>>"Even though he used the word "jihad" when it suited him to do so, I don't see how one could reasonably state that he was an integral part of that movement"
What about cash payments and training to suicide bombers to attack Isreal? That seems integral to me.<<
Srexley -
Before getting into that, I'd like to respond to what you said about how too many of the people on this thread are more interested in name-calling than in having a real discussion about ideas. I agree completely, and that's one reason I stay away from here for days or weeks at a time. After all, what is the point?
Beyond that, as is all too often the case in political discussions, for most people it's all about proving oneself right and the other guy wrong than anything else. I, too, have often been motivated more by a desire to poke holes in other people's arguments and prove myself right than anything else.
I think that's unfortunate. I don't believe I'm right all the time on every subject, nor do I think others are always wrong. But if I do nothing but look for minor inconsistencies or inaccuracies in other people's posts, I will surely miss any possibility of learning anything or understanding anyone else's viewpoint.
But on to the substance of your most recent post. Yes, I see that Saddam did aid terrorism. I just don't think he did so for any reason but the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy. Don't forget, we never stopped bombing him from 1991 to last week. We weren't exactly motivating him to be chummy to us. But being anti-Israel or anti-American is not the same as endorsing the goals of the Jihad movement.
The Jihad movement has as its main goal, driving out all "infidels" and creating of a pan-Arabic Islamic state that does NOT include secularist dictators like Saddam Hussein. Destroying Israel, which with a certain amount of historical justification many Arabs see as a nation that has committed hostile acts against Arab nations and people, is just part of the picture.
We're just quibbling over words when we talk about whether Saddam's support "integral" to the movement. Here's another way to look at the question. Does the collapse of Saddam's regime cause great damage to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations? Does it do anywhere near the amount of damage that driving the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan did? Not by a long shot.
A lot of people in the Middle East believe that we are at war with Islam, or that we are only interested in controlling our oil supply, or both. Many of them fear that Iraq is only the first in a series of countries we will invade, toppling their governments in a "domino effect".
We have the opportunity to change their minds. We can show by our actions that we do not intend to occupy Iraq, and we don't want to establish a puppet government there.
Or we can fan the flames of anti-American sentiment by not even taking a breath between the fall of Hussein and beginning to threaten Syria.
Of course I am happy that the Hussein regime is history. But what do we do next? Our actions in may very well end up doing more to aid the Jihadists' cause than to harm it. I pray for the latter outcome, but I fear the former.
- Allen |
