i don't know what is more interesting... the story itself or the fact that Associated Press decided to publish it...

anyway,

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040706/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_28)


BAGHDAD, Iraq - A group of armed, masked Iraqi men threatened Tuesday to kill Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi if he did not immediately leave the country, accusing him of murdering innocent Iraqis and defiling the Muslim religion.

The threats revealed the deep anger many Iraqis, including insurgent groups, feel toward foreign fighters, whom many consider as illegitimate a presence here as the 160,000 U.S. and other coalition troops. [Notice the editorializing here from AP’s writer, comparing the terror gangs to coalition troops.]

In a videotape sent to the al-Arabiya television station, a group calling itself the “Salvation Movement,” questioned how al-Zarqawi could use Islam to justify the killing of innocent civilians, the targeting of government officials and the kidnapping and beheading of foreigners.

“He must leave Iraq immediately, he and his followers and everyone who gives shelter to him and his criminal actions,” said a man on the video. The video marked the first time that an Iraqi group made such a public threat against al-Zarqawi.

In the video, three men, their faces covered with Arab headscarves, were flanked by rocket propelled grenades and an Iraqi flag. The man speaking had a clear Iraqi accent.

“We swear to Allah that we have started preparing ... to capture him and his allies or kill them and present them as gift to our people.” the man said. “This is the last warning. If you don’t stop, we will do to you what the coalition forces have failed to do.”


i'm sure the insane antiwar monkeys will dismiss this in one way or another
but i think this shows who is the aggressor (al-Q), who's doing the inciting (foreign lefty press), and where the coalition stands in Iraq's mainstream.

this group in the story, to me, this is the mainstream Iraq, the Iraqi street, the quiet majority who seem too boring to write about in the treterous and insane left media, unless they have an AK or an RPG in their hands

this majority does not bomb anyone on busy market streets or police recruitment centers
this majority just wants to get on with their life and prepare for elections
this majority does not attack coalition forces but sees them as a partner (notice the last sentence in the quote from the article)
this majority does not sabotage Iraq's oil infrustructure

any thoughts...?

yep,

1) what is your point exactly?

2) I love the way the captors are described as: a group of masked iraqi men since their prisoner is an alleged Al-Q leader, but had the prisoner been an american then those same "group of masked iraqi men" would strangely metamorphasise into "militant fanatical islamisist terrorist scum buckets"

the point, 4 of them actually, are there. come on. conjure up all the skills you've acquired in highschool English class and try to find them

and no, nobody calls al-Q terrorists
they are insurgents, rebels, minutemen, guerillas, etc.... but never terrorists
and if a pop-media does mention the word 'terrorist', it is used among the other 4 words i've used.

i've never ever seen an article in the pop-media where al-Qaeda fighters have been exclusively referred to as terrorists

also, you seem to have some sort of resentment towards the group from the article
why?

yep,

I love the way the captors are described as: a group of masked iraqi men since their prisoner is an alleged Al-Q leader

what are you talking about? what prisoner?

i've never ever seen an article in the pop-media where al-Qaeda fighters have been exclusively referred to as terrorists


??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now you're just being deliberately stupid.

a link would be nice
even FOX News engages in the practice of conveniently referring to terrorists as terrorists and insurgents, or terorrists and militants, in the same article, so to pacify the anti-war freakazoids who think bin-Laden should have a lawyer, and, the rest of the people who think he is a terrorist

this practice has become more common
"oh no. we won't call anyone terrorist. they're terrorists and insurgents"
just another thing i hate about pop-media

but the topic here is not about the treterous and morally bankrupt media, but rather about the popular uprising (which really is popular, and is a real uprising) against stinky foreign terrorists who defame Islam and blow civilians up in country that isn't even theirs

you do resent the group in the article, don't you nico?

What the hell IS your point of this stupid thread?

1)this majority (Iraqis? Palestinians? Israelis? Americans?) does not bomb anyone on busy market streets or police recruitment centers
2) this majority (Iraqis? Palestinians? Israelis? Americans?) just wants to get on with their life and prepare for elections
3) this majority (Iraqis? Palestinians? Israelis? Americans?) does not attack … forces but sees them as a partner
4) this majority (Iraqis? Palestinians? Israelis? Americans?) does not sabotage …

The “majority” of any group do not do anything.


Wow! There’s actually a group of people in Iraq who are against Zarqawi! Is that what you find so revealing? This is typical reaction of simpleminded people who think that there are only 2 kinds of people right now in Iraq (or in the world for that manner) -- “Good and Bad”.

