Thursday, September 19, 2013

Ashraf, Iraq: "I won’t let my brother’s death be in vain"


His Grace has written of the atrocities being committed in Ashraf before (here and here). He has received an email from the Ashraf Campaign (ASHCAM), with a letter Nima Habashi in Camp Liberty, Iraq. The world needs to know:
My name is Nima Habashi, one of the residents of Camp Liberty, Iraq, and I would like to share with you the profound pain that I am suffering.

As you all know, on 1 September 2013, during their latest attack against the 100 defenceless residents of Ashraf City, the Iraqi forces savagely murdered 52 people and abducted seven others. My brother, Naser, was one of the victims.

We all became aware of the scale and depth of the carnage through the pictures and footage that were provided by the brave Ashrafis. Some of the videos that display the crimes committed by the Iraqi forces were filmed by my brother. The assailants hunted him down and shot him in the throat to prevent him from recording their crimes. The pictures of the murderers and their victims all prove that this horrific crime was premeditated by the Iraqi government; the assailants were fully equipped and had access to resources that could only be provided by the government.

The last time that I saw my brother, he embraced me and promised that we would see each other again soon. We both thought that America and the United Nations would stay true to their word regarding the security and protection of Ashraf City residents. I guess we were badly mistaken. Their ineffectuality in fulfilling their obligations and pledges spurred the Iraqi government into committing this atrocity, and cost Naser and the other victims their lives. And if serious action is not taken soon, the lives of the seven hostages in the custody of the Iraqi government will be forfeited as well.

Unless some firm action is taken to stop him, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki – ever the loyal servant of the Iranian regime – will proceed with his plan to surrender the hostages to Iran, where they will face torture and certain death at the hands of one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships.

We’ve all had enough of inaction by the United States and the UN. It’s high time they took some decisive action before a disaster takes place, and not afterwards. The responsibility for any harm that befalls the hostages will be laid at their feet.

I’ve been on hunger strike since September 1st, demanding the immediate release of the hostages by the Iraqi government. In this regard, I ask the help of anyone who reads this article.

Don’t let Maliki get away with his crimes. Don’t let him hand over the hostages to the Iranian regime. Call on the US and UN to put pressure on the Iraqi government to release the hostages.

I made a pledge after Naser’s death not to relent until the perpetrators of this crime against humanity – Maliki and his cohorts – are brought to justice. I demand an impartial and complete investigation into the murder of my brother and the other residents of Ashraf. Putting the Iraqi government in charge of such an investigation is outrageous and out of the question. It’s an insult to me and the other relatives of the victims – and to anyone who believes in justice, for that matter. What do you suppose would be the outcome of such an investigation, conducted by the same person who gave the order to pull the trigger? I don’t think I need to answer that question for you.

Naser died documenting and exposing one of the worst cases of human rights violations in recent years. I will make sure that he will not have died in vain. I hope you can help me in this cause.
David Amess MP: “I have campaigned on this issue for a long time and I am a strong supporter of the rights of the people in Ashraf City and Camp Liberty. I hope that ASHCAM continues this good work and raises this issue whenever possible.”

Dr Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales: “The human rights of those detained in Camp Liberty are clearly being violated and they are turning to the international community in desperation for help and support. The mark of a civilised society is how it treats those in need. If we fail to respond and turn a blind eye to the detainees now, we will be colluding in their treatment and will have to share the blame for their fate.”

Lord Alton of Liverpool: "ASHCAM’s demands are straightforward and just. They include the championing of the safety of the residents of Camp Liberty; holding the Government of Iraq to account for its failure to comply with its human rights obligations under international law; and, the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry into the Ashraf City massacres of 2009 and 2011, and the Camp Liberty massacre of 2013. These objectives deserve our wholehearted support.”

36 Comments:

Blogger David B said...

It's terrible.

