The Iraqi Homecoming

Biffa Bacon

Here’s is a fascinating article by Johann Hari about how ordinary Iraqis really feel about the war and the occupation: The Iraqi Homecoming. It’s the untold story of Iraq that our political establishment and “unbiased” media elites don’t want you to know.

bonkey

Why is it that when someone wants to promote anything its always along the lines of "Here is an unsupported article which you should all believe as truth, in favour of all those intra-corroborating stories you've heard up till now which are complete fiction and lies."

It would seem that supplying corroboration is becoming an indictment against credibility rather than for it.....

???

jc

Typedef

If the Iraqis are so overjoyed to have the Americans occupying their country, why exactly are (elements) of the Iraqi people setting bombs and shooting Western targets on a weekley basis?

Because it's a spurious proposition or because those people (don't count) somehow as Iraqis?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Typedef
If the Iraqis are so overjoyed to have the Americans occupying their country, why exactly are (elements) of the Iraqi people setting bombs and shooting Western targets on a weekley basis?

Because it's a spurious proposition or because those people (don't count) somehow as Iraqis?

You've obviously been tricked by the leftist Saddamite elites running every mainstreatm media outlet. Next you'll be telling me that the regular protests by thousands of Iraqis chanting "occupyers out" and "Americans go home" aren't staged by the BBC. So naive. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

As an aside, just looking at Biffa's, I assume, humerous sig - isn't it funny how Muslims are the new Jews?

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
It would seem that supplying corroboration is becoming an indictment against credibility rather than for it.....

The philosophy of never believing anything until it's been officially denied is looking more attractive every day.



yes, I've watched far too much Yes Minister. I've been watching Dream Team lately to compensate.

SkepticOne

So what is the big problem with the article? What is hard to believe? I'm aware there is an overall pro-war spin to it, but from a factual point of view, what is the main problem.

I disagree with Biffa Bacon on the "media elites don’t want you to know" bit; most of this stuff has been in mainstream media before.

Sand

If the Iraqis are so overjoyed to have the Americans occupying their country, why exactly are (elements) of the Iraqi people setting bombs and shooting Western targets on a weekley basis?

The real question is how much support ( even support which does not agree or wholly opposes their methods but agrees with their stated end goal ) such people have. It is understood for example that though the republicans set bombs and shoot British targets they do not have the support of the majority. Hence the fact they set bombs and shoort British targets is essentially meaningless in a political context.

The most interesting part of the article was mention of a political poll of Iraqis. They had no link to it and the iprospect site didnt have any mention of it but a google search found a opinion poll carried out on 798 Baghdad citizens by You Gov....

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-09-20&id=3315&searchText=Opinion%20Poll

Im not sure if its the same poll they mentioned. It does give an idea of what the Iraqi opinions are though. Scarily enough 7% believe that Iraqis should not take back control of the country ever! The others have varying time scales.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Why is it that when someone wants to promote anything its always along the lines of "Here is an unsupported article which you should all believe as truth, in favour of all those intra-corroborating stories you've heard up till now which are complete fiction and lies."

What intra-corroborating stories are you talking about? I don’t know of any credible evidence that would suggest that anything other than the overwhelming majority of Iraqis supported the invasion and continue to support the occupation.

Originally posted by Typedef
If the Iraqis are so overjoyed to have the Americans occupying their country, why exactly are (elements) of the Iraqi people setting bombs and shooting Western targets on a weekley basis?

Because those elements are not overjoyed to have the Americans occupying their country. But they are only a tiny minority.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
As an aside, just looking at Biffa's, I assume, humerous sig - isn't it funny how Muslims are the new Jews?

How are they the new Jews? The Jews are the new Jews – the same old Jews they always have been. They are attacked and murdered by fanatics and then have to listen to the rest of the world tell them it’s their own fault.

Originally posted by SkepticOne
So what is the big problem with the article? What is hard to believe? I'm aware there is an overall pro-war spin to it, but from a factual point of view, what is the main problem.

<silence>


Ok so can we all stop pretending now that the anti-war crowd give a toss about the welfare of the Iraqi people and what they themselves actually want?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
How are they the new Jews?

You know, the treated with suspicion and derision thing. The whole ghettoised and interned experience. The “they are fundamentally evil” assumption.

