The writer simply goes too far. To say Zarqawi is quite overplayed is true, but to say he doesn't exist gets into beyond the fringe hyperbole. In my activist days on the left i always said our worst enemy are those that go to the SAME propandizing extreme as what we are fighting against. He is ranting. He is on our side, but he is over-the-edge. It is fair to say that Zarqawi and his non-Iraqi jihadist constitute no more than 2% of the insurgency. That Zarqawi does NOT exist, and foreign Jihadist don't exist arguments attack commonsense and does more harm than good. What the hell is wrong with admitting to 2% and that Zarqawi does exist--which IN FACT he does. Truth is far more powerful than hyperbolizers.
But except for that going to extremes, the rest of the article is good. He is lucky i read it, however, for his opening gets me to thinking , well he starts with a lie, what follows. But what follows is most interesting. He would do much better to stick to his information, rather than start with something that is not true.
I want to change my wording versus Alkeh on matter i criticized, i have little doubt he believes what i insisted be admitted to within the context that Zarqawi is Very Overrated and to go further, is INTENTIONALLY overrated to Bogeyman status by U.S. and also bringing out that Foreign Jihadist make up as little as just 2% of Iraqi insurgency. I just feel, in fighting the fight we must work meticulously for not exaggerating or the far right will exploit to the extreme any thing that is off the mark in order to destroy the overall truth of what a person is writing. This is a key strategy with the Limbaughs of this world.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
