Monday, July 21, 2014

Direct News from Christians in Mosul


From Canon Andrew White, Vicar of Baghdad:
Direct News from the Christians in Mosul Nineveh Tonight.

For Iraqi Christian Fadi and his young family it is a lonely wait to see whether they will be executed soon.

Their Christian neighbours and friends have already fled the city of Mosul in Iraq's north, which last month fell into the hands of Sunni jihadists led by the Islamic State group, which espouses an extreme form of Islam. Along with the rest of the city's estimated 25,000 Christians who had not already fled years of kidnappings, bombings and shootings, Sunni militants gave 36-year-old Fadi, his wife and son until Saturday to comply with a brutal ultimatum: convert to Islam, pay an unspecified tax, leave the city or die.

"I'm staying. I already feel dead," Fadi, a teacher, told AFP by telephone moments before the deadline ran out.

"Only my soul remains, and if they want to take that I don't have a problem," he added, giving only his first name.

On Friday, Mosul's mosques called through loudspeakers for Christians to leave, after centuries of being part of the once cosmopolitan city's social fabric.

Fadi said he could not afford to flee and argued that the prospects for those who did were hardly better.

Islamic State (IS) militants robbed departing Christians of their belongings, he said, leaving them to face destitution in grim camps for the displaced.

"They were stopped by members of Islamic State, who took everything they had. Mobile phones, money, jewellery," he said, speaking of the fate of some 25 Christian families who had recently fled.

"When my cousin and friends, from three families, tried to plead with them, they took their cars."

IS fighters took control of Mosul and swathes of north and west Iraq in a sweeping offensive that began last month. Their leader has since then declared a "caliphate" straddling Iraq and Syria.

The group claims its goal is to return the lands they conquer to a state approximating that of early Islam, in which Jews and Christians who did not convert had to pay a "jizya" tribute to their Muslim rulers.

"From one old woman they took $15,000 (11,100 euros). She asked for just $100 of it so she could reach Dohuk. They told her that these are the funds of the Islamic State, and we cannot give it to you," Fadi said.

Robbed of their cars and cash, many Christians were forced to walk to safety.

- Exodus -

Some of Mosul's Christians might be able to afford to pay the jizya, but they appear unwilling to take their chances living under the thumb of rulers notorious for executing and crucifying their opponents.

"Maybe a few are still hiding in Mosul but I don't think any would have decided to pay jizya or convert. There is no Christian who can trust these gangsters," Yonadam Kanna, Iraq's most prominent Christian leader, told AFP. "They even took wedding rings from women fleeing the city at checkpoints... I am astonished they can claim to be Muslims." In a purported statement issued by IS last week which detailed the ultimatum for Mosul's Christians, there will be nothing left for those who do not comply "but the sword".

Ahlam, a 34-year-old mother of two boys, and her husband carried their children on their shoulders on their long march out of Mosul.

She described an exodus of hundreds of Christians walking on foot in Iraq's searing summer heat, the elderly and the disabled among them.

"We first reached Tilkkef in a state of exhaustion. We hadn't had anything to eat or drink for a whole day," she said, referring to a town some 20 km (12.4 miles) north of Mosul where volunteers are picking Christians up in their cars.

"My husband and I were carrying our children on our shoulders the whole way."

Many Christians are making their way to the relative safety of the city of Dohuk in Kurdish autonomous territory further north.

According to the IS statement, seen by AFP, any homes they leave behind become property of the insurgent group.

"I left my home in Mosul, that my family built decades ago. And it was taken away in an instant," Ahlam said with tears in her eyes.

"Everything's gone, all our memories. Our home has become property of the Islamic State."
We can read, weep and pray, or read, weep, pray and do something., for these are our brothers and sisters in Christ  

And ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic State is marking their homes. And it's not for a passover.


Nor is it a smiley face. It is the circled Arabic letter 'n', signifying 'Nasarah' (Christian). Once the dhimmi occupants are so identified and labelled, they can more easily be taxed (jizya), forced to convert to Islam, harassed to leave or be summarily executed by the Islamic State which now owns their property.

The Qur'an might say: "You have your religion and I have my religion", and in another place: "There is no compulsion in religion". But in the Islamic State, these verses are abrogated. Their creed is: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

Under Saddam, there were 60,000 Christians in Mosul, where they had lived in fraternal coexistence with Muslims for 1700 years. In the Islamic State they have become less than pigs, outcasts, refugees in their homeland. And Canon Andrew White is guiding, providing, praying and leading them to safety in the Kurdistan region. They needs tents, mattresses, food, water..

Please help the Iraqi Christians: DONATE HERE.

137 Comments:

Blogger seanrobsville said...

"...Islamic State group, which espouses an extreme form of Islam..."

No, this is real Islam. The so called moderates beloved of western politicians are apostates, crypto-secularists or taqiyya artists biding their time.

Real Islam is coming soon to a neighborhood near YOU!

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

21 July 2014 at 08:39  
Blogger Albert said...

And ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic State is marking their homes. And it's not for a passover.

It reminded me of pictures one sees of the SA marking houses "Jude". The main difference seems to be that even in that era, it took some years before extermination became the policy.

Their creed is: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

This doesn't seem to be the Creed of ISIS. This is surely saying, Muslims may not fight after their enemies have stopped fighting them.

21 July 2014 at 08:53  
Blogger Albert said...

BTW, anyone thinking that a possible solution is to pay the jizya, should watch this video. In fact, everyone should watch this video. It's only 2 minutes long.

http://www.acnuk.org/christians-in-iraq?handle=iraq.html

21 July 2014 at 08:58  
Blogger Patrick Cox said...

While the killing and persecutions continue, our beloved Politically Correct Apparatchiks maintain their mantra of 'Islam is a religion of Peace' and 'Islamophobia is racist' and our crawling politicians do nothing to stop the slaughter or to reverse the hatred spewing daily from certain mosques and spreading in our schools thanks to political correctness.

Christians beware. This is what the campaigners will bring to the UK if we are not careful. And for those of the secular/no faith mindset it will get even worse. The IS and other fundamentalist groups do not follow the Quran, but the Hadith, the fundamentalists 'Bible', and like all fundamentalists, they take everything very literally.

21 July 2014 at 10:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Truly chilling OP, deserving of much wider publication.

Spot on comments from all of the above too.

21 July 2014 at 10:39  
Blogger Len said...

These Islamic terrorists are doing as their master bids them to steal, kill and destroy and to prevent this they demand 'protection money' of much as gangsters do...
This' war against the infidel' of course will all be coming back home with the Jihadist`s we have exported to get trained in all aspects of terrorism..
Just one point isn`t it illegal to belong to a terrorist organisation and are not these Jihadists returning back home 'criminals' under our UK legal system?.


21 July 2014 at 11:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Patrick,

The IS and other fundamentalist groups do not follow the Quran, but the Hadith

Thank you, this seems extremely interesting. I know the difference between the two, but I wonder if you could elaborate on the significance of this. Are you saying that the Hadith suggests Mohammed was more violent than the Qur'an permits?

21 July 2014 at 11:11  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Patrick Cox (10:17)—Sad to say, the fundamentalists are following the Qur’an. Chapter 9 is one of the final, and thus most authoritative, of the revelations given to Mohammed and its verse 29 is Allah’s blessing on the mayhem in Iraq and elsewhere:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth [Islam], even if they are of the people of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] until they pay the jizyah [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

@ Albert (08:53)—Yes, Muslims may not fight after non-Muslims have capitulated and Allah’s victory is complete.

21 July 2014 at 11:33  
Blogger Nick said...

Thanks for posting the link for donations. Have just made my contribution.

Frankly, it fills me with dread just thinking about the plight of these people. I want to condemn these Muslims but words feel too inadequate to express my contempt for them. Several years ago, a fellow Christian warned me that Islam was probably the biggest evil in the world. How right they are!

21 July 2014 at 11:55  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I hope T**y B***r (excuse the language) makes a big donation. He can afford to, the millionaire.

21 July 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Patrick

Unfortunately both the Qur'an and the Haddiths contradict each other.

Allah quotes another as an example such as Abraham/Ibrahim, yet as we all know, The OT is a pack of fabricated lies to Islam so Abraham/Ibrahims accounts detailed in there is not to be trusted, only Allah's correction by Muhammad of history, so there is really only ONE example amongst men that Muslims must follow? Simples!!

The Hadiths state Muhammad life and choices as an exemplar as does the Qur'an;

"Indeed, in the messenger of God a good example has been set for you for he who seeks God and the Last Day and thinks constantly about God."
[ Qur'an 33:21]

and

"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination."
[Quran 4:59]

yet he was supposedly castigated by Allah ;

"O you prophet, why do you make unlawful what God has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives? God is Forgiver, Merciful."

