Replies

"Mr. Lewis is also close to government circles in Israel and Turkey -- non-Arab lands he describes as the only successful modern states in the region. He warmly praises Kemal Attaturk, who made Turkey a secular republic after World War I by suppressing Islam. (He has also said the Ottoman Turks' killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 wasn't genocide but the brutal byproduct of war. It was a stance for which a French court convicted Mr. Lewis in 1995 under France's Holocaust-denial statute, imposing a token penalty.) Israeli experts say Mr. Lewis's contacts with Turkish generals and politicians helped cement Israeli-Turkish military ties in the 1990s."

A Middle-Eastern friend of mine said if anyone from President Bush's intelligence agencies had known as much about Al Queida, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein as they had claimed, they would understand why Hussein was a ruthless dictator and why Al Queida could not effectually operate in/from Iraq. He said that they too would realize why Saddam would never outrightly state to the world he had no WMD's was the fear of losing control of Iraq to organizations like Al Queida. It was not that there was any commendable intention on Saddam's behalf, but that Saddam relished and protected his power and control more than he had respect for Islamic clerics.

My friend said Al Queida insists "Allah" has given it the sole and total responsibility to rule, to execute judgement, and/or wage war (or terror). He said a basic understanding of the greed of Hussein as a dictator and the control Al Queida's religious zealots demand, made the two like an oil and water mix. Saddam would never have given Al Queida control of Iraq and acted only as a "figurehead"; Al Queida would never allow a dictator to have as much control over a people as Saddam had. He said the pre-war differences between Afghanistan and Iraq rule should have been an indication to that fact.

He also said as horrible as it seems from a Western POV, for Saddam to have kept his power intact within the country, many of those killing fields were a necessity. Iraq cannot be fully understood based on Western standards. It just doesn't work.

America's intelligence failure in this area could resultantly have a negative/opposite effect from our intentions because there is no longer the ruthless controlling body in Iraq to resist the insurgence of Al Queida terror cells. Their main target is Westerners (Americans) and now Iraq is full of American targets. Al Queida's history has demonstrated the only muzzle it fears is the iron glove of retribution taken upon the relatives of conspirators - which America nor our allies will engage in. Any form of Western democracy will take years, most possibly decades, for the Iraqi people to accomplish, even with Allied America's continued help. Currently, only complete marshal law will be effective in Iraq and will be until a formidable governing body, an effective police force, and a loyal citizenry is established. But it will not be formed under Western influence until the people of Iraq are ready to do it for themselves. The "killing fields" of the Middle East proves this.

I'm not saying his is a totally right POV, but I'm guilty of having viewed Iraq from Western eyes, myself..

I get what you're saying and agree with you -- Saddy did NOT support alQ because they were a threat to him, probably a bigger threat than the US. The alQ loathed Saddy, as, for whatever else his faults may have been (and there were many), he was secular -- he didn't really care what religion you were as long as you supported him and hated the Persians. the anti-Israeli thing was just a way to get support in the Arab world. Of course we had to get rid of him, but now the onus is on us to show them a better way. Saddy was the lesser of the two evils (saddy or the Talibs), but now we can give them somethign better and give OURSELVEs a great opportunity to get a secure state int eh near east.

Very interesting theory (in two sentences, Saddam had to overestimate his WMD capabilities to keep al-Qaeda out. Now that he's gone, they are infiltrating Iraq.).

Our administration has reported that about 70% of al-Qaeda is destroyed. I would guess that part of that is because they are easier to find in Iraq, where they rushed to congregate like moths to light.

You are very right, also Saddam is atheist and socialist, again at odd with islamics...he do more to keep Saudies from area then US can hope...now Saudies and Iranians have much easier job. This is same as Syria, Libya, Algeria.

Kemal Attaturk, who made Turkey a secular republic after World War I by suppressing Islam.

Oh and kill off several million Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians.

Al Queida's history has demonstrated the only muzzle it fears is the iron glove of retribution taken upon the relatives of conspirators - which America nor our allies will engage in. Any form of Western democracy will take years, most possibly decades, for the Iraqi people to accomplish, even with Allied America's continued help.

The Spanish and Latin American concept and rules of war were inherited from The Moors and Islam. Such concepts as "guerra sin cuarto" (war without quarter) and "arrancar la Raiz" (pulling the root) should be learned by the rest of the west because those are the rules our foes are applying. Argentina's "dirty war" against the leftist insurgents in the 70's and 80's was just such a war. Little understood by the northeners who are still too married to the civilised Queensbury rules of boxing.

The inquistion in Spain was severe precisely because it was necessary to employ the same methods the Muslims used in converting Christians to convert them back.

It seems the west has adopted the philosophy that one should bring a knife to a gunfight just to prove how compassionate one is.