• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Life as a Christian in a "free" Iraq

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
I find it ironic that we are there to "liberate the Iraqi" people from the "oppressive regime" that "ruled with an iron fist" so that we could install our very own puppet government to help dispense Bush's versions of what a country built on freedom really is......and this is what it is like:


Linkage

Fear overshadows Christmas joy in Baghdad

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The biggest celebration of the year for Christians is only a day away, yet the Virgin Mary Church in Baghdad wears a deserted, almost forlorn look.

The festive lights and glittery decorations of years past are nowhere to be seen.

A small, unshapely tree with silver and purple ornaments stands near the pulpit -- a poor substitute for a traditional giant Christmas tree that, in years past, was decorated to the sounds of young men and women singing hymns.

Just six women came to evening prayers a few days ahead of Christmas, leaving rows of pews empty in the dimly lit church.

It wasn't always this way.

"We used to celebrate this occasion by praying, and hundreds of believers would gather and wish each other well in the church lobby," said Father Boutros Haddad, the priest at the church in Baghdad's predominantly Christian neighborhood. "But we've stopped this because of the security situation."

Yet another somber Christmas is rolling by for
Iraq's roughly 600,000 Christians, who enjoyed relative freedom under Saddam, but now live in fear of attacks from increasingly powerful Islamist groups and militias.

Since Saddam's downfall, churches have been bombed, Christian-run liquor stores attacked and many more in the small community killed or kidnapped.

CHAINED TO SADNESS

Many have already abandoned Iraq for less dangerous pastures like Jordan and
Syria. Others do not dare venture out to church.

"We left Iraq for Syria last year because of the tough times we've been through, we couldn't take it any longer," said 26-year-old Rana Noah, in Baghdad briefly for a funeral before she heads back to Syria.

For those left in Iraq, the festive season bears little resemblance to the celebrations of years past. Shops in Baghdad that sell Christmas trees and ornaments still display their wares, but business is far from thriving.

"I didn't see any of my regular customers this year because many of them left Iraq after the bombing of churches last year," said 43-year old Sajid Rasool Shakir, who has been selling Christmas trees in Baghdad every year for years.

At least 20 people were killed in attacks on churches in Baghdad and Mosul in the latter half of 2004.

Gone is all sense of joy.

In years gone by, churchgoers would arrive at mass at 9:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve and spill out onto the streets after midnight, hugging and wishing each other, recalls Mohammad Hikmat, a tutor at the Virgin Mary church.

For the third year in a row, Baghdad's night-time curfew will make such celebrations impossible.

"We pray for peace in Iraq this year, but we do it out of duty and not joy," said Hikmat. "We are chained to sadness, we need peace more than ever."

 
I find it ironic that we are there to "liberate the Iraqi" people from the "oppressive regime" that "ruled with an iron fist" so that we could install our very own puppet government to help dispense Bush's versions of what a country built on freedom really is......and this is what it is like:

Even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you really do care passionately about the plight of Christians in Iraq, that would be shattered the moment one entered the thread to find that for you, it's simply another convienient club to beat over Bush's head.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
I find it ironic that we are there to "liberate the Iraqi" people from the "oppressive regime" that "ruled with an iron fist" so that we could install our very own puppet government to help dispense Bush's versions of what a country built on freedom really is......and this is what it is like:

Even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you really do care passionately about the plight of Christians in Iraq, that would be shattered the moment one entered the thread to find that for you, it's simply another convienient club to beat over Bush's head.

Why is it so hard for some to realize that Bush has made a complete clusterfvck of Iraq? You don't have to give me the benefit of the doubt, I will tell you outright. I don't give a sh*t about the plight of Christians in relation to the rest of humanity. They are no better or worse than the Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Tibetan Monks, Athiests or whatever denomination of religious (or lack thereof) subsect of society you so happen to pick. Each should be judged based upon their own merits/actions.