[Qur'an 66:01]

So if the Messenger makes mistakes and doesn't have authority over Sharia {as some muslims claim}, then why is Allah ordering muslims follow Him? Think an expose on 66:01-05 is obvious

Reasons for 66:01-05 = When naughty Muhammad was caught with Maria in the bed of Hafsa, he asked Hafsa to keep it a secret, but silly old Hafsa told it to outraged A’ishah.

Poor old Muhammad was deeply hurt with this act of honesty between Hafsa and A’shah, which , fortunately, made Allah reveal this verse threatening them, that if they disobey or Hurt Muhammad further Allah will protect his friend(Muhammad). Jolly nice chap, that Allah fella??

These verses are a very good example that Muhammad used to plant verses in mouth of his imaginary deity to trick and deceive his wife and followers. These threats did not ceased here, Allah, that immutable friend of the messenger revealed verses to divorce them. Let’s see here:-

(It may happen) and this will surely happen (that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your stead wives better than you) in obedience, (submissive (to Allah)) by stating it openly, (believing) true in their faith both with their tongues and hearts, (pious) obedient to Allah and to their husband, (penitent) from their sins, (inclined to fasting, widows) like Asiyah Bint Muzahim, the wife of Pharaoh (and maids) like Mary daughter of Amran, the mother of Jesus.

Allah is all ready to provide Muhammad with wives even better than them (Hafsa & A’ishah) in obedience(which mean who will let Muhammad have sex with any of his concubine, without opposing him), who will have true Faith in Allah, whether it be Widows or Virgins. (ALLAHU AKBAR, indeed)

The revelation of Allah makes him a mere Puppet in Hands of Muhammad so that Allah revealed the Qur’an and acted in accordance with the needs of that hard done by chap, Muhammad.

Muhammad justified his act of killing, raping, terrorising, looting and so on, by putting words into the mouth of Allah.

There is no way to prove the Qur’an is the word of God, and Muhammad a prophet of Allah, without using Muhammad’s own word, who was a self proclaimed lone prophet of Islam. How vevy vevy convenient??


You will find many chinks (fallacious examples) in both so that it becomes a' take what suits you' approach in your choices regarding what Allah and Muhammad dictate as truth and how to live.

Blofeld

21 July 2014 at 12:17  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Muhammad was attracted to Zaynab, the ex-wife of his adopted son, Zayd.

Taking it any further would have been seen as a form of incest, until Allah revealed to Muhammad that with adopted sons the prohibition didn't count.

That actually makes a lot of sense, but it is the happiest of coincidences that Allah's revelation (superbly timed) should have coincided so conveniently with Muhammad's carnal wishes.

21 July 2014 at 12:52  
Blogger IanCad said...

Thank you YG for putting these horrors front and centre.

May God protect them all. May He impress on us the need to give, to write, to howl, to pray.

Now, little can be said about Canon White's report other than pledging solidarity with the persecuted.

But that small gesture should be made.

Where is everyone?

Well, it's tough to wring anything remotely related to bum banditry from the post.
Even harder to shift the subject toward female bishops.

No need to post then?

Come On! Guys and gals. There may be some Muslims viewing the site.
At least make your presence known.

21 July 2014 at 13:25  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Donation sent. Prayers (for what they're worth) being said.

Has one - even one - of the national newspapers managed to get this on the front page? I haven't seen one yet.

21 July 2014 at 13:37  
Blogger Nick said...

ST

Sadly, the world is distracted by the MH17 crash. That is tragic, but will be on a much smaller scale compared to what is about to happen in Iraq.

Perhaps the next load of Muslims who leave the UK to join the buthery in the Middle East could have their plane diverted over Easter Ukraine and have it circle at low altitude for a few hours.

21 July 2014 at 13:47  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Well I would like to register my solidarity with fellow Christians in Iraq and Syria, and to state clearly and unequivocally my abhorrence of Islam and all its manifestations. What equally appals me is the almost total silence from our news media, who report every 'misfortune' to befall the people of Gaza but ignore the real reasons for their plight, and refuse to touch Christian persecution with a barge pole. Shame on them. Yes I am going to contribute towards Canon White's appeal fund, but I want more than that. I want our mealy-mouthed government to announce the total withdrawal of aid and support to the so-called rebels, effective immediately. To this end I have written to my MP. I will be fobbed off with platitudes, but I have protested.

21 July 2014 at 13:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sister Tibs

Prayers (for what they're worth) being said.

Hey Sis, don't stop now - nobody else has come up with a better solution.

21 July 2014 at 13:56  
Blogger Nick said...

That should be "butchery" not "buthery".

21 July 2014 at 14:00  
Blogger David Hussell said...

This leaves me so cold I had decided to say nothing, but Ian Cad @ 13.25 is right, we need to speak.

Thank you, Your Grace, for this article.

No doubt the MS media are thinking about how to report this one, although even The Guardian ran a piece on the classic, "convert, sign the dhimma contract or have be beheaded" options. The media outlets are probably watching each other. We have seen this pattern before with any number of the topics that they are "careful" about how they report. I find it unlikely that they will ignore it totally, but we'll see.

I shall be supporting both of His Grace's suggested actions you can be sure.

21 July 2014 at 14:09  
Blogger Anglican said...

This is all set out in Mark Durie’s ‘The Third Choice’ (2010), subtitled Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom.
Having been away for a few weeks I was surprised to see today a very large advert on the outside of a local bus. It was sponsored by a Muslim group, which I had never heard of (I did not manage to write it down), proclaiming Islam as a fount of peace and love. This may be a genuine peaceable and loving Muslim group – in which case they are not good Muslims.

21 July 2014 at 14:51  
Blogger Martin Marprelate said...

Absolutely appalling!
What more can one do than give, write and pray? All done!

'Yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me' (John 16:2-3).

BTW, there was nothing that I could find about it all in this morning's Times. Disgraceful!

21 July 2014 at 15:07  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Anglican

This may be a genuine peaceable and loving Muslim group – in which case they are not good Muslims.

Not genuine, more likely.

21 July 2014 at 15:19  
Blogger Nick said...

Anglican

Whatever the group is, if it is really interested in peace then it woyld speak out against the atrocities being commited by Islamists. That is the acid test.

The reality is that none will speak out, either becuae they support terror, or are too frightened of the personal consequences of challenging the murderers

21 July 2014 at 15:31  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

You see, THIS is persecution.

Not quite the same as having Council prayers challenged is it Christina Odone? Muppet.

21 July 2014 at 15:50  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ David H

It is good for us to express our horror, but it would be even better for our government to express their horror, not in a short pat press release, but in several meaningful paragraphs, in which they also express their regret over Blair and Bush's war crimes, and in which they acknowledge that the great British public was more correct than the vast majority of MPs in the House of Commons, and that the war on Iraq has had massive and horrifying blowback which we predicted and they did not, and which these poor Christian martyrs are suffering whilst they escape the horrors they helped to perpetrate.

There will be judgement in the next world, let the bloodthirsty warmongers of all nations beware of it. For all those who get a kick or a payback out of starting or implementing wars of aggression will discover when they stand before Jesus that they will feel horror and self-disgust in quantities that they had never envisaged possible. He was seriously not kidding in the parable of the Good Samaritan, which these uncultured dim and heartless wretches feel they can ignore with impunity. They can, but for a very short time indeed....

21 July 2014 at 15:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Sidney @ 15:50

The two are connected.

The practice of the minor persecution leads to the media silence about the major persecution.

21 July 2014 at 16:30  
Blogger The Explorer said...

And, anyway, she wasn't just talking about council prayers. She was talking about people losing their livelihoods for heir beliefs.

21 July 2014 at 16:45  
Blogger Timjam68 said...

Anglican @ 14:51

I think the bus adverts you are referring to are from the Ahmadiyya Muslims - unfortuately other muslims - sunni/shia think they are heretics and, they too, are also badly persecuted.

21 July 2014 at 16:51  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Turkey, Iraq, Kosovo, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine,Iran, Nigeria, Sudan.

All places where christians are persecuted and Western governments do nothing.

I think they want this to happen.

The question is - Why?

21 July 2014 at 16:58  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

@Anglican
"It was sponsored by a Muslim group, which I had never heard of (I did not manage to write it down), proclaiming Islam as a fount of peace and love."

Perhaps it's Pam Geller being sarky.

