 |
| Saddam Hussein defending himself at his show trial |
The late President Saddam Hussein, hurriedly executed during the night, was a protector of minorities in Iraq. He was a tyrant, but for Christians he was a benevolent tyrant. Christianity in what is present day Iraq, goes back to the first century. Ethnically Assyrian, a Christian who steered clear of Ba'athist politics, merely wishing to go to church with his wife and children, return home safely from work each day, could do so. His wife could be in public without Islamist dress and be unmolested. His children playing on the street, or returning home from school did not fear abduction. His home would not be spray painted with the gruesome nazi-like "nun" letter, identifying him as a Christian to be exterminated. Yes, Saddam Hussein was good for Iraqi Christians.
And, he was also good for Muslims. He firmly kept a lid on any Islamist movements that - as we now well know - take great delight in exterminating those who do not share their brand of Islam, or hold the Christian Faith.
 |
| Bush and Blair having a laugh |
After 12 years of "war", we see the poor country of Iraq still engulfed in a bloodbath. We now have the specter of ISIS being active, not only in Iraq, but in Syria and Lebanon.
There can be no doubt: Christians in Iraq would not be being massacred today if President Hussein were still in power.
Recommended Reading: Christians for Saddam?
Recommended Reading: Christians for Saddam?
3 comments:
But let us not forget Saddam Hussein's "rape" rooms, and the hands he chopped off. I think George Bush and Tony Blair were only guilty of naiveté.
We had the Crusades for a purpose, and then liberals denigrated that medieval movement. It was a necessary movement for the time.
But naive conservatives in the UK and the US did not grasp that concept. They thought Islam could support a Democracy. It cannot.
The only way we can bring Democracy to the Middle East is to convert the Muslims to Christianity, nay not just Christianity but Catholicism. Oh my bad, sorry, that is anathema to most people. "What you want to shove your religion down their throats!"
Sorry, but as throughout all human history only Christianity and a firm belief in natural law civilizes and lays the groundwork for a political system like Democracy, which now is slipping like sand through our fingers in the corrupt Western Nations.
The mistake the Crusaders made -- if there was one -- is that they killed their enemy to recover control of the Holy Land and prevent the takeover of Europe by Islam. Let us not forget the Battle of Lepanto.
But really what was needed was an army of Catholic martyrs willing to march into Muslim held territories, evangelize, not verbally, but with love and compassion, and then be killed. The cost of doing such a thing is so horrendous personally, very few of us are willing to take that step. Blessed Charles de Foucauld answered that call and suffered the consequences: martyrdom.
He lived as a hermit priest alone among Muslims in Algeria. “From 4.30 am to 8.30 pm, I never stop talking and receiving people: slaves, the poor, the sick, soldiers, travellers and the curious,” he wrote, and it was those little people who suffered when he was killed. Many people in those lands offered him hospitality suspecting he was Christian, but did not turn him in because of his kindness.
No one, no one at all in the West understands Islam, and the devastation it can wreck. But George Bush was not alone in his naiveté. So were a large number of American conservatives, who cheered him on. Though the circumstances seemed to demand the Iraq invasion, as we had just watched Americans leaping to their deaths from the Twin Towers in NYC to avoid fire caused by jihadist aircraft, I deeply regret my War. I see now only Charles Foucauld's approach will work. The Crusaders approach will not now in this climate. God bless you. Susan Fox www.christsfaithfulwitness.com
Bush wasn't being naive at all. He knew exactly what he was doing. His military advisers have spilled the beans on how they cooked the evidence of WMDs to justify a war, which we could not afford, either economically or morally.
Great post.
Post a Comment