I am appalled at the "Christians" that believe with all their hearts that they should do "the Lord's work" and pattern their lives as Jesus did his yet not only condone, but turn a blind eye to everything that this administration is doing or has done to make humanity worse for the majority of the world's, not just our own country's people. And I am even more appalled at Christians that believe that they or their religion is above criticism. Neither is the case.
 
Why is it so hard for some to realize that Bush has made a complete clusterfvck of Iraq?

You have completely lost your mind or have no moral compass whatsoever. Iraq has been a clusterfvck since the 1950s, if not earlier. The U.S. and the world abandoned the Iraqi people for generations to a megalomanical dictator whose crimes against humanity are well known. Toppling Saddam and giving them the chance (not the same as a guarantee) to achieve something better is the very least we could do for a nation which the rest of the world willingly sold into bondage for a few pieces of silver and the shameful notion of "foreign policy realism."
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
I find it ironic that we are there to "liberate the Iraqi" people from the "oppressive regime" that "ruled with an iron fist" so that we could install our very own puppet government to help dispense Bush's versions of what a country built on freedom really is......and this is what it is like:

Even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you really do care passionately about the plight of Christians in Iraq, that would be shattered the moment one entered the thread to find that for you, it's simply another convienient club to beat over Bush's head.

The silliest thing is .. you think Bush doesn't deserve it....

Who cares who posted the information or not.. REFUTE the post .. not the poster.
 
Fear overshadows Christmas joy in Baghdad

Gone is all sense of joy.

"We pray for peace in Iraq this year, but we do it out of duty and not joy," said Hikmat. "We are chained to sadness, we need peace more than ever."
James 1:2

"Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, ..."

I Peter 3:14

"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened."
obviously i can't relate to their situation, but i know the early christian church could, and it sounds like either the writer is painting a terribly pessimistic view of the people there or they need to open their bibles again.
 
The silliest thing is .. you think Bush doesn't deserve it....

Who cares who posted the information or not.. REFUTE the post .. not the poster.[/quote]

What exactly is to be refuted? Should I parse his words, dispute that he finds it "ironic?" That Ba'athist Iraq wasn't an "oppressive regime?" That despite 3 elections in a year, that it's not a "puppet government" even though we could have easily left a Proconsul like Brenner in there more or less indefinitely under a U.N. mandate? Or from the article, that Easter is the biggest celebration of the year for Christians, not Christmas? Or that anecdotal stories about a religious group's level of joy for a holiday is the benchmark for progress in Iraq? Or something else entirely?
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
The silliest thing is .. you think Bush doesn't deserve it....

Who cares who posted the information or not.. REFUTE the post .. not the poster.

What exactly is to be refuted? Should I parse his words, dispute that he finds it "ironic?" That Ba'athist Iraq wasn't an "oppressive regime?" That despite 3 elections in a year, that it's not a "puppet government" even though we could have easily left a Proconsul like Brenner in there more or less indefinitely under a U.N. mandate? Or from the article, that Easter is the biggest celebration of the year for Christians, not Christmas? Or that anecdotal stories about a religious group's level of joy for a holiday is the benchmark for progress in Iraq? Or something else entirely?
[/quote]


You sounded like one of the many Reeps in here who fight with the poster as a way to hide from the truth in the post..

Truth is The Christians were safer in Iraq under the Secular leader named Saddam Hussein.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: glenn1
The silliest thing is .. you think Bush doesn't deserve it....

Who cares who posted the information or not.. REFUTE the post .. not the poster.

What exactly is to be refuted? Should I parse his words, dispute that he finds it "ironic?" That Ba'athist Iraq wasn't an "oppressive regime?" That despite 3 elections in a year, that it's not a "puppet government" even though we could have easily left a Proconsul like Brenner in there more or less indefinitely under a U.N. mandate? Or from the article, that Easter is the biggest celebration of the year for Christians, not Christmas? Or that anecdotal stories about a religious group's level of joy for a holiday is the benchmark for progress in Iraq? Or something else entirely?


You sounded like one of the many Reeps in here who fight with the poster as a way to hide from the truth in the post..

