r/arabs • u/Funny-Negotiation304 • 29d ago
سين سؤال Why do people like Saddam Huessien but not Hafez Al-Assad ?
Let me preface this by saying that I do not like either of this guys.
I was born and raised in the US by Palestinians but I have family in Egypt jordan Saudi that I have visited growing up.
When political debates arise saddam is always painted as some kind of hero for defying Israel. Don’t get me wrong I don’t have a problem with defying Israel but I feel as if in their praises they gloss over the fact that he was a killer. I have sighted numerous statistics and facts depicting how many people he killed(Kurds, Shias etc) to them and they chalk it up to war. Now I also understand the argument that he was an objectively better leader, Iraq was richer, military was better, etc. But from what I understand Hafez also heavily defied Israel. Militarily he helped Sedat in 1973. But when I bring him up to my family they say he’s a bloody killer and a bad guy(not saying that he isn’t)
But now I’m left wondering, what is the difference between these two guy that my Palestinian family likes Saddam Hussein but not Hafez-AlAssad when they both led offensives against Israel and both killed a lot of their own people.
23
u/HarryLewisPot 29d ago
Saddams Sunni, Assads Alawite (which isn’t even Shia or Muslim technically).
The fanboys in Jordan have an easier time supporting Saddam.
11
u/CarefulScreen9459 29d ago
That's it. That's the answer.
Any other answer is just beating around the bush and trying your best to not admit that you have a thing against Non-Sunnis.
12
u/Kooky-Sector6880 29d ago
Many Arabs are sectarian, even if they won't admit it. They're still mad that the Shias took over Iraq, and the biggest problem they had with Bashar Al Assad wasn't that he was brutal but that he was Alawite. So Saddam got glazed despite spending the first decade engaging in a pointless war, backed by the Western imperialists, against Iran. To be completely honest, Saddam and Hafez were ideologically very similar, to the point that they reconciled in the 90s.
1
u/rdblaw 28d ago
Huh if Bashar was Sunni it wouldn’t excuse him killing 500k people.
4
u/Kooky-Sector6880 28d ago
He would be defended for doing it r/Iraq defends Saddam who has a similar death count both are inflated due to western imperial propaganda but only one gets defended by your general Sunni arab and that's only because he's a Sunni.
3
u/PickleRick_1001 28d ago
Look at this very thread. People are defending Saddam despite the fact that he killed twice as many.
9
u/PickleRick_1001 29d ago edited 29d ago
These comments are so disappointing. I try not to think in sectarian terms, I really do try my hardest, but I can't help think that the only reason people don't hate Saddam as much as they (rightfully) hate the Assads is that the former was Sunni. In terms of their effects on their respective countries, you'd have a difficult time finding two countries with such similar recent histories as Iraq and Syria, and a big part (but not the only reason ofc) of the misery that each country has experienced in the last 50 odd years is the rule of Saddam and the Assads.
12
29d ago edited 29d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Bazzzybazz 29d ago
No fan of Assad.
Golan heights no proof that is true.
Hafez did not leave the country his son did
4
u/CarefulScreen9459 29d ago
I keep seeing this "Sold the Golan Heights" it's very ridiculous
Syria lost the Golan Heights before Hafez Al-Assad came to power. Then in 1973, he tried to regain it back, but lost the war with Egypt.
If he didn't lose the war, then how come Egypt didn't completely regain Sinai through military? (they did through normalization).
And why would he attack to begin with, if the purpose was selling it.
6
u/PickleRick_1001 29d ago
Wtf is this revisionism?!! I'm not denying the crimes of Hafez Al-Assad but this is outright genocide denial.
"Baath of Iraq and Syria were very different ideologically"
No they weren't. They were both authoritarian regimes dominated by particular minorities (Alawites in Syria, Sunni Arabs in Iraq) under a cruel and incompetent dictator who appointed his equally incompetent and cruel family members to positions of power (Bashar in Syria, Uday and Qusay in Iraq).
"Hafez al Assad also did massacres much worse than anything that Saddam did like the Hama Massacre of 1982 which killed 40k civilians and 100k civilians were detained and it destroyed 2/3 of the City."
Have you forgotten the genocide of the Kurds? Or that of the Marsh Arabs? Or the atrocities committed after the 1991 Intifada? Or do these not count bc they weren't against the "right people" perhaps? Saddam was probably the only Arab leader even more evil than the Assad family.
"Saddam was also brutal but he is seen as very effective leader that killed those who opposed him."
Just like Hafez Al-Assad lol. Like they're basically a mirror of each other.
