Have you ever seen anything like this on Canadian TV?

[Machjo]

YouTube - Islam vs Christianity (see the christian missionary losers)

Of course I'll admit that based on the limited knowledge I have so far, this video might have been fabricated. And if anyone has any more input that could shed more light on this, I'd like to read about it.

The video suggests it was created prior to the erection of a new Iraqi Government, and so things might have changed since. But it suggests that at the time high-ranking government officials, including the US president himself, were in fact semi-secretly (I guess you could say not exactly secretly but not with much public news coverage at least) actively promoting Christian missionary work in Iraq.

But has anyone here heard much about this before?

I'd heard about it before, but from friends and some academic books in brief and never in such detail, and certainly never from the mainstream media.

If the video is indeed true, what are your thoughts on it?

For my part, I do support freedom of religion in principle, but to have missionary work so intertwined with the government in an illegal war in Iraq is quite disturbing. Again, things may have changed since a new Iraqi government came to power. But even if that's the case, this ought never to have happened in the first place. I certainly hope the new Iraqi government will grant Christians freedom of religion if it hasn't already, but not like this, not with religion going hand in hand with the government into an illegal war.

Has anyone else ever heard or read about this? Has this ever been in the Canadian or US media before, because honestly I've never seen it, and if this is true, then how come it's made it into the German media but not the Canadian and US media?

And if it's not true, then it's an awfully sick joke of a video seeing the serious nature of its accusation.

Any help here?

 

[Kreskin]

There isn't much joking. Radicals are radicals. That's pretty much what happened.

 

[Machjo]

There isn't much joking. Radicals are radicals. That's pretty much what happened.

If that video is all true though (and though I'm no expert in media technologies, this vid does not appear to have been tampered with), then why have we seen so little coverage of this topic at the time, or did I just miss it?

And why so little public reaction?

Again, like I said, I do sincerely hope Christians are granted full freedom of religion in Iraq, and that is not the issue that concerns me. What concerns me in this vid is the way it went hand in hand with the government into Iraq under the pretense of WMD's. Certainly the military government of the time did the right thing to a degree in granting freedom of religion to Iraqis, and by extension allowing Christian missionaries into Iraq. My issue though is with generals discussing this in Churches in uniform, and the President sending video messages to a specific group inviting them to go. It just seems way too political.

At most the government should have just announced that Iraq has freedom of religion until the new government is established, and that it would then be in that government's hands from then on it... at the absolute most. This goes beyond that with the government not just allowing it, but seeming to actively help it.

 

[Kreskin]

It's looking at the Iraq war through the eyes of a foreigner. Looks pretty radical, but the Republican base IS radical.

 

[CDNBear]

The video isn't fake, the spin is though.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don’t know if the video is true or not. However, Christians enjoyed considerable amount of religious freedom under Saddam (his no. two man, his Prime Minister was a Christian).

All that freedom disappeared after US ‘liberated’ Iraq. After Saddam was deposed, Christians were persecuted mercilessly in Iraq. Most of them have fled Iraq, there are very few Christians left in Iraq these days.

Perhaps to compensate for that, Bush may have secretly sent missionaries to Iraq.

 

[Machjo]

I don’t know if the video is true or not. However, Christians enjoyed considerable amount of religious freedom under Saddam (his no. two man, his Prime Minister was a Christian).

All that freedom disappeared after US ‘liberated’ Iraq. After Saddam was deposed, Christians were persecuted mercilessly in Iraq. Most of them have fled Iraq, there are very few Christians left in Iraq these days.

Perhaps to compensate for that, Bush may have secretly sent missionaries to Iraq.

I'd heard of that too, that Hussain granted Christians considerable freedom of religion. but yo don't compensate by putting missionaries in bed with the military.

 

[clutch]

ya, Christians actually have to carry guns to protect themselves in Iraq.

now that i think about it , everyone probably has to carry guns in Iraq. lmfao.

 

[AnnaG]

hhmmm Sodamn Insane, a religiously tolerant, psychopathic mass murderer. Sounds like a couple gods I know of. Go figure.

