This is a guest post by Bataween of Point of No Return
The atrocity at Our Lady of Salvation in Baghdad in which 52 Christians were murdered has set off a flurry of articles about Christians under threat of extinction in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda has declared Arab Christians a legitimate target. Even Robert Fisk of The Independent is sounding the alarm about a flight of Christians of Biblical proportions – and that was before the massacre.
First the Saturday people – now the Sunday people. Jews have been virtually wiped out in Muslim lands. Now it’s the turn of the ancient Christian communities. Forty percent of the Assyrian Christian population of Iraq has fled since the fall of Saddam.
“Shhhh! “– whispers Middle East analyst Chris Phiillips on CIF. Reports of the death of the Christian communities of the Middle East are greatly exaggerated: they will only ’ escalate fears of potential persecution’. Let’s not talk about the imminent demise of the Christian minorities, or radicals will start believing in the ‘clash of civilisations’.
I hate to break it to you, Mr Phillips – but radicals already believe it. They virtually shout ‘clash of civilisations’ from their mosques and minarets. Their ideology pits Dar-al Islam in a holy war or jihad against the infidels of Dar-al Harb. And in case Philips had not noticed, it is radical Islam which has declared war on non-Muslims, not the other way around. Radical Islamists have been around since the 1930s, burning down Coptic churches and Jewish homes and shops in Egypt. The massacre of Christians is not new either – some 3,000 Assyrian Christians were murdered in Iraq in 1933. Since then the Assyrians have thought only of emigrating.
The gist of Phillips’ argument is that not all Arab countries should be tarred with the brush of intolerance:
“Though anti-Christian feeling may be rising on the extreme radical fringe of sole Arab societies such as Iraq, this should not obscure the harmony that has long been a characteristic of other parts of the Arab world.”
‘Secular’ Arab regimes in particular treat their Christians as well as any totalitarian dictatorships could, it is claimed. As evidence, Phillips cites the fact that most of Iraq’s displaced Christians have fled not to the West but to Arab states, notably Syria and Jordan. It is true that the ruling Alawite minority – considered heretical by Sunni Muslims – likes to show solidarity with the Christian minority in Syria. Ten percent of Syria’s population are Christians, religious festivals are observed and the state even gives free electricity and water to churches, Phillips tells us.
In spite of Syrian ‘tolerance’, Philips does recognise that numbers in Syria have been dwindling. But he does not say that since the late 1960s private Christian schools have been suppressed, nor that the Armenian Christians of Syria are leaving at a particularly high rate: the government has banned their associations, publications, the teaching of their language and their political party.
Philips tells us that in Jordan, the monarch sees itself as the protector of the six percent of Jordan’s population who are Christians; they are given limited political rights. However, there is plenty of evidence that displaced Iraqi refugees view Jordan as a way-station to a third country of asylum – namely, the US. The refugees – and by no means all are Christian – complain bitterly that as non-residents they are not permitted to work or are paid exploitative wages. Only those with $100,000 to spare can obtain Jordanian residency rights.
It was the ‘secular’ regime under Gamal Abdul Nasser which did most to marginalise the Copts, now barely 10 percent of Egypt’s population. They are not allowed to repair their churches without government permission, let alone build new ones. Ever since the 1950s, the Copts have been persecuted, murdered, their women kidnapped and forcibly converted. Copts have been leaving Egypt for decades.
It is fashionable to claim that the Christians were well treated under the ‘secular’ Baathist regime in Iraq. Saddam Hussein did appoint the Chaldean Christian Tariq Aziz as foreign minister, but he was an exception. Christians have long ago been on the political margins in Iraq: the National assembly of 1984 included just four Christians among 250 members.
The apologetics kick in big time when Philips picks up Fisk’s spurious argument that demographics could explain the flight of Christians: they tend to have smaller families than Muslims – and in any case, they have been emigrating from the Middle East since the 19th century. Does Philips stop to ask why? Could the D-word have something to do with it?