Yet I'm afraid that after all the expense of people, American, British and more local, and resources (considerable, though less important), in Afghanistan and Iraq this is only the tip of the iceberg in a history of atrocities and human rights abuses, against Christians, Muslims of the wrong sect, and women in general in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is life, especially for women and minorities, really better as a result of the Western intervention in either case? For all that Saddam was a horrible dictator, and that the Russians didn't have clean hands in Afghanistan?

Is it clear, around the world, that the West hold the moral high ground?

I have my doubts.

David

19 September 2013 12:04  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I know little of this, and it is therefore useful for the AB to bring it before this forum, so thank you Your Grace.

It is all beyond being very, very sad, as it is clearly shocking.

David B, I agree with your doubts and sceptism regarding the results of western "moral" intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world, a world that few, if any, of our current political leaders understand. The west must stop believing, or pretending to believe, that democracy can be imposed by force. This is ludicrous.

Christians especially know that adopting a new philosophy requires a change of heart, not coercion. No one was ever convinced by anything by being at the wrong end of a gun. Burke was right, certainly in the field of political philosophy, only gradual change sticks, providing enduring change. Did America learn anything from Vietnam ? I believe that the answer is, a resounding NO.
Standing firm, morally, is almost always the correct course of action; but aggressive military action is usually self defeating. The only exception is in taking offensive actions elsewhere to protect and secure ones own direct interests and territory.

19 September 2013 12:46  
Blogger Richard Bradford said...

Why are these abuses being allowed to happen, we all have a moral responsibility to do something about it, but unless we are in a position of power thee is nothing that we can do to help? Our Government should act as they helped to create the situation in the first place. It just shows how wrong we were to follow the lead of the Americans and invade Iraq, which now has a puppet Government, with no respect from the people of Iraq. Thank goodness that we have ignored the cries of the warmongers over Syria.

19 September 2013 12:49  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

We can all email this to our MP's

19 September 2013 12:56  
Blogger B flat said...

What evidence have we that the west has any moral sense now? All we have is fashionable campaigns which claim to tackle injustices and inequalities while destroying the culture of the nation and dissolving social cohesion. That is at home. Abroad, our politicians simply use violence, rationalising their madness by outright lies. The bombing of the civilian poulation in Serbia, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the handing over of Kosovo to an alien population and the current bloodlust for Syria are enough for me.
The high ground was long ago betrayed and abandoned by the mainstream churches. Western culture lies in ruins under the control of new barbarians, who are as pagan and ruthless as the ancient Goths and Huns.

19 September 2013 12:56  
Blogger IanCad said...

When will we ever learn?

Like it or not the Christians in Iraq were better off under Saddam.
And so it will be in Syria.

We may have to swallow hard but Assad is our man.

Yes, Brother Ivo, that will at least be something.

May the Good Lord smile on His people and give them strength.

Thank you YG for doing your bit.

19 September 2013 13:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

B flat

The US learned a helluva lot done Vietnam, and all those lessons were on display. Just to name a few.

1. Fighting for clear purpose and with clear objectives

2. Proper separation of political guidance from military strategy

3. Fighting with overwhelming force

4. Keeping the Fifth Columnists ... Uh ... Journalists on a short leash

The strategic purpose of the war was the removal of Hussein's regime. Whatever the other consequences, they are minor compared to leaving him in power.

carl

19 September 2013 13:44  
Blogger Ivan said...

Saddam was a toothless tiger in 2003. In strategic terms he was useful at keeping the Iranians at bay. He had his hand full keeping the oil-rich Kurdish territory and the Shiite South. What part of a grand strategy required his removal and handing over the country to Iran? In truth he was low-hanging fruit for the US to display its might. For years on end now, the average death rate due to sectarian violence is hovers around five hundred to one thousand a month. Then as now with Assad, the deranged neocon nuts insisted that anyone is better than Saddam. Then too we had the reasonable Kennan Maliks and the Ahmed Chalabis as the presentable face of the opposition. The US of today is just a blundering oaf, no longer to be trusted to keep a Pax Americana. The days of men of the ability of George Kennan, Paul Nitze, Richard Nixon and Sam Nunn are long gone.

