Another View of Iraq Conflict

[Pinto]

Did you see this article in Today this morning?

Some food for thought.
===============================

The deadly battle for Iraqi souls

With Christian evangelism deepening the crisis, what
is needed is Muslim humanitarian aid

Wednesday • July 28, 2004

By Kalinga Seneviratne

The invasion of Iraq has been followed quietly by
another invasion — that of Christian missionaries,
mainly from the United States and South Korea, who
often disguise themselves as civilian contractors, aid
workers or businessmen.

Their main objective is to spread the "good word" to
Muslims in Iraq, where only 750,000 of the country's
25 million people are Christians.

Some of these "contractors" have been taken hostage by
Islamic militants. One of them, South Korean Kim Sun
Il, was beheaded.

Mr Kim worked for a South Korean company which
delivered military supplies. But he was also a fervent
Christian who was learning Arabic in order to spread
the gospel in Iraq — which made him a prime target for
Islamic militants.

Fanatical Christian evangelists, who believe that the
"divine spirit" has sent them to Baghdad to minister
to the country's Muslim population, are deepening the
conflict there.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
recently offered to send a medical team and to help
mobilise the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC)
member states to help rebuild Iraq.

It showed a recognition on Mr Abdullah's part that
what is needed in Iraq is not more troops or Christian
missionaries, but more Muslim humanitarian aid groups
to work hand-in-hand with their Muslim brothers.

Iraqis need to be reassured that the foreigners
offering to help them are not part of a colonialist
plot hatched in Washington by President George W
Bush's neo-conservative Christian supporters. This
suspicion has contributed to the violence against
so-called foreign contractors.

In February, an American Baptist missionary was killed
execution-style and two others were wounded. They were
in Iraq to open the country's first Baptist church.

In April, seven South Korean missionaries from the
Korean Council of Evangelical Churches were detained
by Islamic militants while en route to Mosul to open a
missionary school. They were later released following
behind-the-scenes negotiations with the kidnappers.

Recently, an Islamic group in Iraq threatened to
kidnap and behead any Korean Christian missionary who
set foot in the country.

Some missionaries have military backgrounds. Mr John
Kelly, the Baptist missionary gunned down in February,
was a former US Marine who had studied Arabic.
America's Southern Baptist Church, one of the leading
lights of the fundamentalist evangelical movement,
offers training on how missionaries can disguise their
evangelical work.

Two such trainees, Mr Craig Johnson and Mr Michael
Jones, told the Wall Street Journal in May that they
went to Iraq at their pastor's suggestion in June last
year to explore business opportunities. Mr Johnson
works for a natural gas utility and he typifies the
new breed of American evangelist who believes in
"spreading America's good fortune" to other lands
through business and proselytising.

One of the leading exponents of this brand of
Christian evangelism is Rev Franklin Graham, the
former leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, who
called Islam "an evil religion" after the 911 attacks.
He heads the Samaritan's Purse, a Christian disaster
relief ministry which had a budget of US$194 million
($334 million) last year.

Rev Graham is a close friend of Mr Bush and prayed
with him on the eve of the war. He also delivered the
sermon at Mr Bush's inauguration and was invited to
lead the Good Friday prayer at the Pentagon this year.
Even before hostilities began, Samaritan's Purse
stockpiled food, housing materials and other goods in
Jordan for victims of the war and waited for the
signal to enter Iraq.

Rev Graham's teams now provide for the needs of more
than 100,000 Iraqi Muslims made destitute by the war.
And Iraqi Christian groups hand out Arabic-language
Bibles and related literature produced with American
funds.

With an estimated 12,000 missionaries worldwide, South
Korea is home to some of the world's most aggressive
Christian evangelists. South Korean missionary Kwon
Hyuk Gan told the Kookmin Ilbo daily in Seoul that
nine churches have been set up in Iraq by Korean
missionaries since the US occupation began.

Prof Paul Boyer, professor emeritus of history at the
University of Wisconsin, warned that these
fundamentalist crusaders pose a grave threat to world
peace because of their belief in the second coming of
Christ and the need to liberate Jerusalem (of Muslims)
to facilitate it.

