Armenian Church In Bagdad Attacked

[Armat]

Armen-Azerbaijan has sent some 30 men to Iraq. This regiment is in no way a military contribution to U.S. efforts in Iraq. However, Azerbijan's name on the list of coalition countries is what the U.S. needs more than anything. Until now they have been peacefully patrolling some building as far as I know. The U.S. officials which visit Azerbaijan constantly mention this fact in their speeches.

This works both ways- Small military contribution is irrelevant in the outcome of the conflict but in the Arab world it could be perceived in bigger scope since the war at large is extremely unpopular in the region. The political and economical consequence could be substantial. Armenia best be neutral in this conflict since we are lot closer to it which encompasses Iran’s interests as well.

I believe Armenias willingness to send this regiment to Iraq was the factor the balanced the U.S. military aid allocation to Armenia and Azerbaijan.

I strongly disagree. Bush administration did propose more aid to Azerbaijan however Armenian lobbies lobbied heavily to rectify the proposal and this being election year thousands of Armenian votes could make or break the election which precisely what happened in the last election.

For the Iraqi insurgents the type Armenia's contribution is irrelevent because they are targeting the coalition countries' willingness to publicly help the U.S. and manifest their help.

I disagree! Armen are you watching the news? Philippine and Turkish truck drivers being kidnapped? How is this “irrelevant” It is much more relevant for precisely the reason you mentioned.

Most importantly insurgents would have plenty of ammunition to leash out at the Armenian community in Iraq which number in 30 k. Coming from similar historical incidents mainly Ottoman one should exercise some wisdom or we are internal morons never learned much from our past.

Edited August 5, 2004 by Armat

[Armen]

Armat

 

This works both ways - Small military contribution is irrelevant in the outcome of the conflict but in the Arab world it could be perceived in bigger scope since the war at large is extremely unpopular in the region. The political and economical consequence could be substantial. Armenia best be neutral in this conflict since we are lot closer to it which encompasses Iran’s interests as well.

 

The U.S. is not going to give in this conflict no matter what. The American presence in Iraq and in the region if forever. Moreover, the Arab world is not a united entity and can't be united because it depends on the U.S. as its primary market for oil, which is the Arab world's primary (if not the only) commodity.

Any administration that comes to power in the U.S. will go on with occupation of Iraq. We might see a change of style but never a change of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It does not depend on eighter Bush or Kerry. It depends on what the U.S. economy wants. It wants a cheap and secure strategic supply of oil, which does not depent on powerhous countries like Russia and China. Furthermore, the U.S. corporate circles (where economy and politics merge) want to control the European access to big oil. That's why you can consider Iraq finished. This or that way a "democratic" government will be installed, maintained and Iraq will become a U.S. ally.

Iran, however, is a very different issue.

 

I strongly disagree. Bush administration did propose more aid to Azerbaijan however Armenian lobbies lobbied heavily to rectify the proposal and this being election year thousands of Armenian votes could make or break the election which precisely what happened in the last election.

 

Armenians have always had strong ties to the democrats. And republicans know this. Armat, you're analysing the situation out of the South Caucasus region. There are lot more issues (Kocharian's weak internal political standing, Kars-Tbilisi railway, Armenian in Javakhq, Georgia's new policy, the Russian fiasco in Ajaria, signs of Russian tilt towards Azerbaijan etc.) that form the Armenian foreign policy. And Armenia's decision to particiapate in Iraq was based on a cumulative conclusion coming from these shifts.

 

I disagree! Armen are you watching the news? Philippine and Turkish truck drivers being kidnapped? How is this “irrelevant” It is much more relevant for precisely the reason you mentioned. Most importantly insurgents would have plenty of ammunition to leash out at the Armenian community in Iraq which number in 30 k. Coming from similar historical incidents mainly Ottoman one should exercise some wisdom or we are internal morons never learned much from our past.

 

I disagree with you on what wisdom is. The lessons we learn do not mean that we should make conclusions along the same patterns.

[Armat]

Armen please reread my responses. Your answers don't correspond with my quotes you posted.

Are you willing to risk the lives of Iraqi Armenians for whatever minute gain this adventure may benefit at least in your reasoning to Armenia? Please answer this.