19 September 2013 14:07  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Carl Jacobs,

" The strategic purpose of the war was the removal of Hussein's regime. Whatever the other consequences, they are minor compared to leaving him in power"

Two points if you would, please : -

1. So what exactly would have been the adverse consequences of leaving him in power, and how can we know this ? What bad things would have happened ?
2. Are you seriously describing the carnage that has been unleashed since the invasion, as "minor ", consequences ?

19 September 2013 14:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David Russell

Are they minor consequences compared to a nuclear-armed hegemon sitting on 50% of the world's know oil reserves and ruled by a Stalinist megalomaniac who thought himself Nebuchadnezzar reborn, wanted to recreate the Babylonian Empire, and had a penchant for staring regional wars? Hell, yes, it's minor. That's the answer to both of your questions. The consequence of that potential outcome was so extreme, the US had to mitigate the risk.

Now, I realize the Europeans would have been fine with that outcome. As in "Hey, America, handle that deterrence thing please. K, Thanks, bye." But we weren't.

carl

19 September 2013 16:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David Hussell ... Not Russell. My apologies.

I should just give up posting from a phone.

carl

19 September 2013 16:03  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

Iraq was a disaster. Like Vietnam, but probably judged by history to be worse overall.

The list of "lessons learned" needs to get longer.

A lot longer .......

Reading History books would have been a good start.

As for Afghanistan......do we really never learn anything?

Sometimes I think so.

If the US admitted that it had a big part to play in creating that mess in the first part would be a really good start.

Phil



19 September 2013 17:05  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Sad article today YG one feels so helpless and there are so many similar situations in many other countries too. Maybe the diplomats can try and engage with the Iraqi government if they haven't already, but when all is said and done the west has meddled enough in the middle east.

The Yanks wanted rid of Saddam and the regime because he was going to sell oil in Euros instead of USD which didn't suit America at all. He wasn't playing the Yanks' game so they pushed him into invading Kuwait as a reason to attack him and get rid. Nothing better follows.

Same sort of thing with Assad. He's an Ophthalmologist trained in Britain and speaks excellent English, he seems an intelligent man that one can reason and negotiate with as opposed to the rabble that makes up the rebels and the barbaric Al Qaeda and its branches of cannibals who will destroy what is left of Syria if Assad and Co go.

19 September 2013 17:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Can’t you chaps see the humour in all this. Johnny Mad Dog Muslim falls out with his fundamentalist Islamic brothers. After a few set backs and a lot of killing, the battered remnants of those who came out worst end up in a delightfully named place – Camp Liberty. From there he screams he will overthrow the odious Islamic Republic of Iran. Their enemies come in and take them out, as so it is prudent they should, and for this there is much wailing and grief by the indignant, for some reason that defies common sense. But look, western bleeding hearts pick up on it and the fellows left are cosseted and feted.

Damn stirring righteous stuff, what !

You’re all bloody mad to be taken in by that crowd.

Let’s say for arguments sake, we support them. We help them, finance and arm them. They engage in a civil war in Iran. In this man’s view, that’s no better than us assisting in an arson attack on a badly run lunatic asylum. A few hundred thousand die as a result – maybe tens of thousands are gassed. But rejoice, our people win out in the end, so that’s alright then.

Next ? The happy day comes when we go to their door to shake their hands and remind them that we are their friends. Only to be sharply reminded ourselves that we are, as we’ve always been, ‘infidel dogs’ to them. And that “We spit in the eyes of you western fools”. Meanwhile, the survivors of the previous government are living in exile in Camp Freedom. From there they insist they have learned from past mistakes and scream they will overthrow the newly installed current odious Islamic Republic of Iran. They too are wiped out, and western bleeding hearts pick up on it…

Really, there is no reason why this scenario can’t play out in a loop until the end of time. All you need are several thousand political hate agitators at any one time like this man Habashi here. Are you there Habashi ? Answer this western infidel dog this – how many of your opponents are you planning to kill personally to avenge your brother’s death: Ten, Twenty, Fifty, more ? So you see, there’s only one way to rule you people – with an iron fist - and to be frank, it matters not who is doing the ruling…





19 September 2013 17:51  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Carl Jacobs,

Thank you for your reply.