Wasn’t so long ago that Communism was sometimes referred to as an international Jewish conspiracy. According to your sig, it seems that it was a Muslim one all along. Go figure :rolleyes:

The Jews are the new Jews – the same old Jews they always have been. They are attacked and murdered by fanatics and then have to listen to the rest of the world tell them it’s their own fault.

Aren’t you getting confused between the Jews and the Israelis, Biffa? Or are you saying that the two are the same? I know a few Irish Jews who would be rather amused to hear that.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Because those elements are not overjoyed to have the Americans occupying their country. But they are only a tiny minority.

Ahhh the lessons learned from Vietnam.
Ask yourself this. If the majority of Iraqis support the Americans then why are the attacks carried out with impunity?

How are they the new Jews? The Jews are the new Jews – the same old Jews they always have been. They are attacked and murdered by fanatics and then have to listen to the rest of the world tell them it’s their own fault.

If, I assume, you are talking about Israel then you forgot about the Jews that attacked and murdered to get the state of Israel formed. This also neglects the many Jews that then took over land (after the majority already having been taken from them in '47) that Israel illegally invaded and held after '67 and continue to expand upon to this very day.
The Jews that then make up the IDF that do things like write racist slogans against Arabs on fences in the land that they occupy. Luring teenagers out by loudspeaker with promises of candy, then shoot them from cherry pickers.
With this going on for the past 50 years, it's a wonder that suicide attacks didnt' start sooner than 10 years ago.

Ok so can we all stop pretending now that the anti-war crowd give a toss about the welfare of the Iraqi people and what they themselves actually want?

That would mean you don't remember millions of people protesting this farce to PREVENT the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths during the war and the 5-15 average Iraqis that are killed per day since the Iraqi government fell.

Originally posted by sovtek

Ask yourself this. If the majority of Iraqis support the Americans then why are the attacks carried out with impunity?

Well it's true,an awfull lot of Iraqi's are getting fed up with the occupation and would like to see the Americans go home and so they should, to be replaced by a U.N authorised force.
Their frustration though has a lot to do with, the lack of electricity, running water in many areas etc and lawlessness.


As regards attacks being carried out with impunity, that doesn't prove a majority of Iraqi's support the Attacks.
After all did a majority of the people of Ireland and the UK support the IRA when they carried out attacks so easily, willy nilly across the North and GB??
Some did, but even in NI it was a minority, a tiny minority.

mm

bloggs

Originally posted by sovtek
If, I assume, you are talking about Israel then you forgot about the Jews that attacked and murdered to get the state of Israel formed. This also neglects the many Jews that then took over land (after the majority already having been taken from them in '47) that Israel illegally invaded and held after '67 and continue to expand upon to this very day.
The Jews that then make up the IDF that do things like write racist slogans against Arabs on fences in the land that they occupy. Luring teenagers out by loudspeaker with promises of candy, then shoot them from cherry pickers.
With this going on for the past 50 years, it's a wonder that suicide attacks didnt' start sooner than 10 years ago.

Hmmm, and the Isralis wonder why people would like to see the demise of their country??? I for one have little sympathy for the Jews cum Nazis.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bloggs

Originally posted by daveirl
So do you always support treating this generation on the basis of what the previous generations did. By your reckoning because in 1947 Jews commited terrorism to form Israel it somehow legitimises murder of Jews today , so if I logically follow that to it's conclusion, A Japanese nuclear attack on the US is legitamate and genocite against the German people is also alright? Get a grip the formation of the state of Israel was wrong and so are the attacks that happen today.

Im talking about their treatment of the Palastinains in the West Bank and Gaza (TODAY), it's not too far of the Warsaw Getto!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You know, the treated with suspicion and derision thing.

By whom?

The whole ghettoised and interned experience.

Where have Muslims been ghettoised and interned? (Terrorists suspects don’t count - they are not interned because they are Muslims).

The “they are fundamentally evil” assumption.

Who is assuming this?

Wasn’t so long ago that Communism was sometimes referred to as an international Jewish conspiracy. According to your sig, it seems that it was a Muslim one all along.

You misunderstand. First, the Americans saved us from the Nazis. Then they saved us from the Communists. And now they are saving us from Islamic terrorists.

Aren’t you getting confused between the Jews and the Israelis, Biffa?

Israel is the Jewish homeland. Israel is also widely despised in the West for trying to defend its citizens from being murdered by genocidal aggressors. But I guess that’s just a coincidence.

Originally posted by sovtek

If the majority of Iraqis support the Americans then why are the attacks carried out with impunity?