Truth is The Christians were safer in Iraq under the Secular leader named Saddam Hussein.
[/quote]

The fact that Iraqi Christians were not oppressed under Saddam doesn't change the fact that he committed a multitude of atrocities against others in his country, that he at one point possessed and used chemical weapons, or that he often aided terror cells.

Why don't you answer glenn's question? What exactly is to be refuted? The msnbc article says that these Christians are being targeted because they supported the United States and the invasion. Neither article says that the Christians blame us or Bush for their situation. I think you misunderstand the fact that it is the radical extremists who are bombing Christian churches, not Bush. The article even says some of the Iraqis are heading to the US upon leaving Baghdad.

Granted, Bush isn't exactly my first choice to oversee the creation of a new Iraqi government or the suppression of an insurrection, but the Democrat's nominee to replace him had neither the resources or a plan to do a better job, and I for one am getting sick of the whiners on this forum who prefer to complain about the current president than to propose a new candidate that will do a better job.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Why is it so hard for some to realize that Bush has made a complete clusterfvck of Iraq?

You have completely lost your mind or have no moral compass whatsoever. Iraq has been a clusterfvck since the 1950s, if not earlier. The U.S. and the world abandoned the Iraqi people for generations to a megalomanical dictator whose crimes against humanity are well known. Toppling Saddam and giving them the chance (not the same as a guarantee) to achieve something better is the very least we could do for a nation which the rest of the world willingly sold into bondage for a few pieces of silver and the shameful notion of "foreign policy realism."

So? Bush just fvcked it up more with his lie of a war. Not worth one American life or one cent! If you were "compassionate" for the Iraqi people, you would be there on the front lines helping them out instead of agreeing it's OK for other people's money to pay the bill of the clusterfvck! 🙂
 
Originally posted by: spunkz
The fact that Iraqi Christians were not oppressed under Saddam doesn't change the fact that he committed a multitude of atrocities against others in his country
Such as?

, that he at one point possessed and used chemical weapons
Which pre-cursors were sold to him from US companies with the knowledge of the US government and use against Iranians, for example, were done with the US condoning the action

or that he often aided terror cells.
Oh? News to everyone. Got a link to back up that claim?
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Why is it so hard for some to realize that Bush has made a complete clusterfvck of Iraq?

You have completely lost your mind or have no moral compass whatsoever. Iraq has been a clusterfvck since the 1950s, if not earlier. The U.S. and the world abandoned the Iraqi people for generations to a megalomanical dictator whose crimes against humanity are well known. Toppling Saddam and giving them the chance (not the same as a guarantee) to achieve something better is the very least we could do for a nation which the rest of the world willingly sold into bondage for a few pieces of silver and the shameful notion of "foreign policy realism."
Actually in the 1950s Iraq was on a path to become quite stable and part of a sizable organization of the Middle East along with Egypt. And, oddity of oddities, the version of the communist party at that time was the one offering the stability. Although, it wasn't communism as we knew in the form of Russia or Cuba...more along the lines of strong nationalism. Wasn't until Saddam gained power that things turned worse internally.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: spunkz
The fact that Iraqi Christians were not oppressed under Saddam doesn't change the fact that he committed a multitude of atrocities against others in his country
Such as?
you are aware of the current trial involving Saddam? surely you know what the charges are?
, that he at one point possessed and used chemical weapons
Which pre-cursors were sold to him from US companies with the knowledge of the US government and use against Iranians, for example, were done with the US condoning the action
link to US approval of chemical weapon use? i'm assuming that happened long before i could vote. in any case, who condoned or rebuked such actions at the time is irrelevant and doesn't change my argument.
or that he often aided terror cells.
Oh? News to everyone. Got a link to back up that claim?
Link

example:
* Abdul Rahman Yasin is an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb used in the first World Trade Center attack on February 26, 1993. We know this because he has confessed--twice to the FBI and once on national television in the United States. He fled to Iraq on March 5,1993, with the help of an Iraqi Intelligence operative working under cover in the Iraqi Embassy in Amman, Jordan. A reporter for Newsweek interviewed Yasin's neighbors in Baghdad who reported that he was living freely and "working for the government." U.S. soldiers uncovered Iraqi government documents in postwar Iraq that confirm this. The documents show Yasin was given both safe haven and financing by the Iraqi regime until the eve of the war in Iraq.


if this is false information and Saddam didn't in fact offer aid to known terrorists, then i would love to know the truth. feel free to enlighten me.
 
