Five Years Later, Where are the Christians in Iraq?

By Michelle A. Vu|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Shea supports the proposal to create an autonomous region in northern Iraq called the Nineveh Plains where Christians and other persecuted minorities can practice their faith, speak and teach their language, and work without fear of persecution.

The Nineveh Plains is the ancestral homeland of Assyrian Christians – the largest Christian group in Iraq – and is the area where thousands of Christians from the cities have resettled to escape persecution.

Other notable attacks on Christians in Iraq include the death of Iraq’s second most senior Catholic cleric, whose body was found last week after being kidnapped for two weeks; the bombing of 10 Iraqi churches within a span of two weeks earlier this year; and a fatwa issued last summer in Baghdad’s Dora neighborhood that demanded 2,000 Christian families living in the area to convert or be killed.

Intense and relentless persecution of Christians has led to this minority group to make up nearly half of the refugees fleeing Iraq even though they make up only three percent of the population, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

"Our Iraqi sisters and brothers in Christ live each day under the threat of violence and death," the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA, said in response to the death of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho last week. "All Christians and persons of faith pray for their safety, even as we remind the Iraq government of its urgent responsibility to protect all Iraqis."

Pages: 12

View article on single page

Next Story : Evangelical Leaders Meet U.N. Chief

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

scitsonga »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:52 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

ML - Anything to do with the ME and the US is all about OIL & Israel. I concur with your view that Saddam was cruel and evil, but many times there is little that a country can do to eliminate such thugs. Africa a case and point, there have been many dictators that are guilty genocide, but due to the difficulty of military invasions, i.e. civil war and asymmetric warfare, there is little a large standing military can do to help except to provide support to opposition groups and potential assasins. Sometimes limited military intervention can succeed- the air campaign in the 1990's against Slobodan Milosevic was effective in stopping the ethnic cleansing in the Kosovo, sending in ground troops would have been a disaster just as the Iraq invasion has become.

Bush's push to invade Iraq is ignorance and hubris, his own father warned him what would happen in Iraq as well as ME experts, both he ignored- civil war. No competent president would put his military in the middle of a civil war. You mentioned Clinton, Clinton was fully aware of the pitfalls of an Iraq invasion, he took the advice Bush Sr. gave him on Iraq quite seriously. Bush's invasion didn't take much guts on his part, more like ignorance and stupidity of the history and culture of Iraq, hence the US is in the middle of a civil war and is spending about 12 billion dollars a month and wearing out the military to keep the civil war somewhat tamped down. In the mean time ethnic cleansing continues in Iraq. Recent polls indicate that Iraqi's say they were better off and felt more secure under Saddam. The so-called surge is at best buying time for bush, he will be out of office and the Iraqi civil war will still be ongoing for reasons I described in other posts. The Iraq distraction is also contributing to the decline in Afghanistan.

Even if one were to accept the proposition that an invasion of Iraq was necessary to liberate the Iraqi's from the clutches of Saddam, why were all the warnings from military planners and ME experts concerning the problems related to post war security of Iraq completely ignored? Under international law, the security of an occupied country is responsibility of the occupation forces. For this, bush is a war criminal and should be brought to The Hague for prosecution. bush provided the opposite of security- death and destruction.

If the US is to continue in Iraq, taxes need to be raised to pay for it instead of passing onto future generations. Increased fuel taxes would be appropriate because that is why the US is in Iraq and the ME.
scitsonga »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:30 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

kpercy07".... What I object to is the fact that you are an "agnostic and student of ME history" coming out to a board where you will find exactly neither. So why did you come, and why did you engage in debate with people who clearly are at a disadvantage in debating you? Will you not concede that there is a bit of "schoolyard bullying" going on on your part? "

Actually there are many agnostics as well as atheists that visit CP, some come to pick a fight as you say, others are interested in meaningful debate. I already stated why I visit this site which I have described many times before and in my earlier post to you. Admittedly, I have been antagonistic at times, but I am getting better and do try to respect the Christian point of view even though a lot of it I cant really relate to. I have had much antagonism directed towards me because I don't "believe" the right stuff and that sometimes sets me off. I think though, if Christians would stop trying to weaken the separation of church and state, then you would have fewer non-Christians visiting CP. You may not like it, but there is much political discussion on his site and much of it has to do with the fact that right-wing Christians have moved more and more into the realm of politics which opens them up to close scrutiny by others that do not hold their beliefs.

