The recurring argument that Saddam, Khadaffi and co. were ''secular''

[sarahtasher]

Disclaimer : it could be said that they are more secular than other despots in the region, that's it.


In pretty much every thread about the region, it's brought up that those fellows were ''secular'', unlike their foes, who are religious

I have a simple comparison to make : whatever he actually thought, can you imagine a POTUS candidate actually being hostile (not just neutral, fighting actively religious influence and imposing laws) to christianism in the US (please do not bring the ''War on Christmas, you will be look embarassing) ?

As people repeatedly took pain to repeat here on a daily basis, people in the region tend to be quite religious and it would be unthinkable for a leader to be secular in the sense understood in the United States (let alone Europe) The exalted leaders of the area are a-okay with killing fundamentalists whose plan is to dehtrone them

But any cursory knowledge of the story of those wonderful regimes would show you that Khadaffi, Sassam and Assad are perfectly fine with using religion, and for the first two openly islamist policies (but with them as the exalted leader)

Most obvious example : ''Khadaffi the secular'' had a unit of (in his mind) SPECTRE like special operative to bring revolution around the world, the Islamic Legion. The fact that this unit was incompetent and poorly led even for the Libyan army and managed to be routed several times by improvised African militias was a poor consolation to the fact that ''Khadaffi the secular'' lent the unit to regimes that were quite openly Islamist and pursuing islamist goals (1)-Idi Amin of Uganda, for instance (in a mostly Christian country) or rebels outfits in Chad.

Khadaffi the secular also used the fairly unique approach for a secular leader to outright bribe dubious African kleptocrats to convert to Islam (like Bokassa and Mobutu..but showing the limits of the accumen of the Exalted Leader, they took the money and ignored the conversion...)

(1)''Islamist'' in the broad sense of ''pushing for the domination, coined in a mix of Marxist and religious jabbering, of local muslim minorities in targeted countries

[Calfredd]

First time I ever heard any of these guys being "secular".

[Powerogue]

can you imagine a POTUS candidate actually being hostile (not just neutral, fighting actively religious influence and imposing laws) to christianism

Bruh do you honestly think that's going to happen any time soon? Off the top of my head they're something like 70% of the country or more right now. You darn near have to be christian to run for public office.

And I'm not sure where this is even going as far as those country leaders. Even if that's true, terrible people come in all shapes and sizes, we shouldn't be surprised at that by now.

[Deleted]

First time I ever heard any of these guys being "secular".

Saddam himself was a Sunni and became more Religious in his later years. However his Government (Baath party) was secular and had no problems with giving power to those of other faiths aslong as they were loyal to Saddam and his party.

For example example his former Foreign Minister was a Christian.

[Deleted]

What a retarded thread. *Checks OP name*

Oh...

[Independent voter]

They say Assad is secular too. The thing is these guys are connected to, leaders of groups, tribes that are anything but secular.

Assad gets support from Iran and Hezbolah soley because Assad is the leader of the Alawite people who are Shiites. Russia who is currently bombing Syria's Sunnis is seen as a Shiite ally.

Everything in the Middle East has to be viewed in a religious light.

[Deleted]

Do you live in an alternative universe where a Middle Eastern leader can swish his wand and turn his country into the wonderfully stable democratic kind you daydream about?

[Stelio Kontos]

Do you live in an alternative universe where a Middle Eastern leader can swish his wand and turn his country into the wonderfully stable democratic kind you daydream about?

Check out OP's post history, weird analogies and apologism are just a few of the magical things you'll find. As well as a pretty bigoted dislike of anyone with differing views or values.

[Elim Garak]

Secular doesn't mean atheistic. Duh.

[Sunseeker]

Secular doesn't mean atheistic. Duh.

Yes, these leaders were "secular" in the sense that they tolerated a multitude of religions in their country and kept people from killing each other (to a large degree) over matters of faith. That's more or less what "secular" means here in the West too, we're probably just more practiced at it.

[Deleted]

Are we seriously white washing tyrannic dictators just because they were the "lesser evil" option?

[nextormento]

If it helps, I always read OP's post on any topic as a fantasy/steampunk project.

[Berri]

Saddam's Ba'ath Party was secular, but discriminated strongly against non-arabs / those that identified with ethnic (often religion-based) minorities.

Saddam practiced personalist rule that rivalled Stalin's, which tends to translate into a phenomenon where the dictator basically wants people to replace religion with reverence for the leader (see North Korea's regime).

[Spectral]

Well, yeah, the Islamic world is a basket-case, a toxic stew of religiosity, instability, and third-rate dictatorship. When people say that Saddam and Ghaddafi were secular and stable, they're comparing them to the other Islamic options, not to European standards.

- - - Updated - - -

What does it matter? All our leaders are Christians. We should be worried....Christianity has a history of nutcases.

The general nuttiness factor of modern Christian leaders in Europe and in descendant nations of the UK is pretty low. Drawing a false equivalence between the ceremonial religiosity of German leaders and the vicious theocracies of the Middle East is absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we seriously white washing tyrannic dictators just because they were the "lesser evil" option?

No. We're noticing that they're significantly better for the West than the Islamic extremists that replaced them after the West piously brought democracy.

[SoulForge]

Are we seriously white washing tyrannic dictators just because they were the "lesser evil" option?

Isn't that how we vote her in the US? The lesser evil?

[Deleted]

I don't know if those two were indeed tyrants,the truth is that both iraq and Libya were fine and peaceful countries before the us and ally armys got their boots in their grounds.Now both are total mess.

[ParanoiD84]

I don't know if those two were indeed tyrants,the truth is that both iraq and Libya were fine and peaceful countries before the us and ally armys got their boots in their grounds.Now both are total mess.

Kurd genocides, iran/Iraq war just to name a few, and a quick look at history there where pretty much always conflicts in those regions but that is muslims fighting muslims like we have now in syria/Iraq.

[satimy]

They were secular compared to the other Muslim countries in the region.

[Ealyssa]

Are we seriously white washing tyrannic dictators just because they were the "lesser evil" option?

How is a fact "whitewashing" ? How is ISIS better than Saddam for Irak and, more important to us, the whole world ?

These dictators (at least Sadamm, Khadaffi was more extreme and unstable) were better than the batshit crazy religious terrorists we put in place, simple as that.

Being all "These dictators are monster using and hurting their own people" is all moraly fine and makes you feel good. Countries can even choose to act against them. But better be sure to make things better after that, not worse like in every single country in the recent years...

It's actually more "we removed horrible dictator and brought hope" that is the real "whitewashing"

[Venant]

Bruh do you honestly think that's going to happen any time soon? Off the top of my head they're something like 70% of the country or more right now. You darn near have to be christian to run for public office.

And I'm not sure where this is even going as far as those country leaders. Even if that's true, terrible people come in all shapes and sizes, we shouldn't be surprised at that by now.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the leaked Clinton emails and how her people view the Catholic church, but then again the corporate media seems to be imposing a blackout on any stories that could be seen as negative for Clinton.

- - - Updated - - -

These dictators (at least Sadamm, Khadaffi was more extreme and unstable) were better than the batshit crazy religious terrorists we put in place, simple as that.

They aren't better for all the people who make money by selling the bombs used to drop on the 'batshit crazy terrorists', and boy is that a lucrative business when we apparently report killing the same terrorist in like ten different drone strikes. Organized governments tend to have this nasty habit of forming alliances with bigger governments like Russia, which makes it really inconvenient if you are looking to make your monthly munitions dumping quota.