I'm surprised whoever's responsible hasn't been prosecuted under the Islamophobia Laws for taking the p!$$.

21 July 2014 at 17:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Harry @ 16:58

The Russians promised the Poles that they would help them against the Germans. They lied. They let the Poles fight it out unaided against the Germans, and then walked in and took Warsaw for themselves.

There may be a similar sort of principle today. The Western governments dislike Christianity and are happy for Islam to thin it out world-wide.

The Muslims themselves can then be dealt with: unless, in the process, they have become too powerful.

21 July 2014 at 17:04  
Blogger Preacher said...

Sister T @ 13.37
Prayers are worth more than we can ever know, their effectiveness is dependant on the fervency of those praying. Armies have been killed to a man by the wrath of God in His response to prayer.

The partner to prayer is fasting & giving the time of eating to prayer instead.
At this time of year, Muslims fast because it's a ritual.

Are any of us believers prepared to fast & pray for a reason?.
Will you join with me to fast & pray for our brethren in such dire need & danger?.
No need to sign up, or make it 'official'. Just between us & God. If those that are able to partake will please do so I'm sure that the brethren in Mosul will know that they are not forgotten by us & we could see a miracle happen in the 21st century.

Thank you. Blessings. P.

21 July 2014 at 17:12  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

"I think they want this to happen.

The question is - Why?"

Don't mistake incompetence with deliberate policy. Our Politicians are without vision or understanding but they are not working towards the wholesale slaughter of Middle East Christians.

21 July 2014 at 17:29  
Blogger Len said...

I will certainly join you preacher. (17:12)

21 July 2014 at 17:34  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Clive Mitchell @ 17:29

Incompetence is almost certainly a factor, but I don't believe it to be the sole explanation.

By asserting that humans are sinners, Christianity offers an intolerable challenge to human autonomy.

There are those who would be glad to see the back of it; though, preferably by a peaceful intellectual death, rather than through violence. However, if the corpse refuses to lie down...

21 July 2014 at 17:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

During the Irish potato famine some British politician observed that there would soon be as few Irish on the banks of the Liffey as there were Indians on the banks of the Susquehanna.

Built-in solution to the Irish problem.

What's new in terms of attitude?

Me, I don't trust politicians.

21 July 2014 at 17:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sidney Deane wrote

You see, THIS is persecution.

And he is absolutely right. Most of what is called persecution in the West is nothing of the sort. It cheapens the concept of persecution to blur this necessary distinction.

Of course - and there is always an 'of course' when atheists make statements like this - he has a not-so-hidden agenda. By asserting this distinction he intends to justify those acts which seek to trample the free exercise of religion in the public square. As in "Don't whine. You haven't been shot."

Beware an atheist bearing gifts.

carl

21 July 2014 at 18:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Explorer

The Western governments dislike Christianity and are happy for Islam to thin it out world-wide.

That's kind of over-the-top, don't you think? There is a much simpler explanation. The problem is too big to handle because fixing it requires a form of noble colonization. There is no desire or willingness or ability to assume that burden.

These are not Western nations and they do not act according to Western norms. You would have to forcibly compel them to change - not least by suppressing Islam. Who is willing to take on that mission?

carl

21 July 2014 at 18:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

If you are able then join with Iraqi Christians outside the Houses of Parliament this Saturday, 26 July, at 12 midday. Let our politicians know you care and maybe, just maybe, the media will pick up on this.

Details here

"More than 1,500 people have fled in the last few days – having left almost all their possessions behind. For the first time in 1,600 years, there have been no Masses or Liturgies in Mosul, and reports have come in that an 1,800-year-old Syriac Catholic Church was desecrated and burnt to the ground."

"Please join us in front of the Houses of Parliament this Saturday (26 July) at 12 noon and take part in a demonstration with Iraqi Christian communities, in support of those suffering so much at this time."

If you cannot attend - then pray with and for them at this time.

21 July 2014 at 18:28  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The Explorer @ 17.43

Your post hits the nail on the head.

Deep down, perhaps unconsciously, it is the challenge to autonomy that is rejected. It was always thus, as Babel records, but starting from at least the nineteenth century and onwards, human pride, in our achievements, soared. Those achievements were generally useful, and should have been celebrated, but with thanksgiving; however we increasingly lost the perspective, if we ever had it, to see them in their cosmic perspective, and God was squeezed out, as an inconvenient restriction on our actions. Nowadays, many people, especially in urban areas, are separated by a thin skein of technology from even Nature, so almost all perspective has been lost, and to them God has disappeared. Western culture is in for a rude awakening at some point I believe. But I am not one to indulge in predictions or prophecies as we are told not to try to predict such things, but just work away going in the right direction as we understand it.

Many years ago I read the dictum, "Ultimately man either worships God or himself" (feminists are free to use different nouns and pronouns). My immature and immediate reaction was, "that's a bit trite". But slowly, thereafter, I learnt just how wise those words are. I have always liked, "The fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom", which you'll recognise no doubt. Plus ca change .....

21 July 2014 at 18:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Carl @ 18:16

Elements within Western governments is probably nearer to the mark.

Your comment on a previous thread about those still pining for the Paris Commune. It's not confined to those on the streets. Bring down the way of the West, and insofar as Christianity is part of that way, bring down Christianity.

21 July 2014 at 18:31  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

Explorer,

As has been said I do think a little over the top!

However as with the parable of the unjust judge, whether they are malign or simply impotent we need to keep the pressure on them, so not to allow them any excuses for inaction.

Whether it is prayer or fasting, or prayer and protest as has been suggested we can all do something however small.

21 July 2014 at 19:09  
Blogger Nick said...

Carl @18:07

Here in the UK, even though Christians are not persecuted to the extent they are in the Middle East, it is still important to resist attempts to silence us. If we are silenced, by whatever means, we are no longer able to speak out for those who have no voice.

Sidney has a point, but it's not becuase he has any sympathy for Christians, he just wants to make us look like whingers.

21 July 2014 at 19:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Clive @ 19:09

Agreed, re my original statement, but I modified my position @ 17:43 @ 18:31.

With the history of the C20 in my consciousness, by those I abide.

21 July 2014 at 19:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

The problem is too big to handle because fixing it requires a form of noble colonization. There is no desire or willingness or ability to assume that burden. These are not Western nations and they do not act according to Western norms. You would have to forcibly compel them to change - not least by suppressing Islam. Who is willing to take on that mission?

I'm sure you're right, Carl. But I think the West, beginning with the US needs to recognize that they created this hell on earth for Christians, when they invaded Iraq. It's the silence that's so terrible.

We keep hearing of young British Muslims who've gone off to fight with ISIS. The main reason they do this is because they keep hearing how the West persecutes Muslims. Even moderate Muslims in the UK say this when interviewed.

It strikes me that the quickest way to stop this kind of radicalisation, is for our politicians and media to make it clear that every day, Muslim persecute Christians to the death. They don't want to do that for several reasons: Western leaders are embarrassed by Christianity and they don't want to upset Muslims.

I think it's time Western leaders took some responsibility, beginning with the gutless, morally inert muppet in Washington.

21 July 2014 at 19:54  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

Explorer,

I think one of the problems our politicians have is they are use to negotiating with people who are wanting to come to a deal and are willing to make a compromise. With ISIS they are dealing with people who don't want to compromise and feel no need to make a deal.

Our politicians just don't have the intellectual tools to deal with such a situation.

I think Carl has the right of it, unless we are willing to take on a 'noble colonisation' their is no answer to the problem. To be honest I feel absolute despair for all that is going on in the middle east and can see no way out.

Which is why I think prayer offers the only hope, this is beyond man to resolve, only God can.

I do understand your feelings about politicians, anything else would be irrational!!

21 July 2014 at 19:54  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Christian murdering Islamic mobs are just made for Napalm. All you need are a few jet fighters to spray them with the stuff. If it was good enough for Charlie in the jungle, then it’s good enough for Johnny Mad Dog in the desert, what !

Let death rain down on them from the skies. Give them something else to think about apart from serving up Allah more innocent dead men women and children. You never know, they might even come to heel afterwards – these deranged types usually do when you’ve got them by the throat. Saddam knew that.

We can always {AHEM} ‘repent’ what we’ve done later, of course. We’ll have memorial services for the burnt out Mohameds, contrite speeches of lament received in silence at the UN, plus the usual guff said in earnest by world statesmen. The tears of regret would flow freely, it would be one big sob-in. We could even throw a few million sterling to the widowed Fatimas and baby Moes left behind, in a bag labelled “Awfully sorry, but needed to be done, so chin up”.