Why would you say that others are at a disadvantage when it comes to debate with me? Perhaps you are referring to my knowledge of the ME which has been acquired with much effort on my part , most anyone that takes the time, can do so as well. With that knowledge, the US might not have marched into Baghdad without a post war plan.. exactly the point of me talking about the ME- to get people to look at the whole picture of the ME, not the narrow lens that politicians and the media portray- i.e., the US is the good guy in the ME and is there to promote democracy, which historically has certainly not been the case and the peoples of the ME are perfectly aware of this. The American people need to wake up and realize the problems the US is creating in the ME before we make another foolish move such as invading Iran.
ML »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:31 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Everyone seems to argue from time to time about weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, though it is important, don't we forget that regardless of the weapons, it is documented in reports, journalistic photos, and government documents, that there was MASS DESTRUCTION no matter what kind of weapons were used ! I have seen many tragic photos of mass graves, people just lying dead and unburied , burns, injuries, missing body parts, all in the hundreds of thousands. I sometimes think it was millions, but maybe I am over estimating. Whether hundreds of thousands, or more, it is stll one of the greatest brutal murdering military governments of all time. It was not for OIL , at least not anywhere near as much as it was to prevent Sadaam and that government from competing with Hitler for killing so many people. Why do people forget that Bush was out to get a hugely mass murderer ? He is the only one who had the guts to do the dirty work of trouncing Sadaam, and who is still after terrorists in that region. No one can be sure, but do you think that Hillary or Obama would have the courage that Bush had? Bill Clinton never got the job done when he had 8 years to do so. So how will Hillary or Obama do? They may be more interested in their "legacy" than to offend ultra pacifists and the international community. I think Bush cared more about saving lives than his reputation, and the United States military is to be commended for their sacrifices on the battle field.
kpercy07 »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:38 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Your moral criticism of my post is reasonable, and I apologize. What I object to is the fact that you are an "agnostic and student of ME history" coming out to a board where you will find exactly neither. So why did you come, and why did you engage in debate with people who clearly are at a disadvantage in debating you? Will you not concede that there is a bit of "schoolyard bullying" going on on your part?

I didn't bother reading your reply in its entirety, because again, arguing politics is not why I frequent this board, let alone international politics, the morality of which is always difficult to chart. It was Kennedy who said that every mother wants their child to be President, but not to be a politician in the process.

Our information is always, always filtered through the prisms with which we each view the world. That is why these discussions are fruitless, and that is also why message boards are miserable platforms for debate. 7 point typeface is no reasonable way to debate ponderous subjects --there's just too much to say, too many points to make.

So my parting shot is this: If you would like to exchange ideas on the practice of the Christian faith or your thoughts on inherently Christian subjects, I for one would very much welcome that. But if you're out here to grind your axe against Christians, your postings here are not appreciated. Over and out.
scitsonga »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

kpercy07: I will start off by thanking you for your opinion, although your insulting manner is not appreciated. I think people can have disagreement without the insults, although in the heat of debate I have to admit that I sometimes can get a bit offensive.

Part 1

Well, there are in fact millions of Americans that still believe invasion of Iraq was a good idea, and many of them are on this site. I was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning because of the problems it would bring as were ME experts that warned bush against invasion of Iraq. It reminded me of the problems created in Iran by the US when it overthrew their prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq in the 1950's and installed the US puppet dictator- the Shah, because he would become a loyal US business partner- OIL & WEAPONS as opposed to Mosadddeq who wanted nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The Shah's brutal reign finally ended with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the unfortunate rise to power of the Mullah's. If not for US meddling in Iran decades ago, it might today be a democratic republic.

