No doubt you've read of the bombs exploded in Amman, Jordan that killed at least 59 people. Best of the Web had the following insightful take on the response of Muslims and Jordanians to these latest attacks by al-Qaeda.
__________
"Thousands of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities shouting 'Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!' a day after three deadly hotel bombings that killed at least 59 people. Officials suspected Iraqi involvement in the attacks, which were claimed by al-Qaida's Iraq branch," the Associated Press reports:
As protesters in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab world denounced the Jordanian-born leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, security forces snared a group of Iraqis for questioning and officials said one of the bombers spoke Iraqi-accented Arabic before he exploded his suicide belt in the Grand Hyatt Hotel.
The main demonstration in Amman lasted for more than an hour. But honking vehicles, decorated with Jordanian flags and posters of King Abdullah II, cruised Amman's streets until late in the night, as passengers chanted "Death to al-Zarqawi, the villain and the traitor!" and anti-terrorism slogans.
Hmm, al Qaeda in Iraq--or, as the Democrats call it, al Qaeda Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq in Iraq Which Has Nothing to Do With al Qaeda. Another AP dispatch reports on the reaction of Palestinian Arabs in Silet al-Thaher, in the disputed territories:
In this Palestinian village, the Akhras clan mourned 17 relatives killed by a suicide bomber in Jordan--the first time Palestinians have been a target in a suicide attack.
"Oh my God, oh my God. Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?" asked a weeping Najah Akhras, 35, who lost two nieces. . . .
"Palestinians have tasted the blind violence that does not differentiate between people--children, women, wedding parties, ordinary people," said Palestinian newspaper commentator Hani al-Masri.
"I expect now a significant change in the Palestinian political culture," he said. "For sure, this attack will push Palestinians to reconsider this way of suicide bombings, and I think it would reduce support for attacks that kill people without any differentiation."
Let's hope it also reduces support for attacks that kill Jews with "differentiation." Anyway, this is further evidence of how al Qaeda has squandered the world's goodwill since 9/11.
__________
Iraq and al-Qaeda? Nah, not likely.
5 comments:
Utter nonsense. Would Iraq be the haven for terrorist activity it is if the United States had never invaded Iraq? Would Saddam have allowed this radical Islamic movement within his own country? The answer is clearly "NO!" and anyone who tries to use current al-Qaeda activity in Iraq as a retroactive justification for the war has chosen to openly blind himself to reality in favor of cowardly partisan allegiance. Let's have a little intellectual integrity here, shall we Jake? At least I'm not sitting here claiming my Utes have a chance of beating BYU on Saturday just because we pounded them last year. :) In light of recent information (Johnson out for season, Ratliff unproven...well, proven to be bad) I have had to withdraw my claim that the Utes will beat BYU. Once the head has been removed from the sand, I expect a similar withdrawl of your support for the pre-war justification of 'Mess-0-potamia'. Support the war now on different grounds than that old crap you've been clinging to and add some depth to the picture. The war might be not be a lost cause at this point, but your dependence on the old faulty justification is a dead end. America is realizing that now, and Bush is realizing it as his approval drops to the mid 30s. Try and differentiate yourself from that fanatical 1/3 which supports Bush without question.
voiceofraisin-
Rather than accusing Jake of not thinking for himself and belonging to the "fanatical 1/3" who has "clearly" chosen to "openly blind himself" to the inadequacies of our President and his efforts to fight terrorism, it would behoove you from my perspective to lay out a rational argument against the actions taken by our President. I personally tire of the "fanatical 1/3" who prefer to "blindly" find fault with any action taken by our President. I also find the common reliance on hyperbole to be quite annoying. Throwing around cute sayings like "Mess-O-potamia" do not make you more convincing. It also comes across quite hypocritical when you accuse Jake of not supporting the war on different grounds now because of a "lack of depth" when Jake supports his views with research rather than invective. How is that lacking in "intellectual integrity." I find much more integrity in that than asking questions such as "Would Iraq be the haven..." which "clearly" do not have such straight forward answers as you seem to believe. Jake's opinions may be wrong but at least he supports his opinions with hard evidence. Maybe you are the person who needs to "pull his head out of the sand?" Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing does not make you educated. It makes you sound like Kanye West. Does George Bush like black people? The answer is clearly NO.
Hey Morgan, you sound like Jake's bitch or something. Let me get this straight... you think I should back up my comment (note, I'm not writing the f-ing blog here) with "hard evidence" when your own comment lacked anything that really added to the discussion on the bad (my opinion) Iraq and al-Qaeda link. You also failed to notice that Jake and I can rail on each other's political viewpoint and still have a sense of humor doing it. Hence, the "cute" reference to "Mess-o-potamia" and my not-so-subtle way of excusing myself from the Utah-BYU banter that will undoubtedly arise this week and inevitably would put me on shaky ground... kind of like a person who jumps to the defense of a blogger and uses zero analysis and no "hard evidence" to attack a comment that at least had some analysis, but admittedly and intentionally no "hard evidence". So Morgan, or in other words, Jake's ass puppet, let me ask you a question, and I expect some "hard evidence" when you respond. Did our involvement in Iraq do anything to prevent al-Zarqawi from launching his attack in Jordan? Here's an even harder one: What's worse, Bush getting it wrong about the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, or (hypothetically speaking) getting it right and blowing 200B and thousands of human lives in a failed attempt to prevent al-Qaeda operations in Iraq? While you're doing your research, figure out how many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attack versus the number who were involved in the Jordan attack... might be educational. You didn't like my question about "would Iraq be the haven..." because it lacked a straightforward answer. Well, many people (my opinion) like Bush because he can give the simple minded their straight answers without addressing the gray area and nuance that exists in a complex reality. And intellectual integrity refers to an honest and objective look at information rather than the manipulation of information to fit a certain point of view, regardless of the nature of the question being addressed. (Sorry for the language Jake, but Morgan really does seem like your bitch.) You still there Morgan, or did you get started on researching your position backed with hard evidence?
Good thing Google's advertising program doesn't scan through these posts for its information to base the ads on. If it did, there'd be links to Anger Management programs and several explicit pay-for sites.
Was that in reference to me Matt? Well what about the links to support pages for men with breasts? What about the ads for pantyhose and nightgowns? Wouldn't Morgan's comment ALSO be seen by Google's all-searching eye?
Post a Comment