As Churchill himself might exhort: “Let us, with true hearts, go cynically forward, and, as the Americans would say, ‘do this thing’ !!”

21 July 2014 at 19:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick: "Sidney has a point, but it's not becuase he has any sympathy for Christians, he just wants to make us look like whingers."

I think it's worth drawing attention to political organisations like the Christian Institute at times like this. They're pushing for all sorts of special religious rights, fighting against a laissez-faire inclined society. Yet all they're really doing is trail-blazing for Islam which rides in on those rights. For example, witness the conscientious objections of supermarket workers to selling alcohol or pork. I heard today that there are calls to make Eid and Diwali bank holidays, like Easter and Christmas.

21 July 2014 at 20:00  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

Albert,

"I think it's time Western leaders took some responsibility, beginning with the gutless, morally inert muppet in Washington."

you are right.

"It strikes me that the quickest way to stop this kind of radicalisation, is for our politicians and media to make it clear that every day, Muslim persecute Christians to the death."

On this I am not so sure. Resentment of the west goes way beyond Iraq. Before the invasion it was Israel, or Bosnia. Islam has a talent for presenting itself as the victim. It like the spoilt child, always whining "It's not fair"

21 July 2014 at 20:15  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

DanJO,

I don't completely disagree with your point. I think the only thing I would say, if it's your own business, like cake maker, you should be able to set your own rules (to an extent), but if you work for someone else, you know what your signing up to.

For example, it would be ridiculous for a pacifist to work for a Defence Company and then say he/she is unwilling to work on weapons.

Or for a Muslim to work in a Pub!

21 July 2014 at 20:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Clive,

On this I am not so sure. Resentment of the west goes way beyond Iraq. Before the invasion it was Israel, or Bosnia. Islam has a talent for presenting itself as the victim. It like the spoilt child, always whining "It's not fair"

I think I over-reached myself when I said "the quickest way". What I mean is making it daily clear how Muslims persecute Christians to the death in large parts of the Muslim world, would perhaps help to prevent quite so much of the victim culture.

21 July 2014 at 20:28  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

Albert,

even with that more limited ambition, I am doubtful.

However it would certainly serve as a re-balancing of the current view in the media that the only victims in the ME are the Palestinians of Gaza.

21 July 2014 at 20:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

But I think the West, beginning with the US needs to recognize that they created this hell on earth for Christians, when they invaded Iraq

Well, remember a couple of things.

1. The situation we pre-empted was considerably worse than the situation as it stands.

2. People were being killed in Iraq before the invasion. We simply changed the identity of the victims.

3. The situation today is a result of a lack of western will to do exactly what I said - virtuously colonize and run Iraq with the intent of making it safe for Western civilization. People love that idea in the abstract, but recoil from the practical implications.

4. Nation building or noble colonization or whatever you would call it was a central purpose of the Iraq War. If it hadn't been tried and failed, people would still be demanding it.

carl

21 July 2014 at 20:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

1. The situation we pre-empted was considerably worse than the situation as it stands.

That isn't evidently true.

2. People were being killed in Iraq before the invasion. We simply changed the identity of the victims.

Yes, but my impression is that the rate of civilians deaths is much higher now.

3. The situation today is a result of a lack of western will to do exactly what I said - virtuously colonize and run Iraq with the intent of making it safe for Western civilization. People love that idea in the abstract, but recoil from the practical implications.

So it was dim-witted to invade.

4. Nation building or noble colonization or whatever you would call it was a central purpose of the Iraq War. If it hadn't been tried and failed, people would still be demanding it.

Well, it wasn't really tried. The handling of Iraq after the war was utterly amateurish. The comparison with the task and skill of Lord Louis Mountbatten after WWII is instructive.

21 July 2014 at 21:13  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I'm no expert on Middle-East politics, so this is just an impression.

Where there was a strong leader (tyrant, if you like) more concerned with power than religion, the situation for Christians seems to have been bearable.

I'm thinking of Iraq, Syria, the Copts in Egypt.

Remove/challenge the strong man and... well, we have seen the results on this Blog over the past few months.

21 July 2014 at 21:28  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

That’s it Explorer, you have it exactly, that man.

Meanwhile, we procrastinate, as exemplified by this thread, and people are being killed. It’s all rather simple, appreciate the racial character of the Arab, and exploit it. The British Empire was doing that a hundred years ago...

21 July 2014 at 21:42  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

...you know !

21 July 2014 at 21:43  
Blogger Matt A said...

At least the story is showing on the biased beyond criticism news site now.

21 July 2014 at 21:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Clive: "I think the only thing I would say, if it's your own business, like cake maker, you should be able to set your own rules (to an extent), but if you work for someone else, you know what your signing up to."

I agree about the cake maker, as it goes.

21 July 2014 at 22:02  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Bloody gay cake on this thread. I ask you...

21 July 2014 at 22:10  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

Apologies that wasn't the intention

21 July 2014 at 22:11  
Blogger bluedog said...

Excellent post, Albert @ 21.13. The situation in Iraq today is manifestly far, far worse than at any previous time in recent history, which is surely the whole point of His Grace's post. If a community that has survived 1700 years is being annihilated, what we see is a millennial event. How can that be denied?

21 July 2014 at 22:14  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you, Bluedog,

Even during the Crusades, the Christians of Mosul could celebrate Mass week after week. Given such a comparison we can draw our own conclusions.

21 July 2014 at 22:20  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

It’s not you Clive. That damnable one trick pony has escaped again, and selfishly grazing here and now...


21 July 2014 at 22:21  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

Nope my fault I brought up the cake maker. It was a poorly chosen example and distracting from the main point.

21 July 2014 at 22:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

That isn't evidently true.

I guess it depends upon the perspective you adopt. It might not be better for Iraq. It is manifestly better for all those who do not have to exist in the shadow of a regional nuclear hegemon with ambitions of recreating the Babylonian Empire. Now I realize the European answer to this problem was to perpetually deploy the American Army to Saudi Arabia and let the US deal with it. (You know, while the French bought Iraqi oil so the Iraqis could buy French weapons.) But that means the US gets to decide how to mitigate the risk. What is happening in Iraq is a small cost relative to the risks of letting Saddam get nukes. That maniac might have actually used them.

Do you remember when the British sank the French fleet at Mers El Kebir? Why did Churchill make that decision in the face if Admiral Darlan's promise? Because the risk was too great to accept. 1200 French sailors died. It wasn't better for them. But it was necessary for the safety of Britain. The fact that the French eventually scuttled the fleet is irrelevant to the correctness of Churchill's decision. There are some risks that must be mitigated despite the cost because the consequence of realizing the risk is just too great.

carl

21 July 2014 at 22:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Well, it wasn't really tried. The handling of Iraq after the war was utterly amateurish. The comparison with the task and skill of Lord Louis Mountbatten after WWII is instructive

Yes, his establishment of a border between India and Pakistan was essential to avoiding a blood bath between Hindu and Muslim. And how artfully he solved that problem of Kashmir to the mutual satisfaction of both sides. He evidently learned from the skillful way the British Foreign Office created that eminently coherent country of Iraq in order to secure British territory in the East from French Syria. I am sure he studied the professionalism inherent in the British administration of South Africa and the enlightened governance of the Boers.

I must admit you have me on this point Albert. The US was never a colonial power. We have no experience in performing such a task. The US military didn't want the mission. The US State Dept didn't want the mission. There is no intrinsic expertise anywhere in the US that would allow us to professionally colonize another country. But we had to destroy that sonofabitch and this task came along with the package. We did what we could with such knowledge as we had. I guess next time we should just leave that task to our betters.

carl

21 July 2014 at 22:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I guess it depends upon the perspective you adopt. It might not be better for Iraq.

That was the perspective I was adopting - and, as far as Western policy is concerned, it is the relevant one. In the end, Iraq is the particular mess it is because of Western policy. Therefore, the West has a duty to do something about it.

It is manifestly better for all those who do not have to exist in the shadow of a regional nuclear hegemon with ambitions of recreating the Babylonian Empire.

Sorry, did they find WMDs in Iraq, then?

In any case, it's easy enough to say what you say, but on that logic, shouldn't the US be invading North Korea - in fact, wouldn't that make more sense? Or Russia? Or China? Or perhaps Pakistan?

Do you remember when the British sank the French fleet at Mers El Kebir?

I don't accept the comparison. The threats are different: in the case of Iraq, Iraq could have become a threat, in the case of the French fleet, Germany was already a threat - and more than a threat - to Britain.

21 July 2014 at 22:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

It wasn't so much the India/Pakistan divide I was thinking of - in fact, I'm surprised that you thought I was. It was how to run the former Japanese Empire that mattered.

