The author specifically says that the current conflict in Islam is a civil war, but with exception of the current conflict in Iraq, it can not be accurately termed a civil war. If it were, then NYC, London, Madrid, Bali, Calcutta, US embassies in Africa, as well as a host of other places would not be attacked like they were. This 'conflict' has been going on for quite a while, not just the past three years or even five years. I would say closer to twenty to twenty-five years. If someone does not want to go that far, then they still must admit the attacks were still prior to 9/11. September 11 just happened to be the thing that prompted us to fight back.

That may be the case Dom1, I think it may be an oversight in the authers details, that I even overlooked when I referred my question to you, however, the crux of the issue isn't comparing civil wars.