I blog in the evenings, so I’m a day behind the news cycle, but in case you haven’t heard, our forces got "Abu Musab" al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qa’eda in Iraq and so he can’t kill any more innocents anymore!
WOO-HOO!!!
Now, I must say that I’m sorry that the chief head-hacker of Iraq didn’t repent of his ways and cease his head-hacking, terrorist actions, but given that he didn’t, I’m glad that he is no longer able to hack off people’s heads.
I don’t wish death on anyone–death is a grave physical evil–and I’d rather see them repent and live. I even hope for the salvation of his soul, despite the abominable actions he undertook (which is to say, I hope that he either repented at the last second or that he was so mentally scarred by previous life traumas that he was not sufficiently rational to be responsible for his horriffic actions). But killing people is such a serious matter that there are times when a person refuses to repent of their own death-dealing actions and they must be removed from the ranks of the breathing.
This is the basis of the Church’s just war doctrine. You can’t say that any war in history has been just unless you are willing to say that removing certain individuals from the ranks of the breathing is just. And if (regardless of what you think of the Iraq War as a whole) you don’t agree that a head-hacker like Zarqawi was such an individual then God bless you.
It is to be appreciated that Zarqawi can no longer harm anyone and that the forces that supported his campaign of terror have been dealt a major blow.
It may be an even larger blow than is apparent, since in a letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri (bin Laden’s #2 man) to Zarqawi last year revealed the senior al-Qa’eda leader asking for a donation of money from al-Qa’eda in Iraq to the parent organization, which was hard up for cash.
Depending on how well Zarqawi’s group is able to re-group in the wake of his demise, the decapitation of al-Qa’eda in Iraq thus may translate into a significant blow (by loss of revenues and further esteem in the Muslim world) to al-Qa’eda in general.
And that’s good news.
Fortunately, most individuals–Democrat or Republican or independent–can acknowledge this.
It is simply inexplicable–and despicable–that certain individuals in Congress would claim that this is a stunt or otherwise seek to portray it as anything but good news.
EXCERPTS:
"This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess — get out."
I have a difficult time regarding as anything other than the actions of asini those politicians who would be so focused on their own agenda that–regardless of what one thinks we should do at this point in the war–one could not agree with Democratic senate leader Harry Reid and say,
"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community."
Indeed.
The chief head-hacker of Iraq can’t hack heads off anymore.
GET THE STORY.
and
I’ve been to political blogs and let me tell you, the communists nuts jobs (I didn’t say liberals) in this country are not happy with this news.
He’s not dead; he’s pining for the West Bank! ;^)
I think that a study of Marxism-Leninism is in order and that you will find that there are VERY FEW “communists” out there blogging or reporting, happy or not happy.
What would Rep. Stark and likeminded fools (mind is a term I use loosely in this instance) propose that we do with terrorists? Invite them over for tea, crumpets and a friendly game of crouqet?
What a idiot. These people just DON’T GET IT. While these ridiculous types would sit down and place their napkins in their laps, the terrorists would storm the tea party, sever their heads, rape their wives and daughters and dismember them all.
Perhaps Rep. Stark would feel differently if he was an Iraqi who had to endure years of fear, torture, threats and excruciatingly evil deeds done to his countrymen.
Rep. Stark obviously has too much time on his hands. He should consider picking up a hobby.
It is good news that the late Mr. al-Zarqawi is no longer killing. I agree with Jimmy that it is never good news when a soul dies unless that soul is reconciled to God through the merits of Jesus.
I do not think that his death will make much difference in the conflict in Iraq, though. A study of world history shows that Iraq is like every other invaded, conquered and occupied nation. It will do anything possible to remove what it perceives as the occupiers’ boots off of their collective necks. Sometimes they are called “insurgents” and sometimes “la resistance.”
Ask Indians (from India), Bulgarians or Koreans: Freedom is not preceived as freedom until the occupiers ALL leave.
Tim M,
I haven’t heard of many Iraqi’s complaining about the “occupation”. In fact you may remember the Iraqi voter who responded to the liberals in the U.S. that are complaining about the war on terror by telling them they could go to the same place Zarqawi may be going to.
Kevin,
Was that the same Iraqi voter that was smiling from ear to ear, that ABC news filmed, while he was putting SEVEN ballots into the box at the same time?
I saw the film and interview with the ABC news correspondent on BBC… this was not allowed to air on US networks.
Frankly, it is rare to know what the “average Iraqi” thinks about the war. US media is mostly imbedded with US troops or else doesn’t travel far from “the heavily fortified green zone” for security reasons.
At the least, maybe this death of al-Zarqawi will be a morale boost for all in Iraq; foreign troops and Iraqis alike.
Kevin,
I honestly don’t know.
But I do know that when anyone claims that “this time” is different than every other time in human history that it sounds suspicious.
Even Mr. Bush allowed himself last year to admit that “of course I am sure that no country likes to be occupied.”
and yes, Amen! to increased morale for the troops and Iraqis.
+J.M.J+
I don’t know how much al-Zarqawi’s death, in and of itself, will hurt the insurgency. However, I heard on the news that the military also seized documents and other intel from the destroyed safehouse which they then used to plan and carry out over thirty raids on insurgents. Now *that* could potentially put a real dent in the opposition! I’m even more hopeful about that than about his demise.
In Jesu et Maria,
Skeptical,
Not familiar with that incident. The voter I referred to was a woman.
Tim,
Iraq will be better under it’s own government. The coalition is helping to stabilize this process with the support of the Iraqi people. When the time comes withdrawl occur.
“I don’t know how much al-Zarqawi’s death, in and of itself, will hurt the insurgency…”
It’s hard to know, but the very fact of us getting actionable intelligence on Zarqawi means that we must have penetrated their network pretty substantially. That may mean more than the death of the man himself.
Although I’m glad he will not be killing any more human persons, I’ve never been comfortable with a certain patriotic joy in war. We celebrate when these people die (I’ll never forget a documentary I saw about some of the troops who were basically go about like it’s a huge video game and they’re just racking up the points). War can be just and necessary, but I wish we went about it in a more detached manner. We killed this man because we had to, because he forced us to, and that’s certainly not something to celebrate, just something to resign ourselves to as a sad duty.
There are rumors, apparently, that other Iraqi militiamen may have “sold out” Zarqawi to the U.S. military. He was disliked by Iraqis almost as much as he was disliked by the occupying forces. His forces were dwindling toward the end, and he was highly isolated. Many other Iraqi resistance fighters considered him beyond the pale.
I am inclined to think of Zarqawi as an unusual case, in making the moral case for killing. Do we honestly expect Iraqis NOT to attempt to eject us from their country? Because the Iraqi resistance fighters are defending their country, it is necessary that the moral case for war and killing them be much stronger than it would be if, for example, the Iraqi fighters were in Nevada. I’m not saying there is no case to be made for the Iraq war, but I am saying that the “burden of proof”, so to speak, lies with the United States, and I’m not convinced we have it.
If I’m reckoning the dates correctly, this was written BEFORE the airstrike:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060607.aspx
He may have been set up by his own former allies.
I am inclined to think of Zarqawi as an unusual case, in making the moral case for killing. Do we honestly expect Iraqis NOT to attempt to eject us from their country? Because the Iraqi resistance fighters are defending their country, it is necessary that the moral case for war and killing them be much stronger than it would be if, for example, the Iraqi fighters were in Nevada. I’m not saying there is no case to be made for the Iraq war, but I am saying that the “burden of proof”, so to speak, lies with the United States, and I’m not convinced we have it.
OK, we’ve got proof he killed thousands of his own people, ignored the closest excuse to a world authority that we have (UN, though it pains me to mention them) when they told him to stop, invaded many other countries and had everyone from the French to his own Generals believing he was *this close* to nukes, if you insist that simply not finding them is proof they don’t exist.
Also, a sh*t load of Iraqis *do not* want us gone until they’re sure that their neighbors won’t “help” them out of existance. Right now, everybody’s weak and the bullies are out, both from inside of the country and outside. We leave now and we’re asking for a world disaster.
Exactly *what* would you consider sufficent proof?
Keep in mind that WWII is probably the best example of how to rebuild countries, and that I’m currently stationed in Japan. (I love Japan and her people, but their culture at the start of the century is a far, far cry from what it is now. I dream of the day that the same can be said of Iraq and her sisters.)
Scrappleface has a funny take on the situation:
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2278
Anon,
I guess you have the power of omnipresence. On the blogs I went to, the the people who signed themselves as communists were unhappy that this representative republic, that is the United States, had killed one of it’s enemies. There are still communists in America and they want the U.S. government defeated as often as possible.
Does anybody have the courage to approach the possibility that, had the world listened to JPII about this war, not only would al-Zarqawi remain alive but Saddam would remain in power and Islamic terrorism would not be in retreat?
