Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
(2) Liberals often say that Hussein was the only 'secular' leader, which is a joke when you look at his Presidential acceptance speech and his history of targeting Christians and Shi'ites being they were perceived as political liabilities.
|
Right, and because he went about building a lot of mosques, we should assume that he was a very, very religious man. :/
When people say Hussein was a secular leader, they mean he didn't rule the country by the Koran. There was no Islamic/faux judiciary to check his power against, BECAUSE HE WAS FUCKING CRAZY, AND WOULD NEVER SHARE POWER WITH ANYBODY!
He tried to present himself as an Islamic leader, so that he could be perceived as a great Arab leader. The guy thought he was fucking Saladin. He tried to present himself as a very spiritual man, because it was important to him to reflect that image. It's called pandering, and I hear it happens all over the place.
Quote:
Many leftists pretend that Hussein was not that bad of a man, and a certain enemy of Islamism and thus has nothing to do with the Islamist threat. A man who certainly had no chemical, biological, or atomic weapons and was not a real threat.
I consider that absurd.
|
Speaking of absurdity, could you name some of these "leftists"? Who truly believes that he wasn't "that bad of a man"? I think you are confusing the positives people tried to highlight in Iraq with praising a dictator. Perhaps it's out there, but I'd like for you to show me who it is, ok?
And as for him being a part of the islamist threat-- what was Muqtada al-Sadr up to prior to our invasion of Iraq? How well was his family's message received by Saddam "the Islamist threat" Hussein???