What do you mean, “with impunity”?

If, I assume, you are talking about Israel then you forgot about the Jews that attacked and murdered to get the state of Israel formed. This also neglects the many Jews that then took over land (after the majority already having been taken from them in '47) that Israel illegally invaded and held after '67 and continue to expand upon to this very day.

Like you, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.

The Jews that then make up the IDF that do things like write racist slogans against Arabs on fences in the land that they occupy. Luring teenagers out by loudspeaker with promises of candy, then shoot them from cherry pickers.

Any sources for any of these anti-Semitic blood libels?

That would mean you don't remember millions of people protesting this farce to PREVENT the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths during the war and the 5-15 average Iraqis that are killed per day since the Iraqi government fell.

I remember a lot of posers throwing shapes, spouting meaningless slogans and generally not having a clue what they were talking about. That was about it. But I don’t remember any of them showing the slightest bit of concern about the reality of life for ordinary Iraqis under Saddam’s despotic rule.

Originally posted by bloggs
I for one have little sympathy for the Jews cum Nazis.

Naturally. You’re an anti-Semite.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
By whom?

Where have Muslims been ghettoised and interned? (Terrorists suspects don’t count - they are not interned because they are Muslims).

Ummm suspects are usually entitled to hearings and evidence.

You misunderstand. First, the Americans saved us from the Nazis. Then they saved us from the Communists. And now they are saving us from Islamic terrorists.

Well they helped with the Nazis, but then so did the "communsists" who gave millions of lives to do so.
Now America is supposedly hunting down Al-Qaeda members (while bombing countries un-related to said group) that they helped fund and train in the first place.

Israel is the Jewish homeland.

Oh yeah! I forgot...God gave it to them 2000 years ago.
I remember now that God also gave the Vortrekkers the Transvaal, the Americans (of European descent) the land to the Pacific Ocean....The British Empire probably had some heavenly deed given them at some point.

Israel is also widely despised in the West for trying to defend its citizens from being murdered by genocidal aggressors. But I guess that’s just a coincidence.

Just like the US government that gave land to anyone who wanted to settle in Oklahoma and in turn take it from the Native Americans...so as to send in troops when those natives then start killing these settlers.
But I guess it's just a coincidence that civilians of an occupying country (that was founded on kicking an indigenous population out) would be killed by the very people they took the land from.

What do you mean, “with impunity”?

im·pu·ni·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pyn-t)
n. pl. im·pu·ni·ties

Exemption from punishment, penalty, or harm.

Like you, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.

I don't think you understand the point you're trying to make either.

Any sources for any of these anti-Semitic blood libels?

Well that's a logical fallacy to call what I said "anti-Semitic" or "blood libels"
But you asked for it:
Oh yea...read the whole thing...it's very educational regards the Palestinian "genocidal attacks" against Israeli military and civilians.....

http://www.harpers.org/online/gaza_diary/gaza_diary.php3?pg=8

"We all threw rocks," says Ahmed Moharb, ten. "Over the loudspeaker the soldier told us to come to the fence to get chocolate and money. Then they cursed us. Then they fired a grenade. We started to run. They shot Ali in the back. I won't go again. I am afraid."

I remember a lot of posers throwing shapes, spouting meaningless slogans and generally not having a clue what they were talking about. That was about it. But I don’t remember any of them showing the slightest bit of concern about the reality of life for ordinary Iraqis under Saddam’s despotic rule.

Then you obviously weren't paying attention. There were people decrying Reagan and Bush Senior supplying said dictator with arms and intelligence throughout the Iran-Iraq War.

Naturally. You’re an anti-Semite.

So if I oppose the policies of Nigeria than I guess that would be because I'm a racist and hate blacks?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
By whom?

Let’s not pretend it does not exist, shall we?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0925/p10s03-comv.html
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=55f969f4cbe3fc77a68a9a9984d4343a

Where have Muslims been ghettoised and interned? (Terrorists suspects don’t count - they are not interned because they are Muslims).

West bank, Gaza... or are the entire population terrorists?

Who is assuming this?

Apparently you, by the tone of your sig.

You misunderstand. First, the Americans saved us from the Nazis. Then they saved us from the Communists. And now they are saving us from Islamic terrorists.

No, I understand and am pointing out the parallel between past anti-Semitism against Jews with present anti-Semitism against Muslims. As for your faith in America, it’s commendable if a little blind and simplistic.

