Bin Laden stated that Iraq was too secular AND they educated their women to the point of arrogance.
2007-07-15 11:10:43 · 14 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Harm!~!
2007-07-15 11:15:44 · answer #1 · answered by Hunter 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I see a lot of you are very confused. Saddam and bin Laden told Western journalists what they needed to to confuse anyone living in a democracy. That does not mean that neither of them wouldn't accept help from the other in defeating a common enemy. Both made it clear to the other that they wouldn't tolerate the other's interference in their sphere of influence. Saddam couldn't continue to keep his population under control if terrorists began importing weapons and bin Laden couldn't hold on to his safe haven in Afghanistan if Saddam wanted to attack the Afghans, so they both left each other alone and then spouted off in from of the Western media. Saddam didn't "keep Al Qaeda out of areas he controlled," they were both fighting the same enemy - not each other.
As for Saddam killing Iranians - they are Persian and Shiite, Al Qaeda, like Saddam, are Sunni and mostly Arab. If you did any real research you'd know that Saddam often used Al Qaeda rhetoric against Shiites to win favor with the Saudis.
If by helping Al Q you mean establishing a killing field whereby we can engage them far from our homes with our military; then yes, we've helped them - to die!
quest for truth gal - I'm sorry that you feel "The war in Iraq has been a disaster that will have damaging consequences for a long time to come." I suspect your analysis is based on bad info, but you have the right to your opinion, but I have to correct one thing you said: Though some people in the Middle East lack the resources to get good info and may believe that the US invaded Iraq without good reason, you should know better.
2007-07-15 11:36:55 · answer #2 · answered by smartr-n-u 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The invasion of Iraq has been a definite benefit to al Qaeda. Saddam kept al Qaeda out of areas under his control. The invasion of a Muslim nation for no discernable good reason has convinced many fundamentalists that the US has less than honorable motives in the Middle East. This has aided al Qaeda’s recruitment and prestige.
Iraq has been opened up to terrorists. Iraq has also provided a training ground from which to export experienced fighters. The war in Iraq has been a disaster that will have damaging consequences for a long time to come.
2007-07-15 11:24:08 · answer #3 · answered by quest for truth gal 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The al-quadi and Saddam loyalists were arch enemies for a long time.
Actually Islamic factions use to spend a lot of energy fighting each other.
In 1948 they found reason to unite to in an effort to destory the Jews in Israel.
In 1967 after they got their butts kicked by the Jews they went back to largely fight each other but still trying to destroy Isreal.
By 2001 the forces that had unified in 1948 had almost completely broken down and they spent most (but certainly not all) of their energy fighting each other.
Then in 2003 when he US invaded Iraq all the terrorist and radicials of the world united like has never been seen before with a single and sole goal of destroying america.
2007-07-15 11:19:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Saddam would have killed Bin laden if he had the chance .
Funny the guy who was keeping terrorists out of Iraq was the one guy Bush needed to get rid of so he could spend us into debt on a military machine that employs 10% of the population .
2007-07-15 11:20:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
He didn't just speak out against Saddam, he called Saddam an infidel.
now I'm no expert on Islamic tradition, but when a fanatic calls you an infidel, that doesn't sound like he wants to be your friend.
and how does it make sense that if Saddam was killing Iranian loyalists, spraying Iranians with chemical agents, that he was also funding the same people(Al Queda) Iran was???
2007-07-15 11:16:40 · answer #6 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it is an somewhat exciting question. the respond lies in the very rhetoric Pres. Bush makes use of--a conflict on terror. we've fought wars against Britain, Spain, Germany, Mexico, The Confederation of States, Japan. be conscious what all of them have in elementary--they are all sovereign countries. regrettably, terror is in basic terms a be conscious no longer a u . s . a ., place, or guy or woman. extremely, somebody had to be punished for the activities that got here about on 9/11. yet there replaced into no person we could declare conflict on . We had no person to blame. no person replaced into very keen on Iraq to start with, so it replaced into uncomplicated to point the finger at them. i think of that the president's, and regrettably the human beings's, physique of concepts would have been rash and crammed with vengeance. rather than bypass after the genuine undesirable adult adult males all of us vented our anger on somebody who had no longer something to do with 9/11. the vast distinction between Bush and the rest human beings is that he fabricated evidence to make us think of that perchance Saddam extremely replaced into the undesirable guy.
2016-10-21 09:53:00 · answer #7 · answered by rollman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We're killing them in Iraq, so I'd say it harmed them. Saddam did not allow women to get an education past grade school, so I don't know where you got your propaganda from, but it's way off the mark.
2007-07-15 11:27:13 · answer #8 · answered by bonsai_kitty66 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know about helping Al-Q but it helped the Iraq citizens. I have read and seen the horrors of that man.
2007-07-15 11:21:10 · answer #9 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Invading Iraq was probably more than he could hope for! That's exactly the irony of it...
2007-07-15 11:15:24 · answer #10 · answered by Page 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
was this before, or after we gave saddam the key to detroit?
2007-07-15 11:21:46 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