WTC had nothing to do with saddam, the US should have focused their effort on bin Laden and stabilizing Afghanistan. bush should have continued efforts to assassinate saddam and to build a ME coalition against saddam. Iraq was and is a ticking time bomb for a civil war for the reasons I mentioned. Now , the US has two very costly quagmires on its hands

Interesting that you bring up the Kurds, as saddam was gassing the Kurds, donald rumsfeld was chumming it up with him because he was gassing the Iranians. As long as saddam was doing the bidding of the US, they had no problem with the atrocities he was committing. It was only after saddam began to behave in a manner contrary to the business and strategic interests of the US, did he then become our enemy - Gulf War 1. Even if one could justify the invasion, it was handled so very poorly- the US had no post invasion strategy. bush and the neocons in his administration completely ignored the warnings ME experts offered in regard to having a post invasion strategy to provide security. They did not have a strategy to protect the people nor the countries infrastructure. Amazingly, and quite telling, the only real security provided after the fall of Baghdad, was military protection of the oil ministry. In the mean time, hospitals, schools, clinics, museums, government buildings, universities, libraries, power plants, water and sewage plants- all looted. bush and the neocons should be at The Hague for this and tried as war criminals.
scitsonga »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Part 2
kpercy07:

I should add though that I do share your outrage at what saddam to his people, but the way the US went about getting rid of him was, fraught with the potential for disaster which has indeed manifested itself into something far worse than the saddam status-quo.

Its true, Clinton was tolling the bells of war, he was using a proverb of T. Roosevelt - "Speak softly and carry a big stick", he was smart enough not to go into Iraq, bush Sr. advised him not to for the aforementioned reasons. clinton was carrying out a long tradition of US foreign policy in the ME- protect US oil interests.

Actually there is in fact a lot of politics on this site. I visit this site because I am interested not in religion itself, but the politics of religion and religions influence on society and it impact on me with respect to my civil liberties. I am also here to remind the Iraq War cheerleaders that frequent this site, that US policy in the ME for 90 years has been a disaster. I am not "showing off" my knowledge, I am in fact attempting to get Americans here and on other sites to recognize the harmful influence the US is having in the ME and the Iraq invasion has only made things worse. I believe I do know more about the ME than the average American and thats not really saying much, not because I am smarter, its because I take the time to learn about the rest of the world and its history- something Americans seem loath to do.

I also believe gasoline taxes need to be increased several dollars per gallon to pay for the Iraq war rather than putting it on the "charge card" for our children to pay for. After all, it is about oil that we are there.
kpercy07 »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:10 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

scitsonga:

1) “As an agnostic, and a student of ME history,” it’s pretty disingenuous of you to come out to a Christian site to pick a fight. Did you tell all your friends about what you did? Pretty impressive. It’s also disingenuous to come out here and lecture us about what we “profess,” seeing as you otherwise have no interest or knowledge of what we profess.

2) There is no one in his right mind who believes now that entering Iraq was a good idea. But to armchair quarterback the decision to invade is arrogant and patently revisionist. To remind you, the WTC was still being cleaned up, and the information coming from the intelligence community—namely, the Israelis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Russians, the British, and the American CIA—was UNANIMOUS: the Iraqis had the means to make dirty bombs and they were shopping them. As someone with two small kids who lives 30 miles from the Lincoln Tunnel (let me guess, you don’t?), see if you can guess how I was feeling? But I guess I’m not as rational and measured as intellectuals like you.

3) You pay lip service to how “evil” Hussein was, but let’s drill down. Hussein was presiding over a FAILED STATE, making billions of dollars off the UN “Oil for Food” program that was intended as sanctions; was torturing and maiming people who so much as lifted an eyebrow in his direction, and, murdered 280,000 Iraqis THAT THEY COULD COUNT, including 30,000 Iraqi Kurds in 2 days through the use of chemical bombs. But I guess what a sovereign leader does within his own borders is nobody else’s business, right?

4) I’m running out of time and energy to point out to you how Clinton was serious tolling the bells of war in 1998 for the same UN violations that prompted the Bush invasion, using exactly the same rhetoric, while the Liberals at the time were silent. Also, your assertion that the success of the surge is “probably only temporary” and that Afghanistan “today might have been a success” is pure conjecture based upon your politics. Not very “scholarly,” friend.