 

[Goober]

I don’t know if the video is true or not. However, Christians enjoyed considerable amount of religious freedom under Saddam (his no. two man, his Prime Minister was a Christian).

All that freedom disappeared after US ‘liberated’ Iraq. After Saddam was deposed, Christians were persecuted mercilessly in Iraq. Most of them have fled Iraq, there are very few Christians left in Iraq these days.

Perhaps to compensate for that, Bush may have secretly sent missionaries to Iraq.

We must have a different interpretation of "FREEDOM' - Saddam tolerated no dissent - no differences - so yes he would slaughter any that would upset his version of Saddam's society - Much like he committed genocide against the Kurds - Do not interpret what occurred under Saddam as freedom in any way shape or form - So any that would cause any dissent or even defend basic human rights were of to prisons - and not many came out alive.

Best update yourself on how Saddam ran Iraq.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

According to this website, general William Boyken did say what was on the video.

gulfnews : Western policies need to change

Western policies need to change

Muslims would be less likely to strike out if they weren't oppressed

• By Marwan Kabalan, Special to Gulf News
• Published: 00:00 May 14, 2010
• 

• Many objective Americans would certainly admit that the hatred and resentment towards the US is based on political, not cultural grounds, i.e. American policies in Iraq, Palestine and other parts of the region.
• Image Credit: NIÑO JOSE HEREDIA/©Gulf News

For years now, especially since the September 11 attacks on the US, Americans — both the public and elite — have been trying to figure out why Arabs hate them. While the answer to this question is as simple as anyone could imagine, we Arabs find it extremely difficult to understand why some westerners hate us.

Many objective Americans would certainly admit that the hatred and resentment towards the US is based on political, not cultural grounds, i.e. American policies in Iraq, Palestine and other parts of the region. Many others would tend, however, to twist the facts by claiming that the resentment in the Arab world towards the US is based on envy because Americans are strong, prosperous, democratic and free.

Why do some westerners hate Arabs and Muslims? After all, Arabs did not colonise the West, they did not transform it into a field from which to extract raw materials and a marketplace for manufactured goods, and did not stand in the way of its progress and modernisation. Currently, Arabs are on the periphery of world politics. They are weak, relatively poor and their countries are underdeveloped. Hence, they cannot constitute a threat or pose a challenge to the US and its allies. Besides, while we believe that it is perfectly logical and completely natural that the oppressed may hate their oppressors, we find it extremely difficult to understand why the oppressors hate their victims.

In order to make the case clearer, let's look at examples in which genuine hatred towards Arabs and Muslims has been expressed.

In 2002, the year before he became US deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence, General William Boykin told an Oregon religious group that the "war on terrorism" is a conflict between Judeo-Christian values and Satan. This "spiritual enemy," he said, "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus". In a previous speech, he told an audience in Florida that a Muslim Somali warlord was captured because "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol". Instead of reprimanding the general for his foolish remarks, then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld excused him, telling reporters that "it doesn't look like any rules were broken". "There are a lot of things that are said by people in military or civilian life … that are their views. And that's the way we live. We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country," Rumsfeld said.

During the war on Iraq, Robert Kilroy-Silk, a BBC presenter and former Labour MP, wrote a provocative article in the Sunday Express in which he questioned the very importance of Arab existence in the stream of human history. "Apart from oil — which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West — what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I," Kilroy-Silk argued. Despite these racist remarks, many British politicians rushed to defend Kilroy in the name of freedom of expression.

Professor of hate

The third example is related to Daniel Pipes, the true professor of hate in America's academic life. For over 20 years, Pipes has been propagating the idea that Islam is a threat to the West. After 9/11, he established Campus Watch, a website dedicated to revealing the alleged "bias of Middle East studies programmes at US universities" by encouraging students to supply information about their own professors. A key victim of Campus Watch's witch hunt was Dr Rashid Khalidi, a prominent Arab scholar at Columbia University. Dr Khalidi became the target of an intimidation campaign that questioned his patriotism because he opposed the war in Iraq and made sympathetic remarks about the Palestinians. As a result, Dr Khalidi and fellow Arab academics received hundreds of abusive emails and calls, including one denouncing them as "stinking, terrorist Muslim ... ". Despite Pipes' overt cultural hatred and divisive personality, former president George W. Bush rewarded him by appointing him to the board of directors of the US Institute of Peace, a government-funded think tank in Washington.