The D-word is not one you’ll see much on Comment Is Free. ‘D’ stands for Dhimmi, a term designating the inferior status of Christians and Jews under Islam. It is a status that accounts for the fact that dirty jobs were the preserve of the dhimmi: Christians alone were assigned the task of clearing septic tanks in Iraq and still today, the task of collecting the rubbish in Egyptian cities is reserved for the Christian Copts. They would feed the rubbish to their pigs, until the latter were recently culled in a spiteful measure to eradicate swine flu. In Yemen, where there were no Christians, it fell to the Jews, until their mass flight in 1949 – 50, to clean the public latrines.
No matter how many Jordanians, according to Chris Phillips, say they don’t feel Muslim in a poll, Islam is a major source of law in all Muslim-majority countries. This puts all non-Muslim minorities at a disadvantage. Even in Jordan a Christian woman married to a Muslim cannot inherit from her husband, for instance, and Christians are subject to a raft of other inequalities. While Christians are given every encouragement to convert to Islam, the traffic is strictly one-way. Last week, ‘secular’ Pakistan became the latest country to sentence a Christian woman to death for blasphemy.
While the spectre of belligerent Islamism hovers over the Middle East and North Africa, non-Muslims are at terrible risk. Neither will they ever be treated as equals as long as discrimination against non-Muslims is institutionalised. That’s why the Chris Phillipses of this world, with their delusions of Muslim-Christian harmonious coexistence, are whistling in the wind.





51 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 16, 2010 at 10:19 pm
AKUS
On NPR today there was a brief report about yet another attack on Christians, and the question was asked, more or less, “Why are they suddenly attacking Christians?”
Unfortunately, the correct answer was not forthcoming – which is, that they have run out of Jews.
November 16, 2010 at 11:54 pm
MindTheCrap
It would be more fair if you were to mention that the Guardian had another article the same day:
Christians in Iraq living in fear of ‘pogrom’ after bomb attacks
‘It is hard to find a Christian who wants to stay in Iraq,’ says senior religious figure as many seek asylum abroad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/12/christians-iraq-living-fear-pogrom
which contains paragraphs like -
“But in the northern city of Mosul, fear has been endemic for the past five years. “You want to know our situation?” asked Father George Fatuhi, from the Mar Boulos Chaldean Catholic Church in central Mosul. “The attacks started in 2003 and they haven’t stopped. Can you imagine this: there were 4,000 Catholic families living here back then and now around 20 percent remain. “My church has been attacked four times. Sometimes on Sundays we have only 20 people at mass. If these attacks continue, I don’t think you will find one Christian left in Iraq.”
BTW, I posted a comment saying that this article reminded me of one in the Guardian several years ago about the Christians in Gaza and I asked what the common thread was. My comment was totally removed !!
November 17, 2010 at 12:08 am
Philo-Semite
“about the Christians in Gaza”
and about the Christians in the PA, and the Lebanese Maronites, and the Sindhi Hindu, and …..
November 17, 2010 at 12:38 am
Gerald Kreeve
As always a pleasure to read your no-nonsense treatment of a subject that the bien-passants of the world blush at, Bataween.
The truth about the ME has taken the place of sex in the Victorian era, it happens everywhere but it is almost never discussed.
November 17, 2010 at 1:52 am
andrew r
So I guess no one particularly cares that Iraq has been occupied twice in 100 years by a Christian state it does not share a common land mass with?
November 17, 2010 at 2:50 am
JerusalemMite
andrew r
So I guess no one particularly cares that Iraq has been occupied twice in 100 years by a Christian state it does not share a common land mass with?
OK. Assume that to be true. Muslim terrorists attacked the the US on 9/11 but since then, Muslim population in the US has increased.
Now why would that be?
November 17, 2010 at 3:23 am
MindTheCrap
This is an off-topic comment.
What does this story in today’s Guardian remind you of ?
“Government apologises over removal of body parts from ex-nuclear workers
Removal of organs and other tissues from bodies of former nuclear plant workers over 30-year period was result of ‘unacceptable working practices’, energy secretary says”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/16/government-apologises-nuclear-workers-body-parts
November 17, 2010 at 3:49 am
What the Guardian won’t report: The inferior status of Christians under Islam | eChurch Christian Blog
[...] The following is a cross-post from CIFWatch: [...]