The "shadowy but vital way that belief in Biblical
prophecy is helping to mould grassroots attitudes
towards current US foreign policy" is a dangerous
trend, he has said, and one that must be reversed.

The writer is a journalist, broadcaster and media
analyst who currently teaches broadcast communications
in Singapore.

[cem]

Just another example of the evils of religion. More wars have been fought in the name of God than any other thing. It is soo sad that any religion thinks they they are so much better they need to go and save other people from there beliefs. People need to be responsible for there own lives and not hide behind a religion- for their reason to live or there reason to die.

[nikki m]

I too find Christian preaching to the " unclean" repugnant but....How sad that another group of leaders are so threatened by other beliefs and ideas.  Killing these indepenant contractors because they are Chrisitan is awful just live and let live and if one is secure they aren't threatened by others who believe differently.  If Muslim charities would actually be helping their brethen the Christians would not have been present.

[Reason]

cem,

I know a few Christians that went to Iraq right after the war. These were very American looking individuals who went into a hotzone of life threatening danger. They volunteered at hospitals, schools, households, anywhere they were needed. They went there because they felt called to help people who were in physical and emotional pain. they brought food, clothing, and comfort.

A good Christian missionary does not impose God on anybody. Belief in God is a choice.

The author of the article is clearly anti-diversity. What is wrong with Christians and Muslims living side by side? It works in many countries.

In the article Christian missionaries are said to jeopardize world peace. They are the ones getting killed. It seems to me that the people who have murdered Christians in Iraq are wound a little tight.

[cem]

I would say that although the Christains are helping with aide etc their true purpose to being in a war torn country is to convert people- mistakingly believing that this is the most important gift you can give a person. They just no that you don't have a hope of saving souls until a person is safe and well fed (ie they are just following maslows hierachy of needs). They absolutely would be over the moon and  writing letters to there sponsoring churches about the souls they are saving and how they are spreeading gods word to the people of Iraq who have previously never been able to hear the truth. Money is being donated to them by members of churches so that they can convert people not just for aide.

I, too know of Christians doing this sort of thing. And I know there also moslem missionaries in African countries and elsewhere- often converting more than the christains there. I have sat in churches and listened to missionaries (a few years ago) spout on about smuggling bibles into Russia and China, and the dangerous things they have to do in order to spread gods word.In my experience it is never "we had to smuggle 3 truck loads of medicines into XXX country". It is "we smuggled 3 truck loads of bibles, or tracts explaining the glory of god" Religous zealots are also getting jobs as teachers or other sort of workers in foreign countries where missionaries are banned in order to spread there particular brand of religion. Its dishonest- if you can't enter a country legally with your stated purpose on the form then that is lying- and last time I checked in most religions lying and cheating are wrong , but of course, any breach of the religous rules can be explained for the greater good- the same as suicide bombers justify what they do because they are doing the greater good and spreading the word of god.

The problem I think is in the witnessing that accompanies the other activites for example, - lets teach children to read by giving them passages of the bible- lets have home dinner parties where we can see a video of some religous thing etc, lets make friends so we can convert people.  If they are just there to help- they should shut up and help- no one should no and they should take steps to not influence people toward there religion.

So I stand by my point- organised religion - regardless of which one- sucks.

[This message has been edited by cem (edited 11-09-2004).]

[Joseph27]

Anyone taking a job in Iraq to convert Muslims to Christianity deserves whatever fate that awaits them.  The absurdity of taking the name of Jesus into a country that your country has just destroyed is beyond imagination, it is just too ridiculous for words.  I cannot remember bible classes that well – so someone remind where it said that Jesus encouraged us to murder and then convert our enemies to Christianity.  We might as well forget any of the lessons learnt since the Crusades.

It is just so sickening and this type of rubbish feeds the hate that we have already helped sow into these people’s hearts.  I watched an interesting program on the Vietnam War where one lady spoke of her hatred for the American’s in the aftermath of her family’s deaths.  She wanted revenge just as many Americans wanted revenge in the aftermath of 9/11.  The problem is that whilst the US was seeking its revenge in Afghanistan and Iraq – they failed to prepare the world for the true cost of their greed and self-righteousness.  

