…in taking in Iraqi refugees. They are our responsibility more than any other country’s on earth.
True. Interestingly, the nun’s account paints a much different picture of things than the Muslim apologists who comment here. It sounds like the Kurds are only giving them minimal care, pushing all responsibility on the Church. Which is more in line with what I’ve been saying. If the Kurds weren’t worried about themselves and their dependence on pleasing the West in order to keep the dreams of Kurdistan alive, they’d leave the Christians to the dogs outside their gates.
Sure, the Kurds are risking their lives to fight ISIS, and feeding and sheltering the Christian refugees, but the Kurds get something out of it. And the refugees are being sheltered in schools, not hotels, so it doesn’t count. We should just bomb them all, and let God sort it out.
In America, we make death threats to radio hosts who give soccer balls to child refugees. Are Kurds making death threats at other Kurds who don’t sufficiently hate refugees? How many Iraqi Christian refugees have the Kurds taken in, compared to us? I’d say these Kurdish Muslims are doing a better job than American Christians.
You’ve also moved from saying that Muslims are condoning ISIS by not opposing them, to now damning them for giving Christians less food and shelter than you would like them to. What, precisely, do you want them to do?
I almost replied to this myself. Honestly, we should give the Kurds credit for risking their lives to help. And the Church should do our best to divert resources to Iraq. It is OUR job to care for these refugees. The Kurds are fighting for their very lives! For God’s sake, why do we expect more from them than what we are willing to do, with far more resources?
They are risking their lives to prevent IS from encroaching on the territory they want for Kurdistan. As the nun stated, they’ve allowed the Catholics to stay but that’s pretty much as far as their humanitarian effort goes. Their leaving the rest to the Church. You can’t read between the lines?
No. I haven’t moved an inch. My stance has been exactly the same and this has been discussed in several threads. I’ve been consistent and this nun’s account just highlights another issue that happens to fall into the same bucket: the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims. You have also remained consistent in trying with all your might to exonerate the *peaceful majority* who really couldn’t care less about stopping IS despite the overwhelming abundance of contrary data. Once again, the Kurds have motives that are not exactly humanitarian, they are territorial.
The Kurds have done more than us.
Does American action also not count, since ISIS is killing Americans? Is there anyone who could do anything that you would count?
That’s because IS is encroaching on their territory.
I agree with you as far as America is concerned. The US is responsible for IS, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s growth and power in the Middle East, they should be the first to open their doors to these refugees.
Yes. If the *peaceful majority* who have allowed this to happen *in their lands* would prove to the world that they actually reject the doctrine of persecuting through non-violent means and/or slaughtering all who disagree with their religion and actually *do something* about it for that reason alone (and not for some motive of personal gain), then it would count.
We should not have to send troops in there *unless* they make a stand and ask for support only for the purposes of purging this Muslim scourge from their lands. They should be doing this and they would be doing it if they didn’t actually tacitly agree with their cause. Only a very small handful of Muslims are actually doing anything for the sake of their Christian neighbours whilst the rest of the Muslim world pre-occupies themselves with Gaza and the Golan Heights and demanding that people don’t judge them by the violent tradition of their religion that is being acted out by a very large majority of their co-religionists.
I’d be for heavily sanctioning all Muslim countries (for the persecution is happening in all of them) until the so-called *peaceful majority* start proving their mettle.
Also, we need to get over the political correctness that has resulted in the complete capitulation of demands by Muslim communities in Western countries to differentiate their strain of belief from those of their brothers who love persecuting and slaughtering people who don’t agree with them. We need to understand that Islam has a violent history and tradition and that history has been obviously playing out in modern times. If we don’t, how many more child brothels will go ignored for fear of discrimination. Muslims communities need to be scrutinized like everyone else, not unjustly, but they need to be aware that staying silent about the extremists in their communities is the equivalent of enabling them. At some point, we need to expect them to *prove* that they are different by showing the world they wish to purge this vile element in their religion. Otherwise, it’s only evident that it is accepted. No Muslim should remain neutral with these events.
The Muslims in Egypt count who stood in solidarity with the Christians against the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of them had pure motives while some of them used it as an excuse to remove the Muslim Brotherhood… pure motives or no, we need to see more of that in every Muslim nation. The fact that we don’t actually illustrates to completion that the *religion of peace* moniker thrown around by the *peaceful majority* only extends to practicing Muslims and no one else.
But there’s a catch-22. All the Muslims in a position to fight ISIS would benefit from beating them, and would be harmed if nothing is done about them.
I’m not saying sunni wahabbi muslim extremism isn’t a real problem. It is. It’s a widespread problem. The people who are most likely to bear the costs of those extremists are other Muslims. The people resisting ISIS or Al Shabbab or Boku haram are mostly (or significantly) Muslim. Other than other Wahhabi extremists, there are literally no Muslims who could oppose ISIS in a non self-interested way. Even al Qaeda doesn’t support ISIS. Right off the bat, you’re excluding every Muslim who is less militant than al Qaeda, and then wondering why more Muslims aren’t opposing ISIS.