November 17, 2010 at 4:50 am
zkharya
Phillips writes
‘In this context, the attacks in Baghdad only serve to escalate fears of potential persecution, especially after al-Qaida in Iraq declared Arab Christians a “legitimate target”. Indeed, it claimed the attacks were to avenge the imprisonment of two Muslim women it claims are being held by Coptic priests in Egypt, suggesting an internationalisation of its campaign beyond Iraq across the Arab world.’
Apparently the women are wives of said Coptic priests i.e. they were Muslims, perhaps, but they decided to convert, or marry Christian husbands.
Which is illegal, in Egypt, and elsewhere (not sure about Syria or Jordan, but I think so).
Phillips doesn’t comment on the fact of this illegality being part of the root cause of the problem.
November 17, 2010 at 4:59 am
zkharya
Phillips is a throw back to the 19th century orientalists, gushing about he relative tolerance of Islam to medieval Christendom. Except that he is talking of now, and the landscape is changing more rapidly under his feet than he would care to admit.
I suspect he has to say this or he won’t get funding for his PhD on Syria and Jordan at LSE.
November 17, 2010 at 5:17 am
zkharya
An Iraqi Christian priest friend got stuck here where I live in 2003 during his PhD. His wife fled to Syria, where she was stuck for several years, before he got her out and they got a diocese in the US.
While clearly the situation worsened following the Allied invasion, Iraq had been worsening since 1993, with Hussein taking on the mantle of Saladin, and Islamizing Iraqi society. Syria was clearly better than the Gulf states. But once my Iraqi friend had tasted freedom as well as security in the west, he didn’t really want anything else for his family.
Phillips seems in denial about the ‘fringe’ in fact being more indicative of the whole than he would care to admit, since, as the article above observes, he scarcely addresses the built in discrimination that still lingers from Ottoman and imperial Islamic days. Nor does he suggest the radical legal changes that would be necessary, and impossible, to implement to change it.
He reminds one of those in the 1930s who cautioned against exaggerating Nazi measures against the Jews, lest they be worsened. OK. I’m not saying middle eastern Christians face that level of persecution, nor are likely too, in the near future. But matters have been worsening for over a 100 years now. What kind of ‘analyst’ ignores a trend like that?
November 17, 2010 at 5:29 am
zkharya
The tragedy, it seems to me, is this: repressive regimes are necessary to impose a degree of secularism on society, including protection for minorities. But the driving force of change are Islamist groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, who offer mere ‘dhimmi’ status for them. The MB are often called, with some justification, the more ‘democratic’ groups, in terms of popular ground support.
The trouble is we have yet to see even a moderate Islamist power agree to step down if deselected by the people. Erdogan’s government has yet to undergo that supreme test. One reason for his Gaza campaign was to ensure his reelection. This is leading to greater insecurity for Turkish Jews. And other minorities are scarcely more enthusiastic.
It may be that Erdogan would step down, if deselected. But to what lengths is he prepared to go, to keep power? He is already jostling for leadership of the Islamic world, as did Nasser and Hussein before him, using Israel as the vehicle.
November 17, 2010 at 5:41 am
zkharya
‘The trouble is we have yet to see even a moderate Islamist power agree to step down if deselected by the people.’
But even Cromwell’s Protectorate took time to dissolve itself. In the middle east, things take a lot longer, it seems.
November 17, 2010 at 9:50 am
pretzelberg
Methinks the headline “What the Guardian won’t report: The inferior status of Christians under Islam” is just slightly compromised by the existence of e.g. the story linked to by MindTheCrap.
But why be fair, eh?
November 17, 2010 at 10:56 am
David Karr
Pretzelberg, indeed.
And AKUS’s comment at the top is extremely disgusting indeed.
November 17, 2010 at 11:34 am
zkharya
‘And AKUS’s comment at the top is extremely disgusting indeed.’
Must say, I don’t think so. It has more than an element of truth.
November 17, 2010 at 11:38 am
zkharya
I think it surprising when orientalists like Philips discusses middle eastern Christians without mentioning their former Jewish compatriots.
One is not going to halt the flight of Christians without seriously addressing the underlying reasons, or mentioning them. Simply saying ‘It is not as bad as some people say’ is a bit pathetic.
November 17, 2010 at 11:56 am
Toko LeMoko
“But why be fair, eh?”
It is hard to tell whether a bit of zevel like Pretzel is fundamentally dishonest, or is just stupid.