Israel is the Jewish homeland. Israel is also widely despised in the West for trying to defend its citizens from being murdered by genocidal aggressors. But I guess that’s just a coincidence.

And the Palestinians were just house sitting for them then? As for genociadal aggressors, wonderfully emotive and meaningless claptrap to throw about, where reason fails.

Nonetheless, you admit to equating Jews and Israelis then? If an Irish Jew’s homeland is Israel, then it can’t really be Ireland. Should we deport them by your logic? After all you don’t really consider Irish Jews to be really Irish, it seems.

Naturally. You’re an anti-Semite.

Technically speaking, so are you.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
What intra-corroborating stories are you talking about? I don’t know of any credible evidence that would suggest that anything other than the overwhelming majority of Iraqis supported the invasion and continue to support the occupation.

Yes, we all know that anything which casts doubt on the absolute correctness of US actions is not credible to you, Biffa, but thats not the issue here.

You want us to believe that your single article, with no additional, intra-corroborating evidence is true, while you want us to believe that the reams of information showing that all is not well in Iraq is just lies, and apparently now its all based on the fact that you "don't know of any credible evidence" which contradicts your stance. What a convincing reason to believe you.

If your information is so true, then why is there so little of it? Why is it - in any way - more credible as "the truth" than any other media? Why are your chosen reporters the only ones on the planet capable of telling it like it is, while the rest are just spinning things (according to you) to suit larger agendas?

The simple fact is that your media reports are no more truth than any others, and probably less then some. The difference is that you would hold them to be absolute truth to the absolute lies of the other media. I - and many others here, by all accounts - look at the various contrasting stories and realise that there's a hell of a lot of complexity in the issue, and that no single POV will ever be "the truth" or "lies". All of it is a slanted view of a blurry picture which is partially obscured. For anyone to believe they know "the truth" based on media reporting is either an extreme case of hubris or self-delusion.

But then again, reducing things to overly-simplistic binary options seems to be an increasing trend here of which you are a frequent part of. "With us or against us", "War against Saddam or you're Supporting Him", and so on and so forth. Hopeless. such oversimplification can only be seriously considered as an attempt to avoid having to deal with the problems of uncertainty, and yet you would have us believe that such an extremist position is the right one? And why? Because the other extreme is clearly wrong, and in the view of the world you are espousing there is nothing between the two extremes.

Just consider that when you start defending some of your comments about Islam on the grounds that you're not takling about all Islam, but only the extremists. You are the one constantly attempting to reduce everything to a binary equation, so please don't insult us by trying to defend such a position by telling us that to understand it involves seeing the shades of grey.

How are they the new Jews?

Because the world needs Bush to save us from the Muslims about as much as we needed Hitler to save us from the Jews.

Considering your (afore-mentioned) almost-absolute support of the US, I find it laughable in the extreme that your heros at least do the world the courtesy of clarifying that it is not Islam that they are fighting against, while you seem to go out of your way to insist that it is.

Could it be that you're saying the US is wrong? Are you suggesting that it should be attacking a religion? Or could it be - shock upon shocks - that you're going to use the "its not a black and white issue like that" argument to defend yourself, despite your proclivity to reduce everything else to one?

Careful...once you start admitting that one situation isn't just an A or B case, you might find yourself on that slippery slope towards balanced reasoning

They are attacked and murdered by fanatics and then have to listen to the rest of the world tell them it’s their own fault.

Just like many Muslims today......

Ok so can we all stop pretending now that the anti-war crowd give a toss about the welfare of the Iraqi people and what they themselves actually want?

Yet again with the black and white.....

If I had any faith that the US was actually willing to give the Iraqi people what they wanted, rather than trying to subvert it to maximum US advantage, then I'd have no problem at all. The thing is I don't.

I don't believe anyone wants to give the Iraqi people what they themselves want, and I'm not sure the Iraqi people have a coherent enough voice yet to be able to clearly state what they want in the first place.

Take this poll being mentioned..... Under 1,000 people polled in a nation of over 20 million. Were they a representative cross-section of the distinct cultures spread across the nation, including the areas which are still not under control? Not if it was the one Sand linked to...that was people "from all parts of Baghdad". If you took a poll from "all parts of Dublin", taking a sample size of about 200 people (scaling the sample size to allow for the difference in our relative nations' population sizes) and then tried to pass it off as being in any way indicative of the attitudes in the nation, you'd be laughed out of any serious mathematical forum. It might be fine for the newspapers, but as a solid statistical representation its laughable.

