Islam’s Worst Enemy: The case against Saddam Hussein.

National Review ^ | 10/17/2001 | Mark Levin

[Pokey78]

Iraq's Saddam Hussein has more Muslim blood on his hands than any tyrant in modern history. And he is Osama bin Laden's most outspoken cheerleader, if not his key supporter.

Hussein — not America or Western civilization — has unleashed a breathtaking reign of murder and terror on Mideastern Muslims.

In 1979, when Hussein took power in Iraq, he immediately began murdering large numbers of Kurds, the majority of whom are Muslim. He destroyed scores of Kurdish villages, killed tens of thousands of civilians — including by execution and the use of mustard gas and sarin — and relocated thousands more to other parts of Iraq. Millions of Kurdish refugees sought to escape Iraq. Not until 1992, when the U.S. and Britain stepped in, did Hussein's mass murder of the Kurds stop.

In 1980, Hussein started a bloody eight-year war against Iran. Estimates of total killed run as high as 1.5 million. The populations of Iraq and Iran are overwhelmingly Muslim. And this war between these Muslim states was particularly heinous. Air and missile strikes against large civilian populations were common. Hussein used poison gas against Iranian soldiers to reverse his battlefield losses. And prisoners of war were routinely tortured and murdered.

In 1990, Hussein ordered an invasion of Kuwait and then annexed it. Again, the vast majority of Kuwaitis are Muslim. During the occupation, there were reports that the Iraqi army raped, pillaged, and murdered at will. Hundreds of thousands of Kuwaitis fled their country in fear of their lives. When the Iraqi army was chased out of Kuwait by the Gulf War coalition, its soldiers caused tens of billions of dollars in damage to the country's infrastructure, including torching oil fields. There remain over six hundred Kuwaiti POWs for which Iraq refuses to account.

Hussein has conducted a jihad against his fellow Muslims on Muslim holy land. If bin Laden were truly concerned about the plight of Muslims, he would have taken up arms against Hussein. Instead, bin Laden has defended Hussein by, among other things, laying blame for the death of Iraqis at the feet of America. No doubt referring to the U.S.-led economic boycott of Iraq, bin Laden has claimed that Americans have killed a million Iraqi children. Bin Laden said this knowing full well that Hussein has stolen from his people. He has enriched himself at the expense of Iraq's children. And Hussein wouldn't think twice about using poison gas again to kill Muslim women and children if it meant retaining power.

While their methods are different, bin Laden and Hussein are power-hungry madmen who seek domination at any cost. Whereas Hussein sought to expand his rule with a conquering army, bin Laden seeks to impose his rule by inciting uprisings and overthrowing moderate Arab and Muslim governments from within. Both know that America stands between them and their designs. Thus, they must drive the U.S. from the region if they're to succeed. And since 1993, bin Laden has organized and financed terrorist attacks against Americans for this purpose.

Bin Laden may claim to represent Muslims in a war against the West, but the truth is he has no more regard for their lives than for ours.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

"While their methods are different, bin Laden and Hussein are power-hungry madmen who seek domination at any cost."

Thanks to Mark Levin for a great article, as usual.

Things will continue to deteriorate in this country until the liberals in Congress wake up. After reading the article today in World Net Daily about the group of Syrians who entered the USA the other day to attend flight school, I hope Daschle & company will reflect on their own demise.

[traditionalist]

Iraq's Saddam Hussein has more Muslim blood on his hands than any tyrant in modern history. And he is Osama bin Laden's most outspoken cheerleader, if not his key supporter.

The first statement is true, but I'm not sure about the second. I haven't seen any reports of Hussein "cheerleading" Bin Laden, nor have I seen any evidence indicating that Saddam supports Bin Laden. The article gives no specific examples.

I also doubt that Bin Laden is pro-Saddam. I don't recall Bin Laden making pro-Hussein statements or anything like it. The only example the article can give is the fact that Bin Laden blames the US for the hardships the Iraqi people have endured due to the sanctions. However, there are a lot of anti-Hussein groups that say the same thing.

Also, Bin Laden wants every Muslim country to have theocratic Sunni rule like the Taliban in Afganistan. Saddam is a staunch Ba'athist secularist opposed to Islamic theocracy. He's murdered scores of Iraqi Islamic fundamentalists. It thus seems rather far-fetched that the two support one another, though certainly it is possible that they cooperate from time to time when they have a common interest. However, asside from the one meeting that a couple Iraqi intelligence officers had with an Al-Qaeda member, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, I have seen no evidence that the two are cooperating. I also don't see what common interest they have right now that would induce them to cooperate.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

"However, aside from the one meeting that a couple Iraqi intelligence officers had with an Al-Qaeda member, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, I have seen no evidence that the two are cooperating."

Mark's article is right on target. You might want to re-think your statement. Your words "no evidence" remind me of Clinton's supporters who dismissed Clinton's crimes by saying there was "no evidence" against the scoundrel.

[Don Roberts]

Hussein is and always has been our buddy. We supported him all the time he killed Kurds, and we at first said we don't care if you invade Kuwait. Sure, we got him out of Kuwait, and for 10 years we have helped him to enrich himself while our policies and infrastructre destruction have resulted in over one million civilian deaths, mainly young children. I don't understand why we support Hussein so strongly, but it is quite clear that we've done it for over 20 years. Just like we supported the Shah of Iran, while his murderous secret police, SAVAK, murdered Iranian civilians who seemed somehow to be some sort of threat to the government.

Glory to Hussein and all American-supported dictators. Remember, we encouraged the development of the Taliban and we gave 100s of millions of dollars to Afghansitan in so-called "humanitarian aid," which was actually payoffs to the Taliban for doing what we wanted, like making heroin illegal.

Glory to the American Empire, soon to be "defended" by nuclear weapons in space. Yes, defended, just like we "defensively" destroy Iraqi air defense systems. And the Iraqi air defense systems are not offensive systems. They are correctly labelled "defense."

Glory to the U.S. Dept. of Defense. It only defends.