In justifying war America has not made the world safe – all they have done is continue to harvest their crop of disgruntled young people with hate in their hearts (canon fodder for their elite).  If I were a young Iraqi having lost my family to America’s murderous weapons, I to would be seeking revenge.  We know they can’t meet the US at the OK Coral for a gun fight – they attack where it hurts.  

I don’t justify their actions and I know we (the world) must defeat it.  We have two responsibilities here; we must address our enemy’s grievances and so cut off the supply of fodder whilst also eliminating their soldiers and more radical leaders.  This is complicated for sure but by labeling all our enemies as one we don’t eliminate the problem.  

[so what]

hmm

[so what]

Needed some time to think things over.

On contrary of the above poster, I don't see what French, Italian or Korean missionaries have to do with starting the problems in Iraq.

I agree with Cem to a certain extend that many religions will send their troops in to liberate the "oppressed" people and turn them towards whatever religion, but lets not forget that whoever is not Islam in Iraq is indeed oppressed and should fear for his/her life.
There has not been any form of freedom of religion/speech in Iraq.
I hope many can still remember the massacre of the Kurds, which is a living proof of religious oppression.

What is really ridiculous is that obviously people with a certain religious lifestyle, cannot go to Iraq without being decapitated?
It seems to me that if a country such as Iraq is allowed to preach Islam under its inhabitants, that same freedom should be given to other religions as well.
Fair is fair.

Another quite important point is that many people do contribute to reconstruction of countries because of their religion.
And everybody who volunteers to go to a war zone does that because of a moral obligation.
Not being allowed to express that moral obligation (whatever reason) without being killed is nothing short of ridicule.

People are people, and in whatever position you will find them they want to share their opinions with others.
That's what is called communication.
Nobody is forced to share those opinions and everbody is allowed to challenge or reject those opinions.

What is wrong with someone converting to Islam, Bhuddism, Christianity etc etc because he/she has positive experiences with that religion?
I know this guy who converted to Islam, just to be able to marry his girlfriend.
Now, that's what I call holding somebody randsom for religious gain.

Some of the above make it sound as if the death of these missionaries is their own fault.
What nonsense is this?

In some Arab countries women are not allowed to enjoy any education.
Imagine someone going into that country, preaching equality for men and women.
Do we say it is his/her own fault if that person is killed because of this?

Now I do not know the exact figures, but I know that religious groups contribute hughe amounts of money/resources to developing countries.
I know that many religious workers leave the safety of home and endanger their lifes by working in dangerous areas.

The pathetic conclusion however is that the developing countries need that kind of assistance.
It is a given that the rich west still does not contribute enough to make poverty and hunger stop in those countries.

As long as the rich countries fail to contribute enough to countries that need help, religious groups or groups with other objectives will move in to fill the gaps.
Fortunately they do.

To all others who come out to critisize help workers with a religious background I say: What's holding you back? They need more people in Iraq. Give up your job, take a sabattical and off you go.
It's the right thing to do and in the meantime you can show the world how proper help should be given.

[Reason]

J27,

We finally got a good thread going on something besides your blind hatred of America, and you can't seem to kick your favorite habit. Add something to the religion debate or stay out of it. I could easily defend against your hyperbole, but I've chosen not to waste my time. (It would take an hour for the debate to run its course over a beer but six weeks by computer) Go figure out why large numbers of Australians were killed in Bali prior to the Iraq war. Also, figure out the number of Christian missionairies in Iraq who are actually American. (No speculating please.)

[Reason]

cem should take care not to generalize. It seems cem has observed things that he/she does not like about organized religion and then assumed that all organized religion has these traits.

My biggest issue is with the Prof from the Univ. of Wisc. who is quoted in the article of the original post. He says that these evangelists are the biggest threat to world peace. On the contrary, it seems that most of today's radical militants come from countries where Islam is the sole religion. The people of the world, like the people of Singapore, should learn to ride in taxis that have Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Bhuddist, etc. figurines on the dashboard without lopping off the driver's head.