Edited August 5, 2004 by Armat

[Armat]

The U.S. is not going to give in this conflict no matter what. The American presence in Iraq and in the region if forever.

First, this is yet to be seen. Second, since when Armenia should or must comply US foreign policy objectives. Are you already assuming Armenia having been under Ottoman, Soviet, Russian yoke and now it should become US vessel state? Armenia's interests are closer to EU then to US and frankly that is the future.

[Armen]

Armen please reread my responses. Your answers don't correspond with my quotes you posted.

Are you willing to risk the lives of Iraqi Armenians for whatever minute gain this adventure may benefit at least in your reasoning to Armenia? Please answer this.

Armat, they correspond, however, you are not willing make the necessary linkages in your mind.

Yes, I would risk the lives of Iraqi Armenians because Armenia's longterm cooperation with the Western security structures is not a minute gain.

 

What would you do Armat if you knew that Armenia's only ally in the region, Russia, is losing its standing and may well surrender Armenia's interests?

[Stormig]

There isn't much to be said for the EU as regards Iraq, IMHO.

As for being a satellite, the US' lapdog Turkey dealt a heavy blow to Amerikanski manoeuvres regardless of consequences (or should I say immediate, heavy economic consequences) and gained some respect. Why should Armenia jump in Polski-style and lose when there was nothing to be lost OR gained?

[Armen]

First, this is yet to be seen. Second, since when Armenia should or must comply US foreign policy objectives. Are you already assuming Armenia having been under Ottoman, Soviet, Russian yoke and now it should become US vessel state? Armenia's interests are closer to EU then to US and frankly that is the future.

EU has failed to produce a unifed stand on Iraq and, consequently, on foreign policy. It has failed, as of now, to gain a foothold in South Caucasus, Georgian rose revolution being their most recent defeat.

[Armat]

I would risk the lives of Iraqi Armenians because Armenia's longterm cooperation with the Western security structures is not a minute gain.

Your immature response is enough for me to stop further discussing this issue with you.

[Sasun]

Armen, your thinking is like a chess game where pawns get sacrificed all the time and never complain. But in real life a pawn sacrifice is not always recommended, particularly in a free and democratic country pawns should be respected. Sacrificing pawns is morally wrong and may cause big troubles for the king, even his throne.

[Armen]

Your immature response is enough for me to stop further discussing this issue with you.

If taking a calculated risk is immature for you, you can have your "mature" discussion with someone else. That's basically what I told you in another thread some 2 days ago.

[Armen]

Armen, your thinking is like a chess game where pawns get sacrificed all the time and never complain. But in real life a pawn sacrifice is not always recommended, particularly in a free and democratic country pawns should be respected. Sacrificing pawns is morally wrong and may cause big troubles for the king, even his throne.

Sasun, can you show me a country whose strategic interests are at stake that is not making sacrifices.

[Sasun]

Sasun, can you show me a country whose strategic interests are at stake that is not making sacrifices.

It depends on what is meant by strategic interests and sacrifice. Generally a normal country will avoid at all costs making unnecessary human sacrifices. But even if all countries did not avoid human sacrifices that would still be wrong.

In case of Iraq war, Spain's and Philippines' examples prove that such human sacrifices are wrong. These are countries that have stronger ties with the US than Armenia, and they were supporting the US campaign in more significant ways that Armenia plans to. What Armenia wants to do can only make a symbolic difference. The US will continue to have oil interests and its relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia will be formed based on that (and other factors that are independent of Armenia's sending a small platoon to Iraq). The only good thing that I can see is that the pro-Armenian lobbyists will have one more reason to justify their demands of helping Armenia. Even that effect is questionable.

[Sasun]

Your immature response is enough for me to stop further discussing this issue with you.

I don't think there is immaturity, its just difference in political views and attitudes.

[Vigil]

The way I see it is that as long as the United States depends on foreign oil, by default, it will always side with Armenia's geopolitical rivals. If Armenia sides with the United States, Armenia will eventually be used as a bargaining chip to fill America's belly. So, in the short run you will see Artsahk (Karabagh) being returned to Azerbaijan and in the long run you will see Turkish influence increasing in Armenia. I don't know about you, but I would rather be under the supervision of Russia rather then Turkey.