I recently read a piece about the Iraqi christians fleeing... to Syria... where the govt actually protects freedom of religion...

Also one about the few remaining Syrian Jews, also protected by the govt...

There are, apparently, a lot of different kinds and definitions of repression...
 
Originally posted by: spunkz
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: spunkz
The fact that Iraqi Christians were not oppressed under Saddam doesn't change the fact that he committed a multitude of atrocities against others in his country
Such as?
you are aware of the current trial involving Saddam? surely you know what the charges are?
Yes, he's on trial which, afaik, means he's innocent until proven guilty, right? Or is justice in the new democratic Iraq different from our own? Also, my understanding is that the people killed in the incident at hand in the trial were not killed by the hand of Saddam nor necessarily at the order of Saddam. We'll see what happens with the trial. Now, aside from that, answer the question.

, that he at one point possessed and used chemical weapons
Which pre-cursors were sold to him from US companies with the knowledge of the US government and use against Iranians, for example, were done with the US condoning the action
link to US approval of chemical weapon use? i'm assuming that happened long before i could vote. in any case, who condoned or rebuked such actions at the time is irrelevant and doesn't change my argument.
Irrelevant? What kind of bullsh*t dismissal is that? Bucking to be King Apologist or something? That's a ridiculous statement and is insulting to anyone with a brain. It's completely relevant as the US is now pushing for a trial for "crimes" committed while the US supported Saddam and even condoned his actions back then. It's like telling your kid it's ok to punch some kid at school and then 20 years later put your kid up on trial for assault.

As for proof of the US sending chemical weapons pre-cursors to Saddam, search the threads up here (probably in the archives by now). It was a firm in Tennessee, I believe, that was selling the chemicals all with the knowledge of the US gov't.

or that he often aided terror cells.
Oh? News to everyone. Got a link to back up that claim?
Link

example:
* Abdul Rahman Yasin is an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb used in the first World Trade Center attack on February 26, 1993. We know this because he has confessed--twice to the FBI and once on national television in the United States. He fled to Iraq on March 5,1993, with the help of an Iraqi Intelligence operative working under cover in the Iraqi Embassy in Amman, Jordan. A reporter for Newsweek interviewed Yasin's neighbors in Baghdad who reported that he was living freely and "working for the government." U.S. soldiers uncovered Iraqi government documents in postwar Iraq that confirm this. The documents show Yasin was given both safe haven and financing by the Iraqi regime until the eve of the war in Iraq.


if this is false information and Saddam didn't in fact offer aid to known terrorists, then i would love to know the truth. feel free to enlighten me.
Weekly Standard?!?! AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! The PNAC Weekly!

Give me a fvcking break!

Remember, it's the PNACers that were in the gov't and the Pentagon that brought Chalabi and his lying toadies into the fold to pass off lies and exaggerations as "intelligence" in order to justify invading Iraq.

As for Yasin:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/163200
# In the case of Saudi Arabia Cheney said that it was irrelevant that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. But in the case of Iraqis, Cheney used a different spin.

# Tim Russert questioning Vice President Dick Cheney on ?Meet the Press? September 14, 2003:
Vice President Dick Cheney: We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact.
Cheney is talking about Abdul Rahman Yasin. He is listed among the FBI's top 25 most wanted. He is accused of participating in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and has a $25 million bounty on his head.

