[Target]

Finally, some outrage aimed at the cowards that prey on the minds of freedom loving people.

Is thewashington times the only news agency that thinks this is significant enough to report?

AMMAN, Jordan — At least 200,000 persons demonstrated yesterday against the recent bombings of three luxury hotels, while a new online statement attributed to terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi defended the attacks and threatened to cut off the head of Jordan’s King Abdullah II.

An anti-terrorist demonstration of such size is unprecedented in the Arab world, where Zarqawi, his mentor, Osama bin Laden, and their al Qaeda organization have attained folk-hero status among Muslim masses.

“Zarqawi, from Amman, we say to you: ‘You are a coward,’ ” protesters chanted while brandishing banners with the names of their tribes from every part of Jordan.

A similar protest in Jordan two days after the attacks on three hotels in the capital, which killed 59 persons, mustered several thousand people.

One attacker blew himself up at a wedding party in the ballroom of the Radisson SAS hotel. Seventeen relatives of the bride and groom died.

“More than 100,000 people took part in the demonstration which left the al-Husseini mosque and then moved towards Amman town hall,” security forces spokesman Bashir al-Daajeh told Agence France-Presse.

[Public Defender]

This was also reported on National Public Radio - the first time demonstators took to the streets, a day or two after the bombings. I haven't heard if NPR followed that up with another story for the bigger rallies yesterday.

However, NPR did some excellent reporting the other day (All Things Considered) on the difficult position that Jordanians are feeling themselves in. According to those stories, Jordanians tend to support "opposition to occupation" - i.e. bombings in Palestine, Israel, and Iraq - but they don't support "terrorist activity" - i.e. bombings in Amman, and I would imagine, the 9/11 attacks or the bombings a few years back in Kenya and Tanzania. It's a distinction that few leaders in the US make, but one that you'll hear frequently from people in the Arab world. I'm not saying I agree, but that appears to be the distinction being made.

[hoojacks]

Public Defender, that is 100% correct. I know many many Arabs and have talked extensively with experts in the field of Arabic culture, religion and language. This is always the viewpoint expressed.

[rant]

Where do I start?

First of all, that article has some bad reporting in it. Al-Qaeda are not "folk heros" to the Muslims. That's absurd. That's like saying the KKK are folk heros to the Christians.

Secondly, of COURSE Muslims are divided. What, do you think every Muslim is for the Jihadists? Because they're not. I'll help you understand their scenario:

Imagine you live in your homeland where everyone thinks you are the greatest culture on the planet. This part shouldn't be too hard. Now, a country invades your homeland to dispose your leader (whom you also hate.) Democrats, imagine this is happening today. Republicans, imagine this is happening in the Clinton years. Okay. Would you pissed? Would you be fighting to protect your homeland? You are goddamn right you would be. Would you be fighting to protect the government you hate? No. You'd be fighting for your family and for your community and for your way of life and culture.

Now, imagine that the KKK gets a bunch of bombs and starts blowing **** up to get rid of the invaders. You don't like the KKK, you think they're wacko, but they're helping with the war effort so you tolerate them. You DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR EVERY ACTION NOR DO YOU SHARE THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM.

That is essentially the situation that most common Arabs are going through today and when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the 80's. Of course Muslims are divided, of course of course of course. The problem is, thanks to the US invading Iraq, the percentage for Jihad and the percentage against Jihad is starting to move towards one day evening out.

[/rant]

[Talkhard]

Imagine you live in your homeland where everyone thinks you are the greatest culture on the planet . . . Now, a country invades your homeland to dispose your leader (whom you also hate.) . . . Would you pissed? Would you be fighting to protect your homeland? You are goddamn right you would be.

I'm sorry, but this is a faulty analogy.

For starters, you are ignoring the fact that many Iraqis rejoiced when we stormed into Bagdad and overthrew Saddam. In fact, many were dissapointed that we didn't do it during the 1991 Gulf War. The great majority of Iraqis support the U.S. military action against Saddam, and DO NOT want U.S. forces to leave until their new government is established and the country is stable. This has been proven in opinion polls taken in the last 6 months.

You're also ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have joined the newly formed Iraqi army to fight the terrorists. These soldiers are fighting alongside American and other coalition forces, and are receiving training from them. You can bet they are grateful for American support in their efforts to free their country and establish a democratic form of government.

The insurgency in Iraq is made up of radical Islamists who are driven by hatred of the U.S., hatred of democracy, hated of anything new or "modern," and their blind allegiance to people like bin Laden and Zarqawhi. Many of them were supporters of the Baathist party that benefitted from Saddam being in power. They do not represent the average Muslim, who was only too happy to see Saddam go and to get a chance to form a new society.

Would most Americans want a foreign army on their soil? Of course not, but that proves nothing. WE DON'T NEED ANY INTERVENTION because we already have the kind of society we want! If our president was killing thousands of us with chemical and biological weapons (as Saddam did to the Kurds), or systematically torturing us, or using "rape rooms," or denying us a free press, and we were powerless to stop it, then we might indeed welcome intervention from a strong and symathetic country. This is exactly why most Iraqis recognize the importance of U.S. intervention. See the quote in red below for a better understanding of how the Kurds feel about U.S. intervention. And talk to the Afghans and the Kuwaitis about U.S. intervention in their countries. They are strongly pro-U.S., something you won't see mentioned in the mainstream media very often.

[hoojacks]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

WE DON'T NEED ANY INTERVENTION because we already have the kind of society we want!

Ah, so Iraq needed intervention because they didn't have the "kind of society" we wanted them to have? And if it was REALLY about human rights violations (which it wasnt) there are a BUNCH of other countries we could of gone after. Or maybe we could of cleaned up our own act first. I digress.

The thing that bugs me is that conservatives can't find one damn fault with this war. All they do is latch onto the few positives they can and ride them into the sunset. Yes, I think Saddam Hussein deserves to go to jail for the rest of his life and I'm glad he's gone. But at least I can see just how MESSED UP this whole process was. But once again, I digress.

You know who were cheering when America toppled Saddam? The Jihadists. America is taking a HUGE risk in getting rid of someone who kept the Jihadists out for years and attempting to form a new government. Now it's a fight between us and them, where as before, they never even had a chance.
Dammit, I still digress.

I'm not about to trust polls coming out of Iraq anymore than polls coming out of America. Seriously, think about it: public opinion is terrible, The popularity is slipping... hey! We took some polls! They like us being here! Man oh man were you liberals wrong!
I'm not saying thats how it happened, but the likelyhood of taking a comprehensive poll (rich AND poor) in the middle of a raging war zone is laughable.

But really, I'm not trying to put things into black and white. There'll always be some exception. But the ORIGINAL point still stands as true (and is backed up by your "cheering for the invaders" theory): Muslims don't view Al-Qaeda as folk heros, nor do they support them. Many Arabs are fighting America even though they hated Saddam, because you don't invade an Arab's homeland. It's a matter of pride.