Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[dalegg 143]

Only 4 to 10 percent of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. Bush could have gotten Zarqawi a long time ago but instead they chose to keep him around for propaganda

The important question is what percentage of the Iraqi population supports the insurgency, not what percentage of the fighting insurgents are foreign.

[slim 1,533]

dalegg, in short, no. You are not totally off here. Yes Zarqawi and others are foreigners, but they are not foreigners the way the military presence of the US and coalition are foreigners.

The coalition is an occupying army. Zarqawi and crew are foreign fighters, but moreover, they are jihadists. Mujahideen. In Islam, there is a rule that when Muslims are being oppressed and killed by foreign invaders (non-Muslims) it is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim man to fight the occupation. Zarqawi, and for the most part, Al-Qaeda mujahideen are welcomed by Iraqis who believe the "struggle" against the occupying forces qualifies as jihad.

Whether or not this is the vast majority now, I can't tell you. I don't know because I'm not there and haven't seen any reliable polls on the news. What I can tell you, and you can be sure of this, is the longer the US occupies Iraq, the more and more the population is going to welcome mujahideen to fight the US occupation.

Reason being, right now in the US, all of our problems are caused by "terrorism." That was well and good 5 years ago. Since we're still having the same problems, (and they're arguably getting worse) it's starting to appear that the "threat of terror" isn't really what's causing our problems. However, the 10 billion dollars a month that we're spending in Iraq may contribute to it. The same is going to happen in Iraq. The Iraqis are being told every day that the problems in their country were caused by Sadaam, and now they're being caused by the insurgency and the fighting between sects. After a while, they're going to realize that the problems started in March of 2003, and the solutions being offered up by their government aren't real solutions to underlying problems, but only scapegoating of those deemed "objectionable" to the govt.

The really funny thing is that the Iraqis will figure this out before the American public. Only after it's over will Joe America look back and say "gosh... I didn't see that one coming."

[Razor 0]

Only 4 to 10 percent of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. Bush could have gotten Zarqawi a long time ago but instead they chose to keep him around for propaganda

The important question is what percentage of the Iraqi population supports the insurgency, not what percentage of the fighting insurgents are foreign.

A series of several polls have been conducted to ascertain the position of the Iraqi public further on the insurgency and the coalition occupation. The polls consistently find the following:

Between 45% and 88% of Sunni Arabs consider armed attacks on U.S. forces legitimate and justified resistance.

The greatest support for the insurgency is in al-Anbar province.

The majority of Iraqis disapprove of the presence of coalition forces.

A majority of both Sunnis and Shi'ites want an end to the occupation as soon as possible, although Sunnis are opposed to the occupation by somewhat greater margins. [14]

Polls conducted in June 2005 suggest even more anti-occupation sentiment; most alarming to U.S. policymakers is rising support for the insurgency. According to the Boston Globe (10 June 2005): "a recent internal poll conducted for the U.S.-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the U.S.-led coalition."

[15] A later 2005 poll by British intelligence said that 45% of Iraqis support attacks against coalition forces, rising to 65% in some areas, and that 82% are "strongly opposed" to the presence of foreign troops.

[16] Demands for U.S. withdrawal have also been signed on by one third of Iraq's Parliament.[17] These results are consistent with a January 2006 poll that found an overall 47% approval for attacks on US-led forces. That figure climbed to 88% among Sunnis. Attacks on Iraqi security forces and civilians, however, were approved of by only 7% and 1% of respondents respectively. 87% favored a U.S. withdrawal, but only 23% believe the U.S. would actually withdraw if asked. 80% believed the U.S. plans permanent bases in Iraq.

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

Edited June 10, 2006 by Razor

[iceyspots 0]

war sucks.

[dalegg 143]

The Iraqis are being told every day that the problems in their country were caused by Sadaam, and now they're being caused by the insurgency and the fighting between sects. After a while, they're going to realize that the problems started in March of 2003, and the solutions being offered up by their government aren't real solutions to underlying problems, but only scapegoating of those deemed "objectionable" to the govt.