Jimmy,
I think you are too harsh on Islam, terrorism, the trek from Medinah to Mecca, and historical military conquest and animosities notwithstanding.
I would suggest at least (a) book by author/philospher/professor (at George Washington University) SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR
He is BRILLIANT, his book KNOWLEDGE AND THE SACRED and also his Book THE HEART OF ISLAM.
I am NOT Muslim. Nor an apologist. I analogize Islam and Mormonism and even some aspects of Protestantism generally. Islam is an Arian heresy (some famous historian agrees with this and there is a qoute to insert) HOWEVER, Islam does hold some truth and has done some good things.
The similiarites with Christianity and the truth of the foundational religion of Judaism are:
1. MONOTHEISM (and not this Protestant Jack Chick track that Allah is the Moon god–I went to Mass in an Orthodox church and Catholic Eastern Churches in backwater Syria and the name for God in the Mass is Allah)
Muslims believe in God, the One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and in their case Ishmael.
2. The attributes and nature of God are similiar and are not all harsh such as al-Raheem, and merciful and just etc.
3. PRAYER: The pillars of belief are much simpler than are Nicene or Athanasian creed However the requirement of prayer (the blaspehmous or at least incorrect statement that Mohammad is the prophet) are the same theological supplication to divine authority.
Facing east (which our altars do at least historically), to prostrate (Martin Luther prostrated himself), to recognize the Greatness and Unity of God.
4. Pilgrimage, the Hajj to Mecca for Muslims and while not compulsory or a unitary destination, Pilgrimage in Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental non Orthodox alleged Monosphytes Assyrians, Copts, Aremenians ALL have Pilgramage and holy sites.
5. Fasting, a pillar in Islam and a requirement by Canon Law in Latin Rite Catholicism and a practice even amoung Protestants for prayer, preparation for prayer and even deeper analysis and practice in aesthetic theology.
6. Links between Sufism, the Jesus Prayer in the Easter Rite (Catholic and Orthodox) and the Hechastic movement as well as links between Sufism and Monastic (Desert Fathers) even though Islam does not have a monastic class, Christian monks are highly revered in Islam and a Christian monk recognized the uniqueness of Mohammad.
7. Alms to the poor, tax (zakat) and Christian and (Old Testament) Jewish tithing. For institutions of social service. Islam is not a low culture of animists living in a jungle (who still deserve respect, have wisdom, etc) but Islam gave us Aristotle to Aquinas.
8. Kisme is not universally practiced as there are different theological schools of thought in Islam and there is no magisterium (similiar to predestination and Calvisinism)
9. Islam under the millet system and the Turks was arguably more tolerant than Christians in the same period.
10. High culture and medicine, algebra, circulatory system, astronomy (lunar and solar), Jewish culture and promotion of thought including Maimonedes, and translation and finding of Aristotle that found it’s way to the desk of Aquinas.
11. Conservative social values on abortion, homosexuality, freedom of parents on religion and schooling, excesses of a secular and scientific materialistic society.
12. Islam theoretically, and throughout much of it’s history had tolerance for AL KITABEE (transliterated so forgive spelling but translated to people of the Book), today is actually worse, but in history there was more freedom for Chritians in Muslim lands than vice versa and for Jews, many who had top government positions, the reverse is not true.
Islam also theoretically holds Jesus in High esteem although like Arian heretics only as prophet and perhaps the Hebrew but not universal messiah.
13. An honor for Mary (Maryam) in the Quran including the Virgin birth, and if you go to Ephesus in Turkey you will see Muslim devotees and qoutes from the Quran in the chapel. Some Islamic sects like Alowites (the religion of Hafez and Bashir al Assad that actually has more gnostic and Babylonian roots that Orthodox Islam)has a higher devotion among some (and some Sufi orders have the same) where Jesus is higher on the spiritual pyramid than Mohammad and their are mystical rites that have meditations on Jesus and/or Mary.
14. The reality of Islam is not going away, and while it is agressive in many guises and perhaps inherently, and violence may be necessary at least at times to fight back, there has to be a tolerance and ability to live together with Islam and dialogue as human beings and as Monotheists as children of the same One God,
15. Jews certainly and perhaps biologically, genetically and certainly spiritually covenentally are children of Abraham, by extension Christians too are spiritual descendants of Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant which would be better explained as expanded upon rather than broken by Jesus, Similarily, Muslims, at least through Arabs claim a genetic and literal, blood relationship to Abraham through Ishmael and a spiritual covenant with the One God through Abraham and an acceptance (even if flawed and in error)of the Abrahamic convenant spiritually and through Mohammad and belief. There has to be a recognition of this reality.
“I do not think that his death will make much difference in the conflict in Iraq, though.”
Except to inflame the situation and make yet another martyr.
We Christians know that “He who live by the sword will die by the sword”. This isn’t some profound insight of prophecy, just a simple truism, death and violence breeds more of the same.
Many of my parishioners are Iraqi Catholics with relatives still there, under Sadaam they felt a degree of safety, under occupation that has gone. For 12 years they suffered under sanctions and during the last 3 years they suffer from a breakdown of any form of law and order. “Once we were ruled by one warlord and his his dreadful family, now there are many warlord all withdreadful families, the American invasion removed the beast to replace it by an even more bestial many headed monster”, said one of my parishioners. Their families see nothing but more of the same for the forseeable future, then eventually the break-up of Iraq and the persecution of Christians.
Terrorism is not in retreat, on the contrary it is likely to grow, the invasion, Guantanamo, “extra-ordinary rendition” have simply done a great deal of harm to the US as voice of freedom in the world. In the west the response we have had to the increased threat of terrorism is a serious cutback on civil liberties.
One of the reasons that we do not hear from most Iraqis is that the news services are embedded with the occupation forces, and there movement is strictly regulated, partly for political reasons of the occupation forces and partly because it unsafe to leave the “green zone”.
When we gloat over the death of anyone we embrace the culture of death and distance ourselves from Life himself.
Do pray for the Iraqi people most especially the Christians.
“Terrorism is not in retreat” Yeah, we sure have been hit so many times since 9/11.
Terrorism can be committed by governments as well as individuals or groups. When we give up the rule of law, we become terrorists, possibly there are other definitions of acts of terror.
“In the west the response we have had to the increased threat of terrorism is a serious cutback in civil liberties.”
Name one civil liberty you have lost since 9/11.
“When we give up the rule of law…” We haven’t.
Father, are we to believe that you support the filthy, bloody regime of Sadddam on the flimsy reasoning that Iraqi Christians were safer then?
I understand Sunnis were better off, as well, being that Saddam gave them preferential treatment. Those in his hometown of Tikrit were especially opposed to his removal… what a shock.
To hell with the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, the Shiites… Saddam gave MY people a pass, therefore the war was a bad idea.
Are we not to be concerned with everyone in that country? Even that region? I feel for the plight of ALL Christians in that region, but playing footsie with blooody despots was always a bad idea and should never have been countenanced, no matter who’s side they were on. You are right that Iraqis suffered needlessly under the preposterous and useless economic sanctions. We should be ashamed that we did not remove Saddam in the first Gulf War.
If Zarqawi is a martyr, then I suggest we make a lot more just like him. Let the Islamo-fascists have their fill of martyrdom. Those who truly desire to become martyrs in the cause of enslaving the non-Muslim world should have their wish granted with all speed.
I am British we hve lost lots of civil libertiies, in the States is the Patriot Act still in force?
Invasion, Guantanamo, “extra-ordinary rendition”, most of the rest of the world would see these as giving up the rule of law.
“I am British we hve lost lots of civil libertiies”
Oh, golly!
Please name one.
I’d also like for any American at all to send me an instance of having personally experienced the loss of just one civil liberty… or of having been even inconvenienced… on account of the dreaded Patriot Act.
“Invasion, Guantanamo, ‘extra-ordinary rendition’, most of the rest of the world would see these as giving up the rule of law.”
Don’t worry, those of us grounded in reality see capturing and/or killing those who want to kill us as making perfect sense.
Saddam is an evil man. His sons were sociopaths.
Removing him was a per se good thing. Sadamms regime was bad, violent etc.
HOWEVER, that does not NOT mean that the invasion of Iraq by the United States (us) was justified. Nor does it mean that people are better off now nor that anyone their wanted us.
In terms of the Middle Eastern specifically Iraqi Christians (and there is more than one type) but specifically the Catholics and more specifically Chaldean rite Catholics had a better situation under Saddam Hussein. Generally, Sadamm and his more secular Baath party were more tolerant on many levels (like allowing jazz clubs or women driving cars) but most specifically on religion and more exactly with Christians (Eastern Orthodox, Assyrians, Latin rite). Try to get any religious tolerance in Iran or try our “allies” Saudi Arabia. Iraq was probably one of the most tolerant on religious issues than any other country in the region under Sadamm. Religious tolerance and diversity is far worse now under the US occupational government (what we call ourselves). This is not a defense of Saddam and many Assyrians resent their cousin Chaldeans and are far more anti-Saddam.
