Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-12-2003, 06:49 AM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,896
Iraqi ancien regime and al Qaeda

Time and time again we hear from the liberal cohorts (who seem to relish attacking Bush far more than they do Saddam) that there is no credible evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just one response (whether this is of Western, Arabic or whatever origin, it holds good throughout the world.)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
  #2  
Old 04-12-2003, 06:59 AM
Michael Ellis Michael Ellis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 5,538
Huh?
  #3  
Old 04-12-2003, 07:15 AM
pseudotriton ruber ruber pseudotriton ruber ruber is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outer Control
Posts: 10,394
How about the enemy of your enemy of your enemy of your enemy? What's he?

This is not a binary world. It's subtle and complex. Slogans are not.
  #4  
Old 04-12-2003, 09:59 AM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 14,041
I wasn't aware that Iraq even had an "ancien regime". Who would it be? The 37-year monarchy, overthrown in a coup? The 5-year republic, overthrown in a coup? The 6-month Arab Socialist Ba'th Party government, overthrown in a coup? The 5-year Arif family government, overthrown in a coup? Or the 35-year Ba'athist Party government, currently in the process of being overthrown in a coup?

Looks to me like the monarchy has seniority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm
  #5  
Old 04-12-2003, 10:16 AM
Early Out Early Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sector R
Posts: 3,891
Re: Iraqi ancien regime and al Qaeda

Quote:
Originally posted by aldiboronti
Time and time again we hear from the liberal cohorts (who seem to relish attacking Bush far more than they do Saddam) that there is no credible evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just one response (whether this is of Western, Arabic or whatever origin, it holds good throughout the world.)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Let's see, now.... bin Laden has repeatedly criticized the Iraqi leadership, essentially labeling them "infidels" (the Ba'ath Party was/is secular, paying only occasional lip service to Islam - this is precisely the type of government that the al Qaeda types are sworn to crush). So, does that mean that Saddam Hussein is our friend? Or does it mean the bin Laden is our friend? By your logic, it must be one or the other.
  #6  
Old 04-12-2003, 10:47 AM
Priam Priam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,529
How high do you have to be to write that? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" falls under the category of realpolitik. Fanatics are not known for having large measures of this worldview.
  #7  
Old 04-12-2003, 12:02 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,896
Really, don't you think it possible that their mutual hatred of the Great Satan would outweigh their antipathy towards each other?
And whence this notion that religious fanatics are incapable of realpolitik? Their fanaticism does not preclude a rational assessment of the best methods of achieving their goals.

Did the Iraqis know in advance of the 911 atrocity? I have no idea. Were they complicit? Again, no idea?

But is it beyond the realms of probability that they might cooperate temporarily to strike a devastating blow at an enemy they both loathe? Of course it isn't.

BTW that's such a telling point about the phrase 'ancien regime'. Quite demolishes my whole argument. Almost as good as 'I don't agree with you. You must be high on something.' I can see that the reputation of SDMB for rational and well-informed debate is in good hands with you guys.
  #8  
Old 04-12-2003, 12:08 PM
sailor sailor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 16,441
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Huh?
My thoughts exactly and precisely condensed into just the right word.
  #9  
Old 04-12-2003, 01:46 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,833
Aldiboronti, Here is the BBC transcript of the February tape in question. Key lines:
Quote:
First, showing good intentions. This means fighting should be for the sake of the one God.

It should not be for championing ethnic groups, or for championing the non-Islamic regimes in all Arab countries, including Iraq.
...
Fighting in support of the non-Islamic banners is forbidden.
...

Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.

The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.

Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden.
Doesn't sound too "friendly", does it? More like "first things first, fellow Muslims - defeat the invader infidels, then the Arab infidels."
  #10  
Old 04-12-2003, 02:16 PM
I Know Lots I Know Lots is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 64
Of course, two bitter ideological opponents would never co-operate just cos it made things convienient.

Oh- apart from Hitler and Stalin. And Nixon and Mao. And pre-revolutionary France and the American revolutionaries. And Reagan and the Afghan rebels. And Lenin and the Kaiser. And Israel and Khomenei's Iran. And[list continues for nine zillion pages]
  #11  
Old 04-12-2003, 02:47 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,896
Michael and sailor, excellent!

Such cogent thinking has made the liberal cause what it is today.
  #12  
Old 04-12-2003, 03:40 PM
FranticMad FranticMad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Out of bounds
Posts: 1,189
You have still provided no evidence of the link. All you have presented is an idea that there could be a link. This is ironic since you raised the issue in the first place.

If you think your borrowed slogan is more important than evidence, then you have nothing worth listening to.
  #13  
Old 04-12-2003, 05:58 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,896
This is a far sounder reply than Huh?, and is, in point of fact, difficult, if not impossible, to refute. In short, you are right. My post was ill framed. What I meant to suggest was that the opposed philosophies of Bin Laden and Saddam, the fact that each despises the other, are no grounds at all for positing the unlikelihood of Iraqi complicity in 911. No more, no less.
  #14  
Old 04-12-2003, 06:13 PM
istara istara is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 3,634
So - because A hates C and B hates C - A and B are automatically in league?

What if A hates B *and* C?

I realise it would be absolutely-super-lovely for the Bush administration to find Saddam and Osama hand in hand (particuarly if the WMDs fail to materialise) but there is no credible evidence.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017