However I am totally unconvinced, in particular by the claim that he possessed WMD, as none were ever found. Saddam was a monster, I agree, and a foolish loudmouth, but remove these strong men from countries that contain fractious, disparate groups that hate each other and the end result is not effective, functioning democracy, but a situation far, far worse than before. The facts speak volumes, providing the argument.

The US in particular, but my country, the UK too, plus the west generally, lost both status and much moral authority in the eyes of the rest of the world from this military interventions.
And my perspective is from that of a right of centre, Ukip activist, a traditional Christian, a Brit., and not a "european", whatever that is.

19 September 2013 18:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
As uncomfortable as it makes me feel, I agree with you though I would present the case differently and more sympathetically. There's no reason why diplomatic pressure should not be brought to bear on the regime to reduce brutality. The West should only intervene more directly if it is confident the positive consequences of doing so outweigh the negatives.

To date, our interventions in inter-Muslin disputes appears ineffective. The UN and 'international law' are, in reality, grand notions but ineffective. Who really wants a 'World Policeman' governed by God knows who? (Now, if it were a united Holy Roman Empire, East and West, of Christian nations guided by the Church .... )

There may be an emerging issue about the rise of Iranian power and the roles of America, Russian and China. Babylon and Persia were enemies long before Mohamed came on the scene too.

One last thought, why do Muslims of all denominations turn to 'infidels' and to America to find a solution to an insoluble problem caused by historical regional and religious interests?

19 September 2013 18:31  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Inspector

"They engage in a civil war in Iran. In this man’s view, that’s no better than us assisting in an arson attack on a badly run lunatic asylum."

Brilliant...! So much truth in that

19 September 2013 18:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good man Peter D for seeing past all this compassionate bull. Today, Cranmer felt a brushing against his legs. No, it wasn’t a cat wanting to be fed, it was worse. An Islamic would be terrorist and politician playing the victim. Next, he’ll be presenting himself as part of the solution, when in reality he is as much as part of the problem as those who set out to kill him.

And should he take Tehran, then watch out America. It will be expected of him to curse ‘the land of Satan’ and he will not disappoint. He will most certainly not do that, of that we can be sure...

19 September 2013 18:43  
Blogger David B said...

Sometimes I think Inspector is, in some ways, the least Christian person posting in this comment section.

In a company that includes DanJO and myself, that is saying something.

David

19 September 2013 19:19  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
Some background.
The 'People's Mojahedin of Iran' is an Iranian leftist revolutionary organization that participated in the 1979 Revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran. It is now an opposition movement in exile, that advocates the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It was founded by a group of left-leaning Muslim Iranian university students as an Islamic and Marxist political mass movement, devoted to armed struggle against the Shah of Iran, capitalism, and Western imperialism. In the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the MEK and sided with the clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini against the liberals, nationalists and other moderate forces within the revolution.

Now they want assistance from the these same liberal, capitalist imperialists!

19 September 2013 19:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B, you do make a man laugh at times. Whether intentionally or not, you do, you know.

The Inspector doesn’t wear a cardigan or make jam. Rather, he is more of an “onward Christian soldier, marching as to war”

Don’t forget that now, and eventually, all will become clear to you...



19 September 2013 19:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good Lord, Peter D, not so loud, old chap...

You do realise if that gets out, you’ll make fools of those great and good types in this country who support those blighters, what !


