When I heard this morning of another attack on Christians in Iraq, victims of the first attack have been brought to France with their relatives, I could not help wondering if these outrages would have happened under Saddam. I think not. He was a brutal dictator, but he kept the lid on this kind of thing. Will these Christians now say a prayer of thanks to Messrs Bush and Blair?
Boadicea's Chariot 
Possibly Tom, when they are settled eventually into new lives in the USA or Europe…free from the ever-present fear of being firebombed in their churches.
I don’t think you would have been too encouraged living under Saddam’s rule as a member of the Shia community, or as a Marsh Arab…both of whom were persecuted almost to the point of genocide, as were other groups in Iraq under his rule.
Christian friends who had lived in Pakistan all their lives, settled in the States some years back now, for much the same reason. Jordan, Oman, and the UAE are rare exceptions, in the Middle East Muslim world at any rate, where their rulers have provided land for the building of churches, and where there is not any significant degree of persecution of Christian communities.
One of my children was christened in St Andrews Church in Abu Dhabi, part of the diocese of Jerusalem – a number of Abu Dhabi Nationals – friends who were Muslims – attended the service.
The churches were full to bursting with Filipina and Indian Christians on their day off.
In fairness in both the UAE and Oman, the Christians are all expatriates of one sort and another, and not home-grown. In Jordan of course, there have been Christians since Christ was a boy…
Hello CWJ. I would certainly not have been happy living under Saddam, or any other murderous dictator, but we should think very carefully before we set out on regime change wars.
>but he kept the lid on this kind of thing< Yes, you're right, christians weren't brutalised under Saddam – everyone was. Ask the Marsh Arabs – if you can find any.
or the Kurds of Halabjah.
or the residents of Kuwait City.
So the answer to your question is ‘Yes.’
Grrrrrrrr,
Typical bloody christians.
Lets imagine you were a Man City fan in the Man Utd end, you insist on shouting for your team and booing Utd.
Just how long exactly do you expect to survive?
If you want to be a christian, try doing it in a christian country.
Its their land and their law, what the frick gives god botherers the right to demand their belief be heard?
Bravo, i am not suggesting that Saddam was not an evil dictator, but the world is not short of them. Latin America has had more than its fair share, but the US did not send in the marines to change those regimes. I am not convinced that Saddam’s removal was worth the British and American lives it cost, not to mention it taking our eyes off Afghanistan.
I would not argue with much of your last comment, Tom, I have written before that I see no possible national interest in invading Iraq. (I didn’t see a lot of national interest in being sent to the Gulf the first time arouns, either, but that time we were responding to a request for help. Nor do I see what possible national interest there was in the attacks on Serbia, btw.) I just thought that ‘he kept the lid on this sort of thing,’ was a little ott, that’s all.
OK, Bravo, the way I expressed it might appear unfeeling, but I understood that the Christians were left alone by Saddam. Am I misinformed?
So far as I know, the christian minority were not specifically targetted by the Saddam regime – at around 2% of the population, they kept a pretty low profile, except for Tariq Aziz. Doesn’t help them now, though.
I often thank “Messrs Bush and Blair?” in my prayers.
Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing?
I was absolutely delighted when the Yanks went into Afghanistan, I was actually pi**ed off that it took them so long.
No, it doesn’t help them now, Bravo, but Tom is right; in that they were not targetted by Saddam.
But actually this was the case in other places which were predominantly Muslim, but this has changed.
It could well be something to do with the actions of the US and UK, don’t you think?
Ah, Soutie, Afghanistan is a different story.
Araminta. >But actually this was the case in other places which were predominantly Muslim, but this has changed.< Flat wrong.
Bravo
Ja well, I remember for the first time in my life I was undecided on Iraq, for the first time in my life, I’ll say that again for the first time in my life I was undecided but hey! if they tell us to go, we go, we’ve always gone.
If you and I had a Rand for every poor decision made by generals we’d both be rich men, I was always doubtful about Iraq, Afghanistan – if I was young enough…
Soutie. I hear you.
Tom, If anything is missing with Saddam’s removal it is the counterpoint he provided to Iran’s regional ambitions. I cannot imagine that Blair and Bush failed to realise that one of the effects of dimantling the Baath party apparatus, and promoting democratic elections in Iraq, would be the sweeping from power of the sunni minority, and their replacement by the Shia, bloodbrothers to the Iranians across the Shatt al Arab.
The 53 British Ambassadors who wrote the open letter to Blair spelt it out very clearly why it was imprudent to invade Iraq, but of course what did they know about the Middle East situation, apart from having served collectively in that region for about 150 years? When you are Bush’s poodle, desperate for a pat on the head from the USA, why should any importance be attached to their collective expert opinion formed from years of working with the Arab World, and fluent in the language, and intimately aware of all the political nuances of the region?
Saddam was one of a large number of very nasty people who are in positions of absolute power in the world. Personally I would have been in favour of toppling Mugabe long before I tackled Saddam, but the Africa experts will tell you that the OAU would have kicked up a hell of a rumpus at the UN. Why are we tolerating the gangsters in Somalia continuing to hold x hundred ships and crews? Are our armed forces so totally emasculated we can’t take on a bunch of African gangsters? Answer unfortunately is probably, yes…
Now what was I doing before I got carried away on this rant?
Did you know that the Somali pirates kidnapped an additional 100 people during the last 30 days?
Our news reported today that the number of ‘hostages’ had increased from perhaps 350 to about 450.
More breaking news for you, the court in Kenya released 9 ‘suspected’ pirates today because they didn’t have jurisdiction’ (despite the UN saying that they had)
You’ve got to laugh, it’s Africa, we love it, we’re not going nowhere! 😉
What CWJ said.
What does “flat wrong” mean, Bravo?
If you mean you don’t agree, then please say so, with reasons, if you feel so inclined.
I’m puzzled.
Araminta, you made a bald statement without any support which is not borne out by any historical fact – which I included in my comment. If you have any concrete reason to make such a statment, please express it, if you feel so inclined. Please feel free to include references to christian communities in the Ottoman Empire, large parts of the Middle East and Africa, South Asia and Indonesia, the Balkans, and anywhere else where there are documented instances of cases of atrocities and explain how it was the fault of the US and the UK that these atrocities occurred.
“apart from having served collectively in that region for about 150 years?” that should have read 1,500 years! 53 ambassadors with approximately 30 years Middle East experience each….befora anyone else says it, it is probably just as well I am not in the numbers game any longer!
As a great supporter of decimation in the Roman sense.
For every Christian and Church damaged or destroyed in any of those God forsaken carpet munching ratholes, we should destroy x10 in Birmingham, etc etc.
Soon get rid of every mosque in the country!
Worked wonders for the Romans with very little effort.
Ditto with pirates.
William Dalrymple
So my point was, Bravo, since the invasion of Iraq persecution of  Christians has increased dramatically in countries where Islamic fundamentalism is gaining strength.  Militant Islam sees this as a resurrection of the old Crusades; Islam against the infidels, hence the growing  intolerance of both Jews and Christians.
Iraq. A formerly prosperous and secular country. Right. Abu Ghraib, for example, was notorious long before Iraq was invaded. Prosperous for some, maybe. Since the invasion, the persecution of one minority has increased in intensity while the persecution of others has decreased. The point would be?
I would be extremely interested in seeing a quantative analysis of a dramatic increase in persecution of christians since the invasion of Iraq since such persecution has been going on since, oh, I don’t know, the seventh century?
So, there are outrages and outrages, aren’t there?
Actually, Iraq was doing pretty well in the seventies, oil and all that.
Saddam rather put the damper on this by invading Iran!
Seventh century? Is this historical fact. 😉
Actually, some people in Iraq were doing pretty well in teh seventies, oil and all that. Others were being beaten, raped, tortured, killed… but I suppose that’s all someone else’s fault, also.
Incidents like the one in the subject of the post couldn’t happen just because the perpetrators are ignorant, superstitious bigots, preyed on by ill-educated, superstitious, bigotted purveyors of hatred, could they? Nah, it must be someone else’s fault.
I’m quite happy the the tyrant Saddam was removed, my only problem is the method and justification used.
I’m reminded of the tale of Saddams sons (which Aces were they? I forget) driving past a wedding took a fancy to the bride and then both raped her. Makes my blood boil even now, shooting them was too good for them.
An evil evil regime that we are well rid of, irrespective.
I’ve just read this in today’s Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8128161/Iraqi-Christians-put-to-the-sword.html