The Guardian article linked by MTC is irrelevant to Adam’s point. The Guardian article reported Christains’ problems at one (contemporary) instant in time in one single area (Iraq), as if the problem were a new one, a recent, 21st-century phenomenon only.
The Guardian article gave no indication that the problem is centuries old, that it applies to Christians in dozens of other Muslim countries, or that it arises from fundamental, fixed, immutable parts of Islamic theology.
These were the clear points of Adam’s article, and the Guardian said not one whit about these. Adam’s headline and article remain accurate.
November 17, 2010 at 12:26 pm
andrew r
JerusalemMite
“OK. Assume that to be true.”
Uh, what? Iraq was occupied by the British and Americans. There’s nothing to assume.
“Muslim terrorists attacked the the US on 9/11 but since then, Muslim population in the US has increased.”
If the point is supposed to be we’re too civilized to massacre Muslims, US violence doesn’t end with its own borders.
November 17, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Yohoho
“…But why be fair, eh?” – and yet you still keep haunting us pretzel! Why? Why not go somewhere more “fair” like CiF where, if you write the continue to write the drek you do you will never be taken to task?
David Karr, you are entitled to your opinions however off-the-wall, but what on earth do you find so “disgusting” about what AKUS says above? It’s more likely to be true than otherwise isn’t it – you know the Islamist saying, “First the Saturday people and then the Sunday people” – so again what is “disgusting” to you about AKUS telling us that Islamists are actually doing that, and why does it make you so uncomfortable?
November 17, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Eliyahu
So I guess no one particularly cares that Iraq has been occupied twice in 100 years by a Christian state it does not share a common land mass with?
I am amazed by Andrew’s question. Indeed, Iraq was occupied twice by Christian great powers twice in 100 years. But what does that have to do with persecuting and murdering native Christians? The Iraqi Christians of today are descended from communities that long preceded Arabs/Muslims in what is today called “Iraq.” They suffered under Islamic oppression in the dhimmi status, the dhimma, for more than 1000 years. That was long before the Brit and American invasions. Do those invasions or occupations make it all right for Iraqi Muslims to massacre native Christians, descendants of pre-Islamic communities in “Iraq” as were the Jews??? This reminds of the Muslim Arabic saying: Kulli kufar millatun wahidun [= All the unbelievers are one nation]. So Andrew appears to be accepting this ghastly Muslim principle that licenses Muslims to punish any available Christian in a Muslim majority country for what a Christian did in Europe or the Western Hemisphere.
Recall that when the Pope made his speech in Germany, quoting a Byzantine emperor’s unfavorable description of Islam, the speech was followed by an orgy of attacks on Christians in Muslim states, including murders. Including murders of Christians who did not belong to the pope’s Church and hence should not have been seen as having any link to or responsibility for the pope’s remarks.
This reminds me that during WW2 [1941], the Iraqi govt of Rashid Ali Kailani disavowed the treaty with Britain and attacked British bases in the country. By the way, Assyrian Christian troops helped to defend the Habbaniyah base against the army of the pro-Nazi Iraqi army. After the British and their Assyrian, Jewish and Arab allies had defeated the Iraqi army, the Arab mob in Baghdad went on a pogrom/massacre of local Jews [according to various estimates, 179 to 600 Jews were murdered]. Was this pogrom, called the Farhud, OK because some Jews from Israel had helped the British put down the pro-Nazi Arab army?? Or because, according to Muslim tradition, Jews in Medina had betrayed Muhammad? Tell us, Andrew, what happened to the “innocent civilian”? Can Christians and Jews be innocent civilians too? Or is that category reserved for Muslims/Arabs??
November 17, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Adam Levick
To MTC and Pretz,
First, as a note of clarity, I erroneously listed myself as the author while I should have listed it as a guest post (Point of No Return blog). I just changed it.
Also,
I read the article “Christians in Iraq living in fear of ‘pogrom’ after bomb attacks”, and don’t see how it in any way contradicts my headline suggesting that the Guardian wont’ report on the inferior status of Christians under Islam. The piece in question does indeed talk about violence against Christians, but it definitely doesn’t explain that such violence is part of a wider problem – namely, Christian dhimmitude and systemic discrimination against Christians in Arab/Islamic nations.