The really funny thing is that the Iraqis will figure this out before the American public. Only after it's over will Joe America look back and say "gosh... I didn't see that one coming."

Before we or the Iraqi people can access how good their nation can be without Sadaam or the insurgency there, they have to have a country free of both. Right now their country is only free of half. Again- I can't argue that the removal of Sadaam had a direct impact on the arrival of the insurgency, but don't you think this insurgency is a large factor- if not the largest factor- hindering the progress of that nation? No? Is it American Soldiers or foreign contractors trying to rebuild the infrastructure? How can you call blaming the slow progress on the insurgency "scapegoating"? Are they or are they not doing everything they can to hinder progress?

Only 4 to 10 percent of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. Bush could have gotten Zarqawi a long time ago but instead they chose to keep him around for propaganda

The important question is what percentage of the Iraqi population supports the insurgency, not what percentage of the fighting insurgents are foreign.

A series of several polls have been conducted to ascertain the position of the Iraqi public further on the insurgency and the coalition occupation. The polls consistently find the following:

Between 45% and 88% of Sunni Arabs consider armed attacks on U.S. forces legitimate and justified resistance.

The greatest support for the insurgency is in al-Anbar province.

The majority of Iraqis disapprove of the presence of coalition forces.

A majority of both Sunnis and Shi'ites want an end to the occupation as soon as possible, although Sunnis are opposed to the occupation by somewhat greater margins. [14]

Polls conducted in June 2005 suggest even more anti-occupation sentiment; most alarming to U.S. policymakers is rising support for the insurgency. According to the Boston Globe (10 June 2005): "a recent internal poll conducted for the U.S.-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the U.S.-led coalition."

[15] A later 2005 poll by British intelligence said that 45% of Iraqis support attacks against coalition forces, rising to 65% in some areas, and that 82% are "strongly opposed" to the presence of foreign troops.

[16] Demands for U.S. withdrawal have also been signed on by one third of Iraq's Parliament.[17] These results are consistent with a January 2006 poll that found an overall 47% approval for attacks on US-led forces. That figure climbed to 88% among Sunnis. Attacks on Iraqi security forces and civilians, however, were approved of by only 7% and 1% of respondents respectively. 87% favored a U.S. withdrawal, but only 23% believe the U.S. would actually withdraw if asked. 80% believed the U.S. plans permanent bases in Iraq.

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

Well, in their next election if a candidate who runs on the platform of telling the U.S to go home wins the election, I'll be standing next to Cindy Sheehan with a sign urging our troops to leave. I didn't ask the question retorically. I truly don't know how much of the Iraqis want us out of there- and this to me is the most important factor.

Edited June 10, 2006 by dalegg

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Only 4 to 10 percent of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. Bush could have gotten Zarqawi a long time ago but instead they chose to keep him around for propaganda

The important question is what percentage of the Iraqi population supports the insurgency, not what percentage of the fighting insurgents are foreign.

Actually the important question should be, do the Iraqis support the occupation? When people going about their everyday lives are subject to strip-search and summary arrest - effectively being treated as second class citizens in their own country, it invariably causes resentment.

Furthermore, what right do we actually have to be there?

Edited June 10, 2006 by Fishdude

[dalegg 143]

Only 4 to 10 percent of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. Bush could have gotten Zarqawi a long time ago but instead they chose to keep him around for propaganda

The important question is what percentage of the Iraqi population supports the insurgency, not what percentage of the fighting insurgents are foreign.

Actually the important question should be, do the Iraqis support the occupation? When people going about their everyday lives are subject to strip-search and summary arrest - effectively being treated as second class citizens in their own country, it invariably causes resentment.

Furthermore, what right do we actually have to be there?

Fair enough. I see it as the same question.

What right do we actually have to be there? At this point I don't see it so much as a right, but an obligation. I thought this was your opinion too. Have you changed your mind?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Only 4 to 10 percent of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. Bush could have gotten Zarqawi a long time ago but instead they chose to keep him around for propaganda

The important question is what percentage of the Iraqi population supports the insurgency, not what percentage of the fighting insurgents are foreign.