But there is a lot that Cheney did not say about Yasin. First, Yasin is an American citizen who was born in Bloomington, Indiana. Second, the FBI questioned Yasin shortly after the 1993 bombing, characterized him as cooperative and then allowed him to leave the country. But what is perhaps most interesting is that when Yasin left the US he went to Iraq where he lived for a year before being arrested by Iraqi intelligence agents in 1994. Last summer 60 Minutes interviewed him in Baghdad in an Iraqi intelligence facility. It was the first time he was seen since the 1993 attacks. Former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told 60 Minutes that twice Iraq attempted to hand him over to the US, once in 1994 when Clinton was President and again after the attacks on September 11.

Aziz said that in October of 2001, the Iraqi government sent word to the CIA through an Egyptian government emissary and an unnamed second government that Yasin was in custody in Iraq and that Baghdad wanted to hand him over. Aziz said the only condition was that the U.S. sign a receipt saying that Iraq had handed him over. The U.S. again rejected the offer with officials later saying the Iraqis were placing too many demands on Washington in return for Yasin. Despite the comments of Cheney, implying that Yasin shows a link between Iraq and attacks against the World Trade Center, he was not included in the Pentagon?s deck of the 55 most wanted, despite the fact that he is listed on the FBI?s top 25 most wanted list.

* Stephen Somerstein, lawyer for Abdul Rahman Yasin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: I'm Amy Goodman. The case of Saudi Arabia, vice president Cheney said it was irrelevant that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, but in the case of Iraqis Cheney used a different spin.

We know for example in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of 1993.

We've learned subsequent to that since we got into Baghdad and got into intelligence files this individual probably received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original world trade center bombing of 1993? we know as I say that one of the perpetrators of that act did in fact receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. Vice President Cheney is talking about Abdul Rahman Yasin. He is listed among the F.B.I.'s top 25 most wanted.

He's accused of participating in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, has $25 million bounty on his head.

But there is a lot Cheney did not say about Yasin, first an American citizen born in Bloomington, Indiana. Second, the F.B.I. questioned him shortly after the 1993 bombing and characterized him as cooperative and let him go.

But what is perhaps most interesting is that when Yasin left the United States he went to Iraq where he lived for a year before being arrested by Iraqi intelligence agents in 1994. Last summer 60 minutes interviewed him in Baghdad in Iraqi intelligence facility, it was first time he was seen since the 1993 attacks.

Former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told "60 Minutes" that twice Iraq attempt to hand Yasin over to the United States once in 1994 under Clinton and again after the attacks on September 11th. Aziz said in October of 2001 the Iraqi government sent word to the C.I.A. through an Egyptian government emissary that unnamed second government that Yasin was in custody in Iraq and that Baghdad wanted to hand him over. Aziz says the only condition was that the U.S. sign receipt saying that Iraq had handed him over. The U.S. again rejected the offer with officials later saying the Iraqis were placing too many demands on Washington in return for Yasin. Despite the comments of Cheney, implying that Yasin shows a link between Iraq and attacks against the World Trade Center, he was not included in the Pentagon's deck of the 55 most wanted despite the fact that he is listed on the F.B.I.'s top 25 most wanted list.

Stephen Somerstein joins us, lawyer for Yasin. Can you tell us about your client Yasin, were you surprised to hear Cheney raise him as justification for the current attack on Iraq?

STEPHEN SOMERSTEIN: Well, surprised and not surprised. It seems that the government refers to Mr. Yasin any time it's convenient for their own propaganda purposes.

AMY GOODMAN: You have Cheney saying that there is this man that Iraq has basically harbored all these years which is responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

And yet the information that he had been arrested, the U.S. authorities had released him, he went to Iraq, he was jailed in Iraq, Iraq tried to hand him over twice.

And U.S. under Bush and Cheney has refused to accept him now does not even include him in this deck of cards not to mention meaning, saying he's not one of the most wanted even though he's one of the F.B.I.'s 25 most wanted.