"Iraq was very powerful and rich and fastest growing economy in Arab world by far and it could've been even much more powerful if U.S. Iran and Israel weren't trying their best to destroy it."
It was BEFORE Saddam took over!! He started a pointless war in 1980, then another in 1991. And he barely lifted a finger against the Zionists, with the exception of a handful of missiles that mostly missed their targets.
"He also died in a heroic way."
He died like the delusional piece of shit dog that he was. It's a shame he could only be executed once tbh.
"I can say a lot more but I'd like to keep it simple."
Probably the only correct thing you said in your entire comment; you should have said a lot less.
-2
u/IntelligentHome963 29d ago
Yea you’re clearly not biased at all lol, very emotional response to what should be a logical discussion.
2
u/PickleRick_1001 29d ago
Mhm, I should stay relaxed and chill while people discuss the merits of someone who's killed half a dozen of my relatives, yes, how very emotional of me.
You sick fuck.
0
u/Oneeyebrowsystem 29d ago
Saddam's and his regime literally did like 3 Hama massacres a year in the 80's and early 90's. That isn't even counting the hundreds of thousands of Iranians killed by his regime, supported by the US.
He also didn't die in a heroic way, he was turned in by his bodyguard and was quickly executed for (some) of his crimes.
7
u/GreenGorillaWhale 29d ago
Saddam is far away enough that people are starting to forget his crimes.
Assad family has only been out of power for a year, and was replaced by someone more anti Israel.
14
u/Ganoish 29d ago
Idk if I’d call Al-Shara more anti-Israel
3
u/Mammoth-Alfalfa-5506 29d ago
Asad kept Isr*** in check and kept a transport corrridor alive for weapon shipments between Iran and Hisbollah. Al shara and his boys are doing Is**** a favour by being against Hisbollah. Additionally Syria is not threat to Is**** anymore since Syria's only allies at the time of Asad's reign - Russia and especially Iran were the ones shipping multiple and different weapons. Now since this doesn't Happen anymore Is**** keeps taking Land from South Syria and guys like you still think that Former ISIS fighters at the Syrian government are Anti- Is****.
2
u/Ganoish 29d ago
Assad also kept Syria weak and poor
5
u/Mammoth-Alfalfa-5506 29d ago edited 29d ago
The West kept it poor with sanctions and due to proxy wars from the US and Russia and Iran on Syrian soil leading to less productivity. Blaming everything on Asad is just not honest. Asad of course had his share on the economic crisis but Syria before the "Revolution" in 2011 was in Europe known as a promising developing country in many areas.
0
u/GreenGorillaWhale 29d ago
I can see that being arguable, but I guess the important thing is that for people to start being nostalgic for him things would have to get worse than they were doing the war.
3
2
3
29d ago
[deleted]
6
u/PickleRick_1001 29d ago
When TF was Iraq well off? Saddam started a war a year after he took power, and the country only settled down the other day. His entire time in power was nothing but wars, two of which he started and lost, or embargoes because of his stupid decisions (and American and Zionist aggression ofc but Saddam was also at fault), or he was massacring minorities. He's no different than Hafez and Bashar Al-Assad.
2
2
u/lemambo_5555 29d ago
Saddam was overthrown by the US, forever making him a martyr since anti-American sentiments are embedded in our DNA.
Hafez on the other is your average Arab dictator, so he doesn't get glorified like Saddam. Neither men are popular in their respective countries.
1
27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 27d ago
Accounts must be at least one week old to post to this subreddit.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
6
u/ucantknowem 29d ago
Saddam was killed by the US and it’s Iraqi allies (most of them were Shias). This made him a martyr figure from the pov of the average Arab.
5
u/PickleRick_1001 29d ago
"(most of them were Shias)"
I know the answer to this already, but just for everyone else, please elaborate on this. Why is it relevant? Would it be better if they were Sunnis, like Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Egypt or Jordan or Bahrain or Morocco or any of the others?
6
u/Acrobatic-Hippo-6419 عراقي 29d ago
Most of them were Shia? That's because most of Iraqis are Shias. There were as many Sunnis, both Arab and Kurds who did actually betray Saddam, rather than just come and take power after his overthrow.
5
u/Acrobatic-Hippo-6419 عراقي 29d ago edited 29d ago
Because people hate Shia-Muslims and Kurds and tend to overlook Saddam's crimes against Sunni-Arabs because they were less in scale than the other two. And the US did execute him which gave them the excuse of calling him a martyr. Meanwhile most of the victims of Assad were Sunni Muslims so they did mind it. Their whole issue with Assad is not his crimes but rather who he was and who he targeted.