19 September 2013 20:02  
Blogger David Hussell said...

So after the spotlight that The Inspector and Peter D jointly shone on the nature and origins of the inhabitants of Camp Liberty, I am even more convinced that "the answer", insofar as there is one, is for the west to stay the hell out of these intra-Islamic, never ending struggles.
Theirs is a totally different culture to ours, which we will never truly understand, and there is always a huge risk that we will simply be used by one group or other against another such group, with no net overall benefit to anyone, let alone the citizens of those countries.
We should defend ourselves and our own interests vigorously, including our shipping lanes and strategic bases, but otherwise disengage from the Middle East, offering only humanitarian, and similar, aid. By doing so we create a more effective advertisement for democracy than attempting to force it upon them by force.

19 September 2013 21:40  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Relictantly agree with most of what Inspector says. The only hope for Muslims is for them to make the discovery for themselves that Islam sucks, a lot. Islam is the primary cause of their woes.

They will never learn this if we keep trying to save them from themselves by trying to impose 'democracy'particularly as we are making such a hash of it ourselves. The second we intervene in Syria, they can blame us.

I have just watched a deeply awful film Ground Zero on youtube from Syria. Its harrowing and proves that Assad is bombarding civilian areas with terrible casualties BUT the FSA knew this would happen and continue to fight the government from those civilian areas.

The most compassionate thing we can do is send humanitarian aid and tell the rebels to lay down their arms. They wont do this while they still think enough atrocity footage will lead to us intervening as we did in Libya.

19 September 2013 22:09  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
There is a wider 'game' afoot about establishing democracy in the region and supporting Israel the sole democracy.

One just wonders if the forces within Islam lend themselves to this.

The group claims to have renounced violence and to be dedicated to a democratic, secular and coalition government in Iran. They say they support elections and public suffrage. Although its leaders present as Muslims, they claim to believe in the separation of Church and State. They also claim to be the first to reveal Iran's nuclear activities in 2002.

Question: can a former Muslim/Marxist organisation be trusted?

19 September 2013 22:17  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

PS an Iraqi doctor I know said 'It wasnt democracy under Saddam but we had water, electricity, education, health care and you could walk down the street without being killed.'

He certainly thinks the 2003 invasion made things worse for ordinary Iraqis

Never again.

19 September 2013 22:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

Phil Roberts & David Hussell, contrary to the Left's propaganda, Vietnam was not a disaster in the context of the Grand Strategy of which Ivan speaks @ 14.07.

It is easy now to forget the atmosphere of the Cold War, the recurrent crises and the real advances frequently made by the proxies of the Soviet Union. The war in Vietnam was that very rare thing, a tactical defeat that contributed to a strategy victory over the West's principal opponent, the USSR. It was always the assertion of Marxism that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. In the event, and pressured by unaffordable defence spending, it was the USSR that contained the seeds of its own destruction. After Vietnam, the Soviet satellites were infused by a culture of dissent that owed everything to the Western anti-Vietnam protest movement. From a purely social point of view, the USSR satellites learned how to run protest movements on the successful Western model. Avi Barzel would know much, much, more.

Meanwhile on the military front, the defence of South Vietnam by the US bought time for the economies of what became ASEAN to grow and expand on capitalist lines. South-East Asian nations owe their current stability and prosperity to that US effort in Vietnam, and they admit it. So too the earlier British effort in defeating the communist insurgency in Malaya is fully recognised for the success that it was. We're not that bad after all.

His Grace hates links and one hesitates to post one in defiance. Our current struggle is against militant Islam and the attached article is an extraordinary exercise in denial. It probably typifies the Arab mindset and associated unwillingness to confront the root of the problem, Islam.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-180913.html

19 September 2013 22:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Democracy is really the reward an educated and stable people are rewarded with to form a stable governance. So it’s not going to be the norm then. At this present time, the following countries are better served with dictatorships, and if they are particularly favoured, a benign one: Predominantly negro and Arab. If you took away the ‘struggles’ for democracy, then there would be peace for all in the afflicted areas.

One feels no guilt at stating this truth. That is how it is in 2013.



19 September 2013 23:08  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
(I shall whisper this ....)

I'm not sure democracy works in 'civilised' nations, let alone those without a solid Christian foundation. I know you're a libertarian but really universal suffrage and liberal-pluralism, what has it achieved?

