The "insurgents" in Iraq in their "nationalist" struggle have decided to target Christian sites, despite the fact that the Christians in question are "Iraqis."
Now if this "Iraqi" "insurgency" really were "nationalist," would they do this?
"Bombs strike several churches in Iraq, dozens killed," from AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:
(1/30/06 - BAGHDAD, Iraq) - Car bombs exploded in quick succession Sunday near four Christian churches and the office of the Vatican envoy, killing three people and raising new concerns about sectarian tensions. At least 17 other people were killed in other violence around the country.No group claimed responsibility for the bombings, which occurred within a half hour near two churches in Baghdad and two in Kirkuk, 180 miles to the north. The fifth bomb exploded about 50 yards from the Vatican mission in the capital.
Suspicion fell on Islamic extremists such as al-Qaida in Iraq led by Jordanian-born terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that have been responsible for massive car bombings and suicide attacks against Iraqi Shiite civilians.
Assorted Iraqi officials after this attack, as after previous ones on Christians, have been quoted as saying that Christians have "always" lived in Iraq side by side with their Muslim "brothers" in perfect harmony. For all I know, these officials may really believe it. The capacity for ignoring reality amazes. No hint of the jizyah in the past 1350 years? Nothing about the real treatment of Christians under Islam, not least in Iraq? Who was it who first instituted, in a big way, the identifying marks for Jews and Christians, if not Haroun al-Raschid himself? And how is it that Mesopotamia, a country full of Christians and Jews, over time became one where the Jews, who had been there 1500 years before even the Christans, comletely disappeared, with a final thud, in the 20th century, and then the Christians, who had been firmly established there, as elsewhere in the MIddle East, for at least half-a-millennium before their conquest by Muslim Arabs, diminished in time, through the steady pressure of dhimmitude, that status, sometimes bearable, sometimes unbearable, of humiliation, degradation, and permanent physical insecurity?
How did those Christians in Iraq come to be so few in number? What happened to them? And when we look at those faces of Muslims in the Middle East today, do we not see, through the effects that Islam has had on them, their Christian and Jewish ancestors, and wonder if what the Middle East now is, someday Europe could become, if it does not recognize the effect of Islam on the minds of men? And who, looking at Pakistanis, does not see right through or past them, as they are now, to their Hindu ancestors, forced to convert in order to throw off the burden of Muslim mistreatment, over the centuries?
They do seem to be very ecumenical about how they go about murdering Christians. This is the BBC report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4660104.stm
3 killed at the Church of the Virgin, 6 injured outside the Orthodox Church, more bombs outside St Joseph's Catholic church and an Anglican church.
Something for the Archdruid to bring up at the Christian-Muslim Forum I think.
If the Christians of Iraq have the courage to continue to worship under such threats and dangers then how much more must we in the UK and Europe have the courage of our convictions, whatever our personal faith.
Thanks for the additional article, Granny.
The variety of denominations that were attacked should dispel any doubts that Christianity itself is at issue, and not merely the politics of those Iraqis who happen to be Christians.
The attacks also poke another hole in the illusion of "Islamic tolerance":
We know the notion of "moderation" is a non-starter in fundamentalist Islam; there's no moderation without the possibility of variation in practice/belief, which Wahabbism eliminates. Then, who defines how "dhimmi" is "dhimmi" enough?
Does this make the "insurgents" ISSAPHOBIC?
(Issa=Jesus in the Koranic plagiarism.)
Or just the good old-fashioned Islamic Imperialists come from the 7th century to bring the usual tyrannical theocratic headlock of yore?
(Sure glad some of them ...like Bin Laden and Zarqawi... don't believe in "democracy", or the whole house of cards bringing "light unto the Muslim nations through the ballot box" would collapse like the Tarot deck that it is.)
This Religion of Peace sure kills a lot of people on the way there.
But I guess Allah knows best (as the late infidel dog Theo Van Gogh used to say).
(Issa=Jesus in the Koranic plagiarism.)
Illiterately plagiarised to boot.
Isa was a Gnostic 'christ' - one of over 20 claimants to the succession of the throne of David around the time of Jesus. Gnosticism was usually antisemitic, which may explain why Mo appreciated it. It's possible that he only ever met Isa christians, and didn't know anything about Jesus. Of course, 'Jesus' is Latin for 'Joseph', which translates into Arabic as Yousef. But Mo never mentioned Yousef Christ.
Isa and Jesus were two different individuals. Isa claimed to have been given a massage by God (as per the Koran), whereas Jesus taught from the Torah. Isa was a racist cult-leader with an 'unknowable secret', whereas Jesus brought infinite compassion with free booze & grub. Still, even Gnostic christians should be allowed to practice in peace.
I also have another theory, that Islam is the same religion as Mormonism, but that it's been corrupted. Joseph Smith is the last prophet, until he comes back as Rumpelstiltskin, and kills all the Eskimos & Jehovas Witnesses. And the Eskimos will hide behind xmas trees, which will cry out "Yo dude, there's an Inuit behind me..." etc. etc.