| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
This is, of course, a consequence of the failure to consider the nature and implications of the jihad ideology and the Sharia imperative. Democracy On The March Update from AP:
WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.
The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:
_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in
Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents._About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.
_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
_Three-fourths say they think the United States plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.
_A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.
The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The State Department, meanwhile, has also conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's Iraq poll.
Posted by Robert at September 29, 2006 3:47 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Youi should post on this important story covered by Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006015.htm
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 29, 2006 3:54 PM
(1) The State Department is as left wing as they come, so that poll is dismissed.
(2) Just who did the UM pollsters ask? Are they "in country", roaming the streets with tape recorders asking questions? I know for a fact that you don't go "outside the wirez' without a military escort.
(3) I get a different opinion from my son stationed in Iraq, but what does he know???
at September 29, 2006 4:00 PM
The complete text is worth reading. More than 90% of the Sunni Arabs support attacks on American troops; about three-quarters (74%) of the Shi'a Arabs support such attacks. Only the Kurds show less than overwhelming support for such attacks -- about 34%.
At the same time, many in Iraq are perfectly willing to keep the Americans around for another year or so, if the American presence is deemed more useful to them than to their local enemies. American training, American weaponry, American soldiers fighting their enemy for them, continued American billions in aid -- all this might lead either the Sunnis, or the Shi'a, or both, each making a calculation that might be right or wrong, to want the Americans to stay a bit longer. According to these polls the Sunni desire for Americans to leave has decreased (as some now see the Americans as protecting them from Shi'a militias) and the desire of Shi'a Arabs for Americans to leave has incresed (as the Americans are seen as a brake on the Shi'a militias).
How the Administration can insist on keeping troops in Iraq when 90% of one main Arab faction support the kiling of those troops, and 3/4 of the other main Arab group also support such killings, and to speak about the freedom-seeking "Iraqi people," is cause for wonder and alarm.
Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2006 4:24 PM
its interesting about these polls, just before an election eh.. sounds a little fishy to me. you also have a new book by this Woodward character from DC.
Bush got his bill coming out of the Senate, and the Democrats are at their usual crying mood about those poor terrorists losing their rights... Democrats are more concerned about the terrorists rights..too bad!
at September 29, 2006 4:26 PM
Fine. Leave, and let Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs show the world what Islamic brotherhood truly is.
Posted by: Kepha at September 29, 2006 4:30 PM
Re: "This is, of course, a consequence of the failure to consider the nature and implications of the jihad ideology and the Sharia imperative. Democracy On The March Update...."-Robert
Absolutely. I think many Americans (including myself) simply did not understand the nature of Islam and the practical impossibility of this project in Iraq. It is true that such a project worked post WW2 after the total defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (religion was not a major factor in the democratization process-except for Japan).
The aim of the post WW2 democratization policy (especially in Europe) was to end the constantly recurring nation-state wars on the continent that usually resulted from aggression by autocratic governments there and to promote economic cooperation among the nation-states. That policy worked and is a major achievement of America in post WW2 Europe. The usual nation state wars there are almost inconceivable today largely because of the post WW2 US democratization policy and the effort to create a common market there.
Unfortunately, such policies don't clone very well in the Islamic world. It's an unrealistic hope. I think the American people get it and soon the elites will follow or they will be thrown out of office.
Posted by: Frank at September 29, 2006 4:32 PM
Iraq was an artificial creation from the partition of the Ottoman Empire. Why not simply split the damn thing into Sunni and Shiite states? Let's see how this experiment goes since it won't be much worse than the current state in a civil war or led by another Saddam in the future.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 29, 2006 4:43 PM
You can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
You can't turn Mohammedans into upholders of democracy.
Bush blames Clinton for being clueless about islamic terrorist acts that foreshadowed 911. Well, Bush's adventure in Iraq will go down as the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.
Watch Bush's right eye squint when he utters a particulary egregious spin. He doesn't believe it himself and can hardly fake it.
yuk!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 29, 2006 5:13 PM
Now that's what I call GRATITUDE!
Posted by: champ at September 29, 2006 5:19 PM
If our nations actually had any real moral fortitude, we would pull all troops out of Iraq within the next 3 months, and out of Afghanistan within the next 6 months.
We would then declare war upon Islam.
We won't do it and we will continue to stupidly strengthen the jihad movement as an indirect result, while at the same time not protecting our own countries from out-of-control illegal and legal immigration and the increasing spread of Islamic ideology in our schools and political forums. In time we will look back and wish we had simply called a spade a spade, but today we will have to accept that our leaders are bound and determined to appease our enemies, toss up smokescreens for the general public and never, ever, whatever they do, will they dare utter the truth about Islam.
We are, basically, probably on the verge of the end of civilization as we know it within the next 20 years.
Posted by: Foehammer at September 29, 2006 6:22 PM
[Spokesman] McCormack declined to discuss details of the [U.S. State Department]'s Iraq poll.
Yeah, why bother to release the results of a poll that we paid for? Why should we know what the Iraqi's really think of us, 2700 soldiers and $500 billion later? I'm sure the Administration will read the results carefully, and then translate all those complicated numbers and figures and statistics into something that we lowly citizens can understand, like "Iraq: Don't Cut and Run", or "So Close to Victory, Stay the Course".
I have to respectfully disagree with ZenaWarriorPrincess, this doesn't look like Democrats' dirty tricks to me. It looks like cold, hard reality. Blaming this on partisan politics will not prove to be a productive way of dealing with the problem. But that's just my opinion.
Posted by: special_guest at September 29, 2006 6:28 PM
What Mr. Spencer fails to mention is that 97% of Iraqis said they had a negative opinion of Osama Bin Laden in the same poll and a great majority also had a negative opinion of Al Qaeda. Why would they not support Osama and Al Qaeda Mr. Spencer if muslims were the way you claimed they were?? Basically they support legal attacks against American soldiers but not illegal attacks against American civilians in the United States. At the beginning of the occupation, barely 10% supported attacks on American soldiers. Were they different muslims 3 years ago? Were they apostates 3 years ago Mr. Spencer or infidels? I doubt it. I just think they're sick and tired of occupation.
Posted by: Ryan at September 30, 2006 6:34 AM
I have to agree with codekeyguy, I came back from Iraq in Dec, I was in the shia area in the south. Most of the people still wave at us, no-one ever shot at a convoy I was on, and some Iraqi's helped change a tire on one of our trucks once. I heard some Iraqi's even tried to help save soldiers who rolled a hummer into a canal. You can't tell me most of the people over there hate our troops, it's the liberals here who hate us.
Posted by: Praying For War at September 30, 2006 4:05 PM
Foehammer,
We don't have to declare war on Islam, Islam has declared war on the world. In at least 47 countries, Muslims are busy trying to establish Sharia law, and in the process are killing people worldwide. What we need in this country is to realize that radical Islam is potentially as fatal as cancer or heart disease. Our liberals/ Democrats seem to have an affinity for terrorists, refusing to call them terrorists or murder-bombers, but instead call them freedom fighters or patriots. The problem is that both radical Islam and liberal Americans use the same tactic of taqyiia, or the art of lying to or about an enemy. An infidel can never believe anything said by a Muslim because the Qu'ran advocates lying to enemies. Liberals, because of a paucity of original thought and an inability to rationally address problems, they would rather impugn character, and keep a continual invective flowing in hopes that it will obscure the fact the liberals/ Democrats have very few ideas on how to solve Americas problems, and absolutely no idea of how to govern fron a moral point of view.
at September 30, 2006 5:26 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)