There is truly freedom of religion in Singapore. More so than in my native country, the U.S. In the U.S. some people have become confused and think that they should have freedom FROM religion.

I believe cem feels that there should be freedom from religion. cem can shove his anti-organized religion rant in my face, but I won't lop his head off or condemn his/her type. Hmm?

[This message has been edited by Reason (edited 12-09-2004).]

[Joseph27]

Reason - I dont have a blind hatred of America – I choose to question your governments motives and I dont believe their blatant lies.  Sorry but there are enough of your country men and women who do the exact same as is their God given right.  I find it interesting to hear your rebuttal of my supposed hyperbole – naturally I was writing provocatively however the gist of what I wrote certainly has merit and I have been unable to find convincing answers to any of the serious questions that have been raised in regards to the war or any foreign policy since 9/11.  It’s like they pile bullsh*t on top of more bullsh*t and finally it sticks and it becomes our interpretation of history.

Number of American missionaries in Iraq?  Only has to be a handful to arm the extremist element with the propaganda that they need.  

Australians were killed in Bali – because along with everyone else in those clubs, they represented the West, and the Sari was an obvious choice because of the composition of those who frequented it.  Personally I loved places like Sari club when I was young and in Bali getting drunk.  I despise the terrorist who did this – but by questioning the action of the US – it doesn’t mean I condone their behavior.  You may remember that this attack happened a year after 9/11 when the US were busy in Afghanistan.  There are no excuses – I guess I just have higher expectations on US action than I do on the murderers who perpetrate these heinous crimes.

[so what]

The ralation between missionaries going into Iraq and the invasion of it, is as irrelevant as the connection between Australian tourists visiting a club on Bali and the war in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately terrorists and their defenders lack the ability to see the difference.

If dancing and preaching is considered to be acts of pro-americanism, then how should the world behave in order to avoid a killing spree by those who claim to bring the peacefull message of Islam?

[Reason]

Ok, j27, you got me off topic. These two articles help sum up some of the thoughts of the 50 million who will vote for Bush in November. Below the links are random bits of text that I pulled from the articles. Some of them are edited so they make sense out of context. http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul14.html  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10745294%255E7583,00.html

the terrorists themselves have stated that Bali was bombed to protest Australia's part in helping to liberate East Timor from rule by Islamic Indonesia.

in the liberation of East Timor and the libertinism of Bali, the terrorists see an infidel annexation of part of the House of Islam.

Jemaah Islamiah and other al-Qa'ida affiliates were operating in Indonesia well before September 11. In December 2000, while Bill Clinton was president, explosions in Jakarta and Manila killed three dozen people.

If Indonesia were to become a booming established pro-Western democracy, that's a huge setback. A good way to prevent it doing so is to bomb and kill at the points at which the Indonesian people interact with the infidels. In Turkey, they bomb British banks. In Tanzania, they bomb the US embassy. In Indonesia, the obvious Western targets are Australian. In every case, they kill the locals, and underline the point that having anything to do with the infidel world is highly injurious to one's health.

Indonesia is going to be a terrorist battle front for the foreseeable future, and the interests of the leading regional Western power will be a prime target. It will be a lot easier for Australia to tackle as a local front in a global war than as a regional issue of no concern to the other big players.

The strategy for the terrorists is to cause massive bloodshed and thereby persuade the electorate to vote the quiet-lifers in, as the wretched Spaniards did.

"Bushworld" is real to this extent: If Bush goes, the international resolve to win the war against binworld goes with it. John Kerry, the quintessential quiet-lifer, has said he wants to fight it through "law enforcement" and multilateral institutions. The Anglosphere will be friends with Jacques Chirac again and, as in Sudan, the Security Council will agree on a very strong expression of deep regret after everyone's dead. But binworld will advance, mile by mile, month by month, through bombings, propaganda, appeasement by the likes of Gloria Arroyo, and furtive collaborations with elements of the Indonesian state. Living with terrorism means a slow remorseless surrender to it.