Actually the important question should be, do the Iraqis support the occupation? When people going about their everyday lives are subject to strip-search and summary arrest - effectively being treated as second class citizens in their own country, it invariably causes resentment.

Furthermore, what right do we actually have to be there?

Fair enough. I see it as the same question.

What right do we actually have to be there? At this point I don't see it so much as a right, but an obligation. I thought this was your opinion too. Have you changed your mind?

No - but the attitudes that got us into this mess are still there - its those that need to be addressed to prevent a repeat performance in some other country. Iran, for example.

[iceyspots 0]

cumbaya

[almaty 19]

cumbaya

[nayalamb 1]

war sucks.

amen to that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The last time a developed country seriously threatened another developed country- causing mass deaths of civilians- was when the Germans invaded it's European Neighbors, and correct me if I'm wrong, but England had no problem retalitating by bombing cities they knew had caucasion German civilians. So don't tell me countries deal with threats to their populations based on the ethnicity of the person perpetuating the threat.

That comparison lacks credibility as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq did not invade any country. Iraq is actually the invaded country here. The US and UK are the aggressing and occupying nations in this case. So, now you are wanting to justify "retaliations" on the population of the invaded nation same as one might justify retaliations on the population of an aggressing nation? That leaves a rather odd aftertaste, doesn't it?

Can I just get a clarification here?:

The U.S invaded Iraq- Okay, we agree on this. But do you think that the people fighting under Zarqawi are representative of the Iraqi nation? You are stating that I shouldn't "justify retaliations on the population of the invaded nation" as if Zarqawi is representative of Iraq. This is where we are having our disconnect. I think of Zarqawi's men as the invaders now, and so when I made this comparison I was actually thinking of them as the agressors.

Some of Zarqawi's men may be invaders. I can agree on that. That doesn't get us off the hook as invaders and aggressors, though. Plus, why would you feel it is justified to kill Iraqi civilians to retaliate against the foreign terrorists? Seeing that Zarqawi was Jordanian, following your argument, we should have been bombing the ####### out of cities in Jordan to retaliate against his actions. Instead, we add insult to injury for the Iraqi's that invited neither us nor them. We're fighting our war of choice on their turf accepting their civilian deaths only to avoid ours. What gives us the fcuking right to willy-nilly gamble with their lives to save ours? That's precisely the American arrogance that makes us everyone's "favorite".

[dalegg 143]

Seeing that Zarqawi was Jordanian, following your argument, we should have been bombing the ####### out of cities in Jordan to retaliate against his actions.

Okey-Dokey.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seeing that Zarqawi was Jordanian, following your argument, we should have been bombing the ####### out of cities in Jordan to retaliate against his actions.

Okey-Dokey.

Was that not about what you suggested above with the Brits targeting German civilian populations in retaliation to German offenses? Maybe I misunderstood that. I still don't see how punishing the population of the invaded nation is justified just because we, being an invader there ourselves, are after another invader.

[dalegg 143]

Seeing that Zarqawi was Jordanian, following your argument, we should have been bombing the ####### out of cities in Jordan to retaliate against his actions.

Okey-Dokey.

Was that not about what you suggested above with the Brits targeting German civilian populations in retaliation to German offenses? Maybe I misunderstood that. I still don't see how punishing the population of the invaded nation is justified just because we, being an invader there ourselves, are after another invader.

I think you're misinterpreting my point about the Brits targeting German civilian populations. I wasn't speaking to the merit of the attacks. I pointed this out as an attempt to show an example that civilized nations don't only accept third world innocent civilians as collatoral damage.

I guess I understand what you are saying though-- that while Zarqawi is an invader and a necassary evil that has to be taken out, it does not justify killing the civilians of the nation we are supposed to be protecting from him. I would see what you are saying if I believed that anyone killed in the blast that killed him actually opposed him, although in the long run I have to say I think it was a necassary shot.