Word.

Harbour, sorry.

Havana, its a great cafe though.

Mutassim: Baba told me pudgy women give good head.

That could equally be 140 cases where the units engaged in these counter insurgency tactics were not caught.

You simply can not rule something out because you can't come to terms with the reality it might present.

Okay, so you have these facts.

He showed non of the supposed tell-tale signs of a suicide bomber, and then suddenly hes in Iraq.

Two possible scenarios ensued:
1) He died in a "suicide attack".
2) He died fighting US Forces.

Regardless of which of the above is true, and I'm not going to debate that, the "official word" from his father, is that he died fighting for US Forces.

Now, lets move on.

No matter how many statistics you pull, and no matter how many things you say about this or that, there are both people who have prospered (legitimately or not) and there those who have had their lives ruined by the war in Iraq.

Neither you, nor I can affirmatively say who falls in ANY of these categories, whats there to say that he wasn't fighting for a legitimate cause for people who have been wronged throughout the war?

Regardless of which version of his demise you'd like to entertain, the people who are proud of him, publicly do so under the pretext that he died fighting US Forces.
In doing so, they clearly do not "promote" suicide bombing.

More: Where is the transcript? and What do the final two paragraphs of the article serve?

You put resistance in quotation marks, are you implying that all the resistance in Iraq is nothing but people pursing senseless violence?

@ C.H.

Read the first paragraph of the VERY next page of the article you pulled the reference from.

Here, you've read what you liked to read, and disregarded the rest.

"So many Arabs" So a lot of Arabs? I don't know any Arabs who took to the streets, maybe I just don't live in the right neighbourhood.

You do understand that when you say things like that you're implying that the majority of Arabs glorify and praise these actions?

============================

A number of commentators keep referring to "Arab Extremists" and their suicidal attacks, who are these people specifically? Are they just very-Arab, Arab looking proficient speakers of Arabic who blow themselves up with no particular agenda?

Or is any nutter who vaguely resembles an Arab suddenly classified as an "Arab Extremist"?

I won't join you. Religion is subjective.

You could approach a Muslim who prefers to pray 10 times a day, does that make him an extremist? Surely in the eyes of those who pray 5 it would. Tumble down this path and suddenly you have this notion of "good Muslims and bad Muslims", "moderate Muslims" and "extreme Muslims", "practising and non-practising".

All these terms build a highly polarized perception of the faith for those who do not understand it and suddenly people are afraid of Muslims because all they ever hear about is that pinnacle of this otherwise peaceful faith is uninformed aggression against innocent people.
Suddenly you have "Islamophobia" because every news source and running commentary uses this sadistic terms and the military might of the united states bearing down on a bunch of helpless civilians.

"I know Iraqis" - Is this how you've figured out they don't want to blow themselves up, because if so, then we have an entirely different problem on our hands and these Iraqis would probably not be too happy that statements like those you made above are the determinants of your arguments.

You've had arguments with leftist Americans and non-Iraqi Arabs, and they said something, cool. That doesn't mean that what they said was correct or that the result of your debate with 2 people with tertiary opinions about events happening on the other side of the fence actually amount to concrete evidence on the ground.

The problem is that you have established views of Islam and Arabs that you do not wish to change, you listen to what you like and piss away anything that doesn't fit your ideal model.

The opinions you've presented across throughout this discussion are incredibly idealistic and linear in nature, they do not take into account that a great many factors come into play when it comes down to forming a model for the conditions on the ground.

Whether you like it or not, whether the people you've talked to, or the articles you've read back up your opinion, you can not fully ascertain that any one party is or isn't responsible.
Regardless of who they are or what their record might stipulate, such is the basis of sound and subjective inferences.

Again, I'm not here to ague who did what or who is responsible for this or that, and I'm certainly not here to argue your perception that the occupation in Iraq isn't criminal or illegal.

My initial reply, and every subsequent one I've been struggling to deal with your poor inferences and even poorer backing.

Again, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the original article by Hanitizer was not dealing with Muslims, and you through your inferences, tried to make it as such.
Not only is this wrong, but it makes you out to be a clear product of this continuing trend of unwarranted suspicion against Muslims and Arabs.

" "If anything I'd take it that you're hinting that violent Muslims are the norm and that one must look in Arabia to see how terrible this religion is"
The acts of a few can ruin the lives of millions...look at Iraq. Iraqi culture overwhelming rejects suicide and very few Iraqis, aside from some hardcore Saddamists, have blown themselves up. Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, who make up 80 percent of the great nation, have yet to blow themselves up. In spite of this, some Saudis, Syrians, and Jordanians have managed to slip over the border and destroy daily life for Iraqi civilians." "

- You didn't deny that violent Muslims are the norm, instead you imply that the majority of civilian deaths since the glorious US-Occupation of Iraq began are for the most part a result of those coincidentially neighbouring Arab countries, nevermind the fact that 2/3 of those countries are actually US allies. I'm sure what you meant to say was "foreign militants".

Its also wonderful that you just found out that the Iraqi people don't want to blow them selves up. These statistics are truely astounding.

You clearly have no clear undestanding between the cultural, national or religious boundraies of either the Arab world or the followers of Islam, you're consistently washing them all together to paint your filthy picture of hatred.
Work harder on stringing relavent quotes and sentances together and maybe read more into the implications of the language you use when you write.

"No one claimed responsibility for the mosque burning in the West Bank the other day either, yet it is blatantly obvious who is responsible."
- They spray painted a delcleration, and left a name son. If that isn't claim of responsibility then I don't know what is.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middl...

"I suppose you'd like me to agree with you and suggest that we should view hardcore Presbyterians and Hasidic Jews with equal suspicion as Muslim extremists in the Mogadishu carnage, but I prefer to remain in the Universe of reality."

You've missed my point entirely.
That entire paragraph is there to counter your continued use of a language that implies that the problem is with the religion of Islam and not the people supposedly behind these actions, it's about your use of terms like "islamic fundamentalists" as to imply that islam is fundamentally a violent reglion, "muslim extremists".
I'm saying that you shouldn't jump the gun that they were "Muslim extremists" in the first place; there is nothing wrong with suggesting a possible link to previous attacks, but it is fundamentally wrong to make such ascertive statements when you have nothing but your skepticism of not just the faith, but all of its followers.

"Actually, the Al-Qaeda linked Tehreek-e-Talibani proudly claimed responsibility for the mosque siege in Rawalpindi."
- Said so yourself, those clowns are "linked" to Al-Qaeda, they are neither Al-Qaeda nor am I here to represent or defend either of them.