While there is no doubt that Saddam was brutal it is hard to objectively argue that he was more brutal than Iran, Syria, Egypt and certainly Sudan (North Africa perhaps not Middle East per se) our allies or enemies. While there is a high death count, there were high death counts all around the Middle East including of our allies and almost all are despots. Hafiz al Assad killed 30,000 people in one day in the city of Hamas because they were too religious (He is an Alowiye).
The situation is complicated and nuanced. For Christians it is not getting better.
“The situation is complicated and nuanced.”
Evidence, please.
“For Christians it is not getting better.”
Evidence, please.
(How gauche of me.)
“Father, are we to believe that you support the filthy, bloody regime of Sadddam on the flimsy reasoning that Iraqi Christians were safer then?”
Don’t be silly of course not, but it is criminally wicked to invade a country with no plan for the future, the devastation, the vast number of deaths is truly shocking, the deaths of so many non-combatants seems to be almost beginning to out number those that Sadaam kill. If Iraq breaks up the number will even larger.
I mention the Christians merely because they have direct knowledge of the situation and represent one of the minority non-territorial groups in Iraq.
As for loss of civil liberties, one that worries me is increasing detention without trial to 28 days.
My concern is the value which we place on life. The death of anyone is an offence against the Law of God. It should be taken lightly we cannot pretend we live in the wild west, where life is cheap.
My applogies for not including my name is my last contribution.
The last sentence should have read,
“It should not be taken lightly we cannot pretend we live in the wild west, where life is cheap.”
“The death of anyone is an offence against the Law of God”
No, not actually. The intentional death of the innocent, yes.
Since you bring up the old west, the Catechism leaves room for the fact that some people “need killin'”.
“the devastation, the vast number of deaths is truly shocking, the deaths of so many non-combatants seems to be almost beginning to out number those that Sadaam kill…”
Really? Can I see those numbers?
Unless I’m mistaken, this war will be notable historically for the LOW number of casualties on both sides. Every innocent death is a tragedy, of course, but I would say that we hold life very cheap if we sit by and wait for the next terror attack while wringing our hands trying to figure out a way to make everyone like us.
We had more than adequate legal justification in removing Saddam, if based only on the fact that he conspired to assassinate a sitting US President.
Iraq is not the end game, it is a beach head. Other regimes in the area are taking note. They are watching to see whether we mean what we say, and whether the American people have the stomach to finish anything they start.
I feel compelled to point out, too, that the collateral damage would be much leaa if the enemy did not have the habit of headquartering in hospital basements, or hiding ammo dumps in schools.
If you hide a rocket launcher under your bed, it is you who have brought death on your family.
Sorry, I meant “much less” not “much leaa”.
You are right quoting the catechism, the catechism does give certain qualifications those too should be quoted along with what it says about just war, and non-combatants, and proportionality.
“We don’t do body counts” said General Franks, US Central Command, which creates difficult in giving you a correct figure.However, about 100,000 Iraqi civilians – half of them women and children – have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. This figure was proffered by the Lancet, a medical journal. The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore
“If based only on the fact that he conspired to assassinate a sitting US President.” Can you give any serious evidence?
I think it was Bill who wanted some type of cite to the fact of a previous poster (or a conclusion if not a fact) that
1. The situation is complex and nuanced.
That is a conclusion based on analysis. I agree and I thought the Jospeh post was correct and had some reasons.
2. On the point of Christians having it worse off today under the current regime rather than Saddam that is stastical fact.
Syria and Iraq have had Christian populations (Syriac, Melkite, Assyrian, Chaldean etc) to the numbers of 10 or 20%. The numbers in Iraq are decreasing everyday. Saddam allowed Christian churches to be built, had Christians (at least Chaldeans) in his cabinet in high ranking positions like Tariq Aziz. The current situation both official and de facto is dominated by Shia Muslims and churches are bombed, nuns are raped, and the US government is not aware, cannot do anything about it or does not care. Iraqi Christians are emigrating to Syria, Jordan, Cyprus, France, Canada and the US at very high numbers (as well as dying)that Iraqi Christians will be non-existent and certainly not a cultural force by the next generation. You can find these statistics online Bill. Also, go to any Chaldean Catholic Church (or other Iraqi Church) and here in the US they do NOT like Islam (they may have to back home. But at least for the Chaldeans you will find that they think they had it better under Saddam. Assyrians hated Saddam BUT think right now is untolerable for Assyrians and again, many are leaving for the same countries and Lebanon, and many more are dying.
3. For the other poster, where do you get that the amazing thing about this “War” is that so few people on both sides are dying. VATICAN official estimates just with the BOYCOTT indicated that 500,000 to a 1,000,000 CHILDREN died by EMBARGOING food and bombing infrastructure that created hygiene and public safety problems. I SERVED IN THE US MILITARY. I HAVE FRIENDS AND FAMILY IN IRAQ NOW. I talked with a civilian contractor friend of mine making buko bucks (very dangerously) and he is smart and cynical and he said that the death counts are much higher, that most people do not have electricity or portable water, there is public chaos regarding the rule of law, and many many people who were not Baathists thought they had it better under Sadaam. The death count is not low, certainly not remarkably low. There is death and destruction. Some of which, if not much of which WE the US brought uniquely. Iraq did not invade our country. No Iraqis besides the con artist Chalabi asked us to come to Iraq.
The question is OBJECTIVELY (death counts under Saddam compared to death counts now for example, portable water, infant mortality etc) is Iraq better off now or under Saddam. The answer for anyone objectively studying it under any criterea (and not that they now have Democracy which they don’t or that Saddam is on trial–they should of just killed him and stopped the charade) that Iraq is worse off now. NOW, I think in the LONG RUN it may become better with our ability to help with infrastructure and our technical and scientifice knowledge and potential contributions BUT right now the Iraqis are worse off now than under Saddam and are certainly worse off than pre-1990.
There is a lot of DEATH AND DESTRUCTION. I am not talking about from Al Jazeera but read the Economist (the CIA suggest their recruits read it) and Wall Street Journal and US Army reports some of which are confidential.
One last point: NOBODY thinks that CHRISTIANS (of whatever stripe) or any other religions besides Islam have it better off now. We have replaced Saddam (a relatively “tolerant” secular Baathist)(As a side note the Baath Party was/is a secular party founded by Christians on pan Arab and socialistic principles and has been at odds with Al-Queda like “fundamentalism” and terrorism and has fought with it, the Baathists in Syria killed tens of thousands of fundamentalists and lots of the battles that Saddam had were with religious Shia supported by Iran, remember that Saddam was once supported by the US remember the photos with Rumsfield and Bush I and the weapons and money(ies) we gave them, and we used them and armed them in the Iran/Iraq war and Iran viewed Iraq as too secular and not Muslim enough) We have replaced Saddam with a far less secular Shia majority, and our imposed Constitution officially and theoretically modeling our own values, in practice the nation is far more fractionalized, religious, more violent, and less based on Western and secular principles.
Christians are FAR worse off now in Iraq and the situation is getting worse. Syria and Jordan are the only places even moderately OK. Israel also treats Arab Christians poorly. Just look at official census statistics of these countries, UN statistics, Amnesty International, VATICAN reports, and websites of these Eastern/Oriental Christian Churches both Catholic, Oriental, and Orthodox. Lebanon is getting better again. Egypt is worse for Copts. Saudi has no tolerance. Iran has no tolerance. Kuwait is bad. Sudan is practicing GENOCIDE against the darker skinned Christians and animists in the South. There are plenty of published reports and statistics on all of this.
For the US they don’t know because there is a lack of knowledge, and don’t care because the Middle Eastern Christian communities (besides the Armenians who are not exactly Middle Eastern more Caucus probably) have nor real lobbies in Washington DC and are not sexy minorities. They do not have a Dalai Lama like spokesman or popular Hollywood support, they are not Russian Jews, they are not the oppressed minority de jeure. In Sudan they are Black and not known and even American Blacks are hesitant to criticize Muslims.
Again, CHRISTIANS WERE BETTER OFF UNDER SADDAM. This does NOT mean that Saddam is good. ONLY that Christians are being persecuted, killed, Churches blown up, and people feeling forced to leave MORE now under US influence.
“VATICAN official estimates just with the BOYCOTT indicated that 500,000 to a 1,000,000 CHILDREN died by EMBARGOING food”
Are you referring to the UN sanctions? I always thought those were stupid, as well as cruel. They can hardly be lumped in with the Iraq War casualties.
Let’s say 100,000 Iraqi deaths is too low. Let’s say there have been 200,000 (I don’t generally put much stock in the speculations of freelance skeptics). How many of these are the result of sectarian (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, rather than being attributable to Coalition actions? Are we supposed to count all of Zarqawi’s victims as OUR victims? That’s absurd.
