Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (179703)	1/12/2006 10:20:40 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

(a) Back when Saddam controlled Iraq there was little Al Qaeda problem there. How do you know? Just because he had a larger army (one of the largest in the region) which permitted him to supress and control Iraq with more efficiency doesn't mean there wasn't a problem with Jihadists and Salafists. Do you think the supporters of Zarqawi just popped up overnight? Suddenly everyone becomes a Salafist/Wahabbist in the Sunni areas?? Did Bush "create" a whole pile of terrorists, or were they already there, biding their time, and taking advantage of a convergence of Ba'thist/Salafist interests in opposing the Coalition forces?? Why did Saddam build that huge Mosque in Baghdad, if not to appease the religious rivals that were buiding their power within the country?? Afterall, shouldn't one believe that Saddam would rather have spent the money on another Palace, or re-building his army? I spoke with several analysts last year and after discussing the issue at length, they seemed to agree that Saddam was facing growing internal pressures from the religious fanatics within his country. And the growing strength of the Shi'a in the south was certainly fortifying their extremism. But more than that, I also believe that Saddam, after the coalition invaded, came to an arrangement with Zarqawi. His people would help to finance Zarqawi, and provide intelligence, financial, and logistical support so Zarqawi could operate to undermine the Shi'a dominated government. It was clear that the Ba'th Party had been dishonored and humiliated by the loss of power in Iraq. Thus, there was little chance to obtain external financial, or popular support from the rest of the Muslim world. However, Zarqawi could tap into that support from other radical clerics throughout the region, in particular, Saudi Arabia. But since AQIZ could not, and IMO still cannot, effectively function without the financial and Sunni tribal ties from the former FRE leadership, Ba'thist know they can cut the purse-strings and safe-houses from the Wahabbist movement any time that they choose. However, I don't believe they will ever again take on the banner of Ba'thism. They are currently working to create a political group called the "Return Party", which obviously denotes Ba'thist beliefs, but I do't believe we see them publicly refer to themselves as Ba'thists until such a time that they are able to fully control the country. Again, this is my opinion and not everyone I worked with agreed with me. What is clear to me is that were Zarqawi's group to be permitted to topple the current government in Iraq, he would be permitted to use it as a base of power to spread his revolution elsewhere, while the Sunnis, and FRE leadership would resume control over Iraq, but under a much less secular facade. Gosh, I hadn't realized you were a spokesman for all the terrorists! Carl, you can do better than that.. I'm sure you have read any number of their statements where the Jihadists and Islamo-Fascists have declared that they are seeking to destroy western society. Hell.. that was the reason they attacked the WTC.. They thought they could bring down the financial center of the capitalist world, NYC.. probably hoping that one of the towers would topple over onto Wall Street. Hawk