Militants claim to have established Islamic state in Iraq

[sabra]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/72190.html

Militants claim to have established Islamic state in Iraq

A militant group that includes al Qaeda in Iraq announced yesterday it had established an Islamic state in Iraq.

The claim, released in a videotape, was immediately discounted by Iraq's parliament speaker.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council – an umbrella organisation of insurgent groups in Iraq – said in the video that the new state was made up of six provinces including Baghdad that have large Sunni populations and parts of two other provinces south of the capital that are predominantly Shi'ite.

Iraqi insurgents are not known to control any territory, although Iraqi forces are known to avoid night patrols in some areas such as the Anbar province because they are too dangerous. The US military, meanwhile, does not place restrictions on where it operates in the country.

...

Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al Mashhadani, a Sunni, criticised the video. "Those who believe in this council are ignorant, and those who follow it are foolish. This council caused the sectarian conflict as well, displacing both Shi'ite and Sunni," Mr al Mashhadani told Al Jazeera television.

[robcon]

1. yeah - that, and I'm the King of China.

The place is a mess, but there's no Islamic Government (not even a decision between a a Shi'a and Sunni leadership) in Iraq.

[rodeodance]

2. anyone remotely helping (including Iraqi gov officials)----will probably b

e killed in a bloodbath.

[robcon]

3. An additional party claims sovereignty in Iraq.

Saddam Says Iraq 'Liberation Is at Hand'
By JAMAL HALABY Associated Press Writer

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- "Saddam Hussein has told his countrymen that Iraq's "liberation is at hand" and called on insurgents to be merciful with their enemy, according to an open letter obtained Monday.

In the three-page letter, dictated to his lawyers, Saddam also urges Iraqis to set aside sectarian and ethnic differences and focus instead on driving the U.S. forces out of Iraq..."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SADDAM_LETTER?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-10-16-07-55-40

With all the claims for sovereignty, who knows? What a mess.

edit: link

[yellowcanine]

4. One more impediment to calling it what it is (civil war) falls.

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. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

[Ian David]

5. When an internal group seizes territory and secedes from the government...

isn't that pretty much a viable definition of a Civil War?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. They'd have to actuall seize that territory.

Right now all they can do is cause havoc and prevent a government from forming... which is probably enough, as far as they're concerned.