www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Five Churches Bombed in Baghdad

Prayers for our Catholic, Orthodox, and Assyrian brethren in Iraq and prayers of thanks that no one was injured.

Prayers, indeed!

Kicking off Ramadan with violence just proves how peaceful Islam is!

May the Lord protect our Christian bretheren, and all those who oppose this evil!

Gaudior, too weary to be shocked

"Iraq's community of 750,000 Christians has grown increasingly anxious at the rise of Islamic fundamentalism since the ouster of Saddam Hussein last year. Hundreds have fled to neighboring Jordan and Syria."

Well our little war there has certainly done a lot to bring freedom to our Christian brothers and sisters. Prior to our unjust invasion, Christians were as well as anyone. There isn't much good you say about Saddam Hussein, but at least he did leave the Christians alone and protected them from the fundamentalists. What a pity we can't do the same. But then the USA doesn't care what happens to native Christians in the Middle East, they don't exist. Don't you think that's a bit odd from a goverment that many in our country would call Christian and is heavily supported by so called Christians?

Friends,

I am saddened that churches are targets of the extremists, but don't freak out. This is the classic MO of terrorists. Make an explosion to scare people that terrorists are the big bad wolf. Terrorists can't win this war. They don't have the resources. Terrorists are wimps and cowards. They are somewhat like street gang members here in the U.S.

Courage!! Justice will prevail.

"...Evil and death do not have the final say."
--Pope John Paul II.

Christ is our peace.

Paul

Well, lets start a petition to put Saddam back in power.

JoeS

///Well our little war there has certainly done a lot to bring freedom to our Christian brothers and sisters. Prior to our unjust invasion, Christians were as well as anyone. There isn't much good you say about Saddam Hussein, but at least he did leave the Christians alone and protected them from the fundamentalists. What a pity we can't do the same. But then the USA doesn't care what happens to native Christians in the Middle East, they don't exist. Don't you think that's a bit odd from a goverment that many in our country would call Christian and is heavily supported by so called Christians? ///

Yeah, that's it. :rolleyes: We really have only two choices: Saddam in power or the present chaotic mess with less safety, more terrorism, torture, lost nuclear material, ...
:rolleyes:

Or perhaps, with a little less arrogance about God speaking though them, a little less heresy about the role of the Bush administration in salvation history, and a little, just a little worst-case planning for securing the peace, we could of had both: Saddam gone; and better safety, less terror, ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login

Friends,

Two Iraqi Chaldean Catholic bishops views on Christians' current situation in Iraq.

You won't hear these stories from Mr. Brokaw, Mr. Rather or Mr. Jennings.


http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1159

http://www.cathnews.com/news/309/154.php

Paul

As for the accusations of the Democrats, I submit the following:


Joe Enterprise Analysis Corporation

203 348-7001

http://www.eacorp.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Capous Sent: Friday,October 8th, 2004 9:15 PM

Subject: Democratic quotations, proof in writing...thank you Pat Pasciuto


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,18,1998


"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD),
John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of
delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and Developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working Aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid,
comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct
10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction

... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Every one of these democrats now say that President Bush lied about Hussein storing weapons of mass destruction. They are alleging that he involved the country in war for no reason!

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I am horrified and saddened for our Christian brothers and sisters.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us and on the whole world!

Alice

Zenovia,
I'm not sure how your post is related to anything else on this thread. With 20-20 hindsight we now know that the measures undertaken in the Clinton era were very effective at thwarting Saddam's designs and inhibiting these programs. The gravity of the threat was not calculated by the administration with sufficient diligence; it was exagggerrrated. Is your post another example of the changed motto in the oval office: not, "the buck stops here", but "it's someone else's fault."

Moe and djs,

I wonder if we could stick to the topic and not drift into partisan politics. After all Muslims have been attacking Christians and Jews long before there was ever a USA. Moreover, Sudanese Muslims have been killing Christians regularly for 20 years and sporadically for at least since the 1880's. In twenty years if the Bush doctrine is consistently followed and the world is not a safer place from these thugs then we have room to call for some serious changes. Now we have no serious evidence that this doctrine will or won't work. But it's unfair to rush to judgment when nothing else has worked.

Curly

Judging from the rest of your post, the answer is no we cannot.

Hospodi pomiluj!

First, it is not too early to criticize the implementation of this policy. The architects of the war were incompetent in planning to secure the peace. They "miscalculated" the aftermath woefully, and the consequences of this miscalculation are terrible.

Second, it is already clear that the policy of pre-emption has problems. Is it moral, in the first place? More practically, do we have intelligence assests that enable us to differentiate rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction from those with grandiose delusions about such production? And given that the the error of a false negative is so politically damaging, while, at least in the current adminsistration, a false positive is not admitted as an error at all, are we not destined to repeated action based on failed intelligence? Is this problem not a defect of the policy itself?

Third, while the right of unilateralism is not in question, the cost associated with failures to achieve substantive coalitions is clear. We would clearly be better off having an administration, like Bush-father, that understands this and can sucessfully create substantive coalitions.

Finally, it not at all too early to discuss the concept of "Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions". Of course this is a huge reversal for Bush who in 2000 who criticized the limited "nation building" efforts of the Clinton administration. Now we have the aim of rebuilding multiple nations in all regions.

At the very least we could discuss, why the occupation of the Middle East and North Africa (in contrast to, for example, India) by the UK and W. European states failed to extend democracy, liberty, and security. Are we paying attention to the lessons of history or are we simply fancying ourselves as omnipotent in creating history. (W has spoken clearly on this point).

The idea that the criterion of success in this adventure is that the world is safer from the thugs - with no accounting for costs - is unacceptable. And the idea of waiting twenty years for more evidence is unacceptable.

Perhaps the current issues with "peace" arose because the USA was so hamstrung by the liberals of the world saying "It's all about oil" that we practically tripped over ourselves in an effort to get out at the earliest possible microsecond, so that the world wouldn't see us as occupying the area. Perhaps, with a reasonable amount of SUPPORT, bi-partisan support, as the example Zenovia gave clearly indicates that the Bush administration was not by any means alone in thinking that there WERE WMDs in Iraq, the USA might have taken a longer approach that might have cooled things down more.

Can we please get back to the subject at hand, the Church bombings, and prayers for those involved, and stop sniping?

Gaudior, who reminds people of the fact that peace takes some getting used to...especially on political threads on fora

One effort, not in Iraq or No. Africa, in Bosnia may have some merit. Christians went to that nation and held prayer meetings while standing between the warring factions. They were quite willing to be killed in order to bring peace.

I wonder if Western Christians would be willing to go to Iraq and form a circle of prayer and protection around Iraqi Churches. I wonder if Iraqi Christians would welcome such help or would hope that it not come in this way.

Or what if we had groups of Western Christians go and help rebuild the bombed out Churches? What if we had done this in 1937-38 for Synagogues in Germany?

Just looking for some way to useful.

Dan L

...written just after his own tangential snipe... :rolleyes:

IF you want to suggest that Bush and company lacked the resolution to stand up to the opinion of "liberals of the world" and were timid in the face of political opposition, be my guest. Although in fairness, I think this is implausible, and a cheap shot at the President.

This is an interesting, positive idea. But the situation has probably deteriorated to far for the State Department ot allow civilian travel to Iraq. What has been happening over the last decade is a very open US immigration policy. I think that the Chaldean Catholic church has grown by immigration to become one of the largest EC churches in the US.