Historically (as I said) these numbers are low, for a war. We lost 50,000 in three days at Gettysburg. Have you any idea how many have died in Sudan?
I would not minimize any of these deaths, but this wish for a sanitized war, wherein nobody is killed is fantasy.
I expect things were pretty bad in post-war Japan, as well, but that hardly means we should have given up and gone home. Just the opposite.
100,000 Iraqi civilians in this “conflict” seems like a lot to me
Michael, how about some evidence? Making assertions is not evidence.
Bill912, these are not assertions again since this is a blog and I am not writing and academic paper, I didn’t cite everything but these are NOT assertions.
The Christian population in Iraq after 1900 to about 1990 was about 15 to 20% which can be checked through Enclyopedia(s) as well as census figures internally in Iraq, much of it is on the Internet. Up until recently it was nearly 10% and it is shrinking literally any day. Do a Google Church on Assyrians or Chaldeans and you can find any links about it. Do a Yahoo news church and you can find stories about bombings of churches (unknown in the days of Saddam), raping of nuns, killings of Christians, kidnapping of priests and even Bishops (like the Melkite Patriarch that was kidnapped although in that case subsequently released), and news stories on emigration/immigration. These are not assertions but facts. So census, UN Reports, Vatican reports, new stories all can tell you this—Moreover, go to any Church with Iraqi Christians and ask them what is going on now, if they left recently or have family there.
THIS IS NOT AN ASSERTION CHRISTIANS ARE WORSE OFF NOW. What don’t you undertand?
It was the VATICAN and the UN that estimated that 1 million children lost their lives between Iraq I and Iraq II from the Embargo and destruction left from bombings.
Apparently it is John Hopkins (the US does not keep accurate numbers at least not that it makes public) Univesity that made the study of 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq II since 2003.
These are not assertions. What Bush said to justify Iraq II are assertions. Not fact and proven not to be fact.
I was in an onsite where a 1 star general who was in Iraq helping create the government early on in was asked a question about:
1. Do the Kurds want an independent state? (which the current constitution would preclude)
and
2. How were minorities specifically Assyrians (who do not consider themselves Assyrians similar and historically justified despite a similiar phenotype to how the (some) Lebanese consider themselves Phoenicians and not Arab, Assyrians are a separate (nation) people descended from Babylonians and distinct genetically and historically from Arabs) and Christians generally (Arab Christians non-Assyrians) How were minorities especially Christians being treated?
On question #1 the General said that the Kurds don’t want a separate state, which is absurd and in denial of the US. If we are to blame Saddam (and we should) for mistreatment of Kurds we should also blame our NATO ally Turkey (which also has been brutal although they view it by necessity) THE KURDS WANT AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND DO USE “TERRORISM”. The General was delusional, in denial, or giving the party line to make sure everyone was motivated.
On question #2: The General and much of the “Intelligence” apparatus surrounding Iraq is not aware about and does not perceive the Iraqi Christians and strategically important and minority rights are less protected under the current de facto Shia regime than under S.H.
Recognizing the current dire situation is not a justification for S.H. Zarqawi or anything else.
Christians are not even on the radar screen.
Bill may feel the need to be “gauche” and want facts or evidence and not “assertions. Well, I have been to Iraq and am in the military.
Moreover, I have a Masters in Middle Eastern Studies at a prominent University paid for by the Army. My wife is part Assyrian (in union with Rome although most of her family is not) My wife hates Saddam and most of her family were at least initially in support of the invasion. The civilian death count in this Operation is probably at least 100,000 since the inception. I don’t know about the accuracy of the numbers on the Embargo after Operation Desert Storm but there was a lot of death and destruction that we caused. What the invasion stopped (it did not stop terrorism) and what the end goal is (we are in a Vietnam like occupational state and Vietnam was at least to stop communism, we are creating a more religious “fundamentalist” state with closer ties to Iran). There is no political or strategic goal in site and we caused a lot of, in some cases, unnecessary destruction.
It is good that Zarqawi is dead. The future may hold good in the end for the people in Iraq for us BUT the interim is Hell. The various Christian community(ies) are in a greater Hell in Iraq now than they were before the war.
“It was the VATICAN and the UN that estimated that 1 million children lost their lives between Iraq I and Iraq II”
Again, one can’t lay that at the feet of Bush 43. The UN sanctions were always a horrid failure.
“”If based only on the fact that he conspired to assassinate a sitting US President.” Can you give any serious evidence?”
This is from HNN (History News Network) which has more comprehensive information here:
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html
“On June 2, 1993, representatives of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and others in the Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed the results of their investigations with representatives of the Clinton Administration. Three weeks later, the DOJ and CIA reported their conclusions. The DOJ and CIA reported that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot and more than likely that Bush was the target. Additionally, based on past Iraqi methods and other sources of intelligence, the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush.”
“What Bush said to justify Iraq II are assertions. Not fact and proven not to be fact.”
No. Some of what he said may not have been proved to be fact, but it has not been “proven NOT to be fact”. Hussein’s regime harbored and supported terrorists, and that is a fact.
Afghanistan is getting rather sticky, as well. Attacks continue. Does anyone seriously suggest we should have stayed out of of there?
“I have a Masters in Middle Eastern Studies at a prominent University”
I’m sorry, but those propaganda mills are a national disgrace. A University Middle Eastern Studies department is not the place to go looking for the truth.
Now, you may be right about the the plight of Christians in Iraq, but you Masters degree is, to me, neither here nor there.
Incidentally, just how much responsibility do the people of Iraq bear for the treatment of the Christians among them?
The war is not justified. Not under the Aquinas/Catholic Church JUST WAR doctrine.
1. Iraq was not/is not a threat to the United States. Iraq does not border us. Iraq did not invade us. Iraq did not declare war against us. Iraq does not have weapons capability to even attack us. Iraq did not threaten our economic interests.
2. There were no WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. None from Africa. The big gun from that Canadian Catholic guy was never completed. The Nuclear capability was taken out by Israelis. The Chemical weapons used in Iran and against the Kurds and Iran (which we knew about and helped funded) were awful but fairly run of the mill and not biological nor DNA nor Atomic/Nuclear and no deliverly systems. This is not liberals or anti-war activisits it is former CIA and most security/intelligence analysts. No one in the intelligence world not in the US or other countries seriously believed that Iraq had serious Weapons of Mass Destruction or deliverly capabilities. (under this theory we should invade Iran, Pakistan, North Korea or our allies South Africa and Israel)
3. Iraq had minimal to links to terrorism (at least not vis a vis the US but certainly vis a vis Israel/Palestine). We now have all their internal security documents and there was supposedly some meetings during the war (more after the US invaded) and a meeting with one of the 9-11 bombers and the Iraqi embassy in Prague (possibly). There is no link between the Sunni Baath Secularist Sadamm Hussein and September 11, 2001 nor Al-Queda nor Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden in fact did not like Saddam and they prefer a non Baath government which they had thanks to us. Iraq is not even linked to Iranian terrorism (obviously) The only link to terrorism was to money given to PLO and families of suicide bombers (yes this is bad but does not justify a US invasion and our allies like Saudi also give money to terrorism more direclty and to the Palestians and in more amounts and we don’t invade Saudi Arabia) There are no links AT ALL to 9-11.
4. Saddam Hussein was MUCH more “progressive”, and “tolerant” (even though a brutal dictator) to his immediate neighbors and women could vote, Christians could exercise their religion in public (in Saudi you will get whipped if you have a Rosary, death penalty if a Muslim converts to Islam), women could vote, women could drive, Christians were in government, FIND A CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN IRAN OR SAUDI ARABIA.
We did not invade Saudi or Iran? Only Iraq.
So NO THREAT TO THE US,
NO LINK TO TERRORISM
5. Iraq was BAD, but is/was Iraq under Hussein worse than Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Egypt, or other great tragedies like the genocide in Cambodia (2 million or so something like 1/2 the population) or the Soviet Union under Stalin at least 7 million Ukrainians. Saddam Hussein is not the greatest killer by a long shot. So the “liberation” (who asked us to liberate them) of Iraq based on that Saddam was bad does not even measure up to other parts of the world. If being bad is the measure, we should of gone into Sudan a long time ago.
6. Strategic importance: Iraq was already contained. It had no designs on Kuwait or Iran anymore. It was not a strategic threat. They would sell oil to anyone to make money.
7. Proportionality: To enforce a UN weapons resolution, or to stop wrongdoing we killed 100,000 CIVILIANS (half of whom are women and children) many more combatants and left the country in a mess.
8. Afghanistan. Again not liberals but General Zinni, and other Generals think that Iraq was poorly planned, poorly executed, and took away from Afghanistan and really fighting the war on terror.