November 17, 2010 at 5:11 pm
zkharya
‘ Indeed, Iraq was occupied twice by Christian great powers twice in 100 years. But what does that have to do with persecuting and murdering native Christians?’
Or Jews?
November 17, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Toko LeMoko
“So I guess no one particularly cares that Iraq has been occupied twice in 100 years by a Christian state it does not share a common land mass with?”
“Indeed, Iraq was occupied twice by Christian great powers twice in 100 years.”
Er, no. The colonial (or neo-colonial) occupying powers were secular for the most part and only nominally Christian, and were acting on behalf of state interests, not on behalf of Christianity.
After all, hasn’t a hobby-horse of the left been the “separation of church and state” as a hallowed principle of western democracy? So why the self-contradictory claims of the left that western governments are at once “separated” from Christianity by now-hallowed democratic tradition, yet those governments still are “Christian” when it comes to the left justifying Islamic imperialism?
November 17, 2010 at 8:15 pm
AKUS
David Karr
Disgusting?
No – true.
November 17, 2010 at 8:43 pm
andrew r
“Andrew appears to be accepting this ghastly Muslim principle…”
Ohhhh. So you realize our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are indiscriminate revenge against Muslims. In that case, I can only aspire to your principled consistency.
November 17, 2010 at 8:53 pm
andrew r
Forgot to mention the drone attacks on Pakistan.
“Er, no. The colonial (or neo-colonial) occupying powers were secular for the most part and only nominally Christian, and were acting on behalf of state interests, not on behalf of Christianity.”
Although our country is formally secular, I don’t think you can separate Christianity from the belief that America has the right to attack whoever it damn well pleases, with its military or sanctions, without incurring any consequences.
November 18, 2010 at 1:02 am
MindTheCrap
Adam:
With all respect, your last comment sounds somewhat “Fowkeian”, in the sense that you will retroactively prove using any means that the Guardian is “different”, rather than accepting the obvious at face value. The Guardian simply printed two different articles on the same subject by two people who have different opinions. CiF is after all an opinion page. So obviously everyone is going to disagree with one or the other. We have all criticized the CiF faithful for dredging up the entire history of the Middle East in every comment that they post so I find it difficult to fault the author of “Christians in Iraq living in fear of ‘pogrom’ ” for not doing the same.
November 18, 2010 at 1:17 am
MindTheCrap
… and i erroneously stated that my comment on that thread was removed; i now see that it is still there.
November 18, 2010 at 1:36 am
peterthehungarian
andrew r
Although our country is formally secular, I don’t think you can separate Christianity from the belief that America has the right to attack whoever it damn well pleases, with its military or sanctions, without incurring any consequences.
I understand now, this explains and justifies the opression/murder of their own native Christians and especially Jews. I think you desperately need to study some basic stuff about logic.
November 18, 2010 at 2:01 am
Gerald Kreeve
Andrew, using ”our country” on the internet makes you look very insular. I suppose you realise dimly somewhere that not everyone lives in the USA or even identifies with it?
November 18, 2010 at 3:32 am
andrew r
Peter: Since subtlety doesn’t go well around here, let me spell out the point: Any clash of civilizations is the choice of America and the other states who join it, not some Muslim impulse to jihad.
Gerald: I’m not sure what the point of that was except to deliberately not understand I’m holding all Americans with any sort of income responsible for the slaughter it inflicts, myself included.
November 18, 2010 at 3:49 am
Casual Reader
Say Andrew, would you kindly clarify for us …. Are you an Islamist, or a neo-Nazi, or both?
November 18, 2010 at 5:37 am
andrew r
Since neo-Nazis wouldn’t criticize American violence against brown people or defend the killing of Christians by brown people (Which I wasn’t doing anyway, but you know) I think you need to meet in private and better coordinate the witch-hunt.
November 18, 2010 at 6:32 am
peterthehungarian
andrew r
Speaking about subtlety:
…Any clash of civilizations is the choice of America and the other states who join it, not some Muslim impulse to jihad.
I see… like the Jihad in Thailand, in the Phillipines, in Kashmir and the holy war between the Shia and Sunni muslims.
And to widening a bit your idea of subtlety…
You wrote in your post:
So I guess no one particularly cares that Iraq has been occupied twice in 100 years by a Christian state it does not share a common land mass with?
