# Iraqi ancien regime and al Qaeda **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2003, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238 "2003-04-12T10:49:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/1 "2003-04-12T10:49:49Z")
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._ ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/2 "2003-04-12T10:59:15Z")
Huh? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/3 "2003-04-12T11:15:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/4 "2003-04-12T13:59:52Z")
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. > **[Iraq profile - timeline](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14546763)** > > A chronology of key events in the history of Iraq, from the time it formed part of the Ottoman Empire to the present. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/5 "2003-04-12T14:16:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/6 "2003-04-12T14:47:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/7 "2003-04-12T16:02:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/8 "2003-04-12T16:08:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Michael Ellis \* > \*\*Huh? \*\* My thoughts exactly and precisely condensed into just the right word. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/9 "2003-04-12T17:46:04Z")
**Aldiboronti** , [Here](http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/841141/posts) is the BBC transcript of the February tape in question. Key lines: > [@](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![I\_Know\_Lots](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@I\_Know\_Lots](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Know_Lots)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/10 "2003-04-12T18:16:28Z")
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] ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/11 "2003-04-12T18:47:46Z")
Michael and sailor, excellent! Such cogent thinking has made the liberal cause what it is today. ---
**Author:** ![FranticMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c68b51/32.png) [@FranticMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FranticMad)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/12 "2003-04-12T19:40:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/13 "2003-04-12T21:58:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-ancien-regime-and-al-qaeda/168238/14 "2003-04-12T22:13:54Z")
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**.