 

Furthermore, Russia needs Armenia more then the United States. The United States has no reason to be in the Caucasus like equally Russia has no right to influence Mexico to geopolitically drift from the United States. By joining with the United States we will solidify her monopoly over the Caucasus, thus, if Armenia succumbs to whoring herself out to America we shall soon find ourselves fighting over the scraps of Israel, Turkey, and the United States. Naturally, the larger portion of the scraps will be given to Azerbaijan and Georgia first, while the "left over of the left over" will be given to Armenia.

 

Basically, if we join the "United States" bandwagon we will be last in line. Armenia must remain with Russia or else our national interests will become only second to the oil interests of the United States.

[Armen]

Sasun

It depends on what is meant by strategic interests and sacrifice. Generally a normal country will avoid at all costs making unnecessary human sacrifices. But even if all countries did not avoid human sacrifices that would still be wrong.

 

By strategic interest I mean the geo-political setting in th South Caucasus, which has significatly changed since the events in Georgia. Putin is now facing the dilema of chosing sides beween Armenia and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan by making pro-Western steps is pressuring Russia to decrease its assistance to Armenia. If Armenia displays total agreement with Russia's actions the Russian military elite may pressure Putin to influence Armenia on Karabagh, so that Azerbaijan stays in Russian sphere of influence. This is the reason of Azerbaijan's latest war retoric and shootings on the border. Armenia must show Russia that it is not going to stay calm if Russia chooses to change its position.

By sacrifice I mean sacrifice.

 

In case of Iraq war, Spain's and Philippines' examples prove that such human sacrifices are wrong. These are countries that have stronger ties with the US than Armenia, and they were supporting the US campaign in more significant ways that Armenia plans to.

 

The contrubution that I meanting can not be compared to those of Spain and the Philippines.

 

What Armenia wants to do can only make a symbolic difference. The US will continue to have oil interests and its relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia will be formed based on that (and other factors that are independent of Armenia's sending a small platoon to Iraq). The only good thing that I can see is that the pro-Armenian lobbyists will have one more reason to justify their demands of helping Armenia. Even that effect is questionable.

 

I think the reason I meantion above is worth it. Maybe I went too far by mentioning a regiment but our displayed willingness to cooperate with the U.S. in an issue of U.S. concern is necessary at the present.

 

 

Edit: fixed the quotes

Edited August 6, 2004 by Sasun

[Vigil]

By strategic interest I mean the geo-political setting in th South Caucasus, which has significatly changed since the events in Georgia. Putin is now facing the dilema of chosing sides beween Armenia and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan by making pro-Western steps is pressuring Russia to decrease its assistance to Armenia. If Armenia displays total agreement with Russia's actions the Russian military elite may pressure Putin to influence Armenia on Karabagh, so that Azerbaijan stays in Russian sphere of influence. This is the reason of Azerbaijan's latest war retoric and shootings on the border. Armenia must show Russia that it is not going to stay calm if Russia chooses to change its position.

By sacrifice I mean sacrifice.

 

In this scenario, Armenia is screwed both ways. If Armenia sides with the United States, we lose, and if Russia succumbs to Azerbaijan, we lose. The better of the two evils in this case would be to play the Untied States and Russia into the middle and pick the side with the less losses.

 

In both scenarios our national interests will be used as a bargaining chip, however, keep in mind that the oil interests of the United States have more influence over the foreign policy of the United States opposed to the geopolitical interests of Russia. Russia only wants to strengthen her influence in that region to counter the aggressive imperialistic actions of the Untied States. The United State is across the Atlantic, it has no right to meddle in the affairs of parts of the world that are not directly connected to her.

 

I think the reason I meantion above is worth it. Maybe I went too far by mentioning a regiment but our displayed willingness to cooperate with the U.S. in an issue of U.S. concern is necessary at the present.

 

Armen, does Armenia need to have a dialogue with the United States? Yes, of course, but would Armenia benefit by siding with the United States as opposed to Russia? No, the scenario would not be much different. If Russia is pro Azerbaijan, equally, the United States is pro Turkey and Israel. Turkey will influence the United States to support Azerbaijan on one end, while Russia’s fear of isolation will force her to support Azerbaijan on the other.

