Thursday, October 25, 2007

Media's simplistic "Sunni vs Shia" analyses again proven wrong...

We've been told over and over by an undereducated media that Iraq is merely a civil war - Sunni vs Shia violence - and that Saddam was never a danger as he could never have collaborated with the likes of Bin Laden and peers. It appears beyond a stubborn media (and Congress') comprehension to grasp the true convolution of relationships between Wahhabi and Deobandi mentalities, and the way they interact and function - yea... even survive - with Arab/Islamic states and with each other.

Again Ray Robison, Richard Duniway and "Sammi" have been proven correct in their co-authored work,
Both in one Trench. The book, providing translations and analyses of documents confiscated in Iraq in 2003 proves that Saddam had been working and funding the global Islamic jihad movement. He held power and control, yes. But to do that, he had to form alliances with those the media tells us he hated.

Echoing the very same assessment is today's Jawa Report,
Syrian Intelligence Linked to al Qaeda in Lebanon".

Fatah al-Islam is an al Qaeda affiliated group in Lebanon. Why would Syria support an al Qaeda linked group when the Syrian Baathists are so deeply hated by the Islamists? The answer is that the Islamists aren't opposed to strategic alliances, even with regimes they consider 'apostate'.

Below quote is from the Jawa Report referenced NY Sun article, Syrian Intelligence Linked to Terrorist Group.

"Direct contact between some of Fatah al-Islam's leaders and some senior Syrian intelligence officers, which were revealed in the interrogations, are consistent with the suspicion that Syrian intelligence has used Fatah al-Islam to serve its political and security objectives in Lebanon," Mr. Siniora wrote, according to Mr. Ban's report to the Security Council.

For comparison, a summary by Ray Robison in the Introduction of Both in One Trench:

The Saddam regime supported Islamic terrorists the same as it supported other
‘secular’ terrorists. The key to understanding this issue is the logical distinction
between working with Islamic extremists to achieve mutual objectives outside of
Iraq versus having them exist uncontrolled inside Iraq. Saddam’s regime was “open
for business” to leaders from al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Hamas,
Afghani warlords and other Islamic extremist organizations. A singular instance or
two of the Saddam regime meeting with Islamic terrorist leaders could possibly be
discounted in the overall scheme of things. However, document after document
indicates that Saddam’s strategy was to support Islamic terrorists to achieve mutual
objectives. His embrace of Islamic extremists, at odds with his supposedly secular
regime, was a survival technique

Eventually the truth of Saddam, his nefarious contacts, hidden deeds and intents that most certainly did threaten the US will come out. In the meantime, the naysayers will have their day spreading lies and disinformation. Because of hatred for this country? Or because of sheer stupidity and an aversion to research?

Hard to say. But either one is unforgivable as it relates to the security of this nation.


fourthestate said...

The intelligence services of all these countries plays both sides of the extremist divide. I think it's difficult to say that the Baathists with their focus on secular power were ever in bed with religious extremeists. In both Syria and Iraq, the Baathists have historically been opposed by the Islamic clergy that has aspired to have a competing power base. The ethnic divide between Kurd, Sunni, and Shia is still very real. Muslims and Hindus cooperated against the British during the last days of the Raj but fissures and a simmering civil war was brewing during the 2 previous decades before partition. The British Raj , its history, and implications remain a good analog for what is happening in Iraq.

MataHarley said...

Would not be so "difficult to say" that Baathists were in bed with religious extremists, were to you examine the documents confiscated from Iraq in 2003, fourthestate.

IIS and many of Saddams Baathists did indeed document their dealings and alliances with the global Islamic jihadist movement.

I highly recommend the Both in One Trench book, dedicated to the translations and analyses of just some of these documents. Unfortunately our media just doesn't like to discuss them. It's too bad. Just the few 100s of documents we've finally gotten around to decipering (before the lack of manpower had to turn to current intel moving thru Iraq) revealed just what Saddam and his IIS and security had to do to hold power in Iraq. They show they used these groups to launch attacks on common enemies... trading funding and support for a "hands off" policy internally.

You can order the book online for a mere $10. And it's one fascinating read. The convoluted threads of relationships between the different Wahhabi/Deobandi factions are complex, and far beyond what has been portrayed to us. Everyone likes to limit the enemy to merely al Qaeda, instead of dealing with the reality that is evident in the 1998 statement of war by the World Islamic Front.

But it is beyond refutable Islamic jihadists will band together to fight a common enemy as the need arrives, then turn to their own infighting later.