But somehow we should attach significance to this iraqi poll, because it shows an "overwhelming majority" to support your case????

See comments above about all media spinning to suit their own agendas. Your sources are clearly no more honest and credible than any others Biffa, but you'd still have us believe they tell "truth", whilst the opposing views are "lies".

Monochrome again......and like any absolutist position, its more wrong then it is right.

jc

Sand

If your information is so true, then why is there so little of it? Why is it - in any way - more credible as "the truth" than any other media? Why are your chosen reporters the only ones on the planet capable of telling it like it is, while the rest are just spinning things (according to you) to suit larger agendas?

Well I did provide a link to that survey by YouGov in Baghdad. I know you go on to attempt to discredit it but as youve yet to provide a better or more revealing survey of Iraqis then the only info we have to go on as to what Iraqis believe is that only 13% of them want the US to leave right now. i.e. 87% of them want the "occupation" to continue at least for now. This demonstrates that the self styled peace protestors are totally out of tune with what Iraqis want and have simply seized Iraq as something else with which to exspress their hatred of Bush. This is not surprisng but hey.

I don't believe anyone wants to give the Iraqi people what they themselves want, and I'm not sure the Iraqi people have a coherent enough voice yet to be able to clearly state what they want in the first place.

Will we have to wait until theyve got their own labour/fg/greens alliance and detached liberal "elite" before theyre capable of giving their own opinions? The actual idea of going round and asking Iraqs "How do you want the country run?" or "What do you think of this/that" is *exactly* what must be done to demonstrate to Iraqis that no one is going to disappear them from their beds if they give the "wrong" answer. How you can build a democratic state practically from the ground up without the valid input of the people who will apparently be taking up the reins at some point in the future eludes me.

But somehow we should attach significance to this iraqi poll, because it shows an "overwhelming majority" to support your case????

Hmmmmm. Yeah?

Theres a lot of opinion knocking about that tell us what Americans think, or what Germans think, or what Frenchies think, or what Irish think....this is the only one Ive seen so far that even attempts to discover what *Iraqis* think - so, yeah, its results demand serious attention.

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
Well it's true,an awfull lot of Iraqi's are getting fed up with the occupation and would like to see the Americans go home and so they should, to be replaced by a U.N authorised force.
Their frustration though has a lot to do with, the lack of electricity, running water in many areas etc and lawlessness.

Those are factors I agree, but I think the families of the civilians killed on a daily basis would also be understandably sympathetic to the resistance.

As regards attacks being carried out with impunity, that doesn't prove a majority of Iraqi's support the Attacks.

No but it suggests it.

After all did a majority of the people of Ireland and the UK support the IRA when they carried out attacks so easily, willy nilly across the North and GB??

They didn't and it's probably why you have loyalist paras. If in the UK you are talking about the instances of IRA bombings in London and whatnot...that's not an "occupied" territory now is it?

Some did, but even in NI it was a minority, a tiny minority.

I'm taking you word for it as I'm a bit of a novice to the subject (re. The Troubles). It's not really an easily comparable situation though IMHO. Vietnam is a closer correlation in my mind.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
the only info we have to go on as to what Iraqis believe is that only 13% of them want the US to leave right now. i.e. 87% of them want the "occupation" to continue at least for now.

No - the only information we have is that an insignificantly small sample-size from the principal city of the nation have provided those statistics.

They do not scale to "Baghdadians", let alone "Iraqis" in applicability.

As I said...would you accept a poll of 200 people in Dublin as being indicative of the wants of the population of the city, let alone the nation? Lets not lose sight of the mind-staggering difference in quality of life between Baghdad and the rest of the nation as told to us by the occupation, which further diminishes the applicability of the results.

This demonstrates that the self styled peace protestors are totally out of tune with what Iraqis want

And continuously referring to the study as being indicative of what the Iraqis want shows that you either do not understand the fundamentals of statistics, or that you are knowingly misapplying the results to a population that it is not applicable to.

The actual idea of going round and asking Iraqs "How do you want the country run?" or "What do you think of this/that" is *exactly* what must be done to demonstrate to Iraqis that no one is going to disappear them from their beds if they give the "wrong" answer.

