The Archbishop of Kirkuk, Irag has said that the west does not understand the threat posed by Islam.
Kirkuk, Iraq, Feb 11, 2011 / 01:35 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The secular western world is incapable of fully understanding the threat of a “reawakening of Islam” in the Middle East, according to an Iraqi bishop beset by radical movements in his own archdiocese.
In an interview with the Italian bishops’ SIR news agency, Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, Iraq, called the Middle East a “scary volcano” because of the possible consequences of widespread unrest.
“There are Islamic forces and movements that wish to change the Middle East, creating Islamic States, caliphates, in which Shariah (law) rules,” he warned.
Radical groups present in Iraq such as al-Qaida and Ansar al Islam are calling on citizens in other Middle Eastern nations to inject an Islamic influence into otherwise general protests in places like Tunisia and Egypt.
For Archbishop Sako these calls have “the clear intention of fueling … a total religious change” in the area.
“They are voices that could find fertile ground in Egypt and elsewhere and therefore should not be underestimated, also because there are regional powers whose leaders have defined these revolts as the ‘reawakening of Islam’,” he said.
In practice, the goal of these fundamentalists is “to create a void to be able to fill it with religious themes, convinced … that Islam is the solution to everything.”
And the west does not get it.
According to the archbishop, Europe and North America are blind to the possibility of such an “Islamization” of the Middle East.
“The western mentality does not allow it to fully comprehend this risk,” he said.
He explained that politics and religion are interwoven in the Middle East, whereas there is “a tremendous void” between them in western nations.
This results in two extremisms, he said. The Middle Eastern mentality is dominated by Islam, while a secularism that denies its Christian roots and relegates Christian values to the private sphere reigns in the West.
And he would know.
Just keep this in mind as you watch the MSM commentary on Egypt and politicians congratulating themselves for supporting “democracy.”
I suspect/worry that there is a 10% chance something akin to western democracy will emerge in Egypt (and I feel this may be too generous), 40% chance that the now-resigned thug will be replaced within 2 years by a thug just like him, and a 50% chance that the country follows the path of “very educated” 1979 Iran into Islamo-statehood.
Archbishop Sako lives at the sharp end of the scimitar, so we should listen.
February 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Am I missing something or should the title of this post be "West DOESN'T understand the threat"?
February 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Yes, please correct the title! I was completely misled both by the tweet and the title in my RSS feed.
I agree with your conclusions, just fix the title to reflect them!
February 13, 2011 at 5:22 pm
oops!
fixed.
February 13, 2011 at 6:53 pm
One optimistic note, unlike Iran of 1979 there is no popular fanatic cleric waiting in the wings to take the reins of power.
So it may reduce the chances of history repeating itself in that manner.
February 13, 2011 at 11:37 pm
And the U.S. has made all this possible by meddling in the affairs of these nations. The U.S. overthrew the democratically elected ruler of Iran in the 1950s, installed a puppet-dictator, which caused such resentment that it resulted 26 years later in the Iranian revolution which instituted an Islamic state. The U.S. was allies with the secular dictator of Iraq throughout their war with Iran in the 1980s, then when he was no longer of any use to the U.S., destroyed him and his country (an unjust, illegal war based on lies) which has resulted in an enormous loss of religious freedom in Iraq and the reduction of one of the oldest Catholic communities in the world to half of its pre-war population. Now the latest U.S.-backed dictator (whose military was funded by the U.S. for the last 30 years) has taken a dive. You reap what you sow.
February 14, 2011 at 12:46 am
Geronimo, as regards our military support for Egypt these past 30 years, that came about at the Camp David accords. Carter promised equal funding for the Egyptians and the Israelis in a bid for peace in the area. Furthermore, Mubarak was not installed by the USA, he came to power after Anwar Sadat was killed. Sadat was the successor to Nasser, definetly no friend of ours.
As for being allies with Iraq's leader during the war with Iran, that was a case of the lesser of two evils. He wasn't subsequently deposed for convenience, he'd routinely violated conditions of the truce following the first Iraq War (brought about by his invasion of our ally, Kuwait). Those violations along with the firm belief he had WMD's, (a belief shared by all major intelligence agencies in the developed world) led to our present presence in Iraq.
Regarding the ousting of the Shah for the ayotollahs, we're not responsible for the stupidity of other nations. As bad as the Shah was, the present gang of fools is much worse. But that nation would definetly have learned by now what you state, they've reaped what they've sown.
Need anymore help with current events and history just let me know. Always glad to help.
February 14, 2011 at 3:30 am
Subvet,
Thanks for your help.
I never said Mubarak was installed by the U.S. I said he was backed by the U.S. (to the tune of $2 billion a year.) The U.S. paid for his military budget which allowed him to keep an iron fist on any opposition to his rule.
Yeah, that "lesser of two evils" thing always works out great, doesn't it? As for him invading Kuwait, he was given the green light by the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
And he didn't violate the conditions of the truce of the first war (more lies continually told by the warmongers in the U.S.) and he was no threat to the U.S. He had no air force, no navy, could not even fly a plane over most of his own country. As for the WMDs – more lies from the warmongers of the U.S. and Britain. Some great "intelligence" agencies there.
Let's suppose he did have WMDs. Is that a reason to attack him? There are a host of countries throughout the world with WMDs – does that mean the U.S. has a right to attack them? With that line of reasoning, Iraq could have been justified in attacking the U.S. since the U.S. also has WMDs and was threatening to attack Iraq. Or does only the U.S. have that right as God's Chosen Nation and Savior of the World?
Let's suppose that he did have WMDs, as those great "intelligence" agencies said. How was he going to deliver them to the U.S.? As I said above, he couldn't even fly a plane over most of his own country – how was he going to go half-way around the world and attack the U.S.?
Regarding the Shah, the U.S. is directly responsible for the current Islamic state in Iran. The Iranian Revolution was a prime example of "blowback" due to the foreign policy of the U.S. As I stated previously, the U.S. overthrew the legitimate government of Iran in the 1950s, installed the puppet Shah and reaped the results of that meddling decades later with the overthrow of the Shah and the hostage crisis. How would you like it if a foreign power installed a puppet government in your country?
The U.S. is not responsible for the stupidity of other nations, but is surely responsible for its own stupidity.
Let me know if I can be of further help to you.
February 14, 2011 at 4:44 am
Geronimo, keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Prove the things you cite as lies actually were. Give objective, easily verifiable sources.
We'll start with that, should be nice and simple for ya.
Then we'll move on to other things.
By the way, bring it over to my own blog. I respect the Archbold brothers too much to take up their space with a troll.
February 14, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Subvet,
The fact that they were lies needs no proof. The American people were lied to by their government. That is a fact.
I deal in facts. I don't know what a troll is, but I think it shows a lack of thought on your part to call me a name rather than discussing facts.
You have yet to answer any of the points I brought up in my previous posts, but maybe you don't really want a discussion about U.S. foreign policy in relation to what the Iraqi bishop said is happening in the Middle East.
And by the way, I don't know anything about your blog. The world does not revolve around you and your blog. I merely saw an interesting post here and commented on it.