Edited August 5, 2004 by Vigil

[Armen]

1. The better of the two evils in this case would be to play the Untied States and Russia into the middle and pick the side with the less losses.

 

2. The United State is across the Atlantic, it has no right to meddle in the affairs of parts of the world that are not directly connected to her.   

 

3. Armen, does Armenia need to have a dialogue with the United States? Yes, of course, but would Armenia benefit by siding with the United States as opposed to Russia? No, the scenario would not be much different. If Russia is pro Azerbaijan, equally, the United States is pro Turkey and Israel. Turkey will influence the United States to support Azerbaijan on one end, while Russia’s fear of isolation will force her to support Azerbaijan on the other.

1. To play a game you must first be in the game.

 

2. However, the U.S. is doing that already and no one displays the willingness to stop it.

 

3. Vigil, you're thinking in very maximalistic and rigid categories. Armenia does not have to take one side, U.S. or Russia, on all issues. There is soft power, there are personal interests of leaders and their team, there are temporary tactical steps that can be reversed and dozen of other factors that you push aside and look only at who likes whom. Azerbaijan is using very carefully desined strategy based on its natural endowments and we can potentially be outmaneuved if we do not address their step and the implications of these steps in the region in consistent manner.

Edited August 5, 2004 by ArmenSarg

[Vigil]

To play a game you must first be in the game.

 

Armenia will never be in the game because Armenia has nothing to offer to the United States except her willingness to kneel in favor American interests. The only reason the United States wants to coerce Armenia to join the monopoly is only because it wants to isolate the other regional power, which for now is Russia.

 

My entire argument is not that Armenia has something to offer, but rather, Armenian national interests will only become second to the United States consumer needs. The United States economy is heavily based on foreign oil, which, ultimately, influences her foreign policy. Historically, the United States has a track record of dropping allies or creating new alliances based on her need for foreign oil and Armenia is no exception.

 

However, Russia is playing a defensive game and or trying to pick up the pieces of a shattered empire. The only reason Russia views United States as a threat is because the United States is moving in on territory that has been under the regional influence of Russia.

 

In short, the United States just views Armenia as a bargaining chip to solidify her relationship with Azerbaijan. If Armenia kneels to the will of the United States then by default Artsahk and or AG claims go down the drain as well.

 

Furthermore, the fact that Turkey and Israel have a strong influence over the United States is another factor to consider. If we cut our ties with Russia for the Untied states we shall soon find ourselves under the direct influence of her allies as well. So, do not be suprised if Israel and Turkey (NATO) begin using Armenia for military assaults on Iran.

 

However, the U.S. is doing that already and no one displays the willingness to stop it.

 

Well, just because the U.S. is imperialistic does not mean we have to succumb to her will. Furthermore, countries like Iran, how ever much Islamic they may be, have successfully stopped her.

 

They have stopped the U.S. so well that they are ignoring the U.S. by working through Russia in order to gain western technology. Now, you may say that "well, Russian technology is obsolete", but keep in mind that the United States will provide the same if not a worse degree of technology to developing nations.

 

Furthermore, much of the outdated and obsolete arms and technology are sold through the U.S.'s regional partners like Turkey and Israel. So, my question to you is do you think Turkey and Israel will sell any reliable military and or technology that will benefit Armenia? I mean if we have to ignore Russia that would only mean that like Georgia we would have to buy our gear from Israel and Turkey, so, do you think they would support a strong Armenia?

 

See here is what you fail to understand is that Russia does not place a limit on what is sold to Armenia due to the fact that Armenia is not a threat to Russia, but a strong military Armenia is a direct threat to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Israel, and now Georgia (Due to regional disputes occurring in SO). This is why Russia is willing to strengthen Iran's regional power by providing her with the means to create nukes.

 

Armenia can flourish more quickly by clinging to Russia as opposed to the U.S. This is evident by the shear fact that Azerbaijan an oil producing nation has a more unstable economy compared with a landlocked Armenia. In fact Georgia has not improved her economy ever since she started working with the U.S. My point is that just because the U.S. is a more developed nation as opposed to Russia does not mean that the U.S. will provide a more rapid way towards a self sufficient Armenia.

