Saddam was, however, just as religious as most in Islam and not an atheist. He just wanted all the power kept to himself. He was a born street tough who gained power through torture and execution of all who opposed him (while putting on a happy face for the world). He was no different than most any of the Califs in Arab history. The “devout” mullahs of Iran, leaders of the PLO/Hamas, and leaders of Al Qeada are no different. They spout Islam and “piety” for their followers, but are corrupt, power mad dictators to the core. No one ever saw the billionaire Arafat or “devout” Osama jump to the front of the line to be a “martyr” and go to “paradise”. In fact, they were never in line…. Some “paradise” it must be to not want to see it.

wow, you mean he didn’t want to appear so secular, and instead wanted to pander to the really religious? Seems an odd thing to do-try and be a loved dictator.

I’m also not sure how this religious pandering is conservative and not liberal?

Let me help you out.

Are you somehow of the opinion that Saddam was a much loved person?
Were you somehow of the opinion that Saddam was a devout muslim all his life?
Perhaps you think that the religious leaders of islam have little or no political power.
Perhaps you’ve never heard of Iran.

However. Assuming that you’re aware that Saddam was _not_ much loved, that he was pretty much an atheist, but he was well aware of the political power of the religious leaders in Iraq, then you’d also find it fairly unsurprising to learn that after he was defeated and run out of Kuwait, after the Shiaa uprisings, he might find it prudent to “come to Mohamed” and ally himself with the religious leaders who then would be less likely to fuel the uprisings against a devout muslim leader like himself.

McCain has a bit of the same problem. He’s not a much loved person. He’s definitely not a committed Conservative. He’s facing a Conservative rebellion within his party.
Wonder what he’ll add to _his_ flag.

…nah, couldn’t be that.

Even Saddam had Conservatives in his party?

You might want to bold the sarcasm part.

Done!

the definition of who is “Al Queda” vs who is not has a lot to do with it. A good case can be made that all of Jalalabad was AQ back in 01.

It seems like there is quite a bit of loose affiliations and cooperations and cross-overs between different Islamic terror groups. Distinctions between al-Qaeda and others may at times seem blurred.

You might want to bold the sarcasm part. It is difficult for one of our readers to understand sarcasm. We must accomodate that one person.

It is nice to see yet another AQI group shut down and their victims freed. Add this to the list of hundreds already shut down, but not reported on.

[/sarcasm]

“The flag then went through a series of makeovers — including the stars added after the Baathist takeover in 1963 and the “Allahu Akbar” inserted after the ill-fated attempt to annex Kuwait.”