[Krsqk]

The Al Queada was mortal enemies of the secular Bath party. I doubt Saddam would have given any advanced weapons to Bin Laden as they just as well could end up beeing used on Iraq. The main political backer of Al Queda was Afghanistan (logically), with much of the funding coming from "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

It stands to reason that nations with more fundamentalist Muslims would have more in common with Al Qaeda than with a secular leader such as Hussein. What you apparently fail to understand is the Arabic (and most Eastern cultures) view of enmity.
You apparently see it as:
Terrorists hate -> U.S. and U.K. and Saddam and Israel and ... all the same.

Arabs see it as a continuum:
Terrorists hate -> U.S. then Israel then U.K. then Saddam then ...
They will support anyone lower on the list against anyone higher on the list. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"; and, "My brother against my cousin, but my cousin against a stranger"--those sum up the Arabic philosophy of enmity.

Of course the terrorists hate Saddam, but they hate the U.S. more. Saddam is an Arab, at least; he pays well; they get plenty of women; and best of all, there's a chance to give the U.S. a black eye. Any fundamentalist Muslim is duty-bound to decry the U.S.'s actions. Of course, if the U.S. comes out victorious, that just means one more enemy is off the slate. The situation isn't to their liking, but at least they didn't lose everything.

[ April 11, 2003, 01:14: Message edited by: Krsqk ]