I do not want to be in a war that
1. Is for personal family vengence to vindicate the father and former President of our current President and his powerful oligarchy.
2. The theoretical designs of the chickenhawk Neo-cons who want to invade everywhere but on the whole never saw combat or put theirselves, children or loved ones at risk. The US cannot invade everywhere and is not an Empire.
3. The Personal wealth of Dick Cheney, Haliburton, Brown and Root, and all the contractors that have pervasive fraud (read the Wall Street Journal articles on fraud, whistleblowing) at taxpayer expense billions and billions making an economic oligarchy rich off of war. It was not a Democrat nor a liberal who warned of the Military Industrial Complex BUT Republic Presiden Eisenhower at the end of his Presidency and the former Supreme Commander of Allied Troops in WWII.
I doubt this war was necessary. I doubt that we are in a good position right now.
Afghanistan was absolutely necessary, Iraq was not.
What terrorists did Iraq harbor????
Iran, Afghanistan before and under the Taliban, Lybia, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (and perhaps others) harbored terrorists.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait funded terrorists.
But their were no Iraqis on those planes in 9-11 and Al-Queda and Iraq under Sadam were not on the same team, and did not share the same philosophy.
The 100,000 figure is supposed to be deaths by us the US by bombings and “collateral” damage not by Zarqawi and insurgents. Even with smart bombs, when we bomb the hell out of people and use the high tech weapons we have THEY KILL PEOPLE AND ARE NOT ALWAYS exact. YES, they hide in Mosques and schools and homes with children BUT nobody invited us to Iraq, it is THEIR country NOT ours. Gettysburg was a Civil War.
If the body count is so low, it was LOWER under Saddam and that demonstrates that while Saddam was bad he was not as bad as the Sudan. Let’s invade the Sudan. We as Americans tend to desensitize pain and suffering that is people of color, people farther away.
I had a friend, a very good man, who after the civilian contractors (very highly paid former SEALS who the Special Forces Army guys said hurt their hearts and mind psy-ops) got killed in Fallujah wrote a letter to the editor FLATTEN FALLUJAH(he is a convert to Catholicism and a good person and dad) but his comment I think was wrong, he did not think of the death of civilians from flattening Fallujah only that they brutally killed our guys and hung them up.
But they were in their country. Our military (watch the PBS Frontline episode not from the PBS perspective but from the US Military perspective of the privatization of war and contractors affecting negatively our military objectives) Killing our guys are bad BUT destroying a city or using Nukes (as I hear frequently in bar talk and at barber shops in the US) is evil to destroy people and civilizations with Nukes or our own high tech Weapons of Mass Destruction. This may be rhetoric but reflects a lot of people’s opinion.
We do not always recognize the pain and suffering of others. We do not always realize the death count. In Vietnam the US Troops (which arguably was a Just Cause and Communism and dominoe theory were real) lost about 56,000 but the Vietnamese lost MILLIONS.
Certainly the Iraqis themselves deserve the “credit” for hurting other Iraqis who are Christians BUT we WE the US created the environment for that to happen and we WE the US are NOT protecting minorities or Christians. Saddam Hussein did protect Christians, allow them to practice their faith in public, build churches, participate in government, the new government has allowed bombing of churches, kidnapping of clerics, raping of nuns, and killing of Christians, and because of this situation they are leaving this country to Syria, Jordan and Lebanon (all of where they are more accepting) and if they can to Cyprus, Greece, France, Canada and the US (some to Australia). The current government that we imposed and the situation we created is a Shia dominated more religious government and de facto culture and situation that is anti-Christian and less tolerant. The situation is worse. We helped create it.
Thomas-
Wow, everything you said was wrong. That might be a record.
We did not invade Iraq to liberate Christians there.
Also-
“No one in the intelligence world not in the US or other countries seriously believed that Iraq had serious Weapons of Mass Destruction or deliverly capabilities.”
That is rot. Every functioning intelligence service in the world believed Saddam had WMDs. Where are they now?
Anyway, we have been over this in other posts. Zarqawi is dead. Hurrah. If you don’t find that to be good news, I can’t help you.
“I’m sorry, but those propaganda mills are a national disgrace. A University Middle Eastern Studies department is not the place to go looking for the truth.
Now, you may be right about the the plight of Christians in Iraq, but you Masters degree is, to me, neither here nor there.”
GIVE SOME REASONS AND PROOF NOT A BALD CONCLUSION OR ASSERTION.
THE BENEFIT OF A MASTERS PROGRAM IN THIS/THESE FIELDS IS ACTUALLY KNOWING SOME HISTORY AND LANGUAGE(S). THE CIA WAS DYING TO GET PARSEE AND PASHTUN LINGUISTS. MANY OF THE MILITARY PEOPLE IN CIVIL AFFAIRS, JAG, INTELLIGENCE ETC HAD NO NO NO KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY.
MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO POST ALSO HAVE NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE IT IS THIS KIND OF JINGOISTIC NEO-CON OPINIONS. MANY MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES PROGRAMS ARE DOMINATED BY CIA, MILITARY, AND ISRAELI INFLUENCED STUDENTS AND PROGRAMS–IT DEMONSTRATES YOUR IGNORANCE, ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY THERE ARE ANTI-AMERICANS, ANTI-SEMITES, AND RADICAL ISLAMICISTS
MOST OF THE ISLAMICISTS ARE SECULARISTS LIKE CHRISTIANS EDWARD SAID (CHRISTIAN CULTURALLY BUT AGNOSTIC OR EVEN AETHESTIC) OR FOR ISLAM INFLUENCED BY MODERNIST (LIKE A MUSLIM HANS KUNG) FALZUR RAHMAN, MANY OF THESE PROGRAMS ARE VERY GOOD ACADEMICALLY, HAVE A VARIETY OF OPINIONS, INCLUDING SUPPORT FOR IRAQ I (AT LEAST AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO), AND GOOD HISTORY AND MORE PER SE GOOD AND OBJECTIVE LANGUAGES ANCIENT AND MODERN.
Zarqawi being dead is good news. We did not “liberate” Iraq to help Christians but we also should not have liberated Iraq to hurt Christians, create anarchy, death or destruction, or leave them in a worse state than we found them.
Have you been reading all the former CIA analysts coming out and telling the truth that Bush and Rumsfield knew that there was no plutonium, uranium, deliverly systems and that the intelligence was twisted to get the result to invade. The French were against Iraq II and have good Middle East intelligence, the British say that they knew there were no WMD now. This is not liberals, naive anti-war protesters but Generals former in the US military, ex-CIA and British and French Intelligence. And more importantly THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The joke with the military is that we are bringing them over on boats now to plant and find.
Afghanistan invasion was good and necessary.
“What terrorists did Iraq harbor????”
Here are a few-
# Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing… given sanctuary in Baghdad and lived there for years afterward.
# Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, who reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988… was taken into custody by U.S. Marines in Baghdad.
# Abu Nidal, whose terror organization is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans, and wounding 788 more. Nidal lived in Baghdad from 1999 till August 2002, when he was found shot to death in his state-supplied home.
# Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship… U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody.
# Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Deceased.
# Ramzi Yousef, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as Operation Bojinka, a foiled plot to explode 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific… currently serving a triple life sentence in Colorado’s Supermax federal lockup.
# Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada. Besharat and others disbursed the funds to West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis.
For more info
http://www.jihadwatch.org
Which of these terrorists was linked to Al Queda or 9-11? NONE
There is no doubt that terrorists lived in Iraq but remember that during some of this that Iraq was an ally of the US. Sudan harbored Osama bin Laden. Saudi Arabia took brutal killer Idi Amin. Syria and Lybia had terrorist training camps. Some of the terrorists you list are ancient history. Many of the passports were forged and there was no cooperation with Iraqi intelligence services (that were not that great anyway)
There is no doubt that the most direct source of terrorism, which is real terrorism but not directed against the US per se or directly, is support for the families of the suicide bombers. Although Hamas and more so Hezbollah are/were Shia (Hezbollah in Lebanon) with direct funding from Iran.
There is no argument that Iraq had some ties to international terrorism and more specifically Palestinian terrorism (they would not view at as terrorism) But to bring up Abu Nidal (from the Ollie North days) or to actually think that Iraq had any significant role, no any role, in any terrorist acts on US Soil but specifically September 11, 2001.
Again, Osama Bin Laden did not like and wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Baath party of Hussein and Syria’s Hafiz al Assad are secular, with secular foundations, history, and philosophy. The Baath party in Iraq was formed by Christians with a socialistic and pan-Arab identity it was not as secular as Kemal Attaturk but it certainly was not the Wahabees of Saudi Arabia and certainly not the Taliban of Afghanistan. Al Queda was opposed to Saddam and the Baath party in philosophy and practice.
Iran had designs on Mecca because of their view of the depravity and excess of the House of Saud (the friends of Bush I and II remember that Bandar was called a Bush because he was so close)
We funded and helped Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war.
Iraq was considered the more pro-Western secular nation against the fundamentalist religious anti-Western Iran. Iran funded Hezbollah, encouraged suicide bombings in Palestine, and had links to International Terrorism especially funded out of Lebanon. Again, this is NOT pro Saddam, it is NOT pro Zarqawi, it is merely demonstrating that yes this IS more complicated and nuanced and the neoconservative rhetoric is not factually nor historically based in reality.
There is no doubt that Islamic terrorism is bad. The problem is the US is fostering and increasing it through the Iraq invasion. I am normally a Repub, I like Sen Chuck Hagel for Prez, but Sen Biden makes sense on Iraq
Tim, there have been specific incidence of loss of liberty because of the Patriot Act, it is late and I am tired but will post more later.
“Which of these terrorists was linked to Al Queda or 9-11? NONE”
So what? Your point is?
If Iraq had no link to terrorism related to 9-11 than there was not a solid reason to invade Iraq.
Afghanistan literally was were Al-Queda was physically located and took claim for 9-11, Kenya, 1998 etc. We went to invade Iraq to take out Osama bin Laden. Invading Iraq did not stop terrorism at least not the kind that started 9-11 or terrorism on our soil nor did it make us safer or the world safer. After our invasion there were terrorist attacks in Turkey, London, Spain, the subway stuff and continuing attacks in Israel as well as fragile areas related to this in Palestinian “authority”, Morocco, Algeria, Jordan etc.
There is no doubt that there is a virulent strain of Islam that has connections with terrorism, that may be historically or at least theoretically modeled off of historical terrorism of the Ishmaelis (assassins, the Shia sect) that also sided with the Knights Templar but was eventually decimated by the Caliphates, Saladin, and Mongols, the so called Hashemites also who used assasination as part of warfare and supposedly pioneered terrorism…
anyrate from Israel against Jews, to India and taking of the Lak Su Ba (phonetically the Indian parliament) against Hindus, or the Kashmir question (but you can blame the Brits who put a Hindu Raj in charge of a diverse area of Jains, Hindus, even Buddhists but MOSTLY Muslims–doesn’t work, or Chechnya against Russian secular communists or Orthodox Christians (the Russians were also brutal), or against Communist Chinese, or against Catholic Filipinos, or footholds in Europe in white European Slavic Bosnia or Albania ALL have terrorist ties, ties to Al-Queda and in some cases less so to Iraq, BUT none besides Israeal and ties to Iraq or Saddam Hussein. There is a real and necessary war against terror.
There has been historical animosity with Muslims and Christians since Mohamat went to conquer Mecca from Medina and problems with Christians and Jews from his dealings with these cities and Abbysinians. From the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 or the Siege of Vienna we have been at conflict. It has died down until recently. There are two sides of any historical story.
But our relationship with Israel and our invasion of Iraq has increased Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism. Osama Bin Laden understands the symbolism of Andalusia, Saddam did not and did not care. So I am not an apologist for Islam (although there is some Truth and some good points–including the transfer of Aristotle via Arabs to Aquinas) and certainly not a defender of terrorism.
I am also not a French Catholic, fighting Fessio, or an anti-Semite, or a conspiracist that sees the Yale Skull and Cross Bones or anti-Catholic Masons invading for the oil companies linked to the Rockerfeller families and freemasonry. Although with the huge oil profits, high gas prices, and huge profits of Halburton and war profiteers, arms merchants, and security companies–it is not hard to become conspiratorial.
However, the War in Iraq makes Arabs hate us more. Creating a new generation of hate that was not present pre-1990. If Al-Queda and those guilty of the great crime of 9-11 and their evil is not operating nor supported by Iraq, than we should invade elswhere like Sudan where millions of Christians and Pagans are being killed including a subtle color conscious racism or Saudi Arabia where many of the pilots on the 9-11 planes were on and the funders of these terrorist cells and madrassas of hate all around the world including England and Bosnia where these terrorist cells planned travesties like London and Spain and subway bombings.
The Iraq war hurts us in our war against terror.
While Islam is flawed, violent and problematic, there is a realpolitik of co-existence. The terrorists may be nihilisitc but we still must deal with the Arab and Islamic world(s) for trade, oil, and cessation of violence–how this is done is a question. This does not mean that violence or reality is not necessary on our part BUT that respect, understanding and tolerance are promoted and that there are good aspects of Islam. Islam may well be inherently violent but it also has surras in the Quran and aspects of peace and tolerance and has done so better at different times of history. We may need to deal and negotiate after war and from a position of strength. But a completely arrogant and uniformed approach that alienates us from the Muslim world is not a wise approach at international relations and war/peace.
Michael, thank you for your tacit admission that you can’t back up your assertions (which you claim are not assertions) with evidence.
“…there have been specific incidence of loss of liberty because of the Patriot Act…”
We are still waiting for someone to tell us one liberty he has lost due to the Patriot Act. Just one. So far, no takers.
“…the War in Iraq makes Arabs hate us more.” I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but show us the evidence!
Maybe this will help.
evidence, n. 1. ground for belief; that which tends to prove of disprove something; proof. (The Random House College Dictionary, revised edition, copyright 1984).
That should be “prove or disprove”.
Look, we are none of us experts, and I agree that the situation is extremely complex and “nuanced”. I am not the kind of person who enjoys the prospect of war.
I just think this whole idea that “Bush lied” is the big lie. It was cooked up by the same people (politicians) who supported the Iraq war initially, but then saw a chance to make some political hay by playing ignorant and claiming that Bush “misled” them. The KNOW better, because they had the same intelligence that everyone else did.
Why does an entire third of the country now turn coat? They sit there on their soggy La-Z-Boy derriere and chant their “No WMDs” mantra, talk about how Saddam was really quite nice to some people, and how we should get out of Iraq NOW, when they were likely part of the large majority that supported the war in the first place.
You can’t un-invade a country. There is no magic “do-over” button. We are IN Iraq now, and raking over pre-war intelligence NOW is about as relevant as analyzing the Nixon-Kennedy debates. The people who have the real responsibility for making these decisions do not have the LUXURY of second guessing and playing pretend. Pulling out of Iraq COLD, would make us all, not chickenhawks, but just plain chickens. It’s disgusting.
We have WEDDED OURSELVES to the fate of Iraq. It baffles me that anyone thought war should be simple and easy. It gets hard and we BUG OUT? Shameful.
As I said in an earlier post, many will support a war in theory, but only if it meets the following requirements:
* Victory must be assured (victory being understood as universal approval from our both our allies and our enemies).
* There must be guarantees that no civilians will be harmed. Failure to achieve this makes the U.S. guilty of war crimes.
* There must be no U.S. troop casualties. Any loss of U.S. personnel will be taken as a sign that Things are Going Badly. Only bad guys should be harmed.
* We must know exactly how long the conflict will take. We are a busy people.
* There should be a clearly set spending limit. Any overage will deducted from the next war.
* We reserve the right to Change our Mind in the middle of any conflict. We consider that the above rules are binding, just not on us.
Actually, ZarQawi was in Afghanistan prior to our invasion in 2002, but fled to Iraq, where he received support from Saddam, who knew he Bin Laden’s associate. How’s that for a link between those who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam?
Sorry,
I type too quickly.
Michael seems to have proof and facts to back up his assertions. Bill and Co. do not seem to have any facts. I have googled it and they do cite Vatican, UN, this John Hopkins studies etc.
What proof are you looking for? There seem to be a lot of proof out there.
That Christians are being persecuted and are leaving Iraq. That is a fact. (Numerous media reports, and go on Middle Eastern Christian websites)
That the death toll for civilians on this invasion and occupation is at least 100,000 half of which are women and children. (The John Hopkins study)
There were no WMDS. (Bush even admits that)
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, 2001.
Iraq had minimal amount to do with Al-Queda.
Iraq was not the worse player in the region or the world. I agree with another callers view to invade the Sudan. Iraq is mild compared to Sudan, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Ukraine under Stalin. Iraq was a bastion of religous freedom and womens rights when compared to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and/or many other Islamic and other nations.
The view that the invasion of Iraq was not a good mood, that it is not going well, and that it was not well thought out or planned is not from the goo goos but from Sen Hagel (actual veteran Republican) and General Zinni and to a lesser extent Colin Powell.
It is not Ted Kennedy but scores of retired Generals on the replacement of the arrogant Donald Rumsfield.
Just go on the stock market or read reports of quarterly stock reports or journals of politically connected companies like Blackwater, Lincoln/Iraqex, Haliburton, Brown and Root.
The merchants of death. The profiteers of war.
Also, just read the elements of Just War, read Aquinas, and figure out proportionality etc.