These examples — and there are many others — show that while Arab resentment towards the US is based on political grounds, the hatred for Arabs in some parts of the western world is based on cultural grounds. The difference between the two is that whereas the former can be tackled by addressing its causes, the latter is dogmatic and can only be addressed by changing a whole culture. Changing western policies is the much easier option.

Dr Marwan Al Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations at Damascus University's Faculty of Political Science and Media in Syria

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We must have a different interpretation of "FREEDOM' - Saddam tolerated no dissent - no differences - so yes he would slaughter any that would upset his version of Saddam's society - Much like he committed genocide against the Kurds - Do not interpret what occurred under Saddam as freedom in any way shape or form - So any that would cause any dissent or even defend basic human rights were of to prisons - and not many came out alive.

Best update yourself on how Saddam ran Iraq.

Saddam did not care who you worshiped as God No.2, as long as you worshiped Saddam as God No. 1. There was considerable amount of religious freedom under Saddam, provided you did not do or say anything against him. His Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz was a Christian.

While Christians would be punished same as everybody else if they said anything against Saddam, they were free to read Bible, assemble in churches, worship their God etc. Provided they did not do anything against Saddam. That is more religious freedom than Christians enjoy in most Islamic countries.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Saddam did not care who you worshiped as God No.2, as long as you worshiped Saddam as God No. 1. There was considerable amount of religious freedom under Saddam, provided you did not do or say anything against him. His Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz was a Christian.

While Christians would be punished same as everybody else if they said anything against Saddam, they were free to read Bible, assemble in churches, worship their God etc. Provided they did not do anything against Saddam. That is more religious freedom than Christians enjoy in most Islamic countries.

I remember hearing from Condoleeza Rice justifying invading Iraq that all his oil money would make him dangerous so he had to be whacked. He alreadyhad plenty of oil money. CR, What a whackjob.

So why was Iraq attacked? Because all brown skinned people are terrorists and it suited a weird neo-con reiigious-military objective from 9/11. Bush's Christian "base" loves war so they got war.

Saddam was as against Al-Qaeda as we are. The PLO and the Taliban cared about him as much as they care about us today, not at all. How many attacks have the Taliban and PLO made on Canada? None.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I remember hearing from Condoleeza Rice justifying invading Iraq that all his oil money would make him dangerous so he had to be whacked. He alreadyhad plenty of oil money. CR, What a whackjob.

So why was Iraq attacked? Because all brown skinned people are terrorists and it suited a weird neo-con reiigious-military objective from 9/11. Bush's Christian "base" loves war so they got war.

Saddam was as against Al-Qaeda as we are. The PLO and the Taliban cared about him as much as they care about us today, not at all. How many attacks have the Taliban and PLO made on Canada? None.

The reason for invading Iraq kept changing practically every day. The various reasons included fighting terrorism (even though Saddam was at most minimally involved in any terrorism), to bring democracy to Iraq (there by neglecting dictators much worse than Saddam, who even today persecute their own citizens), to get rid of WMDs (even though n WMDs have surfaced) and so on.

In addition, there were the unstated reason, oil, to finish what Bush’s father left unfinished, glory of war, to promote USA’s Manifest Destiny and so on.

As to Al Qaeda, Osama Ben Laden considered Saddam a bad Muslim, almost as bad as Bush.

 

[JLM]

"(even though Saddam was at most minimally involved in any terrorism)"- Yeah right, gassing the Kurds, invading Kuwait, setting the oil well fires and killing 30,000 of his own people on average every year for 30 years. I think he should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize............................................:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: