Qur'an etched in Saddam Hussein's blood poses dilemma for Iraq leaders

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/1...raqi-government

 

It was etched in the blood of a dictator in a ghoulish bid for piety. Over the course of two painstaking years in the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein had sat regularly with a nurse and an Islamic calligrapher; the former drawing 27 litres of his blood and the latter using it as a macabre ink to transcribe a Qur'an. But since the fall of Baghdad, almost eight years ago, it has stayed largely out of sight - locked away behind three vaulted doors. It is the one part of the ousted tyrant's legacy that Iraq has simply not known what to do with.

 

The vault in the vast mosque in Baghdad has remained locked for the past three years, keeping the 114 chapters of the Muslim holy book out of sight - and mind - while those who run Iraq have painstakingly processed the other cultural remnants of 30 years of Saddam and the Ba'ath party.

 

"What is in here is priceless, worth absolutely millions of dollars," said Sheikh Ahmed al-Samarrai, head of Iraq's Sunni Endowment fund, standing near the towering minarets of the west Baghdad mosque that Saddam named "the Mother of All Battles". Behind him is the infamous Blood Qur'an, written in Saddam's own blood.

 

 

Saddam's legacy

 

The Crossed Swords

 

Built in the mid-80s as a symbol of victory in the war with Iran, even though the war still had two years to run and ended in a stalemate. They bookend what is now the Green Zone.

 

Saddam's Palaces

 

There are at least 300 scattered all over the country. Some have been taken over by government ministries, others remain derelict. Yet more are looming eyesores, especially in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, where up to five could eventually be destroyed.

 

Al-Hurriya Archway

 

On the eastern side of one of Baghdad's main bridges – an archway built by a famous architect, Jawad Salem, to commemorate the ousting of Iraq's royal family in 1959. It became synonymous with Saddam and the Ba'athists.

 

Statue of Saddam

 

Dozens once peppered the country, but the large green version in al-Firdous Square came to signify the end of Saddam when torn down by US marines in April 2003. The bust, right, is kept in the office of former national security adviser Mowafak al-Rubaie who led Saddam to the gallows.

[NJS 4506]

My understanding was that even though he might have been a Muslim, his regime was notionally secular and he did a pretty good job (through violence and terror obviously) of keeping the factions in line.

 

It's like arguing over whether Hitler was an Atheist or a Catholic - point scoring aside - they were both cunts whose personal religion wasn't the issue. I'd also say they were both politicians who knew how to play the religious game to suit.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

My understanding was that even though he might have been a Muslim, his regime was notionally secular and he did a pretty good job (through violence and terror obviously) of keeping the factions in line.

 

It's like arguing over whether Hitler was an Atheist or a Catholic - point scoring aside - they were both cunts whose personal religion wasn't the issue. I'd also say they were both politicians who knew how to play the religious game to suit.

 

Your understanding regarding Saddam doing a 'good job' as you unfortunately put it is incorrect, the society of Iraq descended into a volatile and fractious mess under his rule, occasionally allowing for some waves of hatred against the West to bring certain factions together.

 

I'd agree with you on the point about the personal religion of Hitler/Hussein not being the crux or the main motivation for their brutality. It does become an issue however when Hitler is doing deals with the Catholic Church and receiving their support, and even after WW2 ended the Vatican helped Nazi war criminals to escape to places such as South America and commit further crimes against humanity in certain cases. The Catholic Church has a stellar record of supporting fascism and that does appear to be their inclination (I personally suspect the current pope has a deep fascist instinct if you look at his life/beliefs/actions).

 

It also becomes an issue with Hussein when he regularly made appeals to Islamic extremists in his own country and across the world; Zaarqawi (spelling?) - The Al Quaeda no.2 at the time, now fortunately dead - visited Baghdad in the weeks prior to the invasion and he played a huge part in the conflict, essentially being a catalyst for a civil war in Iraq and helping turn it into a new platform for Al Quaeda after they were flushed out of Afghanistan.

 

You cannot dismiss the role of religion in the tyranny of Saddam if you're going to be serious about it.

[NJS 4506]

That ignores the long history of the factionism in Iraq - as usual borders drawn for a country in London took no heed of local "tribalism" for want of a better word - again my understanding is that Iraq is really 3 countries - Sunni, Shia and Kurd with broad geographical attachments. Of course a convenient division in say 1919 wouldn't have prevented later conflict but I think attributing the divisions to Saddam is a bit much.

 

I know all about Hitler's relationship with Catholicism which is why Ratzinger's remarks on his visit alluding to the Nazis rise being the result of secularism were particularly offensive imo.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

That ignores the long history of the factionism in Iraq - as usual borders drawn for a country in London took no heed of local "tribalism" for want of a better word - again my understanding is that Iraq is really 3 countries - Sunni, Shia and Kurd with broad geographical attachments. Of course a convenient division in say 1919 wouldn't have prevented later conflict but I think attributing the divisions to Saddam is a bit much.

 

I know all about Hitler's relationship with Catholicism which is why Ratzinger's remarks on his visit alluding to the Nazis rise being the result of secularism were particularly offensive imo.