STEPHEN SOMERSTEIN: Well, our understanding is that he was indicted and was merely accused. There's never been a trial, he's never been convicted, the United States government has never produced or made public any real evidence against him.

It's been my belief over the last ten or so years that they find Mr. Yasin more valuable to them on the loose when they can just talk about him for their own purposes rather than actually bring him to trial where he might be acquitted.

As far as we know there's no real evidence linking him to the World Trade Center bombing.

AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Somerstein the attorney for Abdul Yasin.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
I'll take the word of Yasin's lawyer over the lies of the PNAC fvcks ANY day of the week.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml
Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. He lived as a free man for a year, but the authorities in Iraq tell CBS News they put him in prison in 1994. After 9/11, President Bush put Yasin on a new most wanted list, with a $25 million reward.

...

Yasin was picked up by the FBI a few days after the bombing in an apartment in Jersey City, N.J., that he was sharing with his mother. He was so helpful and cooperative, giving the FBI names and addresses, that they released him.

Yasin says he was even driven back home in an FBI car.
 
Empty accusations and parroted agitprop from the Weekly Standard?

It's their stock in trade. It's what they do, and who they are- the propaganda organ of the PNAC...
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: glenn1
The silliest thing is .. you think Bush doesn't deserve it....

Who cares who posted the information or not.. REFUTE the post .. not the poster.

What exactly is to be refuted? Should I parse his words, dispute that he finds it "ironic?" That Ba'athist Iraq wasn't an "oppressive regime?" That despite 3 elections in a year, that it's not a "puppet government" even though we could have easily left a Proconsul like Brenner in there more or less indefinitely under a U.N. mandate? Or from the article, that Easter is the biggest celebration of the year for Christians, not Christmas? Or that anecdotal stories about a religious group's level of joy for a holiday is the benchmark for progress in Iraq? Or something else entirely?


You sounded like one of the many Reeps in here who fight with the poster as a way to hide from the truth in the post..

Truth is The Christians were safer in Iraq under the Secular leader named Saddam Hussein.
[/quote]

If Iraq was such a rosey paradise for Christian folk, I doubt my sister-in-law's parents would have brought the family over here to the cesspool known as Detroit in 1977.

It amazes me how ignorant most of the posters here are. As if BOBD...err, I mean "BBond" has any idea what it/was like for the average Christian living in Iraq, or for that matter really cared. I won't even waste much time with Conjur's disturbing Saddam apologies: That's right folks, Saddam is innocent until proven guilty but its a fact that Bush mailed Daschle anthrax 'cuz he was pissed for not being granted war powers. If "BBond" and Conjur weren't so obsessed I might be amused, but instead I worry for what might happen to the innocent folk in their vicinity when either ultimately does crack and lose it.

 
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: glenn1
The silliest thing is .. you think Bush doesn't deserve it....

Who cares who posted the information or not.. REFUTE the post .. not the poster.

What exactly is to be refuted? Should I parse his words, dispute that he finds it "ironic?" That Ba'athist Iraq wasn't an "oppressive regime?" That despite 3 elections in a year, that it's not a "puppet government" even though we could have easily left a Proconsul like Brenner in there more or less indefinitely under a U.N. mandate? Or from the article, that Easter is the biggest celebration of the year for Christians, not Christmas? Or that anecdotal stories about a religious group's level of joy for a holiday is the benchmark for progress in Iraq? Or something else entirely?


You sounded like one of the many Reeps in here who fight with the poster as a way to hide from the truth in the post..

Truth is The Christians were safer in Iraq under the Secular leader named Saddam Hussein.

If Iraq was such a rosey paradise for Christian folk, I doubt my sister-in-law's parents would have brought the family over here to the cesspool known as Detroit in 1977.

It amazes me how ignorant most of the posters here are. As if BOBD...err, I mean "BBond" has any idea what it/was like for the average Christian living in Iraq, or for that matter really cared. I won't even waste much time with Conjur's disturbing Saddam apologies: That's right folks, Saddam is innocent until proven guilty but its a fact that Bush mailed Daschle anthrax 'cuz he was pissed for not being granted war powers. If "BBond" and Conjur weren't so obsessed I might be amused, but instead I worry for what might happen to the innocent folk in their vicinity when either ultimately does crack and lose it.

