Middle East stuff

Russell Street

Russell Street

King Of The Trolls
Supporter
Messages
6,461
I'll start with one that, if memory serves, will be of interest to Fwiffo Fwiffo
“Conservatives” Silent on the Genocide of Christians in the Middle East
Christopher Manion
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) took to the House floor yesterday to condemn the silence in Washington – in both the White House and Congress — regarding the massacres of Christians in Iraq (especially) and the rest of the Middle East.

Why is Washington silent, he asks?

Here’s why.

Christian leaders in Iraq have put the blame for these atrocities squarely on George W. Bush and his invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

Half a million Christians have fled Mosul. Any who remain will be slaughtered.

Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako, head of Iraq’s Catholic Church, says that the invasion did what Moslems couldn’t do in 1500 years: destroy Christianity in Iraq.

Thus, Republicans are afraid. If they acknowledge the genocide, they fear that people will remember that it was their war that led to it. So they are silent.

Democrats are too busy attacking Christianity in the U.S.

So both parties, corrupt to the core, are silent on this holocaust.

Bush cowers, silent and sullen, behind his compound walls. When questioned about his own involvement, Cheney snarls like a trapped animal. “Blame Obama!” he sneers.

National Review’s paymasters insist that any comments mentioning the Christian holocaust be immediately deleted (just try it, here.). Apparently, there’s no money in defending Christians. And this comes from the once-respected journal that valiantly defended the rights of Christians put behind the Iron Curtain by FDR.

Pope John Paul II warned Bush before the invasion that it would cause chaos in the Middle East. Bush blew him off, and a cadre of fawning Catholics cheered — some of them my friends (Michael Novak, George Weigel, Deal Hudson, among others). William McGurn, a former Bush speechwriter who then went to work for Rupert Murdoch, actually tried to sell the story that Pope Benedict recognized that Pope John Paul’s opposition was a mistake (McGurn now edits Murdoch’s New York Post).

As this writer has repeatedly, and sadly, observed on these pages for the last decade and more, the neocons never admit their mistakes, and they never, **ever** apologize.
Click to expand...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...he-genocide-of-christians-in-the-middle-east/
 
I appreciate a good concern troll as rest as the next guy, but while the actions of the Great Satan GWB may explain the "genocide" against Christians in Iraq, it doesn't do much to explain it elsewhere in the Middle East.
 
I really don't know much about the geographic specifics. The pulpits send to speak of persecution in "the holy land."

The darkly humorous truth is that Saddam Hussein was very good about keeping Islam under control in his secular state, and that baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
 
Russell Street said:
I really don't know much about the geographic specifics. The pulpits send to speak of persecution in "the holy land."

The darkly humorous truth is that Saddam Hussein was very good about keeping Islam under control in his secular state, and that baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

Qaddafi (or however else you'd like to spell that name) did the same thing. (He also had actually funded acts of terror against the U.S. But we decided to go after Hussein. Dictator of a country where none of 9-11 terrorists were from. Thanks GWB.)

Anyway, I think Churchill's line (something like) "dictators ride upon tigers which they dare not dismount" is very accurate. And I would add that the dictator's neighbors and enemies often don't appreciate that the tiger is being occupied by its rider.
 
I think the conservative Christians in America are more interested in battles they can win these days - such as suppressing homosexuality and feeding money to third world countries to do so. Christians in the Middle East are predominantly Orthodox, which is not anywhere close to the majority of influential monied folks in the Western world. Without looking anything up, I will assume Russia is the most powerful of the Orthodox nations. Russians, however, have no interest in helping non-Slavic (well, let's be honest, non-Russian) Orthodox believers.

I only brought up the Christian angle because I studied Classics in university and I think most people forget that the Middle East is where Chrsitianity was born. It will survive in some way or another. After all, people still believe in Zoroaster in Iran.
 
Ha ha... Dutch queen gets an Allah rant from the conductor of the orchestra. Walkout ensues.

 
Why must religion and politics pollute the arts? There is a purity in art that transcends our petty human dogma and bickering. Shame on this man who pretends to be an artist.
 
Fwiffo said:
Why must religion and politics pollute the arts?
Click to expand...
For the bulk of human history, almost all art was religious. Transcending the base mortal realm and portraying elevated divinity was art. At least the worthwhile art. Sitting around and painting fruit bowls and soup cans is silliness for those beneath higher subjects.

Politics is power, thought, ideology. Exactly what all is art to focus devoid of spirit, thought, human struggle? Just focus on consumerism, getting drunk and sex? Pretty lowbrow stuff.
 
Fwiffo said:
Why must religion and politics pollute the arts? There is a purity in art that transcends our petty human dogma and bickering. Shame on this man who pretends to be an artist.
Click to expand...

What the guy did was tacky, but in all likelihood the piece that he was about to play was religiously inspired, like most classical music.
A lot of great art is politically and/or religiously inspired. I'd hate to see the two separated.
 
So we're bombing ISIS in Iraq to keep them away from the Kurds, but have effectively ceded the rest of Iraq to ISIS now, which I don't really understand.
 
There's nothing to understand. It was an artificial nation created as a result of WWI with borders and populations herded for the benefit of European powers (in this case Britain). If people wanted that artificial nation to stay the same, they should have kept the dictators and strongmen in power because it's obvious the populace only responds to might.
 
Rambo said:
So we're bombing ISIS in Iraq to keep them away from the Kurds, but have effectively ceded the rest of Iraq to ISIS now, which I don't really understand.
Click to expand...

I'd like to take a moment and highlight that much of the shit they are going to bomb is American military equipment. Kinda reminds me of this photo.


rummy-and-sadam.jpg
 
So, apparently Al-Malaki fashions himself the new Saddam and doesn't want to leave office. Might have a coup situation on our hands.
 
After the NATO meeting, observers are being sent to assist the Kurds and "other" groups resisting ISIS - which I assume could range from Assad to Shiite militia. Then I read about FGM after watching a Law and Order episode and found out that FGM is practiced by most Kurds. I started wondering whether it applies to the women they conscript to do their fighting too.
 
El Argentino said:
I think this about the USA almost every day
Click to expand...

Actually, I do too. When you see the data on the success of countries, their smaller size seems to play a role. Not to mention the paralysis, this country's progress is almost exclusively almost possible at the state level.
 
OfficePants said:
Actually, I do too. When you see the data on the success of countries, their smaller size seems to play a role. Not to mention the paralysis, this country's progress is almost exclusively almost possible at the state level.
Click to expand...

Which is what the concept of federalism was supposed to address. The more the scope of federal power expands, the more unlikely we are to keep the country intact.
 
John Lee Pettimore III said:
Which is what the concept of federalism was supposed to address. The more the scope of federal power expands, the more unlikely we are to keep the country intact.
Click to expand...

The issue for me is that federal power is growing in all these subversive ways, such as the power of the spying on citizens and the military industrial complex. So you might keep it intact but we'll be a "papers please" society as a consequence.
 
Despite the tremors that would accompany a legitimate secession, I would be fascinated to see the aftermath; economically stable (let's just call those "conservative") areas would flourish, and the Detroits, LAs, etc. and other bottom-feeder socialist poverty centers would surely crumble.

Then, the poor areas would revolt, and attempt to invade TX, UT, etc. Then the arms-bearing citizens of conservative-land would go all Israel on the poor and take back the liberal places, thus reestablishing the union and crushing socialist opposition.

I should make a screenplay.
 
And the Texans will proclaim they care about what's theirs and what's next to theirs.

It's interesting we don't hear from the Saudis anymore.
 
300 Kurds were going the other way to fight? Isn't ISIS now estimated to be a 30,000 men fighting force? Doesn't sound like a battle that will displace that many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom