www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Iraqi Christians

I am sure there will be many hardships. But the spectrum is somewhere between what the patriarch/cardinal and the auxiliary bishop has said; one condemns, the other gives thanks. This only demonstrates confusing signals. Should I side with the patriarch/cardinal and condemn the U.S. troops or side with the auxiliary bishop and be thankful for them with the local Muslims?

I can appreciate the news coming from a writer who is actually IN Iraq, not one who writes about events far away and does not explain himself when he mentions *persecutors*. The writer did a non-service by ending it on a negative note.

Ed

Check this out:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?print=1&did=1107-notes-plight

Apparrently, the Iraqis are not as convinced as we are...

The Woeful Plight of Iraqi Christians

November 2007

Bishop Ibrahim N. Ibrahim, a Chaldean Catholic in Iraq, preached an astonishing sermon on June 19 at the Mother of God Chaldean Catholic Cathedral in Southfield, Mich. According to a Catholic News Service report written by Robert Delaney (The Catholic Voice, July 2), Bishop Ibrahim delivered his sermon in Arabic, later providing an English translation of his major points.

Delaney reports that "The current situation [in Iraq] puts Christians in the hazardous position of being perceived as being allied with the foreign occupiers, but the Americans provide no special protection for them, the bishop [said]." Bishop Ibrahim also said, "When the world's major superpower has 150,000 troops in that country [Iraq], is a terrible thing.... they cannot defend human life and human rights." According to Delaney, "even with" the "surge in U.S. forces already in place, there is no security in Baghdad, [the Bishop] noted." Bishop Ibrahim said, "Things are worse and worse and worse..., even for the Americans. The best thing is to withdraw, and then let the brothers attack each other." According to Delaney, "Bishop Ibrahim...believes the [internal] warring factions would eventually reach some sort of power-sharing arrangement."

Delaney writes that "The best hope for improving the situation in Iraq would probably be for troops from other Arab countries under the auspices of the United Nations to be sent in to replace withdrawing U.S. forces, in Bishop Ibrahim's view."

Take it from Bishop Ibrahim; he has seen the destruction and devastation firsthand.

According to Inside the Vatican (June/July), "Iraqi Christians, who enjoyed relative freedom under Saddam Hussein, now live in fear of attacks. Churches have been bombed...and Christians killed or kidnapped in post-Saddam Iraq." Inside the Vatican also said that the Holy See expresses the view that "Middle Eastern conflicts should be solved, not by foreign (i.e., American) intervention, and not by a unilateral, militarily-imposed solution, but by a multilateral, negotiated settlement."

Take it from the Holy See, which is an impartial observer.

The Catholic Near East Welfare Association, a Papal Agency for Humanitarian and Pastoral Support, publishes One magazine. In an article titled "Under Siege: Iraq's Christians" (Jul.-Aug.), Michael J.L. LaCi�vita writes, "Up to 15 percent of Iraq's 27.5 million people have been uprooted -- the equivalent of 45 million people in the United States...." LaCivita notes that "In 1990, 5 percent of Iraq's 19 million people identified themselves as Christians" -- approximately 950,000 souls. In today's Iraq, however, "according to...estimates from the United Nations and the Holy See, no more than 300,000 remain" -- nearly a 70 percent decline. Says LaCivita, "Iraq's Christians -- whose ancestors embraced the faith before the collapse of Rome and the birth of Muhammad -- take pride in their ancestry.... But this lineage does little to protect them from insurgents (many of whom are not Iraqi), who see Iraqi Christians as collaborators with the so-called Christian West."

Take it from the Papal Agency for Humanitarian and Pastoral Support, which is also an impartial observer.

From 1995 to 2002, 19 Iraqi Assyrians (Christians) were murdered. Since the onset of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, from May 2003 to early June 2007, 268 Iraqi Assyrians have been murdered, the Assyrian International News Agency reported on June 12, 2007.

Take it from the Assyrian International News Agency, which is also an impartial observer.

Gen. David Petraeus is one of the architects of the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq. Petraeus's boss is, of course, President Bush. Petraeus reported to Congress (Sept. 10-11) that the "surge" is working and that we are making progress in Iraq -- as one would expect him to, given his position. But Gen. William Westmoreland likewise reported to Congress during the Vietnam War that we were making progress and would ultimately prevail. We lost the Vietnam War.

We must take Petraeus's testimony with a grain of salt. Petraeus is a Four Star General who no doubt wants to go up the chain of command to become a Five Star General. Petraeus is not an impartial observer; he has an extremely vested interest.

Upon the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003, two million Iraqis fled the country. The internal displacement has doubled since the "surge" began six months ago, reaching 1.1 million people nationwide, according to the International Office of Migration (The New York Times, Sept. 11, 2007).

The International Office of Migration is also an impartial observer.

According to The New York Times (Sept. 11, 2007), "ABC News delivered the results of its most recent survey of Iraqi public opinion, conducted with the BBC News and the Japanese broadcaster NHK. More than 65 percent of those polled said they felt the situation was worse now than when the surge began."

Is the "surge" working, are we making "progress" in Iraq? Take it from Iraqi citizens -- no mere observers -- who experience directly with tears and suffering the all-too-brutal brunt of our failed foreign policy in Iraq.

Maybe we should call back in Al Queda to restore order?
Ed

The Catholic Voice is also promoting an Islamic Studies center.


Foreign occupiers? How about those foreign terrorists who were fighting proxy wars with the U.S.?


The mission of the U.S. forces AND Iraqi forces is to rid their country of terrorists. Their primary objective is not a peacekeeping force, which the U.N. cannot ever do successfully. Peacekeeping is second and it is practiced. I know severl troops who re-enlisted to return there to help the Iraqis. They get more appreciation from them over there than in our own backyard. The radical Muslims wanted to enforce harsh religion police and put women back a millenia or two.


What brothers? I sense that the bishop understands that the real fight is between Iraqis.


The U.N. is a paper army incapable of even maintaining peace. They are as useless as the U.N. itself.


Maybe the Vatican liked Saddam Hussein since he was only concerned with killing other Muslims and not Christians?


By whom? By U.S. troops? Tell me if the U.S. troops are bombing churches, killing or kidnapping Christians. I want to read this specifically.


Negotiations? There are more than one *conflict* in Iraq. Many of the towns are cooperating because the locals are involved, thanks to General Petraeus. Did the Vatican prefer the foreign insurgents/terrorists to negotiate solutions instead?


Which is why it chose to remain silent during the Jewish Holocaust. The Pope learned early on that openly complaining only led to more slaughter of the Jews. Can you imagine the Holy See being vocal against all the atrocities that Muslims make against Christians? Was the Chaldean bishop *impartial* when he continuously thanked the Americans? Do you think this bishop is part of the problem too?


Anyone who is affiliated with the *evil West* is the bad guy. The article states correctly that the *insurgents* or terrorists are not Iraqi. They are foreign occupiers too. Many Muslims in Iraq are happy they are gone now. Eastern Catholics are also affiliated with the Christian West/Rome.


Murdered by whom? This *impartial* agency doesn�t specify. According to the Muslims in Dora, it was when the terrorist/insurgents came in that the persecution began against the Christians. Is this the fault of the Christian West? Rome? the U.S.? our Troops? Chaldean Catholics? who are the murderers? the insurgents were also seen on the news target practicing with human shaped wood boards that had crosses painted over them? Does the Crusades ring a bell? The insurgents wanted to use the war to promote their own way of life which involved NO Christians.


Impartial? yeah, right! we were making progress in the Vietnam War with our troop surge near the end but Congress, yes! Congress pulled the plug on it. Congress today wanted to do the same thing so this war can end the same way that the Vietnam War ended � in defeat. Senator John Kerry also lied back then about our troops doing nasty things.


*No doubt*? This is a charged based solely on assumptions.


I find it interesting how we always hear about the *U.S. invasion and occupation* but not about the *Al Queda occupation*. People usually flee when a war is approaching. it also makes it easier to kill the terrorists.


Does this make the U.S. troops the guilty party for why the Christians were persecuted? I have not read yet that anyone has charged the U.S. troops for killing, beheading, kidnapping, and persecuting the Christians in Iraq.


ABC news, the New York Times, and the BBC as *impartial observers*? It is obvious what their biases are; hence the reason why their subscription rate and viewership is tanking. People are tired of their version of *impartiality*.


Most of the *impartial observers* you mentioned above are not Iraqi citizens, but are Bush haters instead. They want the war to be lost. They want the Al Queda insurgents to win.

I will appreciate the story about the Chaldean Catholic bishop who thanked the Americans after the local Muslims asked for them to come home. THEY know who the real Muslims are. THEY know who were the real persecutors of Christians. Look throughout the world where there is persecution is being made against Christians. It is not U.S. troops who are looting, harassing, persecuting, kidnapping, taxing, and killing Christians. 99% of the time it is Muslim terrorists/extremists.

But maybe we can build another Islamic Center to help us *understand* them better. The ONLY way you will *understand them is when you reject your faith and convert; either by peaceful means now or later under threats of death. It is your choice.

Ed

As you know, Bsp. Ibrahim spoke at our recent Iraqi benefit. Listen to the interview with Father Loya.

www.byzantinecatholic.com [byzantinecatholic.com] click on radio and Broadcast 162 for November 4, 2007.

CDL

Ed,

This seems to me to be a very sarcastic comment on your part; it seems trivial in light of the experience and suffering of the Iraqi Christians. I take more stock in their assessment of their situation than cavalier comments made by an American from the comfort of his home.

Lance

Well, Lance. This is the impression that many give in their litanies of anti-America hate speech. We always hear about charges that our troops are doing nothing but killing babies and persecuting Christians. These charges can only come from those who cannot recognize the enemy. I believe I just read that things were better under Saddham Hussein. Did you miss it?

As for the comfort of saying things from home, I refer you to all those *impartial* (actually outrageous and traitor) statements, especially from our turncoat Congress and failing media.

You have carefully avoided addressing the issue of our American troops killing Christians. You have carefully ignored the comments of Iraqi Muslims who told us who the persecutors really were. You refuse to acknowledge the Chaldean Catholic bishop's gratitude to the American troops in Dora, Iraq. You carefully ignored how foreign terrorists ruled the day after Saddham Hussein was killed. Most of those terrorists were not even Iraqi citizens.

Btw, the New York Times finally admitted that we finally cleaned house last week in its failing newspaper - an article hidden somewhere on page 16 or 17. One would imagine that good news would be on the front page. But certain impartiality would only put bad news there if it was to their interests, which don't include our troops or success in winning the war.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." But people in our country are smart and do figure these things out - just like the global warming scam - and will eventually vote with their money or feet; hence the reason why such *impartial* media is failing quickly. People have alternative news sources that are giving them the other side of the biased media kings of the past.

So, when I read articles about a Chaldean Catholic bishop saying anti-American statements on one hand, and hear on the other hand a Chaldean Catholic auxiliary bishop in Dora, Iraq, giving *thanks* to the Americans, I remain suspect. One article was written from the comfort of home, the other from Dora, Iraq, where Muslims restored the cross on the local church and attended the first liturgy in support.

Some things don't call for a willing suspension of disbelief.

Ed

I only get a choir singing the Lord's Prayer.
Ed

Did you click on Radio and then Broadcast #162 for 11/04/07?

CDL

Carson Daniel Lauffer,

I listened to Broadcast 162 (after realizing that the broadcast had singing ahead of it as an introduction).

Nothing was said about WHO were persecuting the Christians in Iraq. There was mention about how the Iraqi economy was booming, the Christians were living like kings under the reign of Saddham Hussein, but now have burnt out churches and most of the Christians and their priest have left.

I believe you mentioned a "terrible persecution" against the Christians. Can you elaborate or just come out directly and tell me and others who the persecutors are? Please identify them. Are they our U.S. troops? You failed to say. You also question whether our American government really cares about Christians. Is our government guilty of persecuting them, burning their churches, kidnapping them, and killing them along with their innocent Muslim friends?

Who are the persecutors? Did the bishop at the dinner point out the American troops as the persecutors?

On a side note, I like the web page. Wonderful and prayerful singing. You guys seem to be so upbeat.

Ed

Ed,

I think you are confusing me with others on this thread. Neither I nor Bishop Ibrahim ever said that Americans of any kind were persecuting Christians. What is clear is that Christians were much safer under Saddam than they are now. American troops are not capable of protecting Christians. That's the point he is making. During his speech he made a point that most of the leadership of Iraq are Iranians. I've come to realize that unless we were prepared to really clean house we should not have gone in. If there is blame, outside of the Muslims themselves, it falls more heavily upon Christians who have not successfully evangelized the people. Short of evangelization all the Christians can do in Iraq is to find someway to coexist. I don't think all the Western armies can kill all the Muslims so Christians have had to find a way to coexist or evangelize.

In any event, the situation for Christians in Iraq seems worse today than it was in 2003. The best the American troops can do for the Christians in Iraq is to find someway for Christians to have a safe haven in Northern Iraq. Other than that I don't think we can do much.

I'm glad you enjoyed our website. Annunciation is the best Church we've ever been part of.

CDL

Ed,

I have to say a few things to you:

I am tired of people like you accussing others of "anti-American hate speech," and of being "turn coats," because of opposition to the Iraq war. We live in a democracy, which affords us the right to dissent and disagree.

I do not care if someone disagrees with me about the war, and thinks I am mistaken, naive or just plain stupid; but I reject your characterizations, Ed, of people against the war as being anti-American or treasonous.

I am tired of the lack of civil discourse in our society, and I am especially disappointed that even my fellow believers can't at least assume that those of us who oppose the war do so from faith in Christ, conviction, and a good conscience.

I am a Catholic; the the current Pope and the his predecessor were against the war, and nearly all Orthodox prelates I have heard from have as well. I may be wrong about the war, but I am in good company, and acting and speaking in good conscience, listening to my shepherd, and taking into account the gospel, the scriptures, and the patristic teaching on war.

I may be wrong, but I resent be referred to as a traitor. it is rude and unfair, and I do not treat my friends who still support the war with such disrespect.

Lance

Gentlemen,

This issue is too difficult for angry harsh words. What I'm reporting is what Bishop Ibrahim reported and since his is one of the few Iraqi Christian voices I've heard I tend to take him seriously. I think the effort to create a civil government in Iraq may have been noble I think it was not well thought through...unless we were prepared to go all the way. Then I don't think that would have worked anyway. How does one eliminate that many people from the face of the earth? How does one live with that kind of responsibility? I don't really care whether I'm thought to be patriotic or not on any given issue. I oppose Islam and all forms of secularism on theological grounds, not nationalistic grounds.

CDL

Lance, Can you imagine if any Catholic bishop supported the war? The Muslim *terrorists* would kill more innocent victims just as the Nazis did everytime the Church spoke out. The bishops in the Middle East are not at luxury to support the war. Their Muslim neighbors might have their heads for it.

All this *impartial* news sources, but none has explicitly stated WHO the persecutors are. Why is that? In reading some of the articles here I get the impression that we are left with suggestions that the American troops are the persecutors. Clarifying that would work wonders.

The Chaldean Catholic bishop in Dora, Iraq, thanked the Americans many times. Why did he thank them? And why in front of Muslims who live in Dora? May the answer be that they, the locals, know who the persecutors are? In a recent battle, the Iraqis attacked he foreign terrorists (not the U.S. troops as many American(?) media sources would have you believe) and only in the end with American troops routed the terrorists out of their town.

ABC, The New York Times, and the BBC are not reliable news sources. Rarely do we find good news about our troops on the front pages and first videos. These medias are invested in defeat, not the truth.

Do you think the Chaldean Catholic bishop in Dora spoke out of line from his patriarch/cardinal/bishop? Should he resign?

Ed

Dear Ed,

I grant you that there are some mixed messages coming Iraq. I have read in print and in heard in broadcast media, Iraqi Christians bemoaning the war. But I also can't gainsay the fact that the bishop thanked America for protecting them. It is very possible (if not absolutely certain) that things would be worse if we leave right away for Iraqi Christians. They are in a difficult situation, beyond my comprehension. On the other hand, they would not be facing the danger they are in had we not gone in, IMO.

I am not a pacifist; I was for going into Afghanistan, we knew who the perpetrators of 911 were, and we should have finished the job there, first. I think the Iraq war has been a quagmire, and has not stemmed the tide of terrorism globally, even if the recent surge has helped minimize the death toll in Iraq. We should have kept our eye on the ball.

I respect your apparent belief that we are doing good in Iraq, and you may be right.

I am objecting to your apparent characterization in your earlier post of people who disapprove of the war as being treasonous and unpatriotic. I appreciate your more reasoned tone and willingness to debate with me on your most recent post.

I object to the war because:

1) I do not think preventative war is ever right
2) The war has made things worse in the region
3) The war caused an unnecessary loss of life
4) The war has endangered greatly the Christian population in Iraq.
5) As evil as Saddam was, he did not perpetrate 911
6) The humanitarian argument for the war seems disingenuous to me; why aren't we in Darfur, if it was about human rights?
7) I object to the war because of Christian conscience; I am following the teaching of my church, not of Moveon.org.

I agree with Carson that there are greater things at stake for our fellow Christians in Iraq than our disagreement about the war. I advocate for the Iraqi Christians.

Blessings,

Lance