No - first you have to show that you are listening to them, so that they won't be afraid to give you the truth for fear of disappearing. Then after you build trust, you can start believing that you are getting at least a somewhat honest answer.

But in principle, I agree fully. Asking the Iraqis what they want is exactly what should be done. My point was, and is, that < 1000 Baghdad residents are not in any way a statistical indicator of the wishes of the Iraqi people. Biffa is holding up one side to ridicule for believing the lies of the media, and then talking about "overwhelming evidence" to support his interpretation of events. This si not overwhelming evidence. Its not even underwhelming evidence. It is simply not significant enough to be aplpicable to what you and he are applying it to (i.e. the wishes of the Iraqi people in general), and for anyone to hold this misrepresentation up as truth while knocking other media for misrepresentation is, to my mind, either hypocritical or laughable.

How you can build a democratic state practically from the ground up without the valid input of the people who will apparently be taking up the reins at some point in the future eludes me.

I'm not suggesting anyone does otherwise - I agree fully with you here. What I'm suggesting is that this hasn't been done, but that people are trying to pass off an inapplicable study as something more than it is. Even then, I've no major problems. Its when people (e.g. Biffa) hold this up as a shining truth over the lies and misrepresentations of the media which disagrees with them that I draw the line.

this is the only one Ive seen so far that even attempts to discover what *Iraqis* think - so, yeah, its results demand serious attention.

Yes, and no. It indicates that there is a possibility that the occupation is far more popular (or more accurately, far less unpopular) than the media is typically implying. However, there are numerous other interpretations. Teh sample could have been deliberately chosen to produce the result. The sample may not be indicative of teh population at large. The sample offers absolutely no information about the opinions of anynoe outside Baghdad. And, given your earlier comments about people needing to learn they wont be disappeared.....the honesty of the responses is still questionable at best.

I'm not saying that this is not an important step. what I'm saying is that it is not an absolute truth, which is what Biffa is constantly holding his side of the story up as.

jc

Sand

They do not scale to "Baghdadians", let alone "Iraqis" in applicability.

But these *are* Baghdadians - currently we have sections of the media and several political movements telling us what the Iraqis want. This is the only time that Im aware of that someone has asked even a few hundred Iraqis what they want in survey format. I give more weight to the survey myself when I try to find out what the Iraqis think than I do to say, a columnist from the Irish Times, or god forbid Indymedia.

And continuously referring to the study as being indicative of what the Iraqis want shows that you either do not understand the fundamentals of statistics, or that you are knowingly misapplying the results to a population that it is not applicable to.

What its mainly indicative of to my mind is that those who claim to speak for the Iraqis when the continue their tirades and protests against George Bush are totally out of tune with Iraqis. Its not so much the actual percentages but the sheer scale of the turnaround - only 13% of those surveyed agreed with the "End the Occupation Now" tripe. Now nationally it could be 8%, it could be 18%, it could even be 25 or 30%. But where do the "anti" crowd draw their belief that theyre speaking for Iraqis from? Surely if they were in tune with Iraqi opinion even a limited cross section of Baghdad would provide a bit more support for their view? 87% want the Americans to stay at least for a while longer - thats an overwhelming majority at least within the sample and a total turnaround to whats implied by many media sources.....

As you said its not a large enough sample size but it is staggering how even that small sample size shows such tiny support for certain positions adopted by several movements.

And as I said before its the only survey Ive heard of yet - where do the other side of the debate draw their analysis from? The newspapers and other media - a tertiary, heavily opinionated source surely?

No - first you have to show that you are listening to them, so that they won't be afraid to give you the truth for fear of disappearing. Then after you build trust, you can start believing that you are getting at least a somewhat honest answer.

I think the answers can be taken as fairly honest - the respondents arent afraid to say that they feel the Americans invaded because of the oil, theyre not afraid to say that they feel their lives are worse than before the war ( website is down right now so I cant access the poll for the actual percentages). It doesnt seem a propaganda piece for either side - the "We hate Bush" crowd will seize on those tibits I mentioned, others will note the approval for Americans remaining in-country and the belief that their lives will improve within one year etc etc. Failings in the survey may simply be the difficulty of carrying out a survey in what must be an extremely difficult enviroment at the current time.

In short my point boils down to the idea that quite possibly the media may be quite biased if it is so out of tune with even a limited poll of Baghdadians/Iraqis/People who were in Baghdad, Iraq on a certain date, in certain places at certain times.