The US was never a colonial power. We have no experience in performing such a task.

Although that's not completely true, it was a point I was coming close to making. But I would point out that US experience in post-war Germany ought to have given some guidance on how not to deal with post-war Iraq.

21 July 2014 at 23:01  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 July 2014 at 23:05  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

Albert

If we in the Europe are honest out ill conceived meddling in the Middle East goes back to at least the end of WW1 and the divvying up of the spoils. A lot of today's problems can be traced to then.

21 July 2014 at 23:13  
Blogger Albert said...

That is undoubtedly true, Clive, although I think we can trace the problems further back to the decline of the Ottoman Empire.

I'm not saying that there are any easy answers. I think in the very least, the West could at least care.

21 July 2014 at 23:19  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

The BBC have a report that the Monks of Mar Behnam monastery outside Mosul have been evicted by ISIS. There has been a continual Christian presence there since the 4th century. Like so much of the region, now no more.

At least they were allowed to leave.

21 July 2014 at 23:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

No, they wouldn't have found nuclear weapons. They were looking for nuclear material.
The war was essentially a war of risk mitigation. You can't mitigate a risk once it has been realized. To wait until Iraq had nukes would be to concede Iraq their possession. So you could say:

1. We should have waited for better intelligence. But that is a matter of judgment and vindicates the decision to invade. The intelligence was thought adequate in 2003.

2. We should never invade and simply deter. Which was the geo-strategic disaster the war was fought to avoid.

What you can't say is "Wait until he detonates a weapon and then do something." It's too late at that point.

shouldn't the US be invading North Korea - in fact, wouldn't that make more sense? Or Russia? Or China? Or perhaps Pakistan?

As I said. It is too late once they are possessed. North Korea is too unimportant to matter. Pakistan is too focused on India to present a serious threat west. I don't even need to respond about Chins and Russia. But what about Iran? Something will need to be done. If the Iranians get nukes and use one against Israel, someone had better be prepared to kill tens of millions of Iranians in response. Are you willing to do that? Is that a better outcome?

Britain isn't carrying this responsibility. You are tacitly assuming the US will. So you have the luxury of bleating about outcomes without facing the consequences that attend the alternative. I guess the US could just go home and leave the region to its fate. Then we can all sit around with our collective thumbs up our collective asses when TelAviv goes up in a cloud of fire and smoke. Perhaps we could get the UN Security Council to condemn the aggressor.

btw, the relative risk of a nuclear armed Iraq is again a prudential judgment. The point of the comparison with Mers El Kebir is that the one who carries the risk gets to decide how to mitigate it.

car

21 July 2014 at 23:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

And anyways Albert

How could you mention Mountbatten post WWII, and British professionalism and all that, and expect me not to think of India. It's what he is principally known for.

carl

21 July 2014 at 23:50  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I think you are slightly misreading me. The West has a heavy responsibility to the Iraqi people because the West messed up Iraq. Now, on your argument, that case is only strengthened, for the reason Iraq was invaded was because of how Iraq might affect us in the West. So we made their lives harder for our own interests, as yuou put it:

It might not be better for Iraq.

Doesn't that bring any kind of responsibility?

Moreover, it is not just the war, but the worse than useless handling of the country after the war.

Surely, that brings some kind of responsibility?

The trouble is that American leadership no longer exists. Bush behaved like an adolescent setting fire to a building and then running off. Obama behaves like an adolescent who refuses to do anything about it, on the grounds that he didn't start it.

Both are irresponsible. Next time, do you think you Americans could elect somewhere in between the two?!

22 July 2014 at 00:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

How could you mention Mountbatten post WWII, and British professionalism and all that, and expect me not to think of India. It's what he is principally known for.

In view of the fact that the comparison was how to deal with a defeated power, I would have thought India should have been far from your mind.

22 July 2014 at 00:05  
Blogger St Bruno said...

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/
Essays in Idleness, David Warren.
News from Ninevah (July 20.2014)

Worth a read, informative and well written.

22 July 2014 at 00:19  
Blogger St Bruno said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 July 2014 at 00:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Bush behaved like an adolescent setting fire to a building and then running off

Perhaps I am misreading you here,ad well, but my primary point is that this is exactly what President didn't do. He made the right call in 2003. That the post war period was badly handled does not change the fact that the war needed to be fought. Neither is it a means by which the war can be retro-actively discredited.

So we made their lives harder for our own interests, as you put it

But it wasn't just our interest. Anyone within a thousand miles of Iraq benefitted from Saddam's overthrow.

Surely, that brings some kind of responsibility?

To do what? The only thing that could be done is what you have asserted to be the cause of the problem in the first place - invade and run the place.

carl

22 July 2014 at 01:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "It’s not you Clive. That damnable one trick pony has escaped again, and selfishly grazing here and now..."

Even when he accepts responsibility and it is blatantly true, you prefer your own version of reality because it suits your prejudices. How very poor.

22 July 2014 at 03:31  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Carl, I knew an Iraqi doctor from Mosul. I heard him say, with sorrow and anger...

'Why Tony Blair invade my country? Why? George Bush idiot by Tony Blair educated man.Why?....

Under Saddam it wadn't democracy, but we had water, electricity and education. And if you didn't criticise the government they left you alone. You could walk down the street without being killed.'

That was about 5 years ago, I should think Omar's thoughts about the evil fate of his home are even darker now.

Frederick Forsyth in his novel 'The Fist of God' set in Iraq understood the realities on the ground better than Bush and Blair and whoever's advice they took.

I hope the awfulness of the MH17 catastrophe will not lead us to make enemies of Putin. Bad a bastard as he is, he gets it about the need to at least contain global jihadism if we want to preserve our civilisation . Because we are now in a struggle not between civilisations but between western civilisation and its nemesis, Muhammedan savagery.

22 July 2014 at 04:52  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

My sympathies to the Christians of Iraq. I wouldn't say Saddam or previous rulers were any less brutal. Saddam massacred thousand of thousands of his own people, including Kurds and Marsh Arabs and previous Iraqi governments persecuted the once large prosperous Jewish population of Iraq. This version is just more extreme & I guess Saddam did keep some form of 'order', but then so did Stalin...

22 July 2014 at 07:39  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

DanJ0. Re Indignant Whine at 03:31

Aforementioned pony referred to subject of homosexuality, you loveable gay attention seeker.

Really, you didn’t come into it, left out your were, you sad, yet predictable narcissist....

22 July 2014 at 08:13  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K @ 07:39

Thank you for an illuminating post. Two questions.

Would I be right in thinking that Saddam was focused on ethnic/power persecution, while the new lot are into religious persecution?

When previous Iraqi governments persecuted the Jews, did they leave the Christians alone?

22 July 2014 at 08:18  
Blogger IanCad said...

Hard to advocate for Saddam David K but the brutalities visited upon the Kurds and Marsh Arabs were, in a major way, caused by the elder Bush.
Bad judgement is inheritable.

Recall, if you will his urging of the two groups to rise and overthrow Saddam; and Oh Yes! We will come in and support you.

They did. He didn't.

Let's not forget the vile sanctions (The coward's way of war) either.

Clinton delighted in that.

We Christians don't take persecution too well.

Unlike you guys, we haven't had much practise of late.

Ian

22 July 2014 at 08:29  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I get that Shia/Sunni would fight each other for precedence, but I remember reading that when some Christians (can't remember when or where: Macedonia, I think) tried to become Muslims this was forbidden: stay dhimmi and pay the jizya.

So driving out/killing Christians seems to be cutting yourself off from a source of revenue.

22 July 2014 at 08:29  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Ian,

I'd say Iraq was an artificial country created by the British and French after WWI and therefore when it became a country in its own right, needed a strongman, like Tito in Yugoslavia, to keep the place together, which is how most of the middle east is run, although the option of secular nationalist dictatorship, feudal monarchy or rule by clerics allows some form of window dressing. For Iraq that has gone, the country is simply reverting to its constituent parts :if Assad were to fall, the same would happen in Syria.

22 July 2014 at 08:51  
Blogger IanCad said...

David,

Spot On!

22 July 2014 at 09:02  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 23.42 says, ‘Pakistan is too focused on India to present a serious threat west.’

It appears that there is scope here for a different interpretation of Pakistani capabilities, if not Pakistani possible intent. Pakistan is the only current Muslim nuclear weapons power and we seem to be having a little local difficulty with Muslims in a number of isolated pockets, thankfully nothing serious.

Ahem, as OIG says.