According to your subtle opinion this fact justifies or explains the murder of Iraki Christian civilians by their fellow Muslim countrymen now and well before any Christian occupation? Maybe the Jihadists of the XV. century knew about the Ameriacn occupation of Irak in the XX century and the holy war against Christians and Jews living in Muslim countries was some preventive action? The pogroms against the Jews (Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus etc.) in Arab countries during the last 1400 years were insignificant mistakes – they simply wasn’t subtle enough to differentiate between these religions and the Christian/secular US?
November 18, 2010 at 6:43 am
pretzelberg
Toko LeMoko
It is hard to tell whether a bit of zevel like Pretzel is fundamentally dishonest, or is just stupid.
It is hard to fathom why specimens like Toko are unable to contemplate another possibility.
The steady stream of lies and personal insults from Toko, Yohoho, peter1 and others have brought the level of intellectual debate on this website crashing down to the point of embarrassment. Pity.
November 18, 2010 at 8:38 am
Gerald Kreeve
Look what I found:pretzelberg
18 November 2010 12:25PM
@ FergusQuadro
I was indeed already aware of that alternative coverage of the story.
But said site – and, in particular, the author – have a very distinct bias.
If this site (which is the one referred to) and its authors are sooo biased Pretzl what are you doing here? I’d say that you either share the bias or lack occupation.
November 18, 2010 at 9:19 am
pretzelberg
@ Gerald Kreeve. Why don’t you mind your own business – or else respond directly to my comments at the other site?
November 18, 2010 at 9:52 am
Gerald Kreeve
Since you’re talking about this site Pretzel and I’m a frequent poster here, it is my business. I’m responding directly here.
November 18, 2010 at 10:09 am
pretzelberg
@ Gerald Kreeve.
Why am I here? Again: mind your own business.
November 18, 2010 at 10:27 am
Gerald Kreeve
A real gentleman, our Pretzl.
He hangs out here to criticise us, hangs out at cif to criticise them. He doesn’t identify with either, nor does he show a basic morality or orientation of his own. He is expert at asking deeply probing questions like why there are more recommendations for one gormless comment than for another.
November 18, 2010 at 10:40 am
pretzelberg
@ Gerald Kreeve
You really are a moron, you know that?
Just go away and stop talking to/about me. Is it that hard to do?
November 18, 2010 at 11:13 am
Gerald Kreeve
pretzelberg:I see that at last you’ve noticed how unpleasant it is to be talked about. Now that you’ve learned that simple lesson apply it, and stop gossiping about others all the time.
November 18, 2010 at 11:39 am
pretzelberg
Gerald Kreeve
stop gossiping about others all the time.
Hilarious! How hypocritical can you get?!
And completely delusional at the same time, of course.
November 18, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Toko LeMoko
“Why am I here?”
Because you’re twisted, like a pretzel.
November 19, 2010 at 1:05 pm
zkharya
When the British were in Iraq in 1941, who did Baghdadis turn on?
November 20, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Eliyahu
Zkharya, I mentioned that Jews were victims of the Farhud in 1941.
Anyhow, Andrew’s thinking is very perverse and it may exemplify the unreasonable thinking that is gaining ground so widely in the world today. Andrew has apparently accepted the Muslim principle that if a Christian kills a Muslim in Bulgaria, let’s say, then a Muslim in Iraq or Indonesia has the right, and maybe the duty to kill a Christian in those places. Now, Andrew brought up the equally asinine argument that “brown people” may or may not have the right to kill white folk [he was not clearly opposed to this], not comprehending that in Indonesia where many Christians have been massacred in recent years [as on the Moluccas islands], Christians too may be brown-skinned. Does conversion to Christianity act like the Christian mystery of transubstantiation, turning their brown skins to white? How about Filipinos or Christians in India? Do Muslims in the Philippines or India have the right to kill Christians there [or Hindus for that matter]?
In fact, my mother’s father was brown-skinned, although I can’t give you a photometer reading of his precise degree of brown-ness. Maybe not quite as dark as Obama, maybe only as dark as Rev. Wright or a little more so. Then on my father’s side some of my cousins are brown –or quite swarthy if you like. Does that exempt me from being the victim of righteous Muslim Arab revenge on account of what another Jew [let's forget his skin color] did to some Arab?