No one will win the Iraq War, least of all the Iraqi people. But to come out to a board like this to show off your knowledge about how AMERICA IS ALL BAD AND ALL DIRTY in this thing, is pretty disgusting.

This is NOT a political board. Go strut your stuff someplace else.
scitsonga »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:49 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

debs "If you don't believe there were ever WMD then wow, you really, really, really are just ignoring the behavior of Iraq at the time despite the dozens upon dozens of UN mandates they ignored from the UN (not the U.S., the UN)."

The world is swimming in WMD's, that doesn't mean it is feasible to invade countries that might have them. Saddam was contained and weakened by the Gulf War 1, he had little capacity to strike at the US or his ME neighbors in any significant way. He may have had some WMD's, but they really were no serious threat to the world nor the US. What were these WMD's that were moved to Syria? How were they a threat to the US? ME experts tried to warn bush and his neocon handlers the problems that would occur if Iraq were to be invaded. All those warnings were ignored-COMPLETELY. Now the US is stuck in Iraq. Bush Sr. did not go to Baghdad because he knew something about the history of the ME and was aware of the problems that would be created with an Iraq occupation, he tried to warn bush jr. I'm sure at this point bush jr wished he had listened to his father. Had the US not invaded Iraq, Afghanistan today might have been a success, instead the US has two failed wars on its hands with no end in sight. No doubt Saddam was evil, but the price the US and Iraq have payed for in blood, international reputation and treasury has not been worth it. To see how the country called Iraq is likely to end up, study the history of Jugoslavia- when the strongman is gone, the glue to force different peoples together is gone. Gen. Petraeus is credited with bringing down the violence in Iraq, this is probably only temporary. The General says violence has been reduced, but little to no progress in the Iraqi political realm has been achieved. Thats not surprising, there are too many disparate groups to bring agreement among them. Iraq, like the former Jugoslavia is a country where very different peoples were forced together post WW 1, it is an enormous challenge to find a way to keep Iraq together. We know how Jugoslavia turned out, Iraq could be much worse if an all out civil war breaks out. The US has a tiger by the tail.

As far as the UN mandates are concerned, there are a number of countries that ignore them. Also, the UN was opposed to the US invasion of Iraq.
debs6196 »

Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:29 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

There were no WMDs found in Iraq b/c by the time the international community actually got to take a look they had all been convoyed into Syria. Yes, there's satalite footage to back that up. If you don't believe there were ever WMD then wow, you really, really, really are just ignoring the behavior of Iraq at the time despite the dozens upon dozens of UN mandates they ignored from the UN (not the U.S., the UN).
aritonang »

Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:32 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

Oh, that means Happy Easter everybody, including you scitsonga. Hahahaha
aritonang »

Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:21 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

CHAG PASCHA SAMEACH, everybody
scitsonga »

Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:24 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

To those that have given me a thumbs down for my post below "Invasion of Iraq by US: Act of State Sponsored Terrorism", please, please provide feedback where you disagree? It's easy to click the thumbs down button, lets see where the disagreement is at.
scitsonga »

Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:04 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 5

caddy27 "Bush said that he prayed about the decision to go into Iraq therefore if he heard from God who are we to question that."

Dude, are you serious? Yeah right, thats just what we need, a president that makes decisions based on voices in his head......What he really needs is to be on meds to quell those voices before "God" tells him to invade Iran.
michaels »

Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:14 am Agree: 3 Disagree: 2

the christians & americans who supports this war is either obeying blindly to the lies of bush or they are too arrogant to admit their mistakes.
1 iraq & saddam did not attack US on 911
2 there are no Wmds in iraq
3 NO LINK BET. iraq & alqueda or saddam & binladen
bush is to blame for the war not the CIA for he is the DECIDER. all these are the FACTS & THE TRUTH. BUSH WILL DUMP THIS MESS TO THE NEXT PRESIDENT BEC. HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MESS HE CREATED BEC. HE IS IRRESPOSSIBLE & A WORST of THE WORST PRESIDENT!
caddy27 »

Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:15 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