An alternative reading of the tea-leaves goes like this. Pakistan is positioned to sponsor the expansion of Islamic influence throughout Europe under the aegis of its nuclear weapons, by virtue of its capacity for judicious, if not subliminal, nuclear blackmail. Pakistan also supplies Saudi Arabia with thousands of military personnel and the Saudis have acquired nuclear-capable missiles with launch facilities. The Saudis are on record as saying that they can get war-heads from Pakistan within hours. One can conclude that a military partnership exists between these two Sunni states.

As we know, Saudi Arabia actively promotes Wahhabism across Europe through schools, madrassas and mosques. One can therefore see the potential for a cultural and demographic partnership between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as well.

Questions:
1)To what extent is either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia a lesser risk than Iraq under Saddam?
2)How can the West mitigate that perceived risk?

The point is that either Pakistan or SA could undergo regime change, particularly the latter, and emerge as just as dangerous as Iran may soon become.

If the Saudi monarchy falls, what would follow? The possibility of a Saudi Saddam cannot be dismissed.

Consider the circumstances of a European state with a large Muslim population of Pakistani descent, what is the risk that the ancestral homeland will take a more than paternal interest in the Pakistani diaspora, and what form may that interest take?
So when you say ‘Britain isn't carrying this responsibility’, one can agree because the relationship takes on a different dimension.

Not unlike Israel with its legacy Muslim population, Britain now lives with both risk and the responsibility, a different proposition, and the direct consequence of a deeply misconceived immigration policy.

It may be an appreciation of this risk lies behind the continuing extraordinary generosity of Britain’s foreign aid programme to Pakistan.

It’s a bribe.

Carl @ 0102 says, ‘Anyone within a thousand miles of Iraq benefitted from Saddam's overthrow.’

It seems the Christians in Mosul don’t understand this yet.

Should we expect a mercy dash by Carl to Mosul to explain?

22 July 2014 at 09:26  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Explorer,

The Jewish community of Iraq had been there for 2,500 years and from what I know Jews, Christians and Muslims all got on relatively well(my sister is translating my grandparent's diaries and they talk about non- Jewish friends).

Jews were persecuted pre-Saddam as revenge by Arab governments for the creation of Israel, although there were underlying tensions before 1948, e.g. look up Farhud pogrom of 1941 during WWII. Most of the community escaped or were allowed to leave (less wealth and property) between 1948 and 1952, although some stayed until the 1970s.

Jews were targeted because

1) They were wealthy, educated & 'western',relatively speaking, my grandmother could read & write several languages, quite radical for an ethnic minority and a woman in a third world country.

2)Jews made up the bulk of businesses and had been a part of the government during the British mandate and the Ottoman Empire. So letting them escape the country after 2 years of hell, whilst seizing all their wealth and land has been a tactic of Jew haters for thousands of years.

3) They were a convenient scapegoat when Arabs failed to exterminate the Jews of Israel in 1948 & branded as 'fifth column'.

4) They were Jews.

22 July 2014 at 09:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

my primary point is that this is exactly what President didn't do. He made the right call in 2003. That the post war period was badly handled does not change the fact that the war needed to be fought. Neither is it a means by which the war can be retro-actively discredited.

I think there's a certain amount of hand-waving here. You cannot separate these things out like that. A just war requires consideration of the aftermath. But in any case, it wasn't a just war in the first place.

Anyone within a thousand miles of Iraq benefitted from Saddam's overthrow.

As Rambling Steve has put it, it didn't benefit the people of Iraq. Moreover, it is far from clear that it did benefit the rest of the region. Surely, it is more unstable now, and part of the reason is because we messed up so badly in the Iraq that evil men know they can do anything with impunity. We also showed that these dictators can be toppled. It was naive of Westerners to think that anyone who noticed that would be a democrat.

To do what? The only thing that could be done is what you have asserted to be the cause of the problem in the first place - invade and run the place.

Actually, I don't think I need to come up with an answer to that. I'm a private individual who does not have the resources of a government. Having messed up the country, you cannot then walk away from it. It was wrong to go in, but having gone in, it was perhaps wrong to get out. There are options: the use of air-strikes against ISIS might help.

As for running the place, the experience of the British Empire was that, you can largely get the locals to do that for you. And that was the extraordinary error of the post-Iraq was period.

22 July 2014 at 09:34  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K @ 09:34

Thanks. That clarifies.

22 July 2014 at 09:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Aforementioned pony referred to subject of homosexuality, you loveable gay attention seeker. Really, you didn’t come into it, left out your were, you sad, yet predictable narcissist...."

Here we go yet again.

22 July 2014 at 09:42  
Blogger The Explorer said...

bluedog @ 09:26

I've always thought our aid package to Pakistan must be a form of danegeld.

Peter Hitchens said - cynically, but probably truthfully - that it's a billion a year donation to the Pakistan nuclear programme.

22 July 2014 at 09:50  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert

A lot of good sense in your posts.

22 July 2014 at 10:05  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

It never ceases to amaze me that no matter how serious and heart-wrenching the topic posted by the host the thread gets rapidly marginalised if not completely erased in the irrelevance of side-winding, hobby-horse opportunists.

You know who you are - make me want to puke!

22 July 2014 at 10:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hopefully that's not me, as I'm just the target again.

What can really be said about this topic underneath the article? Those Christians need to get out as fast as they can whether or not their possessions are stolen along the way. There is always the potential for donations to set these people up elsewhere provided they're alive.

The battle to remain is lost in that area for the foreseeable future. There is nothing the UK or the West can really do to change that, without a massive regional war. Blair and Bush ultimately set this in motion, despite their alleged praying together, and it will run as it will now.

Amazingly, I find I'm actually in agreement with Albert over something at last. Our national press and our Government ought to be demonstrating at every opportunity how people in many places, acting in the name of Islam, are destroying cultures and blighting whole regions. To do so doesn't target our Muslim citizens or discriminate against them.

22 July 2014 at 10:45  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Explorer,

You are welcome. I am horrified that Christians are now being ethnically cleansed from Iraq and Syria. I personally believe that there either needs to be a Christian state for the region's Christian minorities or the west needs to take in these Iraqi Christian communities ( who, like Jews, are traditionally educated & wealthy. I believe during the time of the Sultan Christians were the civil service of the Ottoman Empire).

22 July 2014 at 10:45  
Blogger Preacher said...

Len @ 17.34.
Thank you brother. I hope that others have joined us, but prefer to remain anonymous.

Blessings. P.

22 July 2014 at 11:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Not you at all DanJo - you defend you corner when you have to as do I. Sometimes though I'm glad to be proved wrong; it means I may have learned something. In this case however all I perceive if the hypocrisy of would-be god-fearin 'christians 'god-fearin' historians, self serving-sectarian'theologians' and abject fantasists.

The best thing I get from this is endorsment of the adage that men make gods in their own image and not the other way round.

22 July 2014 at 12:19  
Blogger bluedog said...

Albert @ 0934 said, ' ...the experience of the British Empire was that, you can largely get the locals to do that for you.'

Precisely. The British Empire was a co-operative joint-venture.

22 July 2014 at 12:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Our Muslim citizens should be on their hands and knees thanking Allah for their good fortune to live in a stable, civilised, tolerant society like ours which values freedom enough that they can manifest their religious beliefs peacefully and respectfully alongside the rest of us.

22 July 2014 at 14:08  
Blogger Clive Mitchell said...

DanJO

Agreed but not hopeful.

Also apologies for the trouble I caused!!

22 July 2014 at 14:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's not you who should be apologising, Clive, it should be the perpetrator.

22 July 2014 at 17:24  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

DanJ0. Our Muslim citizens should be on their hands and knees thanking Allah for their good fortune to live in a stable, civilised, tolerant society like ours which values freedom enough that they can manifest their religious beliefs peacefully and respectfully alongside the rest of us.

You mendacious scoundrel ! You’d be among the first to ‘bitterly complain’ if they really did start manifesting their religious beliefs big time in the UK as many now in prison already did small scale. At least your boatman friend is refreshingly honest on that point.

Anything to say about the UK having the good fortune to have Christians manifesting THEIR religious beliefs ? Thought not. Attempting to live the life of a Christian is to be deprecated in the UK according to your type. A case of Invert Racism if ever there were, but altogether to be expected from the modern atheistic (though sensitive about ethnic cultures and beliefs), and most of all, necessarily white, liberal.

22 July 2014 at 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Attempting to live the life of a Christian is to be deprecated in the UK according to your type."

Despite the fact that I say time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again here that I support Article 9 of the ECHR and that I'm happy to see Christians dancing in the streets outside their churches if they so choose. You're simply and plainly an incorrigible liar here because reality doesn't actually suit your prejudices.

