Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashpoint
Anyone versed in the political situation of the middle east knew that Saddam was opposed to Al Quaeda because he was a strongman running a secular state. .
|
Just a drive-by I couldn't resist . . . .
The notion that Iraq was a secular state, by the definition we might apply to that word, is exceedingly overbaked.
I posted this earlier in the year . . . .
Well, secular in our part of the world is certainly a different thing than secular in the Muslim world. You can google any number of Saddam speeches and find they all look like this one, a guy clearly pandering to the religious crowd. Read the whole thing . . . it wasn't an uncommon raving for him during his reign. In fact, most of his speeches look like this one (two pages):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,877046,00.html
Google "Saddam, speeches, Allah, God" and you'll get pages of the stuff.
Its also very similar to what you see from President Mushareff of Pakistan, another guy that people on our side of the pond see as some kind of secularist.
Also, if you can find a speech from Saddam where he talks in a secular manner about women's rights, freedom of religion, etc, then please post it.
Deeds are different than words of course and it might be said that Saddam's Iraq was certainly more secular when compared to other Muslim countries in the region . . . . but probably no where near what we would term secular.
The last thing he wanted was Islamists taking hold – see his multiple wars with Iran.
I think its pretty clear that secularists and Islamists alike in that part of the world have ideas about the running of their own country that could be completely opposite of their ideas of how to keep their neighbours weak and fractured.
Iraq invaded Iran, not the other way around.
Cowperson