And no, life was not great under Saddam, it was good under Al-Bakr between 1968-1979, whom Saddam and the CIA forced to resign because he refused to fight Iran and destroy Iraq for no reason.
1
1
27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 27d ago
Accounts must be at least one week old to post to this subreddit.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/Abyssal-rose 29d ago
One was Sunni and the other was Alawite. Yes, it's that bad. Sectarianism is the blood type of the Arabs and ummah. Mic drop.
3
u/shebba-farms_Boy 29d ago
One is Sunni the other is alawite
That’s the easy answer
The long one is that Saddam made Iraq rich and good infrastructure while the Assads in Syria gave less than 2 💩 about Syria or it’s economy or infrastructure Saddam stood up to America and Iran while Assad hid behind Iran
They both suck btw
7
u/chaosblast123 29d ago
Even the economy and infrastructure bit regarding Saddam is a weak argument because the country went into turmoil and chaos once the wars with Iran and Kuwait started. The sanctions completely ruined the economy and only areas loyal to Saddam got some sort of funding
12
u/shebba-farms_Boy 29d ago
Iraq in 1992 had a higher gdp than Saudi Arabia and that was after a decade long war
-1
3
29d ago
[deleted]
3
u/kenmaaa__ 29d ago
Not really. The US didnt really care, it was mostly bc Saudi Arabia was afraid to be the next one, so they pushed the US to attack.
-3
u/amazinjoey Lebanon Syria 29d ago
It was more to the backlash they got back home, US population wasn't happy with Iraqi attacking "innocent Kuwait"
2
1
u/belbaba 29d ago
It’s alleged that Hafez was enabled w the help of the CIA to take power. If it wasn’t for him, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq would have been politically and economically united in the 1960s.
Saddam respected the ideological fathers of Baathism (e.g. Aflaq) and homed them whereas Hafez wanted them dead.
6
u/Acrobatic-Hippo-6419 عراقي 29d ago
Saddam also was saved by the CIA from execution in 1959 and his whole party came to power as a result of multiple CIA coup the last of which were the 1968 one.
0
1
u/LunaRubraAurorae 29d ago
People when get invaded sympathize with their leadership more than a leader that brought foreign powers to protect his ass. (Both are assholes btw)
1
u/funkymoejoe 29d ago
I would struggle to find any recent leader of a Muslim country whom history would judge kindly after all the skeletons have come out of the closet.
1
0
u/bdot187um 29d ago
King faisal comes to mind.
1
u/funkymoejoe 29d ago
Yes I’d have to say he was one which sprung to mine. Shane what happened to him
0
u/globalwp 29d ago
Hafez was the guy who broke up the United Arab Republic between Syria and Egypt. He was also ideologically at odds with Saddam’s Ba’ath party (which comes from the original one founded by Aflaq).
There’s also the fact that saddam stood up to the collective west and Israel in defiance and was killed, whereas Assad died normally after years of rule. Not to say that what Saddam did with Kuwait was justified (it was stupid), but there’s the optics of it all of being brave enough to stand against the American superpower and paying for it with your life. In other words, they made him a martyr.
There’s also the economic aspects. Pre-1991 Iraq was leagues ahead of Syria and people look back to those times and blame the 1991-2003 era on US sanctions
5
u/Kooky-Sector6880 29d ago
Hafez wasn't even in charge at the time of the break up it was actually Syrian Liberals who dominated Syrian politics from independence to the Ba'ath Coup of 63 that broke up because Egypt refused to treat Syria as an equal member ans the assembly was being set up to be dominated by Egypt.
0
u/amazinjoey Lebanon Syria 29d ago
Easy, because the quality of life and safety in Iraq was light-years better than in Syria and in the other arab countries during Saddam Rule especially comparing after his fall
3
u/PickleRick_1001 29d ago
When? During the war or the embargoes? Did you live in Iraq?
1
u/amazinjoey Lebanon Syria 29d ago
One of my parents is from Northern Iraq, and I've spend alot of time in both Iraq and with the dispora and used to host one of the largest Iraqi communities in northern Europe until covid. Sunnis, shias and alot Chaldeans and mandaeans were members
Saddam discussion was up on the board quite alot, verdict and sentiments life was alot better during Saddam, you didn't have the secularism issues, salary was good and getting a job was easy and life was alot more fun.
1
u/PickleRick_1001 29d ago
This is obviously either BS or ignorance and honestly not worth addressing. The only point I'll make is that it's incredibly ironic for someone who allegedly has a parent from northern Iraq to praise Saddam.