22 July 2014 at 18:03  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Christ Almighty ! Your TYPE, not necessarily YOU to the blasted tee !

Are you not an atheistic white liberal, because if you are, then you are in common cause with the rest of the rotters and are thus equally guilty.

22 July 2014 at 18:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*shrug*

And so it goes on.

22 July 2014 at 18:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

A just war requires consideration of the aftermath. But in any case, it wasn't a just war in the first place

As I have said many times, I don't care about your game of Trivial Pursuit called Just War Doctrine. There is no arm-waving. I will say in plainly. The consequence to Iraq is insignificant relative to the achievement of the strategic purpose of the war.

Do you really not understand that purpose? Do you really not understand how dangerous it would be to allow a crypto-Stalinist megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein to sit as a regional hegemon on top of half the world's known oil reserves with the money and influence that would bring him? He started two wars in a decade. He learned from Kuwait that his mistake was acting before he had the cover of nuclear capability. What do you think he would have done with such cover? Do you think he would suddenly have given up his dreams of empire? He saw himself as Nebuchadnezzar reborn.

Iraq was the one Arab state that had the potential to become a regional power capable of threatening US interests. Once it had nuclear weapons it could not be confronted directly without fear of triggering a nuclear exchange. Behind that cover it would have pursued an aggressive expansionist policy to advance its regional influence. To oppose this, you would have placed the American Army in the Middle East in perpetuity and demand it prepare for war against a much more capable adversary than was defeated in 2003. American blood and American treasure and American responsibility for the sake of your opinions on Just War. No thanks.

Eliminating that risk before it could be realized into a significant threat was the purpose of the war. Why did the US do it? Because the US would have had to carry the burden against the alternative. The trade was:

1. Kill it now while it is still weak and vulnerable.

2. Manage the consequences indefinitely if you choose not to act. Face the potential of a much more destructive and bloody war.

I haven't even mentioned the impact on the Arab/Israeli conflict and the potential for a nuclear war between the two nations. Against this, you are setting the current situation in Iraq. However bad it is, at least its localized and will stay localized. It's not going to escalate into a regional war between two nuclear-armed nations. With Saddam Hussein, that was a real possibility.

Because the US carried the risk, the US chose how to mitigate the risk. You may not like the choice. Too bad. When Britain carries the risk, Britain can make the choice. In the meantime, the US is not putting itself into that pile of horse dung simply to satisfy your conception of Just War.

carl

22 July 2014 at 18:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I find it curious that in July 2014 of all times, that you are arguing for the value of a preventative war.

I'm not clear what the evidence is that Saddam was creating a nuclear threat. However, by removing him, even though he did not have WMD, what you did was create a situation in which a dictator thinks "There's no point disarming, because, sooner or later I might get invaded anyway. In fact, what I must do is get WMD as soon as possible, to protect myself" Can you not see where that goes?

The only way to stop that is to be much more promiscuous in attacking dictatorships.

And the key thing is a moral one. Having messed up, in an unjust and foolish war, someone else's country, the West (by which I mean you and us, really) have an extra moral duty to protect those who have been put in harm's way by our actions.

We both know that the reason nothing gets done is because of Obama's unwillingness to take responsibility for anything.

I don't care about your game of Trivial Pursuit called Just War Doctrine.

And I don't care about your consequentialist, secular utilitarian world-view, in which it is lawful to do evil that good may come of it. There are numerous reasons why consequentialism is wrong. One of them is the law of unintended consequences, and that brings me back to the preventative wars of 1914.

22 July 2014 at 20:55  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Sanctimonious Albert said “Having messed up, in an unjust and foolish war, someone else's country, the West (by which I mean you and us, really) have an extra moral duty to protect those who have been put in harm's way by our actions.”

Absolute bullshit. What we need is another few Saddams to run these bloody awful muslim states.

Step forward, any of the house of Hussain, or have we hung you all ?

22 July 2014 at 21:51  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

:-)

22 July 2014 at 21:54  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Time you retired to a monastery Albert. Let the men of this world deal with this world’s problems without you ‘joy to the world’ types jumping on our backs...

22 July 2014 at 21:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Yes, the men of world are doing so well by themselves.

22 July 2014 at 22:15  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

At least they don’t have one hand tied behind their backs thanks to the likes of you.

22 July 2014 at 22:22  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector

Just mustard gas the lot of them, eh? And, if you read the discussion, (did you?) you'll see Albert was saying the removal of Saddam Hussain was unjustified and produced a worse situation - not a better one.

Carl

Your argument seems to be that a nation's global interests are the primary factor driving foreign policy and the in the use of force - without regard to moral examination or rectitude.

Presumably, on this basis, you support Putin as acting validly in doing all that he deems necessary to keep Ukraine away from the EU and the West and part of Russian sphere of influence?

Funny how your President huffs and puffs about this but disowns the consequences of his nation's interference in the Middle East.

22 July 2014 at 23:05  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Jack. Mustard gas has it uses, for example, stopping wholesale killing. As for Albert, the poor innocent wants us to grieve for a war that toppled a dictator who invaded a sovereign country. That war sent a message to all tin pot dictators, present and future, to wit, “Don’t push it”.

22 July 2014 at 23:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector

"Mustard gas has it uses, for example, stopping wholesale killing."

You've researched the short and longer effects then, have you?

"As for Albert, the poor innocent wants us to grieve for a war that toppled a dictator who invaded a sovereign country. That war sent a message to all tin pot dictators, present and future, to wit, “Don’t push it”.

The war over Kuwait in 1999 was won and the objectives met. Yes? No one is arguing against that military intervention being an appropriate response to naked aggression.

The reason for going to war against Iraq in 2003 was supposedly to remove WMD, 'believed', without evidence, to be held by Saddam Hussain. Yes? None were found. Chaos ensued. And now you're calling on his kin to step forward and replace him!

And what message to Islamists was sent out? The 'Arab Spring' is not unconnected to this event.

Jack believes Hussain was a bad bastard but the West can't waltz in, destabilise a nation in its own interests and then wash its hands of the regional consequences.

Do show a bit of consistency, there's a good fellow.

23 July 2014 at 01:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 July 2014 at 04:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

My argument is this. How long do you think Jordan would have maintained its independence in the face if Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear weapons? How long before he installs a puppet government? Or does he just take it like Kuwait? Then what do you have? The Iraqi Army on the East Bank of the Jordan River backed by nuclear weapons and all modern French weapons that money can buy. I will leave it to the Jewish readers of this website to explain the strategic significance of that eventuality. Or maybe you don't have it. Maybe you have a regional war because the Israelis would find that occurrence so threatening, they might start a war to prevent it. Do you have a clue to the problem now?

So what would you do to prevent this? Well, we could put American soldiers all around Iraq in the middle of the effing desert forever as a tripwire. Except they would be there to protect the Israelis and the whole effing Arab world would know it. Perhaps they might just think "If we kill enough Americans, they will leave." Do you suppose Hussein would have had trouble getting volunteers to attack the Americans since they were positioned to keep the rising power of the Arab world away from Israel? Remember this is a leader who wanted to be great in history. And guess what? Extinguishing Israel would be just the way to do it. He would want those forward deployed troops twenty miles from Israeli strategic targets. It gives him opportunity. Are you beginning to get the picture?

Albert has his philosophy class. He's very concerned about principles in a philosophy book that seem very important to him. But he has no effing idea how to make those principles work in situations like this. He doesn't stop to think through the ramifications of what he suggests. This isn't an exercise for the reader. This isn't a defense of a PhD thesis. This is the possibility of a regional war between two nuclear powers in one of the most important regions on the Earth. Is the fog starting to lift a little?

That's why the war was fought. You can't just read a book and say "This is how wars should be morally fought." It's nice to think that could be the case. But here on Planet Earth the world doesn't behave like the carefully constructed models in an exercise book.

carl

23 July 2014 at 04:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

Presumably, on this basis, you support Putin as acting validly in doing all that he deems necessary to keep Ukraine away from the EU and the West and part of Russian sphere of influence?

Ukraine is going back under Moscow's sovereignty one way or another. There is no one on Earth who has the both the will and the capability to prevent it. Would I prefer to see Ukraine severed from Russia? I don't know. Tell me how it would affect the Russian ability to counter a Chinese move north into Siberia. That I think is a dreadfully real possibility.

