Terrorists attack Christian churches in Iraq

[Major_Baker]

This can of worms was BEGGING to be opened. How long was the United States willing to sit on it's ass while the enemy made plans for more attacks?
Exactly where would we be now?? Having our asses blown off while our head was in the sand.

Iraq? It has since been deemed that Iraq was not an imminent threat to us. Forget about that? Which Enemy are you speaking of? Iraqis or AQ terrorists?

 

[Major_Baker]

3. I'd rather have an influx of terrorists into Iraq for our soldiers to shoot than have an influx of terrorists into the U.S. for me to shoot.

You watchin the news? Dude, they are already here.

 

[Hobbit]

3. I'd rather have an influx of terrorists into Iraq for our soldiers to shoot than have an influx of terrorists into the U.S. for me to shoot.

You watchin the news? Dude, they are already here.

Yeah, but we caught the entire deck of playing cards in Iraq. We've caught and killed more terrorists over there than probably any operation in the history of the world. There may be some terrorists here in the U.S., but that was happening, anyway (9/11). However, with so many of them pouring into Iraq, fewer are trying to get here and they're getting killed attacking our soldiers.

 

[CSM]

Interesting topic. In my opinion, we need to look at the long range strategy of what this adminisatration is trying to do. Invading Afghanistan/Iraq fits into a larger strategy which allow the US to have a strong presence in the Middle East. This may allow the US to disengage from such close ties to Israel (much of the terrorists and others complaint). It also undermines the two of the major supporters of terrorists (they are not ALL AQ) and certainly sends a clear message to other supporters (Pakistan is a good example).

I would also remind folks that operations in Afghanistan are now under NATO control (led by US forces, true). I would also remind folks that acts of terrorism did not begin with the Bush administration. The fact is that these acts have been on going throughout the 20th century (anyone remember how WW I got started?). It is also a fact that most Western governments have had a great deal of trouble coming to grips with terrorists groups and have basically tried everything from appeasement to partial genocide in order to "make the world safe".

I do not know that there is an answer; I suspect that it will take a combination of approaches to get at terrorism at its roots. Part of that combination is, of necessity, military action. It will also take education of the masses (particularly in third world areas), a lot of money, and most importantly, a willingness between the terrorists and the rest of the world to solve the problem.

As for other European nations involvement, their success in combating terrorism has been sporadic at best. Germany, France, and Russia for example have been no more successful than the US in their dealings with terrorists. Those countries' condemnation of the US is rather hypocritical in light of their history and current actions.

It is indeed a complex problem and one that will plague us for some time to come, I think.

 

[TheOne]

Saddam protected the Christians in his secular administration. Tariq Aziz is a Christian. Saddam had no issue with the Christians because they were politically neutral. The US's inability to secure the peace will cost many their lives in Iraq. Why were Christian churches "soft" targets in Iraq? People are dying in droves because the US cannot secure the peace. It is a failure of the highest order. I am certain that the Christians were much safer under Saddam than they are now and I know for a fact that many were vehemently opposed to the US invasion.

article

 

[JIHADTHIS]

".......The US's inability to secure the peace will cost many their lives in Iraq.."

Should read: The Iraqi's inability to secure the peace will cost many their lives in Iraq.

 

[dilloduck]

What side of the bed did you get out of this morning. You've spread your BS all over the board with no subtantiation. Go back to bed.

 

[Annie]

What side of the bed did you get out of this morning. You've spread your BS all over the board with no subtantiation. Go back to bed.

I'll assume you are referring to The One? I think he has pent up info after his break. He'll settle down.

 

[TheOne]

It is the responsibility of the US to secure the peace in Iraq. That comes with the territory of pre-emptive, near unilateral invasion. This is not even really debatable. The degraded security situation in Iraq is a direct effect of the Bush invasion. Another in a long line of blunders.

 

[TheOne]

What side of the bed did you get out of this morning. You've spread your BS all over the board with no subtantiation. Go back to bed.

All of my "BS" is direct links to news sources. What substantiation are you looking for? The articles stand on their own merit.