And so what if one "resents" the group in the article. Does that automatically mean that he supports Zarqawi? Again, Simpleminds.

a link would be nice
even FOX News engages in the practice of conveniently referring to terrorists as terrorists and insurgents, or terorrists and militants, in the same article, so to pacify the anti-war freakazoids who think bin-Laden should have a lawyer, and, the rest of the people who think he is a terrorist

this practice has become more common
"oh no. we won't call anyone terrorist. they're terrorists and insurgents"
just another thing i hate about pop-media

but the topic here is not about the treterous and morally bankrupt media, but rather about the popular uprising (which really is popular, and is a real uprising) against stinky foreign terrorists who defame Islam and blow civilians up in country that isn't even theirs

you do resent the group in the article, don't you nico?


even FOX News engages in the practice of conveniently referring to terrorists as terrorists and insurgents, or terorrists and militants,

fox news? are you completely devoid of reason man?
fox news? the most jingoistic distorted anti arab "news" media source?
what the hell are you smoking?

fox news' definition or perception of "terrorism, terroist insurgants" or whatever other nonsensical meaningless soundbite political pigeonhole definition does not equate to the reality of anything.

The american government's definition or perception of "terrorism, terroist insurgants" or whatever other nonsensical meaningless soundbite political pigeonhole definition does not equate to the reality of anything.

your definition or perception of "terrorism, terroist insurgants" or whatever other nonsensical meaningless soundbite political pigeonhole definition does not equate to the reality of anything.

this majority does not bomb anyone on busy market streets or police recruitment centers
this majority just wants to get on with their life and prepare for elections
this majority does not attack coalition forces but sees them as a partner (notice the last sentence in the quote from the article)
this majority does not sabotage Iraq's oil infrustructure

what majority? in what context? in what circumstances?

in case you hadn't realised there's a war going on there. A war defined by america, planned by america, initiated by america. You think it's a picnic over there? You think its disneyland over there?

the majority don't want america in their country period

now what the hell is your point?

The threats revealed the deep anger many Iraqis, including insurgent groups, feel toward foreign fighters, whom many consider as illegitimate a presence here as the 160,000 U.S. and other coalition troops. [Notice the editorializing here from AP’s writer, comparing the terror gangs to coalition troops.]

Um, the writer isn't comparing foreign fighters and coalition troops as a whole but rather just the presence of them which is a 100% true comparison. That just means the Iraqi's don't want any outside help -- they want to take care of the situation themselves. When outside forces come to help, they tend to take over the situation leaving the true people of the country on the sidelines unable to do much but do as they're told by those outside forces, whether it's terror groups or coalition troops.

- N

I fear that people will start to confuse this Zarqawi incident with the Iraqi people turning on the insurgents. Iraqi’s seem to realize that there is a difference btwn the foreign fighters and the indigenous insurgency, and we shouldn’t misconstrue this event as a pro-coalition event.

The point I think he was trying to make was that there are people willing to do violence on al-Zarqawi. He causes trouble in thier country, and now they want him to leave. Perhaps this shouldn't surprise, I'm sure it would happen eventually, but apparently something made otheadp point it out.

Outlandish,
2) I love the way the captors are described as: a group of masked iraqi men since their prisoner is an alleged Al-Q leader, but had the prisoner been an american then those same "group of masked iraqi men" would strangely metamorphasise into "militant fanatical islamisist terrorist scum buckets" First, read the article again. I don't bash people very often, but you're asking for it.


fox news' definition or perception of "terrorism, terroist insurgants" or whatever other nonsensical meaningless soundbite political pigeonhole definition does not equate to the reality of anything. I think he agrees with you to some extent. If you read the posts careflully, you'll see.

I'm inclined to agree with Undecided. This is pro-Iraqi, not pro-coalition. But it's a good thing. I don't think we should be over there any longer than we have to, and the terrorism is not helping. What some people don't see is that while Iraq has an army now, and is actually working, they don't have the resources to defeat this alone. The sooner these people stop chopping off heads, the sooner some of our people can come home. This is a minority, but is an armed minority, and they're fed up.

but also undecided,

this misconception that the iraqi "insurgence" is subversive and contrary to "normal" iraqi views. Indeed that is the perception that eases the US government's conscience but in actual fact the iraqi insrgents are normal iraqis, and furtheremor they have the moral highground despite how much america disagrees with their stance/actions, for their actions are direct reactions to the action initiated by america.

whatever term america wishes to define these people by it doesnt matter:

if they are militants then they are iraqi militants fighting on iraqi soil.
if they are insurgents then they are iraqi insurgents fighting on iraqi soil.
if they are terrorists ...etc....

one fact remains:

these are iraqis fighting a war america started on iraqi soil.

gifted:

1st off my mistake i meant target not prisoner, although they will get him.I'm inclined to agree with Undecided.


This is pro-Iraqi, not pro-coalition. But it's a good thing. I don't think we should be over there any longer than we have to, and the terrorism is not helping. What some people don't see is that while Iraq has an army now, and is actually working, they don't have the resources to defeat this alone. The sooner these people stop chopping off heads, the sooner some of our people can come home. This is a minority, but is an armed minority, and they're fed up.