The majority of people are 'slaves' to mortgages and debt fuelled by consumerism. Increasingly, many are dependent on 'zero hours' contracts, part time work or fixed term contracts. Both parents have to work and children have to be looked after by the State at schools or by child minders. The political parties seek to entice people with empty promises. What difference is there between them? The money markets of the world and international companies have more influence on our daily lives.

20 September 2013 00:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David Hussell

However I am totally unconvinced, in particular by the claim that he possessed WMD, as none were ever found.

It wasn't a matter of whether he had nuclear weapons. There was no expectation that nuclear weapons would be found. Nuclear material was expected to be present, and that is what was never found. If Saddam had possessed nuclear weapons then it would have been too late to do anything about it. Saddam knew this. The principle lesson that he drew from the failed invasion of Kuwait was that he should have waited until he possessed a nuclear capability. It is undeniable that he was pursuing their acquisition.

Gulf War II was an inevitability so long as Hussein was seeking to become a nuclear power. The only question was "When?" It had to be done before he succeeded because an invasion after that point might have triggered Hussein to use them. Much of the hostility to the war is a reaction to the idea that the US acted too soon - in other words, before other nations (principally European nations) agreed that an invasion was necessary. But the intelligence data at the time said it was too risky to wait. And there was healthy suspicion that Europe would never sanction an invasion - that Europe was using the Opera Buffa of UN inspection as a perpetual stall. The Army was in place, and it couldn't be left in place forever. The task was inevitable. The intelligence data said the risk was high. That's why the US acted. It was a war of risk mitigation against the prospect of Saddam Hussein coming to dominate the Middle East.

The European nations did not feel this risk because they would not have been involved in dealing with it. They would have left it to the US. their perspective was obvious. "Maintain stability with Saddam. Station the American Army in perpetuity in Saudi Arabia. Let the Americans deal with the nuclear deterrence problem. Who cares about the threat to Israel, because the Americans will deal with that too. Get a bunch of lucrative Oil contracts because the Americans won't be able to compete for Iraqi business while they are threatening war. Otherwise, business as usual." Hell, the GOLF DELTA French would have sold Saddam weapons with which to fight the US Army.

Saddam was a monster, I agree, and a foolish loudmouth, but remove these strong men from countries that contain fractious, disparate groups that hate each other and the end result is not effective, functioning democracy, but a situation far, far worse than before.

That's all true. And in the world of realpolitik, the US should have shot every Baathist it could find, and handed over power to a compliant Iraqi general. But that was politically non-viable. We had to try to democratize Iraq. It was going to fail. But we had to try. Even so, the situation isn't far worse than before. It's far worse (by some measures) in Iraq. It's not far worse in the region.

And even if it was far worse, you would still have to take out Saddam. You don't refuse to fight Hitler because Stalin might emerge after him.

carl

20 September 2013 00:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Phil

Iraq was a disaster.

Compared to what? Certainly not compared to a rebuilt Iraqi Army protected by a nuclear umbrella sitting right in the middle of one of the most important regions in the world. You aren't considering the opportunity cost of doing nothing - perhaps because that cost would have accrued almost entirely to the US. In fact, you are fortunate the US had an Administration that was wise enough to recognize the threat and deal with it. And here you bite the hand that protected you.

Like Vietnam, but probably judged by history to be worse overall.

It would be interesting to hear your explanation of what 'disaster' means in this context. Certainly it was a disaster for the US military and US civil-military relations. Certainly it ripped apart the US population and inflicted wounds that will never heal so long as that generation still lives. Certainly it was a disaster for the men and families of those who were killed or crippled. (Among whom would be counted my immediate family.) But I think you are referring to the impact on Vietnam. Yes, it was a disaster for Vietnam but not for the reason you think.

The Vietnam War was almost an altruistic war. Our purpose was to stop the spread of Communism in Asia, and (at least as far as Indochina is concerned) we failed. That failure was the disaster - the imposition of the very system we fought to defeat. What history will judge so harshly is the despicable way the US government abandoned SVN to that fate in 1975 - a deliberate and cynical choice intended to insure that SVN lost the war so that the war might be proved a failure. The boat people and the killing fields are a direct result of American defeat. That was the disaster.