Iraq was not a threat to the US. Iraq certainly had links to terrorists (as does the US) but less links than Saudi, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. None of which we invaded.
The person who wants the proof that more Arabs are mad at us after the invasion in Iraq only needs to read some polls, go look at Al Jazeera, watch the UN and the statements from other Islamic nations, or go to local area Mosques and talk to Arabs here. That is such an absured statement.
Bill do you really think that Arabs are not more mad at us (the London and Spanish subway bombings were after the war started)
Talk to our troops about the insurgents and Cheney’s last year comment about them in the last throes etc. THEY DON’T WANT US THERE.
WHAT PROOF DO YOU NEED???????
In terms of rights in our own nation, Trials without known evidence or accusers, the suspension of writ of habeaus corpus, the Padilla case (he may well be guilty but charge him), the Jonathon Walker Lindh case (dumb kid although academically smart BUT did he kill anyone? did he swear allegiance against the US? does the punishment fit the crime), some of the Palestian cases including Salah in Chicago, evidence obtained through alleged torture of a confession signed in Hebrew, ability to look at peoples email and listen in on conversations–Fighting Islamic terrorism is important BUT this is and certainly can be abused. Esquire Magazine has an article on Walker the American Taliban this month. The DC Bar (for lawyers journal had one also. There are numerous media accounts of the Padilla case (again he may be guilty but give him due process)
SO, again Salah, Padilla, Lindh Walker
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS AND SUSPENSION, NOT FACING YOUR ACCUSER, SUSPENSION OF HABEAUS CORPUS, WIRE TAPPING, SECRET EVIDENCE.
The current lawsuits against SBC Ameritech.
Look at the Amnesty International Website.
Your right that it is not that bad now, although there is bad, but it could get a lot worse, and there is bad now. Perhaps we do lose some rights in the time of war, and I can understand that, but some are unnecessary. The size and scope of government and the jusification behind war is dangerous and leads to totlatirianism.
I can’t believe what I’m reading.
“In terms of our own nation, trials without evidnece or accusers.” Name one.
“The suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus.” I seem to have missed it when that was put into effect. (Could you possibly be thinking of Lincoln during the Civil War?)
“the Jonathan Walker Lindh case”. Captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan, fighting against US troops.
Anonymous, I’d refute more, but my fingers are getting tired. Returning now to reality.
Padilla has not been charged. Many of the Palestianian cases we are doing for the Israelis and deportations (including US Citizen cases) are with secret evidence. There is not a general suspension of habeus corpus but people have been arrested and being detained without being charged. Bring charges. Let people have their day in court.
Lindh was not fighting US Troops. He was in Afghanistan and he was a convert to Islam and learned these languages etc., and that is bizarre, but he was not fighting US Troops.
We forgave far more communists and did not give them imprisonment for life neither to Nazis.
“Look at the Amnesty International Website.”
Oh my gosh…no thanks. Once is enough. Talk about “Hate America First”.
“…do you really think that Arabs are not more mad at us…”
Holy cow… I expect that Kruschev got mad at us over Cuba, too. Hitler was probably mad about D-Day… since when is the aim of our foreign policy to make sure that our ENEMIES are happy?
If they are not our enemies, they need to make that plain by renouncing and defeating the terrorists among them.
I hope they ARE mad, not to mention frustrated. I’m mad at them. There is (and has been for a long time) far too much support for the Islamo-fascists among the Muslim populace. They may not care for terrorism, per se, but they like the idea of the West getting a black eye, so they tolerate the murdering monsters.
“Many of the Palestinian cases we are doing for the Israelis and deportations (including US citizen cases) are with secret evidence.”
“Secret evidence”? I’m tempted to ask how you could possibly know this if it is secret, but I think I will just suggest that you loosen the tin foil.
“Lindh was not fighting US troops.” Your secret will be safe with us.
When we gloat over the death of anyone we embrace the culture of death and distance ourselves from Life himself.
That comment is typical of the contemporary Catholic mindset that effectively worships Life itself as God rather than the Author of Life as God. It is the same mindset that, in the name of a “consistent ethic of life,” ignores the innocent victims of evil in favor of the perpetrators of evil (just look at the Church’s moral revisionism concerning capital punishment).
Fr. Blake, I suggest you read the Old Testamnent, where God has established His standards and demands for justices (demands and standards which Christ Himself does not contradict or countermand). Those standards include punishing the evil and protecting the innocent from them.
I not only rejoice in Zarqawi’s death, I prayed for it. I also pray for the deaths of bin Laden, Zarahiri and the other leaders of terrorist groups who wish to sacrifice the innocent to their pernicious ideologies.
It’a about time more Christians so prayed and discarded the sanctimonious drivel exhibited by Fr. Blake.
1. I am Happy that Zarwqawi is dead. Happy may not be the right word but it is good that he is dead and I have positive emotions.
2. The brutal dictator Saddam Hussein was and is a bad man and did bad things.
3. War is long and complicated and people die.
4. Islamic terrorism is a real threat to us (the United States of America) and the world.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that:
1. We should of invaded Iraq. We probably shouldn’t have. BUT I do agree that we can’t leave now.
2. The Iraq War is going well. It is not.
3. The Iraq occupation is not well planned, nor well run. This is former military people, Army, Marines, a number of even generals and General Zinni to be specific.
4. The US instigated UN embargo(started by George Hebert Walker Bush) killed (even if indirectly) millions of people.
5. The current US invasion of Iraq and current occupational (we literally call it the occupational authority) have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS, perhaps justified, perhaps not, perhaps part of war, but to be desensitized to that is not spiritually healthy and not part of the Culture of Life.
6. Comments such as Nuke them, or destroy Fallujah are not part of the Culture of life and do demonstrate an ethnocentrism and attitude that is not recognizibly Christian.
7. There is a clear link between Iraq and terrorism although perhaps not as clear of link between Al-Queda and terrorism. There is evidence that our policies pushed previous ideological enemies to a unity. It is unclear shy so many people on this blogsite either don’t know, don’t care, or don’t want to know that Al-Queda was oppossed to Saddam, that Saddam while using Islamic symbols was a pro-Western secularist (not an Islamicist) who fought Sunni extremists and Shia. (by far the most pro-Western in policy at least throughout the 80’s with numerous documented meetings, compliments, money and arms from the Reagan administration, Bush HW, and Donald Rumsfield) The invasion in Iraq arguably took away from the invasion of Afghanistan, increased terrorist breeding ground and propaganda, and maybe did not make us safer (many worldwide terrorist attacks in the South Pacific, Turkey, London and Spain happened even if none after 9-11 on US soil per se but certainly our Western and other allies and citizens) It was not necessary to invade Iraq to fight terrorism.
8. There are no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The so called WMDs. It is not implausible that George W Bush was manipulated or manipulated intelligence data to justify the end goal of the invasion. There are plenty of ex-CIA and intelligence (Naval etc) that indicate that the WMD thing was not taken as seriously as Bush thought and that the strategic value of invading Iraq for geographic security (oil stability etc) as well as the Global War on Terror. This is not being judgmental after the fact or sitting in my or a Lazyboy chair (I have seen combat, did the person who wrote that comment?)
9. To argue that Middle Eastern Christians are not worse off by any measure is not a fact, in Iraq and elswhere because of the rise (a relatively new phenomena)of Islamic fundamentalism as well as more strident Zionism and an apathy on behalf of the United States and lack of strength from the Vatican and France, is laughable. Iraq, now, is far worse for Christians than under Saddam.
The problem with some of the posters are:
1. They equate Orthodox or even conservative Catholicism with political conservativism.
2. There is a quasi Americanist heresy (which I am sympathetic too)that dogmatizes US interests as inherently moral or per se right. This may or may not be the case although it may be most or some of the time or should be or I may want it to be.
3. There is a lack of equality or equity, consciously or subconsciously on death of people who are not from the US and ultimately people who are not white (I think the reason we did not discuss Sudan earlier or did not do much if anything) It is easy to dismiss the suffering of others. The dignity of the individual who is darker, poorer, or even uncivilized is not always recognized.
4. A lack of care of suffering or death generally.
5. There is a jingoistic pro-Americanism that justifiably at first does not want to criticize Bush or US foreign policy.
6. There is an influence including in US conservative Catholic circles of neo-conservative Chickenhawks, who want to invade everywhere, without a plan, many times arguably and allegedly putting Israeli interests first–not my view but an intersting one put forward by accurate predictors of the first Iraq war from the Univesity of Chicago and Harvard, I think it is more big oil interests (who have promoted and funded terrorism far more than Saddam ever did)
These neo-cons view soldiers as toy soldiers and the deaths through high tech bombings and our own weapons of mass destruction of 100s of thousands of people, the destruction of infrastructure necessary for the health and safety of people, and daily chaos and strife as necessary for some vague geo-political end.
