World of KJ
http://worldofkj.com/forum/

Zarqawi NOT arrested. Baghdad mayor assasinated.
http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2956		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Anonymous [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Zarqawi NOT arrested. Baghdad mayor assasinated.
An Arab newspaper is reporting that the #1 terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was arrested. No word from the U.S. yet, but supposedly the arrest has also been confirmed by Kurdish sources.

I hope that this is true and that it will calm things down there.

EDIT: Looks like it was a hoax. There's been no confirmation of this by any major source.

In other news from Iraq, the mayor of Baghdad was assasinated today.
Author:  Bodrul [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Zarqawi arrested?
Krem wrote:


In other news from Iraq, the mayor of Baghdad was assasinated today.


:? :?
Author:  darth pimp [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
if it's true, i don't think anything will change in iraq.
Author:  Bodrul [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
darth pimp wrote:
if it's true, i don't think anything will change in iraq.


i agree with you on that one
Author:  Algren [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
wow, who the hell is he? what has he done?
Author:  Eagle [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Algren wrote:
wow, who the hell is he? what has he done?


man behind almost all of the beheadings among many other things.

KJ
Author:  Passionate Thug [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Far as I can tell it isn't true
Author:  Algren [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Eagle wrote:
Algren wrote:
wow, who the hell is he? what has he done?


man behind almost all of the beheadings among many other things.

KJ


:shock:

KILL HIM, KILL HIM!!!!
Author:  dolcevita [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hey algren, there's a difference between an assassination and removing him through a more stable and legal method. Trying to build a democratic community never starts with such an assisination, that just gives everyone ideas that if they don't like the way things are being run, all they have to do is stare down the barrel of a rifle.

I don't like what Bush is doing, doesn't mean I would ever encourage his being randomly shot at. It would do more damage in the long run and undermine the entire system. Killing a politician is an incredibly short-sighted thing to do in this case.
Author:  Anonymous [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, Zarqawi is hardly a politician. I'm against the death penalty myself, but I wouldn't have a problem if Zarqawi was killed in a raid on his base or something ;-)
Author:  Passionate Thug [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
He's a common thug and should be treated as such.
Author:  dolcevita [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Krem wrote:
Well, Zarqawi is hardly a politician. I'm against the death penalty myself, but I wouldn't have a problem if Zarqawi was killed in a raid on his base or something ;-)


:oops: I thought we were talking about the Mayor of Baghdad?
Author:  Eagle [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Krem is Duece Bigalow: European Gigalo

Hmm seems fitting.

KJ
Author:  darth pimp [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Eagle wrote:
Krem is Duece Bigalow: European Gigalo


wanted to get with J-Lo, she said no-no, so he screwed a hippo

ukrainian weirdo with an afro
Author:  Ahmed Johnson [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
If they've got him


LETS HOPE :)


He is being severly mistreated! :)



(ALTHOUGH NOT KILLED AS THAT IS TOO FAR BUT HE DESERVES "ROUGHING UP" FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE AND SANCTIONED)
Author:  dolcevita [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Um, since it was already mentioned here I didn't think to make a second thread, but if someone prefers to, or Krem wants to change the title, nothing in the Paper today 9Globe) about Zarqawi, but it has been confirmed that the pro-US reconstruction Governor of Baghdad, Ali al-Haidari, was gun downed yesterday mroning.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle ... shot_dead/

There is some discussion about pushing the election back past Jan. 30th, but there are convincing arguements against it saying that it will be a sign of giving in to intimidation, and also that there is no gaurantee Iraq will be any more secure a few months down the line. Opponents claim that the country needs to recruit more Sunni voters first, in order to make it a secure and recognized election, so despite their lack of enthusiasm for changing the date they still see it as necessary.


I'm leaning towards the latter, but really don't know. Alot of countries have huge disillusioned minority (ethnic, racial, economic, different in each case) populations. I majority elected government leads to that. Unless maybe the vice presidents aren't chosen, and the minority favorite (loser of the election) automatically takes a vp-type position. That is just playing around with ideas.
Author:  Anonymous [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dolce, I would be vehemently opposed to such preferential treatment for the minorities. It will only create problems in the long run (government's constant division along the ethnic lines) and is inherently undemocratic. Already the Iraqi constitution forces 1/3 of all the candidates to be women. That is undemocratic, and I hope they get around to changing it in the future.

