TIME magazine recently posted an interview with native Iraqi Abu Mohammed reflecting on a number of things related to Saddam Hussein's death including the effect that Hussein and his Baath regime had on the country of Iraq and Hussein's followers joining up with Abu Musab al Zarqawi after Hussein had been captured. (A confession also made in TIME magazine earlier this year by Hussein's former right-hand man Izzat al Douri.)
Even the remnants of his (Hussein's) old regime, which had morphed into the Sunni insurgency, seemed to lose their fervor for Saddam (after his capture). Some Ba'athist groups kept up the charade that they were fighting to restore the dictator to his palace, but others quickly stopped referring to him at all and instead recast themselves as "the nationalist resistance" or as "mujahedin," or holy warriors. Many threw in their lot with the new ogre on the scene, Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The secular Baath party, long been said to be completely incompatible with extremist groups such as al Qaeda, has repeatedly been pinpointed as al Qaeda's main ally in post-invasion Iraq, even to the point of following al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi after Saddam Hussein had been captured.
It's worth asking when and how these networks and relationships began, though it's a question rarely asked in mainstream media circles.
Hamza went on to confirm his knowledge of the former Baathists extensive hand in the post-invasion violence and terror.
One afternoon last October, I watched the televised Saddam trial in the company of Abu Hamza, a field commander of Jaish al-Islami. Iraq's largest insurgent group, Jaish al-Islami is made up mainly of Ba'athists and soldiers from Saddam's army. Abu Hamza had been an officer in Saddam's elite Republican Guard; in previous meetings, he had spoken reverentially about the dictator, describing him as a man who exuded power and gravitas.
Jaish al-Islami, aka the Islamic Army of Iraq, is linked to al Qaeda in Iraq in the world of anti-coalition forces operating inside Iraq and as the "largest insurgent group" has obviously done quite a bit to prevent Iraq's elected government from stabilizing the country.
Comments (7)
Mark,
Yes, it is worth asking many questions about the connections around the world. Most of us were very naive prior to 9/11.
Frankly, I'm tired of those who only look at issues through political shades. As an Independent my entire life I've voted on both sides.
But we all need to wake up. When I see on TV that Syria, Iran, Hezbullah, Hamas, Sadr and other terrorist connections all meet in Damascus, plus the known Baathist ties, then it should be clear to us all. That within the Islamic world, in the world of Tribes. We need to fully and comprehensibly understand all of these links.
And finally, we also need to understand that Americans are considered infidels. Lower than low unless we convert to Islam.
Right now the Middle East is ruled by a bunch of Thugs. Call them Kings, all them Ayatollah's and call them members of the Religion of Peace.
The truth is we are at war around the globe.
Posted by: Michael | December 31, 2006 7:01 AM
Posted on: December 31, 2006 07:01
Had we sent over the 2 battleships as Zinni had in his 00 invasion plan we would have killed about 500,000 more in 03. BEFOR they could become: mujahedin,Jaish al-Islami,terrorists... or any other name you want to use. Iraq would be prosperous (It is potentially one of the biggest oil producers in the world, but the mujahedin have been blowing up the refineries as fast as our contracters can build them), secure, almost peaceful, free country
Posted by: Rodney A Stanton | January 1, 2007 6:40 PM
Posted on: January 1, 2007 18:40
Time for people to wake up and smell the Jihad. It's a global war on terror (not a global war on Osama Bin Laden or just Al Queda leadership) because there's a Jihad being waged by a stateless, leaderless, group of suicidal, genocidal, homicidal maniacs no more sane that Jeff Dhamer or Charles Manson.
Were they allied with Saddam? Sure, only the degree of which has ever been debated, and really that's irrelevent. Saddam used them. They used Saddam. Now they use Saddam-less Iraq. Whether it's Islam, Mohammed, Saddam, or even Bin Laden... the reason these people saw off heads is because they're killers first, and excuse-makers second. If their excuse resonates with others who have gripes, then they get some legitimacy from those people, but in the end...they're murderers. Soldiers don't saw off heads on video, or skin prisoners alive, or hide behind women and children, only to run away and cry, "BASE!" when they get inside a mosque...only to start sniping from the minerets minutes later. They are killers, murderers, thugs, and the complete opposite of people fighting for freedom, rights, or peaceful religion.
Posted by: Scott Malensek | January 5, 2007 8:01 AM
Posted on: January 5, 2007 08:01
Indirectly cross linked from InstaPundit. Should see your site meter go crazy today and tomorow. Congrats!
Posted by: Rodney A Stanton | January 6, 2007 9:16 AM
Posted on: January 6, 2007 09:16
See Steven Vincent "In the Red Zone", Spence Publishing, Dallas, 2004.
Saddam got religion in 1990's. An Iraqi said "Saddam introduced religious fudamentalism into Iraq like no one before."
Ansar Al-Islam, the kurdish-Al-Quaeda network in north Iraq is presented as "Saddam's paramilitaries".
See also Richard Miniter "Disinformation", Regnery, 2005. Most of the prisoners made after the operation Viking Hammer (March 29-30, 2003) in Ansar-Al-Islam base said the terrorist network was a Saddam-AlQuaea partnership.
Posted by: drzz | January 9, 2007 9:34 AM
Posted on: January 9, 2007 09:34
See here about interviews of officials about Saddam0s WMD :
http://blogs.pajamasmedia.com/wmd_files/
Posted by: drzz | January 10, 2007 11:28 AM
Posted on: January 10, 2007 11:28
Interesting.
Posted by: Ymarsakar![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://regimeofterror.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 10, 2007 7:00 PM
Posted on: May 10, 2007 19:00