In regard to Iraq, Andrew does not take account my point that the Assyrian and Chaldean Christians long preceded the Arabs in the country, as did the Jews as a matter of fact. Further, I am sure that some of the Jews murdered in the 1941 Farhud were brown. What do we do in such a case? Maybe we should issue an arrest warrant for any Jew in Israel or Christian anywhere, in Iraq or Egypt, for instance, for dishonestly getting him or herself born with brown skin just in order to confuse poor Andrew’s argument.
Andrew, your argument negates the whole moral claim that there is such a thing as an innocent civilian. I for one do not generally approve of American foreign policy, but even if I did, did I or those thousands of civilians in the Twin Towers deserve to be murdered? Or do I still deserve to be the victim of righteous Muslim anger even if I don’t approve of US policy, assuming that I am an American? What about the brown-skinned folks working in the World Trade Center? Were they really spiritually white or how do you judge these things, Andrew? By the way, are you aware that Turkish PM Erdogan [Erdung?] would normally be considered white? Hence, does he deserve to be killed as a white man or protected and praised as a poor, oppressed Muslim?
Andrew, your thinking is not merely simplistic, it is sick and dangerous.
November 21, 2010 at 2:39 am
andrew r
Eliyahu, when I said, “Since neo-Nazis wouldn’t criticize American violence against brown people,” I was paraphrasing how a neo-Nazi would view a Middle Eastern person. “White,” “black,” and “brown” are identities created by would-be and actual social engineers and based on their whims, the definition of these categories ebb and flow from non-sense to non-sense.
Now this fragment, “or defend the killing of Christians by brown people (Which I wasn’t doing anyway, but you know),” could be taken to mean I don’t find indiscriminate killing of Christians by Muslims justified. Or you could ignore that and compose a 500 word epileptic seizure claiming I do. My day will go on either way.
In any case, I happen to think the US war machine is sick and dangerous and is indirectly responsible for indiscriminate killings of Iraqi Christians whether you want to admit it or not. Obviously the fine line between Christian and Muslim civilization you all want to see is not there, else the US military wouldn’t be training Iraqi security forces that do some of their own killing.
November 21, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Eliyahu
Andrew, a massacre of Iraqi Assyrian Christians by the Iraqi army took place in 1933, not long after the British mandate over Iraq ended and Iraq became independent. How do you explain that? I don’t blame Britain directly for that massacre but apparently it didn’t stop Britain from currying favor with Iraq in following years. The link below tells about how Iraqi Arabs favored crushing the Assyrians in 1933, when there was no American occupation, no state of Israel, and the British occupation had ended.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/before-iraqi-massacre-of-jews.html
Now, Andrew, many people now intensely pro-Arab believe that there is a sort of built-in bias in Western govts against the Arabs and other Muslims. This is a 180 degree reversal of the truth. In fact, Western foreign ministries, such as the Brit Foreign Office and the US State Dept have long been covering up for the Arabs and embellishing their history. See link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2007/07/embellishing-muhammad-islamic-conquests.html
Britain favored the Arabs against the Jews for whatever reason. Britain wanted use the Arabs against the Jews and to use the Arabs in general for policy purposes. On this read issues of International Affairs, published by the royal institute of international affairs, from the years 1945 and onwards. See link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2007/11/britain-wanted-to-use-arabs-to-protect.html
November 21, 2010 at 5:07 pm
andrew r
I loved this phrase, “So we know that Iraq is a bloodthirsty land…” Because we can draw a neat line between docile and bloodthirsty with of course the Americans and Europeans on the civilized end since they’ve never killed each other in large numbers for political reasons.
As to how the British could be indirectly responsible for the massacre, they shot down Assyrian requests for autonomy before independence as they didn’t want to be seen in Baghdad as breaking up the Iraqi state, nevermind who was responsible for the borders of said Iraqi state and the power of its ruler. So the Brits aren’t blameless in making the Assyrians vulnerable. Even if they were naturally sympathetic to the native Christians, imperial interests came first.
I think there’s a built-in bias against humanity and planet Earth in general by the western governments.
British policy was more complicated than inbred Zionist myths, let’s put it that way.