The Silent Extermination of Iraq’s ‘Christian Dogs’

Last week an Iraqi Muslim scholar issued a fatwa that, among other barbarities, asserts that “it is permissible to spill the blood of Iraqi Christians.” Inciting as the fatwa is, it is also redundant. While last October’s Baghdad church attack which killed some sixty Christians is widely known—actually receiving some MSM coverage—the fact is, Christian life in Iraq has been a living hell ever since U.S. forces ousted the late Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Among other atrocities, beheading and crucifying Christians are not irregular occurrences; messages saying “you Christian dogs, leave or die,” are typical. Islamists see the church as an “obscene nest of pagans” and threaten to “exterminate Iraqi Christians.” John Eibner, CEO of Christian Solidarity International, summarized the situation well in a recent letter to President Obama:

The threat of extermination is not empty. Since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, more than half the country’s Christian population has been forced by targeted violence to seek refuge abroad or to live away from their homes as internally displaced people. According to the Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, over 700 Christians, including bishops and priests, have been killed and 61 churches have been bombed. Seven years after the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Catholic Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk reports: “He who is not a Muslim in Iraq is a second-class citizen. Often it is necessary to convert or emigrate, otherwise one risks being killed.” This anti-Christian violence is sustained by a widespread culture of Muslim supremacism that extends far beyond those who pull the triggers and detonate the bombs.

The grand irony, of course, is that Christian persecution has increased exponentially under U.S. occupation. As one top Vatican official put it, Christians, “paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship” of Saddam Hussein.

What does one make of this—that under Saddam, who was notorious for human rights abuses, Christians were better off than they are under a democratic government sponsored by humanitarian, some would say “Christian,” America?

Like a Baghdad caliph, Saddam appears to have made use of the better educated Christians, who posed no risk to his rule, such as his close confidant Tariq Aziz. Moreover, by keeping a tight lid on the Islamists of his nation—who hated him as a secular apostate no less than the Christians—the latter benefited indirectly.

Conversely, by empowering “the people,” the U.S. has unwittingly undone Iraq’s Christian minority. Naively projecting Western values on Muslims, U.S. leadership continues to think that “people-power” will naturally culminate into a liberal, egalitarian society—despite all the evidence otherwise. The fact is, in the Arab/Muslim world, “majority rule” traditionally means domination by the largest tribe or sect; increasingly, it means Islamist domination.

Either which way, the minorities—notably the indigenous Christians—are the first to suffer once the genie of “people-power” is uncorked. Indeed, evidence indicates that the U.S. backed “democratic” government of Iraq enables and incites the persecution of its Christians. (All of this raises the pivotal question: do heavy-handed tyrants—Saddam, Mubarak, Qaddafi, et al—create brutal societies, or do naturally brutal societies create the need for heavy-handed tyrants to keep order.)

Another indicator that empowering Muslim masses equates Christian suffering is the fact that, though Iraqi Christians amount to a mere five percent of the population, they make up nearly 40 percent of the refugees fleeing Iraq. It is the same in Egypt: “A growing number of Egypt’s 8-10 million Coptic Christians are looking for a way to get out as Islamists increasingly take advantage of the nationalist revolution that toppled long-standing dictator Hosni Mubarak in February.”

Of course, whereas Egypt’s revolution was homegrown, the persecution of Iraq’s Christians is a direct byproduct of U.S. intervention. More ironic has been Obama’s approach. Justifying his decision to intervene in Libya in humanitarian terms, the president recently said that, while “it is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs… that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.”

True, indeed. Yet, even as Obama “acts on behalf of what’s right,” by providing military protection to the al-Qaeda connected Libyan opposition, Iraq’s indigenous Christians continue to be exterminated—right under the U.S. military’s nose in Iraq. You see, in its ongoing bid to win the much coveted but forever elusive “Muslim-hearts-and-minds™”—which Obama has even tasked NASA with—U.S. leadership ignores the inhumane treatment of Islam’s “Christian dogs,” the mere mention of which tends to upset Muslims.

  • Syd Chaden

    I did not expect the UN to take note of the burning of churches and killing of Christians, any more than it has taken note of the burning of synagogues and killiing of Jews, since the UN has become the Voice of the Muslim World. However, I would have thought that the Western World, and most specifically, the United States, would have at least given as much attention to this outrage as it did to the building of apartments in Jerusalem. If this exemplifies the moral standard of the United States and the West, perhaps "infidels" is an appropriate perjorative.

  • skai

    "But then again the Chriians are Weak and stupid." You are right, I read some comments on other websites by Christians, they say ''We must love our enemy and that is what bible teaches us.'' Lot of them believe that Islam is a peaceful religion,and that is the reason the vast majority of Christians are 'STUPID'. Also they are not aware what the muslims are doing to Christians in Muslim countries,because of our main media's silence. I believe until the Christians all over the world don't start preaching in Churches about the evils of Islam,not much is going happen. see
    Also suggest you read a book by Bat Ye'or " The Decline OF Eastern Christianity Under Islam"

    • Jedishaferyn1

      Christians should love and pray for our enemies, but that does not mean that we let them continue their evil actions unchecked. Merely butchering Muslims would do nothing to stem the real problem, but an active program of evangelism could make a world of difference. What people do not consider is the difference between the requirements of the individual Christian (love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you) and the expectations of the State (which is supposed to use force to protect the innocent).

      • winoceros

        These words should be memorized by every single American. Thank you.

  • http://http:/ zillaoftheresistance

    It is pure evil, not only what the muslims are doing to Christians (and all non-muslims) but also the unwillingness of people to speak out against it. I quoted from and linked to this article at my blog in my latest post, about the islamic pogrom against Christians. You can read it here:

  • emmanuel michael

    Thank you very much for revealing the facts. Until when we the Christians will wake up and unite to protect the Christians in the Middle East who are sufferring from the unhuman acts of Muslims.;

  • topeka

    But… what else is new? This has been an issue since at least 2004 to those of us using alternative media.

    America's politicians have turned their back on the slaughter of the innocent… it should come as no surprise this group keeps growing.

    As for "stupid Christians" – that's a very small group with respect to this issue.

    Most Christians understand that while they are called to "turn the other cheek" that command applies only to themselves: No Christian has the right to force anyone else to "turn a cheek" or die for any reason. Anyone acting under such a misapprehension must be pretty clueless to avoid the Lord's condemnation of such misbehavior.