The oil producing rich despotic decadent nations and the big waspy corporations raping the US taxpayer through no bid contracts in Iraq are running this game, and many good Catholic conservatives buy into it by trying to do good and defending their country, at least with words.
Hans Urs: You regurgitate the Taling Points with eloquence.
Should be “Talking” Points. (More coffee!)
Folks,
It’s al-q(A)eda, not al-q(U)eda.
Sorry,
That was my comment.
Ya know, Hans Urs, I was with you ( I mean, at least I could understand your point of view, even if I disagree) right up until your last few paragraphs, when your brain exploded.
“US conservative Catholic circles of neo-conservative Chickenhawks, who want to invade everywhere, without a plan…”
You’re babbling… it’s nonsense.
“These neo-cons view soldiers as toy soldiers…”
Again, rot. That’s like me saying that you have no sympathy for the people that Saddam murdered and tortured to death, and that in order to PROVE that you mourn their deaths you must agree with me.
“The oil producing rich despotic decadent nations and the big waspy corporations raping the US taxpayer through no bid contracts in Iraq are running this game…”
Evidence please? The best debunking of the Evil Halliburton meme that I have heard came from NPR – that’s National Public Radio – not exactly a bastion of conservatism.
You did get one thing right… the UN sanctions killed many more than either Saddam or Gulf War II. They were absolutely idiotic and unjust. They never worked.
And yet, what did we hear over and over again from opponents of Gulf War II? “Give Sanctions a Chance!!”… millions of innocents starving, Saddam sitting pretty, bribing the UN committees that were supposed to oversee the whole thing… and they continually argued that this is PREFERABLE to the actual war?
I hope we have learned our lesson. Our mucking about at the UN served no purpose at all, except to let Saddam make preparations. It was a sham. Bill Clinton had it right in Serbia (and I didn’t vote for him); Don’t ask for permission from the UN or anyone else… just go do what you have to do.
The UN drips with blood money, and we should ignore them unless they can be useful to us. Our mistake was in ever taking the Iraq situation to them in the first place.
The UN can drip with blood money AND Haliburton can have politically connected no bid contracts.
I think the earlier post about being insensitive to the suffering others is true at least for some.
I was very pro-Bush, very pro invasion of Afghanistan, but I am having second thoughts on Iraq and some other aspects of this whole thing.
Republican veteran and Senator Chuck Hagel has some insight into this situation from a different perspective.
PBS Frontline had a great story on the war and WMDs and the lies of Cheney and Rumsfield.
They screwed up the CIA.
Yeah! Not only did they lie about WMDs, but they’re so stupid that they didn’t plant any so some would be found.
give them time Bill912, Tenet resigned, the CIA was in turmoil with resignations, no Africa connects, only Colin Powell made sense but was a team player, this Iraq war SUCKS
Bill,
Please tell me you’re joking. Then GW Bush knew there were no WMDs, so he built his whole case upon that which he knew wouldn’t hold up? Hmmm, not very bright, if you ask me.
Yes, David, I was joking. You got the point I was trying to make.
Bill,
I know you were joking. I was using you joke to make a more explicit argument against the idea that ‘Bush lied, people died’ for those who believe such stupidity. I’m done here. Peace out.
Do you think we are turning a corner in Iraq? or just getting into a deeper quagmire?
The Iraq war does not meet the principles of the Just War doctrine. It is certainly not proportional. The US was not threatened by Iraq and is more so now.
This war is immoral. Catholics have been bamboozled by Bush, the neocons, big corporate America that is going liberal, and oil companies.
Wow, what original thinking! Never heard anyone make those assertions before!
Okay, going back to reading the story of “The Big, Bad Halliburton!”
Halbiurton is certainly nothing great nor moral
Remember it was Republican former Supreme Allie Forces Commander Dwight David Eisenhower “Ike” who warned us of the power of the Military Industrial Complex and thier influence on politics and pushing us to war for economic benefit. Not exactly a liberal.
Cheney is very overrated. Very selfish. No real vision. Absurd statements. No real talent but for hisself.
Hippo is right on some things.
There is no theological debate on common ground which potentially is important:
1. One God
2. Children of Abraham
3. Moral code based on ten commandments
4. belief in Angels and demons
5. Honor for Jesus (also significant disagreement)
6. Honor for Mary
7. Belief in a Supernatural worldview, miracles, angels, demons, afterlife, heaven, hell
8. Monotheism as contrasted with pantheism or other views such as secular materialism
9. belief in giving to charity
10. belief at least in some sects of both sides in pilgrimage, visiting gravesites (not in strict Wahabbinism nor in Protestantism)
11. Holy day and keeping Sabbath
12. Both have common current modern “enemy” in communism, aethism, secularism
I hope a discussion of the Middle Eastern Christians is discussed and how to protect them with our policies and a rational discussion.
Casca and Hippo should a good conversation.
For more info on Eastern Rite Catholics and other Eastern topics, although not necessarily Arab/Aremenian/Assyrian/Syrian/Iraqi Christians
check out EWTN linked
east2west.org
VERY GOOD SITE
very educational and informative
I was in an onsite where a 1 star general who was in Iraq helping create the government early on in was asked a question about:
1. Do the Kurds want an independent state? (which the current constitution would preclude)
and
2. How were minorities specifically Assyrians (who do not consider themselves Assyrians similar and historically justified despite a similiar phenotype to how the (some) Lebanese consider themselves Phoenicians and not Arab, Assyrians are a separate (nation) people descended from Babylonians and distinct genetically and historically from Arabs) and Christians generally (Arab Christians non-Assyrians) How were minorities especially Christians being treated?
On question #1 the General said that the Kurds don’t want a separate state, which is absurd and in denial of the US. If we are to blame Saddam (and we should) for mistreatment of Kurds we should also blame our NATO ally Turkey (which also has been brutal although they view it by necessity) THE KURDS WANT AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND DO USE “TERRORISM”. The General was delusional, in denial, or giving the party line to make sure everyone was motivated.
On question #2: The General and much of the “Intelligence” apparatus surrounding Iraq is not aware about and does not perceive the Iraqi Christians and strategically important and minority rights are less protected under the current de facto Shia regime than under S.H.
Recognizing the current dire situation is not a justification for S.H. Zarqawi or anything else.
Christians are not even on the radar screen.
Bill may feel the need to be “gauche” and want facts or evidence and not “assertions. Well, I have been to Iraq and am in the military.
Moreover, I have a Masters in Middle Eastern Studies at a prominent University paid for by the Army. My wife is part Assyrian (in union with Rome although most of her family is not) My wife hates Saddam and most of her family were at least initially in support of the invasion. The civilian death count in this Operation is probably at least 100,000 since the inception. I don’t know about the accuracy of the numbers on the Embargo after Operation Desert Storm but there was a lot of death and destruction that we caused. What the invasion stopped (it did not stop terrorism) and what the end goal is (we are in a Vietnam like occupational state and Vietnam was at least to stop communism, we are creating a more religious “fundamentalist” state with closer ties to Iran). There is no political or strategic goal in site and we caused a lot of, in some cases, unnecessary destruction.
It is good that Zarqawi is dead. The future may hold good in the end for the people in Iraq for us BUT the interim is Hell. The various Christian community(ies) are in a greater Hell in Iraq now than they were before the war.
Posted by: Col | Jun 11, 2006 4:45:51 PM
It is good this evil terrorist is dead.
Was Sharon also a terrorist?
Is Netanyahu also spewing hate?
Just because you killed the puppet, or the actor, doesn’t mean we are safe. The theaters’full and the owner is hidden, silent, but deadly
the world is more dangerous not less
“the world is more dangerous not less”
Yeah! And the more terrorists that are killed, the more dangerous the world will get! (Atleast that’s what the messages I’m getting through the tin foil are telling me).
no but kill the right terrorists
and don’t create new or different ones
Israel in Lebanon CREATES TERRORISM FOR EVERYONE ELSE
US being in Iraq is BAD for the war on terror
Afghanistan is GOOD
This is not liberals, anti-semites and naive peaceniks or arabists but
former CIA, General Zinni, Republican Senator Hagel (wounded Vietnam vet), other former Generals, former security specialists
Cheney the chickenhawk sucks
Halburiton is doing war profiteering
(not as bad as Lincoln and the worst Custer LLC)
Obama made a lot of sense recently (and I am not a fan of him) on privatization of war (Sen from IL)
Rumsfield is an arrogant old jerk who is getting my friends killed
Iraq has no good plan
London, Spain, Turkey, TERRORISM HAS INCREASED
Thank God it has not hit us in the 50 again
Iraq is not getting better
Israel is myopic and self centered, yes much better than the surrounding but hurting us nonetheless
The New Oxford Review editors claim that Neocons want to buy them and buy off Catholic groups and periodicals.
The more I read on the invasions of Iran and Syria–the more I am concerned about the neocon influence.