First of all persecution in any form is wrong, however to blame President Bush for the persecution of the Iraqi christians is also wrong. It's not his fault that islam extremists are going after the Christians. Bush said that he prayed about the decision to go into Iraq therefore if he heard from God who are we to question that. Read the book of Jeremiah. Leaders don't always make popular decisions. I love how the media downplays all of the progress we made in Iraq and always highlights the negative, way to go...
Mk8:34 »

Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:46 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

God could send in 10,000 angels to solve this world's problem's but, imperfect man would
rise up against them.What we need is perfection, which will not happen until the new heaven and earth are in place by God. Meanwhile serve the Lord gladness redeem the time for the days
are evil.
scitsonga »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 5

Invasion of Iraq by US: Act of State Sponsored Terrorism

Interviews and polls taken of the way Iraqi's felt about their country before and after the invasion seem to indicate that the average Iraqi felt more secure and better off economically than today. The Iraqi people did not ask to be "liberated" by the US. There is in fact a tremendous level of resentment by most Iraqi's towards the US because of the invasion which they did not want or ask for. The average person in Iraq, and indeed the average citizen of the Middle East , understand why the US attempts to impose its will in the ME. Its simple, its mainly about OIL. How would americans take to an invasion of the US by a foreign army - not very well I'm sure. Contrary to what bush, cheney and the neocons tell the largely ignorant american public (ignorant from the standpoint of little to no knowledge of the ME and its history as it relates to the imperial ambitions of Western countries to secure oil interests) the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi's from the grip of sadddam. Its all about US control and influence in the ME. 9-11 occurred because of decades abuses by the US in the ME. Learn about US abuses in the ME for decades, and one will learn why 9-11 occured. Its really too bad the US forgot lessons learned from Vietnam. In both the case of Vietnam and Iraq, american ignorance and arrogance led to the deaths and injury of millions of innocent Vietnamese and Iraqi's. By the way, Iraq and Saddam were not involved with 9-11.

The thing that really adds insult to injury in Iraq is the fact that the US had no post invasion strategy. bush and his band of fools completely ignored the warnings ME experts offered in regard to having a post invasion strategy to provide security. They did not have a strategy to protect the people nor the countries infrastructure. Amazingly, and quite telling, the only real security provided after the fall of Baghdad, was military protection of the oil ministry. In the mean time, hospitals, schools, clinics, museums, government buildings, universities, libraries, power plants, water and sewage plants- all looted.

As an agnostic, and a student of ME history, I opposed this war from the beginning on moral & ethical grounds. For a religion that professes the importance of love and the sanctity of live, there sure was/is a lot of enthusiam and support for the Iraq invasion by the Christian community.
truthandjustice1 »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:25 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

Danny Poo,

Saddam was a bad man period, but how many people know he was given the key to Detroit?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546287.shtml
DannyPoo »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:14 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

::begin quote::
Little mention is made that, for all Saddam's being a "bad man", the Jews and Christians in Iraq were under his protection. With his beheading, they became open targets for all three of the main religious factions in Iraq.
::end quote::

search4god, I don't mean to question your honesty, but where did you get this information (source)? Sometimes people just say stuff like that because they believe it helps bolster their opinion of a subject, i'm always inclined to question blanket statements like this.
search4god »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:00 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 5

What can be expected? A President who declares himself a Christian, a powerful evangelistic Christian Right who backed his plan for war (especially the 700 club, which, as the deceits of Mr. Bush came to light, quickly backtracked).
Little mention is made that, for all Saddam's being a "bad man", the Jews and Christians in Iraq were under his protection. With his beheading, they became open targets for all three of the main religious factions in Iraq.
What are those Iraqis to think anyway. The news in the United States is not hidden from them. It was only with the powerful and vocal Christian Rights approval that Congress became afraid to not grant war powers to the President.
And all based on the (un)Holy conjecture that one can save people by dropping smart bombs on innocent children and their families.
True Christianity cannot be spread with a gun or with coercion.
mikehow »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:40 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

catholics have many ways to salvation - mary, purgatory, works & sacrifices & a man who declared himself to be god & INFALLIABLE. hmmmmmmmm.???????
truthandjustice1 »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f09dafffe35f3ca26f30
truthandjustice1 »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:29 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Very moving picture

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story