I understand why Putin is doing what he is doing. I don't see any reason to antagonize Russia over an issue that must eventually be resolved in Russia's favor. The harsh fact is that Ukraine is not strong enough to secure its independence and Russia cannot be a great power without Ukraine. That combination makes for a forgone conclusion.

carl

23 July 2014 at 04:57  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 18.39 says, 'To oppose this, you would have placed the American Army in the Middle East in perpetuity and demand it prepare for war against a much more capable adversary than was defeated in 2003.'

Britain patrolled and garrisoned the Gulf and various parts of the Middle East from about 1830 to 1971. In perpetuity? Not quite.

Remember Suez in 1956? An Anglo-French-Israeli operation achieved complete military success in retaking the Suez Canal that had been nationalised by the Egyptian forces of Colonel Nasser. At the same time the Soviet Union took the opportunity to invade Hungary and repress an uprising. For its part, the US took financial measures to knee-cap the Anglo-French operation. We withdrew after our US allies backed Egyptian nationalists in preference to us. Soviet nuclear blackmail was a factor too and the lesson is not forgotten.

The British conclusion? If it has happened once it may happen again if we ever take independent action, which discourages doing so. After Suez, it was clear British positions globally could no longer be supported without US consent, and the US has been fixated on de-colonisation since 1776. Read Kennedy’s campaign speeches on the topic, even as late as 1960. Throughout WW2 and subsequently it was a US policy objective to end the global power of Britain and France.

Consequently, mitigating the risk of rogue regimes in the Middle East has become your responsibility, by your own choice.

Significantly, after our final withdrawal in 1971, the Arabs raised the oil price 400% and attacked Israel in 1973. We must have been doing something right beforehand.

But now you've got what you wanted, why the buyers’ remorse?

Settle in for the long haul and enjoy your purchase.

23 July 2014 at 08:47  
Blogger Albert said...

Sorry, Inspector, I thought you were joking in your post at 2151 - not least because of the thought in the first line of Jack's post @2305!

That war sent a message to all tin pot dictators, present and future, to wit, “Don’t push it”.

No it hasn't. Because the law of unintended conseuqneces has meant that the West is now unwilling to use military action to protect the law and the innocent. Every despot in the world knows that now, and you can see their handy-work.

As for Albert, the poor innocent wants us to grieve for a war that toppled a dictator who invaded a sovereign country.

No I don't. I want us to grieve for our Christian brothers and sisters who are being butchered as a result. Don't you?

23 July 2014 at 08:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Well said Bluedog.

23 July 2014 at 08:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Tell me, Carl, in America, can the police shoot a man dead because they have a suspicion that he might be carrying a gun? Can they shoot him dead, and some of his neighbours, for that reason, that he might have a gun? Can they do this, and leave his neighbourhood in state of violence against the innocent, and just walk away saying "We get to choose how we do this" just because he might have a gun?

You can mock my appeal to right and wrong, but right and wrong cannot so easily be separated from flourishing and suffering. You also don't seem to be able to see (or perhaps you can) that even on your consequentialist account, your position doesn't stand up. This is why you are having to stress all sorts of counter-factuals about what Iraq would have done, if they have got the weapons they didn't actually have.

Perhaps our experience in the UK is different from yours. In 1914 WWI broke out because the Central Powers went for an unjust set of consequentialist, preventative wars. Our policy in the 1930s was determined by a set of unjust consequentialist appeasement policies. If in both cases, people had followed the principles of just war that you so despise, things would have been rather different.

Why not apply your logic to a few dodgy states that do have those weapons?

And Bluedog is right, you guys elected yourselves the world's policemen and prevent anyone else doing it. So police it.

23 July 2014 at 09:07  
Blogger Albert said...

BTW Carl, what are you going to do about Iran?

23 July 2014 at 09:42  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert,


I have not had time to read all the comments but permit me to jump in and respond to the first paragraph of your last post.

The answers are Yes! Yes! and Yes!

Protected by the dogma of "Officer Safety" and the legal fiction of "Qualified Immunity" American police officers have a license to kill.

And they do:

107 year old Isidore Monroe for having a gun.
John Williams for carrying a three inch knife.
Brian Claunch, whilst in his wheelchair, for threatening officers with a ball point pen .

Forgive the links YG, but, with Cameron's idiotic attempt to recruit US Police Chief William Bratton there exits the danger that such astonishing behaviour could migrate to our own fair land.

A good stiff drink should be taken before viewing the murder of John Williams.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ark-officer-leave-after-107-year-old-killed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnKLEOXenow

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/29/brian-claunch-shooting-houston-police

bluedog

You make a good point about Eisenhower and Suez.
Much of the mischief of today can be traced back to that foolish policy of his.

23 July 2014 at 10:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl

You didn't really answer Jack's question about Russia and the Ukraine. Perhaps it wasn't made clear enough. Do you believe Putin is acting validly, as in is what he's doing is morally justifiable? That is seeking to colonise the Ukraine as a Russian puppet state against the apparent wishes of the majority of the people of a sovereign nation?

Jack understands your arguments about Iraq. He just believes the war started too soon. It may have been inevitable and the picture you've sketched may have been realised. Who knows? If there had been reliable and sound evidence about WMD, you're position would be sounder. There were no WMD and who's to say Saddam wasn't just sabre rattling?

23 July 2014 at 15:24  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad,

The answers are Yes! Yes! and Yes!

No! No! and No! The second and third yeses don't relate to my second and third questions. The first Yes, is also not addressing my question. The issue is whether the police can kill a man whom they suspect might be carrying a gun.

The tragic case of Mr Williams is not the example, since he clearly had a gun and was a threat - he had threatened a woman with it, and had shot it.

Protected by the dogma of "Officer Safety" and the legal fiction of "Qualified Immunity" American police officers have a license to kill.

That suggests to me a problem with US law, rather than a specific policy to shoot people who may be carrying guns. Lots of people carry guns in America, and although lots of people get shot, that isn't usually the reason, nor it is the police who shoot them.

23 July 2014 at 16:50  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert wrote:

"---The issue is whether the police can kill a man whom they suspect might be carrying a gun.--"

Yes they can, and it happens quite regularly.

And to cite you again: "-- a specific policy to shoot people who may be carrying guns.--"

Again. Yes.

Under the rubric of "Officer Safety" during the countless no knock Swat Team raids the norm is to shoot first and ask questions later.

No fear of any diciplinary action. Perhaps a paid holiday during the investigation period.

Let me further add that Swat actions are not just limited to the apprehension of drug offenders or serious criminality. Parking tickets, game offences and other relatively minor misdemeanours are all fair game for the militarised police forces of the USA.

Further, to address Mr. Monroe's (Williams's) predicament.
The police knew full well that he had a gun. It was his perfect right. He was defending his natural right to stay in his own home as a relative was trying to ship him off to a care home in order to possess his house.

107 years old! Why not wait for a quarter of an hour until he would be asleep?

A completely indefensible action by law enforcement.

Southern California is about as laid back a place as can be imagined.
Newport Beach is a beach bum's mecca.

Not so their police force.

Take a look at this police recruitment video and rejoice that you live in this green and pleasant land.

http://www.ocregister.com/video/v/5571248001/criminal-justice-defensive

23 July 2014 at 18:45  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad,

It was his perfect right.

That of course, is very paradoxical. An American has a right to carry a gun, and the police have the right to shoot him simply for having the suspicion he is carrying a gun.

That may all be true (although I still maintain that your example does not show that). But the crucial is, that even if that is true, it is totally incoherent, and as such, hardly provides a precedent for invading Iraq.

But it also fails because it fails to provide a precedent for leaving Iraq having messed it up.

23 July 2014 at 19:41  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert,

Quoting you again:

"That of course, is very paradoxical----'

And:

"--that even if that is true, it is totally incoherent---"

You're right.

Thus the unprofitable pursuit of we British trying to understand Americans.

A waste of time. We can't.

23 July 2014 at 20:31  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Albert / Jack. Re last night.

Occasionally, a fellow bursts in on a tangent of a post and, fortified by the water of life, fails to realise the nuances therein.

Anyway, that’s the nearest both of you are getting to a statement of regret from the Inspector.

Good evening.

23 July 2014 at 21:40  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

*chuckle*

It takes a man to acknowledge the error of his ways. Plus, we do get used to your very occasional ... let's say ... more rash statements.

23 July 2014 at 22:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

I was exceptionally tired last night. I was much more harsh than I needed to be. I apologize for that. I'm not very good at keeping emotion in check when I am tired. Not an excuse. Just an explanation.

carl

24 July 2014 at 04:54  
Blogger Albert said...

That's alright Carl, I bit back...:-)

24 July 2014 at 09:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older