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.

:? :?

if it's true, i don't think anything will change in iraq.

i agree with you on that one

wow, who the hell is he? what has he done?

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

KJ

Far as I can tell it isn't true

KILL HIM, KILL HIM!!!!

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.

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 ;-)

He's a common thug and should be treated as such.

I thought we were talking about the Mayor of Baghdad?

Krem is Duece Bigalow: European Gigalo

Hmm seems fitting.

KJ

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

ukrainian weirdo with an afro

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.

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.

thanks for clearing that up :wink:

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.

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.

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.

If you have been to a country similar you will realise religion is a way of life, US, Uk etc. too a lesser extent.