 

[dilloduck]

All of my "BS" is direct links to news sources. What substantiation are you looking for? The articles stand on their own merit.

Slanted news sources------got any original comments or perceptions?

 

[Annie]

Slanted news sources------got any original comments or perceptions?

C'mon Dillo, he's flooding and knows it!

 

[5stringJeff]

Saddam protected the Christians in his secular administration. Tariq Aziz is a Christian. Saddam had no issue with the Christians because they were politically neutral. The US's inability to secure the peace will cost many their lives in Iraq. Why were Christian churches "soft" targets in Iraq? People are dying in droves because the US cannot secure the peace. It is a failure of the highest order. I am certain that the Christians were much safer under Saddam than they are now and I know for a fact that many were vehemently opposed to the US invasion.

article

The Christian Church was not allowed the freedom to worship and spread its faith under Saddam. They were routinely killed for their faith, just like the Shiite majority was killed for their faith. And I'm sure there were Christians in the Middle East oposed to the war - just like many Christians here were opposed to it. There were also millions of Christians who understood the aims of the war and supported it, even though nobody actually likes to see war occur.

 

[TheOne]

The Christian Church was not allowed the freedom to worship and spread its faith under Saddam. They were routinely killed for their faith, just like the Shiite majority was killed for their faith. And I'm sure there were Christians in the Middle East oposed to the war - just like many Christians here were opposed to it. There were also millions of Christians who understood the aims of the war and supported it, even though nobody actually likes to see war occur.

You have sources or is this just your hunch?

The secular Saddam has neither encouraged nor permitted the type of anti-Christian riots seen in Egypt and Iran. Further, Saddam has never engaged in actual anti-Christian genocide of the type seen in Sudan, where 2 million Christian have lost their lives in the past decade. Unlike any other regime in the Middle East, Saddam has permitted Christians to occupy high public office. This includes the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Assiz, who is a Roman Catholic. In addition, Saddam’s regime has permitted a degree of free practice for Christians that is positively enviable compared to the situations experienced in such U.S. ‘allies’ as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Christmas and Easter decorations always abound, even in Baghdad, and attending church does not require an act of courage.

Today, the Christians of Iraq seem to be split between those who support the status quo – de facto autonomy of a type in the North – and those who support Saddam Hussein’s continuation in power. Broad support, enthusiastic or otherwise, for the ouster of Saddam Hussein by the U.S. Army seems to be noticeably absent from the political landscape.

article

 

[nycflasher]

Killing people in the midst of worship is one of the most horrific acts of terrorism, right up there with genocide and hanging people from bridges in its audacity, bloodiness and shamelesness. One can only hope that acts like this will serve to unite the Iraqi people even more, much like 9-11 united us in our resolve and our patriotism, though we remain a country divided...don't we.

While these events hardly shock us as we continue to live through this real-life horror movie, I am again reminded of the outright idiocy of these "religious fighters" or whatever the fuck they call themselves these days.

It takes a real small/weak mind or allegience to the Devil to believe that anyone who kills men, women and children in the midst of praying to God is themselves on a holy mission. I can only imagine that if children in the West Bank, Iraq and throughout the Middle East were as familiar with Hitler as the rest of the world, they would be less likely to blow themselves up in the name of "God" at the behest of false, murderous prophets.
<too mad to type>

 

[Annie]

My gosh Flasher, if I could I'd actually rep you twice in a row! Very well said!

 

[nycflasher]

My gosh Flasher, if I could I'd actually rep you twice in a row! Very well said!

Cheers, guess I'm in a good mood today.
Life's too short to quibble

 

[Annie]

Cheers, guess I'm in a good mood today.
Life's too short to quibble

You cannot whip the moderators! That's a one way street.

 

[nycflasher]

You cannot whip the moderators! That's a one way street.

It's cool, I'm more into self-flagellation.

:rotflmao:

 

[Annie]

It's cool, I'm more into self-flagellation.

:rotflmao:

You know what, I think I believe you! :funnyface