The list of "lessons learned" needs to get longer.

A lot longer .......


Please. Educate us.

Reading History books would have been a good start.

Not a good argument to use against me. Just sayin...

As for Afghanistan......do we really never learn anything?

This is part of the general problem of "How do we deal with Islam which remaining consistent with western principles?" Perhaps the answer is "Cast off western principles." In any case, I would love to hear your alternative strategy.

If the US admitted that it had a big part to play in creating that mess in the first part would be a really good start.

As I said earlier, the "mess" we are dealing with is a whole lot more benign than the "mess" we pre-empted.

carl

20 September 2013 01:56  
Blogger Naomi King said...


If you are interested in how thoughts of hostility turn to thoughts of hate and thoughts of hate turn to actions of hate and if you have 50 minutes to spare, you will be both mightily blessed and mightily informed if you watch this BBC programme link - The Story of the Jews - 3rd of the series - Leap of Faith

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03bkmvs/The_Story_of_the_Jews_A_Leap_of_Faith/

My thesis is that what happened to the Jews is now happening to Christians, the devil is hard at work and we should be able to read the writing on the wall, to use a Holy Bible metaphor.

20 September 2013 08:37  
Blogger LEN said...


It would seem the the 'West' is in a lose lose situation when it acts as 'World Policeman' in attempt to stop warring Islamic factions murdering each other.
One of the dangers danger of Western' intervention' is that it might unwittingly make matters worse by uniting various fundamentalist groups against a common 'enemy' or empowering one group to destroy the other?. Christian`s in these areas are already in great danger and will be more so under extreme Islamic rule.

What seems to have started as an Arab desire for 'democracy' has opened the floodgates for Islamic 'fundamentalists' to stage a takeover as they did in Egypt.

Once and 'if' Islamic fundamentalists [extremists] take over in the middle East then the real problems will begin as they move upon Israel and hold the West to ransom over oil supplies.



20 September 2013 11:47  
Blogger LEN said...

Anticipating the next question?.
the West seem to be in a' catch 22 'situation .To do nothing is immoral to act without wisdom is irresponsible.

20 September 2013 11:51  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl
I am of course immensely grateful for the individual sacrifice of others that enables me to live a comfy life in safety of my little corner of Wales

To be honest I doubt if I have the strength of character to do their job, run their risks, day after day. I know I am far too selfish to be a soldier.

But we are talking about why all this effort and sacrifice did not work, why it was a “disaster” not just because the wrong side “won” and people got hurt, but because our pride made them hate us and that meant we would lose whatever we did, even if we won and we did not see that. Pride and arrogance was the main contributor, to the failure of Vietnam, Iraq and (to a lesser extent) Afgan. Afghanistan is a ray of hope (ironically many people see this as a failure). Here perhaps a glimer of hope that we are starting to learn lessons.

Pride and arrogance is the hardest fault to find in ourselves, perhaps that is why it has taken so long, although the threats to bomb Syria, without risk and from the comfort of our arm chairs does not indicate to me that we have learned very much at all.

Phil

20 September 2013 23:40  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Peter Hitchens has some interesting views on universal suffrage democracy which I share. In my post apocalyptic Kindle novel 'Darwin'Adders' a history teacher looks back and describes it as 'knaves bribing fools for their votes using money borrowed from their grandchildren'

Democracy or the Bill of Rights under the rule of just law. Which would you prefer? OMOV democracy gave us Blair, Brown and Cameron and looks likely to put the innumerate communist nonentity Milliband into number 10 in 2015. Such prosperity, liberty and security as we enjoy in what's left of Britain were not delivered by democracy, I suggest our Judaeo Christian heritage was far more responsible. Our support for the dismal 'Arab Spring' stems from our failure to understand this.

21 September 2013 06:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older