considered "infinite". Not sure that I want to place too much faith in the results, no matter which way they came up... - antigravit42, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Hey kolobcreek guess what I'm using?!
The reply function!
oh gosh oh gosh this is so crazy!!!!
And your stupidity doesn't stop there:
"The real deal is people are too stupid to see the truth right in front of them.
5. Shia = Suni = KKK"
Hmm so the Sunni and the Shias are marching across the deserts of Iraq, chanting "White Power"
I guess it is okay since you heard it on a reliable news source such as Fox News. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You're right. It's not like we've had one.
- burningpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The most important thing about this is to note what the media wants you to think about the situation. They know most people do not like the idea of us being involved in a civil war, and thus have labeled it this way for QUITE some time now.
Basically you need to know where each media outlet is coming from.
Peace. My two cents. - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Since most of the fighting is Iraqi upon Iraqi, NOT foreign insurgents, you're right, it is a civil war.
- JohnnyRad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+287% of statistics are made up on the spot
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is