This is pro-Iraqi
pro iraqi according to whose perception?
just like america deamed the invasion to be "pro iraqi"

and the terrorism is not helping.

actions against an illeagal occupier cannot be perceived as terrorism .
again with the jingoistic payground political definitions:

anything that is contrary to americas vested interests = terrorism

This is a minority, but is an armed minority

yeh? just wait for the shia uprising baby...exactly what amerikkka supported saddie to stop in the first place.

its a mess, you better get your boys out ASAP....it's gonna be a bloodbath:


http://www.globalissues.net/PhotoFeature/pic421-84.jpg

It's a pity we weren't allowed to finish this thirteen years ago. We probably wouldn't be having nearly as many troubles as we are now.

It's a pity we weren't allowed to finish this thirteen years ago. We probably wouldn't be having nearly as many troubles as we are now.

It's also a pity we weren't "allowed" to go in this time and start or "finish" or whatever you want to call it.

maybe this dude should have hidden a "1000 volt" electric buzzer in the palm of his hand and "finished" it back in 1983:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

....but which dude am I reffering too?!!! LOL

;)

The basic premise of this thread as it started is flawed, because Iraq is not monolithic.

"this is the mainstream Iraq, the Iraqi street, the quiet majority ..."

That's just wishful thinking. Iraq is now comprised of multiple competing factions with various foreign allies. Zarqawi and any other foreign operatives in Iraq obviously have their enemies, but it is inane to say "Iraqis" have repudiated, or are going after a certain target.

Iraq is cracking up into civil war, and has no nationally agreed upon friends or enemies, although the closest thing to a consensus on who are prime enemies to Iraq would list the USA and Israel. From there it divides into Jordanian/Syrian/West Arabians : Shia, Iran/East Arabia : Sunnis, Turkey/Israel : Kurds, Turkomen : Everybody, Christians: everybody, other Iraqi minorities : any particular neighboring or intermixed ethnic group, collaborators : resistors, and something I've forgotton or will crop up next week in a new fracas.

This uncontainable, unpredictable, but generally forseeable furball will continue to writhe until the bloody corpse of Iraq finally stops twitching in a decade or more. It just isn't as simple as pothead and other Bushmen and zionists would like it to be: They have opened up Pandora's Box like it was chocolates.

what civil war?
there is no more bullshit from the Sunnis or Shias
they have all been pacified, have stopped attacks, have reached to agreements with the coalition about who is to patrol what town, and have disbanded their militias, or at least pledged to do it
all leaders have endorsed the current temporary government
even Moqtada al-Sadr - the most radical real Iraqi

who is left? al-Qaeda and Iranian agents trying to fuck things up for America
civil war? if you think foreign elements attacking Iraq is called civil war

:confused:

Just as the Lebanese Civil War was precipitated by foreign issues, and frequented by foreign fighters, so is the even more ominous Iraqi descent into hell. Civil war is already and tragically unfolding: Deny current events all you want, but Iraqis are fighting Iraqis now, with and without outside backing and collaboration. Blaming what is happening on al-Qaeda and Iran is not only grossly oversimplistic, it is part of the propaganda that is propelling this conflict to cascade into a regional series of wars and revolutions, with global economic shockwaves close behind.

The world is going to have to look squarely and fully at the unfolding disaster, if we are going to be able to react to the crises the Iraqi civil war is going to bring. Lies and misconceptions brought this disaster on, and they will compound it if allowed to. There is no reason but ignorance or dishonesty to be surprised, or feign it, as the breakdown of Iraqi unity looms ever larger. The world must face this head on, because actions that stabilize instead of radicalize are going to make pivotal differences to our futures.

The Lebanese civil war brought down a beautiful country, and disrupted regional finance. The Iraqi one, especially as it coincides with the fall of the Sa'ud dynasty in Arabia (of course you may deny this breakup, too) will have far more profound implications for the world economy and balance of powers. The regionalization of the instability that has been ignited will rattle many walls old and new in Israel, as well.

hype:

The basic premise of this thread as it started is flawed

I don't think there was a premise to begin with.

Iraq is cracking up into civil war,

I agree, and furthermore this will be unlike any other civil war in history.


potty:
what civil war?
atta boy.....you raise stupidity to an artform.

there is no more bullshit from the Sunnis or Shias
jingoistic playground politics potty style....you truly are a genius my friend, your incisiveness beggars belief.


they have all been pacified, have stopped attacks, have reached to agreements with the coalition about who is to patrol what town, and have disbanded their militias, or at least pledged to do it
all leaders have endorsed the current temporary government
even Moqtada al-Sadr - the most radical real Iraqi
wow..that was a busy news day on fox wasn't it?
I hope you managed to drag your ass off of the couch long enough to take a shit....wouldn't want you to become constipated with all this knowledge in your system.

who is left? al-Qaeda and Iranian agents trying to fuck things up for America
civil war? if you think foreign elements attacking Iraq is called civil war

damn those pesky lill buggers who "fuck things up for america" eh potmeister??