If Sunni Arabs (as I pointed out many times before, Kurds are Sunni too, but they are willing to participate in the election) don't want to participate now, then where is the guarantee that they will participate in the future? The sooner the election takes place, the sooner a government in Iraq can claim legitimacy.
Author:  Bodrul [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
thanks for clearing that up :roll: :wink:
Author:  dolcevita [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Krem wrote:
Dolce, I would be vehemently opposed to such preferential treatment for the minorities. It will only create problems in the long run (government's constant division along the ethnic lines) and is inherently undemocratic. Already the Iraqi constitution forces 1/3 of all the candidates to be women. That is undemocratic, and I hope they get around to changing it in the future.

If Sunni Arabs (as I pointed out many times before, Kurds are Sunni too, but they are willing to participate in the election) don't want to participate now, then where is the guarantee that they will participate in the future? The sooner the election takes place, the sooner a government in Iraq can claim legitimacy.


Yeah, it does enforce religious distinctions in this case, but again, this is a deeply religious country. I guess I love the idea of government with non single religous agenda, but is that going to happen here? Its too quick a jump. How many of these rules are, lets say, only viable for 20 years until there is a redrafting? That would be smart, since this is going to be transitional politics. i don't expect people to go from point A to B without walking the road in between. The problem with allowing things to go now with no control is that it will fall back on old habits in the blink of an eye. There must be a way to expose civilians to other ideals (women running, for example) so that they get used to it, and then its not a requirment anymore. I think its a good thing to emphasize the need for female representation in places that have historically, to put it bluntly, been really shitty in the realm of ladies' civil liberties. If we said "Do as you wish" now, the new elected government would not show one ounce of imporvment in that space.

Minority treatment is different. I don't think I know of a place that has managed it yet, and I see your point about it continueing to uphold religious schisms. But what do you do in a place that is this split, has always had a concept of direct political-religious interaction, and can't just spin a 180 in one election. Its too violent there. They don't like it, they'll just shoot. They're not invested in the long-term stability of the election process enough yet to care if they're undermining it in the face of immediate desire.
Author:  Anonymous [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
The U.S. is a deeply religious country too, yet we manage to more or less keep the religion out of politics (liberals' claims to the opposite nonwithstanding). I think you give too little credit to the Iraqis; I'm sure, if given the chance, they would love to sort things out for themselves.
Author:  Bodrul [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Krem wrote:
The U.S. is a deeply religious country too, yet we manage to more or less keep the religion out of politics (liberals' claims to the opposite nonwithstanding). I think you give too little credit to the Iraqis; I'm sure, if given the chance, they would love to sort things out for themselves.


So is the Uk????? Maybe the older generation but really, i doubt now. Judging by people i know Religion has been thrown out of the window in recent times in western countries, bar major holidays; christmas etc :?
Author:  Anonymous [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
hans wrote:
Krem wrote:
The U.S. is a deeply religious country too, yet we manage to more or less keep the religion out of politics (liberals' claims to the opposite nonwithstanding). I think you give too little credit to the Iraqis; I'm sure, if given the chance, they would love to sort things out for themselves.


So is the Uk????? Maybe the older generation but really, i doubt now. Judging by people i know Religion has been thrown out of the window in recent times in western countries, bar major holidays; christmas etc :?

If you don't like the word "is" there, substitute it for "were"; it doesn't change my point.
Author:  bABA [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
religion just can't be thrown out just because people in another country who have learnt to live without it have already done so.

religion is sometimes so embedded, its required to be part of politics till a later time when its more acceptable. its better to start small and gradually bring changes than negate religion all toegether from the start .... doesn't bode well with people.
Author:  Anonymous [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Token Brown Dude wrote:
religion just can't be thrown out just because people in another country who have learnt to live without it have already done so.

religion is sometimes so embedded, its required to be part of politics till a later time when its more acceptable. its better to start small and gradually bring changes than negate religion all toegether from the start .... doesn't bode well with people.


Who's talking about negating religion? Have as much religion as you want, doesn't bother me none.
Author:  Bodrul [ Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Krem wrote:
hans wrote:
Krem wrote:
The U.S. is a deeply religious country too, yet we manage to more or less keep the religion out of politics (liberals' claims to the opposite nonwithstanding). I think you give too little credit to the Iraqis; I'm sure, if given the chance, they would love to sort things out for themselves.


So is the Uk????? Maybe the older generation but really, i doubt now. Judging by people i know Religion has been thrown out of the window in recent times in western countries, bar major holidays; christmas etc :?

If you don't like the word "is" there, substitute it for "were"; it doesn't change my point.


If you have been to a country similar you will realise religion is a way of life, US, Uk etc. too a lesser extent.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/