[/quote]

from the April 21, 2003 edition
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0421/p06s01-wome.html
Christians here say they enjoyed as many rights and freedoms as any other Iraqi under Saddam Hussein, who made one of their number, Tariq Aziz, an influential deputy prime minister.

"We enjoyed total religious freedom and there was no religious discrimination" against Christians, said Armenian Archbishop Avak Asadourian.

The current sense of uncertainty about their future that most Iraqis feel today, however, means that "anything could happen now," says Sarmed Hazem, a pharmacist who teaches Sunday school at the Chaldean church.

"We want to stay, we don't want to emigrate, we just want to be free and safe," he adds.

There are 650,000 Christians in Iraq, most Chaldeans but also Syrian, Latin, and Armenian Catholics, and members of a variety of Orthodox sects. Their numbers have fallen from more than a million during the past 20 years, as emigration has taken its toll.

"We are few, and they [Muslims] are more than us," says Raad Rassam, a commercial translator who wears a pearl crucifix on a gold necklace. "I don't know what to expect, but in these days we fear many people from the outside."

American marines and soldiers, to whom most Iraqis had looked for security, are present in only a few neighborhoods of Baghdad. In other parts of the city, armed Shiite Muslim militiamen have taken upon themselves the duty of preserving public order.

"We are very afraid that the Americans will withdraw from the cities and leave them in the hands of those people," says Kevorg Zeretzian, an Armenian tire merchant in Baghdad's souk. "That would be very dangerous."

Anxious for dialogue

Christian leaders say they are anxious to talk to their Muslim counterparts, to establish a dialogue that could help ensure their future. "In this time we have no contacts, but I will try to do something because we cannot stay like this," says Wardouni.

In the back of his mind, he explains, is the fate of Chaldean Christians in Turkey. There, a once-vibrant community has been reduced by governmental pressure over the past 80 years to 150 families led by a bishop who is forbidden to wear a cassock or crucifix in public.


http://www.nationalreview.com/alt/alt200405100841.asp
When the conversation turned to life in Iraq, Father Hermiz explained that the majority of Christians there support America's effort. Yet he described what he referred to as a contradiction: The Christians are pleased that Saddam is gone, yet they felt safer under Saddam. This is because Saddam did not bother Christians so long as they kept to themselves. While this meant that Christians could not openly proselytize, it nonetheless allowed them to maintain churches and hold services without fear of government reprisal. Since Saddam's fall, however, Father Hermiz lamented that one church in Baghdad has been bombed, and the Christians are scared. His parishioners are concerned about the Shias, who they fear will not adhere to Saddam's "don't bother us, and we won't bother you" policy. While Father Hermiz expressed fear about extremists like Muqtada al-Sadr weeks before the Mehdi Army clashed with American forces, he also expressed fear about the seemingly moderate Ayatollah Sistani and his followers. The priest asserted, "If [an] imam like Sistani says, 'Go and kill yourself,' they will do it without question."
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
The U.S. and the world abandoned the Iraqi people for generations to a megalomanical dictator...

What a very typically American sanatized description of what happened. 'Abandoned'? Uh, no. America financially supported, armed, and provided him intelligence against his enemies.
We knew he was using chemicals against the Iranians and we turned our heads. We aren't simply guilty of non-action with Saddam, we are indeed complicit to his crimes.

We have no problem whatsoever with brutal dictatorships (see Saudi Arabia) as long as they continue to serve our interests. If, or when, however, they act against our interests we loudly proclaim 'humanitarian' purposes and go to war.

We are not interested in democracy. If we were why did we overthrow Iran's democratically elected leader to install a Western friendly dictator?

All we are interested in is securing and advancing Americas interests and if we have to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process so be it.
 
Back
Top