 

Can you explain this a bit better? I'm not sure which bit of my post you're referring to when you say I'm ignoring the 'factionism' in Iraq. I am well aware of the tribal/religious elements in Iraq and as I mentioned in my post, Zarqaawi was a major catalyst for what is now essentially a civil war between them. As usual I detect a hint of masochism in your post, citing 'borders drawn for a country in London'; you love to attach blame to the West whenever possible and play down Saddam's reign of terror; far from doing a 'good job' of keeping factions 'in line' as you put it, He instigated a campaign of genocide against the Kurdish population in Iraq as early as 87 - before he had business/diplomatic arrangements with the West incidentally - and there was a small group of people who called for an intervention in 87. He wasn't trying to keep them in line so much as to wipe them out completely, and this appealed to the extremist religious elements within Iraq.

Then you say 'I think attributing the divisions to Saddam is a bit much', when I never attributed the Sunni/Shia split to Saddam. I don't know if you were referring to my post but it seems like you have been smoking salvia or some other hallucinogenic substance; I blame modern pop-stars like Myley Cyrus for setting a bad example to children such as yourself, but that's a separate issue.

My main point is simply that it is naive and incorrect to state that Saddam's regime was irreligious, it wasn't. He etched out a fucking Qu'uran in his own blood and you still look to deny it

Edited December 24, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[NJS 4506]

the society of Iraq descended into a volatile and fractious mess under his rule

 

I took that to mean you were suggesting that the factions arose during his reign which I then argued against - re-reading it I can see you meant that they were expanded/increased which is fair enough but I would argue that the divisions were nothing compared to post-invasion.

 

I guess people mention his regime as being secular (as I said opposed to discussing him personally) to compare and contrast that with the surrounding theocracies. I'm not saying a regime ran by terror is necessarily better as a whole but elements of it like having Christians in the government is something which would be a good idea to take out of the rest of it.

 

I'm not defending Saddam per se or just being anti-west for the sake of it - both "sides" have no moral high ground imo. You mentioned gassing Kurds in 87 - the west were perfectly happy to supply him with arms to fight Iran and the pre-cursors for the gas - as usual happy to deal with cunts for political expediancy. Of course you can argue that's the way of the world but as I've said before don't then try and bring morality into it.

 

I would enjoy arguing with you more if you didn't reach for the stupid insults as quickly.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

the society of Iraq descended into a volatile and fractious mess under his rule

 

I took that to mean you were suggesting that the factions arose during his reign which I then argued against - re-reading it I can see you meant that they were expanded/increased which is fair enough but I would argue that the divisions were nothing compared to post-invasion.

 

I guess people mention his regime as being secular (as I said opposed to discussing him personally) to compare and contrast that with the surrounding theocracies. I'm not saying a regime ran by terror is necessarily better as a whole but elements of it like having Christians in the government is something which would be a good idea to take out of the rest of it.

 

I'm not defending Saddam per se or just being anti-west for the sake of it - both "sides" have no moral high ground imo. You mentioned gassing Kurds in 87 - the west were perfectly happy to supply him with arms to fight Iran and the pre-cursors for the gas - as usual happy to deal with cunts for political expediancy. Of course you can argue that's the way of the world but as I've said before don't then try and bring morality into it.

 

I would enjoy arguing with you more if you didn't reach for the stupid insults as quickly.

 

The divisions exploded into a civil war post-invasion as I've said twice now, and this was instigated largely by Zaarqawi who had personally visited Baghdad in the weeks prior to the invasion, we can take it as a given that he corresponded with Saddam. Zaarqawi's plan was to use Iraq as a platform for Al Quaeda forces after they had been driven from Afghanistan and he has achieved this (though he is now dead). Iraqi society was in a decrepit state and on the verge of collapse during the years prior to the invasion, and it would be stupid to suggest that some sort of peaceful transition would have occurred once Saddam's regime failed. Totalitarian rule always results in atrocity, and after decades of it Iraq had become a scrofulous murder-zone. I for one do not absolve the Ba'athists of their role in this, though many of the anti-war crowd do - you would appear to be an example of one of them - and point the finger solely at the coalition forces.

To state that Western governments have no moral high-ground over Saddam Hussein's regime is problematic. For starters, the governments you are referring to are democracies and therefore the government changes in these countries, potentially after every election. So, for instance, we cannot hold Tony Blair responsible for arms deals that were made with Iraq by previous UK governments, and Blair is on record as stating that far from being 'the way of the world', such deals were a grave misjudgment. Sticking with Blair, prior to Iraq he had an excellent record when it came to conflict: his efforts regarding Kosovo, Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone in particular are worthy of merit. Your statement RE the moral high-ground was quite glib, but if you truly believe that Tony Blair (sticking with him as an example) was no better than Saddam Hussein on a moral level then I will be dumbfounded by your ignorance; how could you ever expect to be taken seriously with such beliefs (if that is your view, I would hope for your sanity that it isn't)?

 

If you do believe that the U.K. has no moral high-ground over regimes such as Saddam Hussein's then why do you choose to live here?

 

On a personal level I believe dealing with 'cunts' or totalitarian regimes for political expediency is immoral, and I wouldn't condone it.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[NJS 4506]

I agree with you up to a point over Blair but there's an extra factor regarding this conflict which leaves him open to more criticism - his religosity and to an extent that of Bush. You can't start off by having a go at Saddam for being more of a Muslim than his defenders (however far they go in that defence) would like, without mentioning people who admit to praying for guidance over decisions and who hold the view that there is a higher authority than man who will judge their actions.

 

I don't hold that the UK has no moral high ground over evil regimes - just that that morality is not as untainted as is claimed.