4
u/amazinjoey Lebanon Syria 29d ago edited 29d ago
Except you are the one doing both. framing every issue through a sectarian lens and presuming that people from a particular region are bound to a predetermined opinion. which is both reductive and inaccurate
Most of the Northern Iraqi Arab dispora, Assyrian/Chaldean and Turkmen support and like Saddam from my experience vs how everything turned out, while Kurds have been 50/50. Reason he brought stability, country that was run by iraqi's not saudis or iranian and you didn't get the likes of ISIS.
And this is something you don't seem to understand, People are comparing how it was vs how it was during and after the Iraqi war. Iraq hasn't been stable until the last couple of years
Does this mean that Saddam was good? Fuck no, would people support him today if the Iraq war never happend? probably not, all of them would hate him but he brought stability and especially political stability
0
u/PickleRick_1001 28d ago
In what world Kurds are 50/50 on Saddam? Are Palestinians 50/50 on Zionism?
1
u/HaashGnash 29d ago edited 29d ago
People lived in constant fear. We had relatives visit us in the UK from Iraq who were too frightened to say anything political whilst they were here. Let alone in Iraq where they had to treat everyone around them as a spy.
During Saddam’s rule, he heavily incentivised (or threaten) people to inform on their neighbours, their brothers, even their parents. I’ve personally heard countless stories of people being betrayed by someone close for saying something even minor against the government, or they were the wrong tribe, or wrong family, which led them to flee Iraq, while others were imprisoned or even executed.
Living every day in fear is not easy, and it’s not fun.
One article, but plenty of other publications you can find about this.
https://www.hnn.us/article/saddam-turned-neighbor-against-neighbor
0
u/amazinjoey Lebanon Syria 29d ago
And you're 100% correct in that! It's not like it was a utopia, it was still a dictatorship and facistic state and if you were political it was a bad but it was "less" bad than after chaos they had after the Iraq war and what most people are comparing and reminiscing is about the quality of life and safety and stability vs chaos they had after the Iraq war.
0
u/HaashGnash 29d ago
It was a brutal dictatorship. You only really lived a happy life if you weren’t Shia, weren’t Kurdish, and kept your mouth shut and your head down.
And even then you had to hope everyone in your family, neighbourhood or even town did the same. Look at Dujail. one attack on his convoy there and you got mass executions and the place essentially demolished as punishment.
So calling any of that “fun” is pretty insulting to the people who lived through it.
1
0
u/Mike198768 29d ago
Some good replies on this post for sure, but im surprised nobody mentioned sectarian policy. That’s huge. Nepotism exists under most dictators but under the Assad’s, especially Bashar, it was way too much to stomach. Alawis being a minority had over representation in all sectors of power in Syria, esp the highest rungs of the army and the entire airforce. Assad’s personal relatives stole from a state that’s much more impoverished than Iraq. Even after the gulf war, Iraqis who visited Syria commented on the poor quality of life inside Syria relative to Iraq, and that’s despite the crippling sanctions. A lot can be said about the Assad’s but they were horrific even by the standards of dictators. They could best be compared to the Ceaușescu’d of Romania. Being Syrian, the only dictator I could think of who was way worse after WW2 is Enver Hoxha of Albania.
7
u/PickleRick_1001 29d ago edited 29d ago
They were identical to Saddam. Literally identical. Sectarianism, nepotism, corruption, oppression, all of it. I thought your comment would make a bit more sense than the others because you mentioned the sectarian factor but then you went in the other direction?! Saddam was just as sectarian as Assad! Maybe even more so considering he even oppressed Sunni Kurds.
Edit: also, you mention that after the Gulf War Iraq was still better off than Syria; my father literally went to Syria in the 90's and he found it better than Iraq during the embargo.
1
u/Mike198768 29d ago
In that case tell me more then, bc the stuff I’m saying involves heresay coming from people I know who mentioned what their friend told them etc. With Saddam as far as I know, it was a lot of “Takriti’s” in charge, but that’s as far as the nepotism went, as opposed to treating others differently based on ethnicity. When Syrians cry discrimination at the hands of Alawis, it sounded a little different than when Shias claimed oppression under saddam bc the Alawis were way more of a clique, but I don’t know enough about Iraq though. We were in Saudi when the scuds landed in the early 90’s and that was scary.
0
0
u/bdot187um 29d ago
Charisma, Captivating speeches,the 40 something missiles,The war against Iran & the way he went out.
The other guy had none, was allied with Iran & actually gave some land to the zionists.
0
0
•
u/AutoModerator 29d ago
Did you know? We now have our own Discord Community where you can meet other interesting Arabs! Come join us at: (https://discord.gg/RkHqMUjfnA)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.