English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

so why continue the assumption that he would have smuggled nuclear (or chemical) bombs out of Iraq into his forsworn enemies hands,namely Iran and Syria? You do realize he would have rather ate the uranium than hand it over to a country he despised. Also, even tho Osama and Saddam were both Sunni, why keep insisting Al-Queda played a big part of Iraqs terror cells. Every country over there has their own cells, of that I have no doubt, but Osamas Wahibism, could not have allowed him to befrien d a Baathist, don't you agree.

2007-01-29 09:39:37 · 15 answers · asked by popeyethesadist 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Syrias poulation does in fact have lots of Sunni but is most definitely militarily stronger by Shia force. I don't think of it as an "Arab" country.

2007-01-29 09:59:33 · update #1

15 answers

Well thought out..... Saddam hated everyone and did not even trust his sons. He killed various relatives and would have never trusted terrorist from other countries.

2007-01-29 10:07:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You've misinterpreted Saddam Hussein, mainly because you don't know his history.

Saddam was not a Sunni as much as he was a Baathist. Here are some facts you might want to consider:

Syrian Baathists and Iraqi Baathists are almost one and the same political party. They started together in the 1930's, when their objective was to take over the entire Middle East from Iraq to Morrocco. Their political philosophy is based on the work of a French author who moved to Germany and also influenced the 3rd Reich.

Iraqi Baathists (including Saddam) were exiled to Syria in the 70s during an unstable period.

The one event that really acted as the catalyst of Saddam rising to power was when the Baathists in Syria ordered the assassination of the current Iraqi President, a Baathist general. Saddam Hussein was the one who pulled the trigger (he was 19 years old at the time).

Egypt, Syria and Iraq later formed a military compact, like a mutual assistance treaty. Egypt pulled out early, leaving only Syria and Iraq on the treaty, which remained in force throughout Saddam's reign.

You're pretending to know a lot for someone who has so few facts to offer. You do realize that Saddam was a terrorist himself, killed millions, payed for suicide bombers in Palestine and trained thousands of terrorists on his own soil (possibly tens of thousands, though this can't be confirmed).

It is far more likely that he had dealings with every terrorist organization on the planet, either cursory or material, than simply conduct business on his own, and the likelihood of Saddam being involved directly with 9-11 is extremely high, despite the lack of evidence.

This is where liberals fall off the deep end. To them, it's all about what you can prove, not what makes sense. Rather than admit to what Saddam was, they'd rather make Bush the evil man, which is a complete freefall into ignorance.

2007-01-29 17:59:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You appear to assume that Saddam and Osama would have allowed a disagreement between Sunni and Wahibist Islam to overshadow the greater goal of defeating the "infidel" West. OBL and Saddam attempted to meet and discussed the possibility of combining resources in order to achieve the greater goal of driving the U.S. out of the Middle East. Al Qaeda is currently composed of primarily Sunni elements but has worked with elements of organized crime, Baathists (which is a political party, not a religion), Shia and various non-Arab (Iranians are actually Persian, but I am primarily referring to Asian Islamic groups like JI in Indonesia) groups to advance their goals throughout the world.

Based on past and current actions taken by Al-Qaeda, and the Mujahadeen under OBL, I disagree with your assumption that Saddam and Osama would not work together because of religious or political differences.

2007-01-29 17:54:58 · answer #3 · answered by Curious 3 · 0 0

Most people don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, Osama Bin Laden has most in common with Saudi Arabia where he is from. I guess he had a falling out with the Saudi royalty and he blames this on Saudi's relationship with America.

Unfortunately many Americans just stay ignorant. They don't want to know the difference between Sunni, Shiite, or Wahhabi. They don't even know the difference between Iraqi (Arab) and Iranian (Persian). It is Small Town America, they just see Middle Eastern people, they are all the same. I had someone ask me "why are there so many different types of Christian but only one type of Muslim?" They believe what they believe and they refuse to bother to learn anything else. It saddens me but I don't know how we can show such people the light. They don't want to see.

2007-01-29 17:46:53 · answer #4 · answered by romulusnr 5 · 2 0

Syria is NOT an enemy of Iraq. They are actually quite friendly.

At one point, prior to Saddam taking power, there was a discussed merger among Iraq and Syria, that Saddam effectively 86d because it would have given him a diminshed role in goverment.

2007-01-29 17:43:58 · answer #5 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 2 0

Nope. Saddam was a Sunni in name only, like "Christmas and Easter Christians" (that's the only time they come to church) and "Checkoff Jews" (got to put something on the questionnaire).

Neither Saddam nor the others would give a nickel for their religions. Saddam was well known to be a secularist. Would you call Hitler a Catholic because his father and mother were?

2007-01-29 17:50:09 · answer #6 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0 0

Syria is mostly Sunni! I don't remember ever hearing of any bad relations between Iraq and Syria. Especially when Syria is where the Ba'ath party started.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/syria_5.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/bl_SyriaIslamSunni.htm

The first link gives you history the second is on religion. Gee I guess you were wrong on both counts.

Do you know where the saying -The enemy of my enemy is my friend .-came from. What they all have in common in case you missed it is Israel/Palestine. They all fund or fight to remove Israel.

2007-01-29 17:51:00 · answer #7 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 1 0

I had to read it twice, but yes, it makes sense. I know this much: Hussein wasn't about to allow Al Queda camps to operate in Iraq because he was a control freak. He wasn't going to allow a group to operate in his country that he couldn't control and he couldn't control Al Queda. Don't you agree?

2007-01-29 17:44:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

so bad of enemies, thats why syria brokered a deal for saddam to take asylum there before the war...but saddams ego wouldnt let him take the deal..


always the fool..look where he is now

2007-01-29 17:56:45 · answer #9 · answered by chumpchange 6 · 0 0

Saddam was a one of a kind STUPID! During the first Gulf War, he flew his Jets into Iran(You know, the same Country he waged 8 years of war with and killed millions!)! The Iranian's I don't think even said "Thanks" as they took them!

LOL!!!

2007-01-29 18:03:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers