Sadham is not a Muslim extremist.

Being an Islamic extremist does not automatically make one a terrorist, nor the other way around.

Sadham Hussein is not a Muslim extremist. By acedemic definitions he is not a terrorist either. He is a dictator and a murderer guilty of crimes against humanity.

The grey area is that he supports some terrorist groups. However, so does (or has) America.

 

Sadamn Hussien is NOT a Muslim Extremist. He actively suppresses those extremist groups linked to Al-Qaeda. In fact, the Iran/Iraq war was fought specifically because Sadamn wanted to stop the encroachment of the Wahibbi sect into his country. As bad as Sadamn is, as we saw in Iran and Afghanistan, the Extremist groups are worse.

Now, if this topic were phrased as "Is Saddamn a 'defender of the faith/of islam", then the answer could be yes. Saddamn does practice his religion (whether he really beleives in it or is just going thru the motions of it is a subject for speculation). Saddamn does support homicide bombers families striking against Israel. He does in general support moderate Islam.

 

Sadamn Hussien is NOT a Muslim Extremist. He actively suppresses those extremist groups linked to Al-Qaeda. In fact, the Iran/Iraq war was fought specifically because Sadamn wanted to stop the encroachment of the Wahibbi sect into his country. As bad as Sadamn is, as we saw in Iran and Afghanistan, the Extremist groups are worse.

I was under the impression that the although the Iranian's are fundamentalists that they are not actually Wahabbis. I will stand corrected if I am wrong however.

Saddamn does support homicide bombers families striking against Israel. He does in general support moderate Islam.

Actually Saddam does support suicide bombers but not because he believes in their cause, which he may or may not do, but because he believes it gives him more support in the Arab world and destabilises the region making a war agisnst him less likely.

 

Actually Saddam does support suicide bombers but not because he believes in their cause, which he may or may not do, but because he believes it gives him more support in the Arab world and destabilises the region making a war agisnst him less likely.

He believes in the cause. He has vowed to crush Israel, just no body will let him do it, so he pays people to do it instead.

 

He believes in the cause. He has vowed to crush Israel, just no body will let him do it, so he pays people to do it instead.

HaH!! Nobody will let him? I wish he would go over there. His forces would get about half through Jordan before getting decimated. Just like all the charred hulks, of Egyptian tanks, that litter the Souther Isreali countryside, so it would be with Saddam.

That would be close to one of the most one sided fights in history.

And for the person, I think it was you ObiWan McCartney, who thinks Saddam is not a dictator. Could you pleazzze tell me on what basis you hold this opinion.

And many of you are right, Saddam isn't a muslim extermist. He would support a group of Christians if he thought the could do his bidding for him. He is a tyrannt and a meglomaniac.

 

"He believes in the cause. He has vowed to crush Israel, just no body will let him do it, so he pays people to do it instead. "

And why would you beleive a word he says?

 

Well, he has called upon Islamic Nations to match his donations to families of homicide bombers.

As far as Irans fundamentalist movement and the Wahibbi sect.....while separate, there is no denying that there are many similiarity's in their belief's; and that as such, there were many people in Al-Qaeda/Taliban who learned in Iran and vice versa.

 

I was under the impression that the although the Iranian's are fundamentalists that they are not actually Wahabbis. I will stand corrected if I am wrong however.

Iran is not wahabist, it is [mostly] Shi'a. They make up around 89% of the population, with Sunni Muslims being 10% and "others" - Jews, Christians etc, being 1%. Incidently, the Husayn clan are Sunni. And, they too are in a minority in Iraq. Just a powerful minority!

and that as such, there were many people in Al-Qaeda/Taliban who learned in Iran and vice versa.

With all due respect, this is wrong. Al-Qaeda is the extension of the Mekhtab al-Khadamat, or "Services Office", established during the jihad against the USSR by bin Laden's former professor Adbullah Azzam. Based in Peshawar, bin Laden was the principle financial supporter of the Services Office, and Azzam was something of a spiritual godfather and recruiter for the "Afghan Arabs" - Arabs who flocked to Afghanistan to fight the jihad. Eventually bin Laden ended up in control and it morphed into al-Qaeda. It's leadership are mostly veteran "Afghan Arabs"; and it trained troops in the Sudan (from 1991 when bin Laden was forced out of Saudi Arabia), and then in Afghanistan from 1996 when the Sudanese were forced to expel him.
As for the Taliban leadership; most of them actually are graduates of the Pakistani madrassa, or religious schools. Mullah Muhammed Omar was a religious student who lead the Taliban to sieze control of most of the country in the late 1990's (94 IIRC); he was declared leader when he wrapped himself in the Cloak of the Prophet, the most sacred of Afghanistan's relics.

This does not deny Iran's terrorist past; the terrorist organisation Islamic Jihad Organisation was just the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) dressed down; and they were behind numerous terrorist attacks against Americans in Lebanon. However, since 1998 President Khatami has pushed the reformist line and has tried to limit Iran's involvement in any form of terrorism, desperate to open Iran up to the West again for normal relations.

E_S

 

Saddam is more of a political extremist than he is a religious extremist. He only supports the homicide bombers in Israel because they support one of his goals in getting rid of Israel and the Jews.

 

Well, I meant it more from a 'doctrinal' standpoint, as far as how Iran and the Taliban actually implemented their views upon their respective nations, which are somewhat similar.

 

Sort of. In these sense both are extremist, yes, though Iran was never as repressive as the Taliban with their "Tali-bans." Also, the Iranian case was in response to years of the Shah's rule and SAVAK's brutality - a blowback, if you will. Afghanistan was a worn torn nation after the Soviets left; and the Taliban just happened to be the strongest faction, riding into Kabul and Kandahar to assume power.

E_S

 

Seriously. Should this thread be open?

No one can spell the poor man's name. And everyone seems to agree that he is not a muslim extremist.

This thread gets a ten on the useless-o-meter.

 

Meh. I'm usually spelling it Saddam Husayn, the proper way. Just to be different.

E_S



Red-Seven says: Good history/clarification E-S...but I'm in agreement that this thread has run its course. Further discussion about the implied linkage between Hussein's rule of Iraq and fundamental Islam can continue here.