You state that “all Muslims in a position to fight ISIS would benefit from beating them, and would be harmed if nothing is done about them”, yet they don’t do anything about them. You need to ask yourself why they don’t. If it so clearly benefits them and makes them safer to “beat” or stop them, why don’t they do it? You can come up with several reasons or excuses, but one reason that I posit is that they see *more* of a benefit by allowing them to operate.
You’ll say that my reason can’t be true because it puts them in more danger, but that would contradict your original statement.
You might say that the reason is they don’t have the means to fight ISIS, but I would say they do. ISIS is *allegedly* not an organ of the states in which they operate and are *allegedly* not associated with those governments. Those governments have trained and armed forces who should have enough soldiers and weapons to overpower ISIS since we are constantly told that they are such a small minority. Not to mention, if those governments engaged ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc. and ran into a lack of resources, the Western nations of the world would, with little doubt, give them assistance.
So, what other reason would they allow those groups to operate other than because they tacitly agree with what it is they are doing? They are purging Muslim lands of the infidel, and even if the so-called *peaceful majority* don’t agree with the means, they agree with the end. And to them, they are being peaceful by not acting in one way or the other.
To quote myself here and further bolster my argument: “They are purging Muslim lands of the infidel, and even if the so-called *peaceful majority* don’t agree with the means, they agree with the end. And to them, they are being peaceful by not acting in one way or the other.”
This was evident in the recent child brothel and torture chamber run by the Muslims in the UK. It would be totally foolish to believe that the Muslim community in which they operated was ignorant to what they were doing. The police knew… everyone knew (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736995/Muslim-leaders-fully-aware-problem-did-Pakistani-community-worker-makes-explosive-claims-religious-leaders-talked-mosques-not-police.html). Yet, we are led to believe in this invisible *peaceful* and *good* majority that exists nowhere. They allowed this to happen, as long as it was happening to the infidel.
I’m not sure how many more examples you need. But, like I said, I’m willing to take it all back the minute I see more than one Muslim stand up and do more than cry on television because he can’t buy a donut at the Christian market that was decimated by his co-religionists.
But lots of Muslims – Kurds, Iraqis, Syrians (both the government and other rebels), Iranians – are fighting ISIS. The only predominantly Muslim nations that are arguably in a position to help but aren’t are Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Egypt has its own problems, so I don’t know whether we can really say they’re in a position to help. Our ally Saudi Arabia isn’t helping because it’s ran by other wahhabi extremists. This raises the question – if the majority of Americans aren’t genocidal wahhabi extremists, why do they support Saudi Arabia, which supports ISIS? If you’re willing to paint all 1.5 billion Muslims with the same brush, you should probably give all 300 million Americans the same treatment. Sure, we keep telling ourselves that we’re not all genocidal wahhabi extremists, but we’re only conducting airstrikes out of self-interest, and we’re still funding Saudi Arabia, which funds ISIS.
Perhaps you’re, ironically, making the same error as ISIS. There is no caliphate. There is no unified muslim nation stretching from Morocco to Xinjiang, just like there’s no unified Christian nation stretching from Russia to Hawaii. There’s lots of sects, with different languages, cultures, and religious beliefs. This isn’t happening in the backyard of most Muslims. What are the Uighurs going to do about this? How helpful is the Indonesian navy in the desert? Morocco is closer to Iceland than to Iraq. The moroccans are no more “letting this happen” than they let Iceland’s financial crisis happen. Just because they have a monolith in Mecca doesn’t make all Islam monolithic.
Kurds are protecting their own interests – Kurdistan. The nun makes it clear that the Christians have been allowed to shelter there but that is where the humanitarian effort stops. Iraqis are protecting their interests (the Christians have been persecuted there since 2003), they are trying to contain the damage that ISIS does to places that don’t impact them. They’ve even set up base in destroyed or abandoned churches. I shouldn’t have to remind you why the Syrian government is fighting ISIS. Iran, ironically, is doing more than most are willing to admit. I haven’t actually looked into why so I can’t really comment either way on their motives. So, I’ll reserve the benefit of the doubt for them and assume that they are doing it out of humanitarian concerns as it doesn’t seem right now there is no attempt at conquest. I’ll give you that much… but it’s a precarious inch. The actual Muslim people of Egypt visibly stood in solidarity with the Christians on at least one occasion. The government may still be trying to adjust to the quick transitions and Muslim infighting to be secure enough to move in one direction or the next (I reserve judgement on Egyptian Muslims).
But you know as well as I do that it’s the US government that has trained, funded, and armed ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow their former soft dictators who had ceased to be useful… in Syria they failed… at least up until now when the dull masses will be programmed to support an invasion of Syria to allegedly stop America’s demented children (though we know what the real reasons are).
If you’re a tribal Republican or Democrat who favours indiscriminately targeting and bombing villages (in essence, shooting the meat shield rather than letting the criminal hostage taker go while you devise a better plan that will allow you to take down the hostage taker without harming the hostage), then you are part of the problem… and, in case you haven’t noticed, there is constant protests and political dissention on the matter.