The terrorists are fighting the entire non-Islamic world (and what they regard as apostate regimes within the Islamic world) to restore Islamic rule over all the territories over which Islam once held sway.

At the start of all such wars those who advocate strong forceful resistance to the revolutionaries -- men such as Burke and Churchill -- are seen as extreme, unreasonable and too violent in their proposed solutions. Most politicians believe that the revolution can be appeased or that the revolutionaries can be directed to other nations and their own spared.

[Joseph27]

Sorry to get you off topic  

Mark Steyn's argument is well written and certainly conveys an intelligent response to those of us who continue to criticize Bush.  My main criticism of his essay is his seeming denial of any Western responsibility in current world events.  

Yes Islamists attacked us during Clinton’s time and Bush himself is not to blame for September 11 (unless you believe the most wild of conspiracy theories) – these extremist are an attack on modernity and not just the US.  I fully agree with much of what both articles say – however Bush in his response to Sept 11 got it so wrong that the world now has a battle in Iraq that is not going away.  I don’t believe in quitting Iraq – it would be a mistake – I am just so frustrated that the war in Iraq and its consequences were so easy to see for anyone with eyes and yet the US blindly followed these lies.  Haven’t we evolved the slightest since WW2, Vietnam whatever – why do people keep swallowing the lies?  

Now we have Iraq in absolute anarchy – with large sections of the country in rebel hands.  You want to talk about training grounds for terrorists – damn pack your bags and go to Iraq.  You get on job training at killing Americans – once battle hardened and even more determined your vengeance can be carried out else where.  Iraq is the new training ground.  

Islamic terrorism has been around a long time, but America is not so innocent in all this.  Sure Bush himself may not have inspired the initial attacks per se – but US foreign policy itself that has helped sow the seeds that are now blooming.  9/11 would not have happened if the US had not been such good friends at arming people like OBL – the US cannot simply change foreign policy direction without understanding that there are ramifications.  You topple a government in Iran decades ago and it continues to bite you and Iranian’s continue to be disgruntled at your involvement.  Yes I understand that American’s today are not guilty – but frankly we still remember other victims in history.  America’s crimes may not appear on the scale of those of the Nazi’s – however for the victims and those disgruntled by US actions, the crimes of the past and present justify the continued attack on US interest.  

[ok]

Getting back to the religion aspect of this discussion…..

It seems the writer of the posted article and other people are greatly offended by Christian missionaries going into Iraq (and presumably other places where Christians are a minority) to help while preaching Christianity. I wouldn’t say I am offended by this so much as a bit perplexed as to why some people are so insistent that EVERYONE must be converted to their brand of religion. (I am a Christian but I don’t feel everyone has to be Christian – that’s the beauty of free will – you get to choose for yourself how and even if you believe.) But the Christians are not the only religious zealots out there who are trying to change the beliefs of others. I read article after article about how many (if not most) of the Islamic terrorists want nothing more than to make the world one gigantic Islamic state along the lines of the Taliban. Now, the main difference between these two groups - the Christian missionaries and the Islamic terrorists - are their methods. The Christians aren’t using violence and bloodshed to try and convert people – although, some of them may be a bit dishonest about their real intentions.

Joseph27, this is where I think you are missing some of the point. I don’t think the terrorism problem in the world today has as much to do with US foreign policy as it does their desire to create this giant Islamic state world-wide. Am I saying that US foreign policy has not ever pissed some of them off? No, I’m not saying that. I think it is widely known that one of Bin Laden’s main gripes is the presence of US military bases in Saudi Arabia – BUT, he would still like a world devoted to his brand of Islam there’s no doubt. I think you understand that this whole terrorism problem is a dicey issue and there is not just one simple reason and place to lay blame. I think a lot of people are trying to find a place (or person) to lay all the blame on because it makes things easier to deal with in a way – it’s a human nature kind of thing. Reality says it is a very complex issue and the solution will have to be complex as well.