Experts Skeptical Of Reports On Al-Qaeda-Baghdad Link

USA Today ^ | September 27, 2002 | Barbara Slavin and John Diamond

[rightwing2]

You would rather believe Democrats than the President?

No. My sole allegence is to the truth. I was saying this long before the Democraps started their shamelss attempt to score points against the President for political gains. As a proud Bush supporter, I have no political agenda or ax to grind. I believe it is extremely important in the post-Clinton era for our President to be 100% completely honest and forthright with the American people and I'm not sure that Bush has been living up to that standard vis a vis Iraq.

[Eva]

I think you are wrong. What about the reports of the al Qaeda testing of chemical weapons in northern Iraq? What about the meeting of Saddam's foreign minister with Atta. Frankly, I believe that Saddam has been involved in all the terror attacks since the Gulf War, and I believe that there were alot more attacks than Clinton admitted to.

[GOPcapitalist]

Even more inexplicably, you seem to think that they are in love with Saddam Hussein, a secular Stalinist who made war against Iran.

Iran is by no means a hero state of Arabian mohammedism and to suggest that by attacking Iran, Saddam rendered himself unpopular with Arabian mohammedans is a flawed position. Iran is Persian, not Arabian, hence the distinction.

You also seem to underestimate the inescapably strong link between the secular arabian nationalism of Ba'ath politics and mohammedism. Regardless of Saddam's practices, mohammedism in the Arab world is virtually synonymous with a heavy strain of Arabian culture. As an Arabian nationalist embracing a conquest-oriented strain of Arab culture, Saddam presents a threat that is inescapably tied to the mohammedan religion and the problems contained within it.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Iran is Persian, not Arabian, hence the distinction.

Right, but they're also Muslim, which Hussein is not (not really). Hence the distinction.

I don't know why you're trying to turn this into a racial issue. My response (to rightwing2) was in regard to his reference to "the Muslim world", part of which (you will admit) is Iran. The issue of Arab vs. Persian (vs. South Asian vs. Caucasian vs. black... ) Muslims never even came up. And incidentally, the fact that Iran is Persian while Saddam is not only helps bolster my point: Iran does not consist of Saddam-lovers. And, there is little reason to suspect that the people walking around Iran are in love with Saddam's regime and would hate to see it harmed.

I don't know why on earth you think reminding me that Iranians are Persians and not Arabs is supposed to work against this point.

As an Arabian nationalist embracing a conquest-oriented strain of Arab culture, Saddam presents a threat that is inescapably tied to the mohammedan religion and the problems contained within it.

Perhaps. But this doesn't make him inescapably tied to the hopes and dreams of Iranians.

Our discussion (as I recall - it was a while ago) was about whether an attack against Saddam's regime would somehow "inflame" or "explode" rank and file Iranians.... (because they love Saddam, for some reason?) Are you honestly endorsing this view? Because if not, I don't know why you're saying what you're saying to me.