BUT, this is not a valid comparison. The atrocities committed by these barbaric Muslims are being performed in their own lands and the people do nothing (unless their self-interest is endangered). There is no real humanitarian effort put forth for the Christians their people are killing in their borders.
We haven’t had that problem in the US since the before the Civil Rights movement. And, even then, the blacks never faced the same persecution to the same degree and by the same numbers as the Chaldeans. But America eventually rose up against that discrimination (though racism still exists and the US government makes sure that the economic ghettos remain intact).
That is still a huge digression, however, and takes focus off of the main point. Just making it clear that the closest comparison one can make with the US is how the blacks were treated on American soil and the subsequent response to it. And I will agree, in that case, that the persecution of black people in the US was (and still is) on the heads of all Americans. It not quite a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you consider that the Muslims seek genocide and are actually slaughtering people by the thousands.
Unless you’re a Syrian or Iraqi muslim, the atrocities being performed by ISIS aren’t taking place your own land.
Again, you are, ironically, making the same error as ISIS in imagining a Muslim caliphate from Morocco to Xinjiang.
Do you think I’m an idiot? Lol. I know that. ISIS is one of many *extremist* groups (I’m pretty sure I’ve listed a few of them off but didn’t include them all). The persecution of Christians is occurring in every Muslim country at the moment by various Muslim *extremist* groups or, in some cases, by the actual government officials (e.g. Pakistan strategically diverting flood waters into Christian villages to ensure Muslim property wasn’t harmed). ISIS is in the spotlight because they get their rocks off by YouTube-ing their projects of death… and they are particularly grisly. But their flavour of disdain for non-Muslims shouldn’t overshadow the global epidemic. Once again, surely in one of these countries the *peaceful majority* would stand up for these Christians if they didn’t agree with what was going on… but they don’t.
Re: Saudi Arabia. I may have a prejudice, but I cannot avoid thinking that when it comes to “oil interests”, nothing else counts…
It’s pretty well known that the Saudis support these extremists. But I’m talking about the silent *peaceful majority*, not the Saudis… everyone knows where they stand.
I have think I’ve already established my position on America’s involvement as well. ISIS has been funded, trained, armed, and supported by the US… along with Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. But that is irrelevant to the point I’m making once again.
I have only one problem with this post—it’s got too many excellent points for a single post. Sure, I’ll give it an up vote, but if it merits at least four or five. And the closing line even adds an air of literary flair.
ETA: contrary to Joseph’s assumptions below, my comment was not written as snark. Jroberts’ post contained a lot of excellent analysis, though Joseph apparently isn’t seeing it.
Wowee. You get a cookie for snark. But nothing for content.
“you should probably give all 300 million Americans the same treatment.”
To do that he’d have to make a reservation ahead of time. It’s all the rage nowadays.
OK, guys. You’re rabid defense of the indefensible has gotten out of hand. I have my own opinions about Americans. But where it’s irrelevant to the point of discussion, it doesn’t deserve mention. I’ve already drawn the nearest comparison one can draw with widespread domestic hate that Americans, for the most part, remained silent on: pre-Civil Rights movement.
More of the same: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29062004.
You all are missing the point, desperately trying to make excuses for an extremely violent religion. Problem children they may be, but they are problem children that are protected by their family and never go unpunished… that’s my complaint. The world shouldn’t have to fight these battles. If the Muslim *peaceful majority* actually acted on their claims that they are not like their brothers who slaughter, then the problem would soon be dealt with without external intervention.
Yes, Islam is not a monolith, yadda, yadda, yadda. Neither is Protestantism. But Westboro Baptist Church doesn’t garnish much support from other Christians. In fact, their protests are facing counter-protests and blockades… and they haven’t even killed anyone yet. Imagine what would happen if they decided to start beheading non-Westboro Baptists? How long do you think it would take Americans to quash their movement entirely?
The Muslim problem is one of disgusting violence towards innocent men, women, and children; everything from beheadings, rapes, slavery, and razing entire towns/villages. It is a very large minority in the hundreds of millions that goes unchecked by their family members.
Do you mean that any and every time the US have intervened in other countries, it had been totally for humanitarian purposes, rather than furthering their interests? I would say sometimes yes, sometimes no. I would add that no matter what the Kurds’ motives may be, the Lord is building on those motives for the moment to help Christians, which is not a bad thing.
I’m scratching my head wondering what US intervention in other countries and their motives for doing so has to do with Muslims that claim to differ from other Muslims that have blood lust to an appalling degree yet do absolutely nothing to stop their Muslim brothers from satisfying that blood lust within their own borders.
I have my own feelings about American foreign policy, but they are totally irrelevant to my argument. The Muslim problem is a domestic one for them. Not only domestic but also a problem within their own religion… yet nothing is done to purge it.
Absolutely agree, Mark. We need to step up and help these refugees and allow them to come to the US if that is what they want.
Serious question. One news report mentioned a Christian family that was completely wiped out with the exception of a 1 year old. I imagine there are other children like this.
Is there any organization that would help place these children with a family here in the United States? My wife and I have given serious thought about this.