 

 

Vigil, you're thinking in very maximalistic and rigid categories. Armenia does not have to take one side, U.S. or Russia, on all issues. There is soft power, there are personal interests of leaders and their team, there are temporary tactical steps that can be reversed and dozen of other factors that you push aside and look only at who likes whom.

 

How am I thinking in very maximalistic and rigid categories? The U.S. will use Armenia as a bargaining chip or have you forgotten what happened to the regimes in Iran and Iraq?

 

The United States will always push for the national interests of Turkey, Israel, Azerbaijan, and Georgia before those of Armenia. My entire argument is that once Armenia joins the U.S. it will be last in line.

 

Please, explain what dozen "factors" I am pushing aside? Are ignoring the fact that the U.S. was "upset" at Armenia for vetoing Turkey's turn to head the MINSK group next year? Yes, I am pretty sure you ignorant to the fact that the U.S. will always push for Turkish interests over the Armenian.

 

Armen, at this point it is much safer to bet on Russia then America.

 

Azerbaijan is using very carefully desined strategy based on its natural endowments and we can potentially be outmaneuved if we do not address their step and the implications of these steps in the region in consistent manner.

 

Yeah, they are using very “carefully and designed strategies” like butchering an Armenian officer in cold blood. Armen, can you please explain why the "democratic" U.S. has overlooked this action and in fact has gone on to label Azerbaijan as a democratic nation? Isn’t this a signal to you that the U.S. holds a bias view towards Armenia?

 

I agree with you that Armenia has to be flexible, but at this point it still needs Russia and Iran. Furthermore, the recent U.S. opposition towards the AG should be an indication that Turkey and Israel still hold a strong influence on the U.S.'s foreign policy.

Edited August 6, 2004 by Vigil

[joseph parikian]

So finaly we brought democracy to Iraq

is there any one that disagree with me

and Iraqs democracy is going to be the model followed by its naibors

we saved the Iraqi people from a dictator and deliver them into chaos

saddam is not killing the Iraqis any more

gues who is killing them

i said before the war that we are stepping into quick sands

this is going to be a long and bloody one

[Sasun]

By strategic interest I mean the geo-political setting in th South Caucasus, which has significatly changed since the events in Georgia. Putin is now facing the dilema of chosing sides beween Armenia and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan by making pro-Western steps is pressuring Russia to decrease its assistance to Armenia. If Armenia displays total agreement with Russia's actions the Russian military elite may pressure Putin to influence Armenia on Karabagh, so that Azerbaijan stays in Russian sphere of influence. This is the reason of Azerbaijan's latest war retoric and shootings on the border. Armenia must show Russia that it is not going to stay calm if Russia chooses to change its position.

By sacrifice I mean sacrifice.

What I meant is the sacrifice should be worth the interest pursued. Not all sacrifices are the same. If there is a human sacrifice the interest should be saving human lives. Sacrificing human lives for lesser gains such as material benefits or diplomatic benefits that do not clearly tie with sound security gains are wrong. The question is, do we really gain anything tangible in terms of security (meaning human lives) by risking human lives. I think the answer is no, and it looks like your answer is yes. Neither one of us can prove our points at this point, only time will show. My argument is that with such an insignificant support to the US military invasion which doesn't make any difference the US will not change its strategic preferences towards Armenia vs. Azerbaijan. If there is no power gain for the US from Armenia's actions it will not pay any price to favor Armenia in terms of power. From Armenia's support the US gains only in prestige, therefore it will only pay back on a similar level, not on the security level. We should not make human sacrifices if that will only help boost our international prestige (even that may not be true).

 

 

The contrubution that I meanting can not be compared to those of Spain and the Philippines.

That's right, and the expected benefit from a smaller contribution will be smaller, while the risk of loosing a human life is not necessarily lower.

 

To sum up my opinion on the question of Armenia's support for the US military actions, we can at most gain a temporary benefit which does not bear security implications for Armenia. This support may indicate to the US that our doors are open for potential new measures of military alliance. That would be a postitive effect, but on the other hand it would unnecessarily make Russia upset. Another advantage could be perhaps that we may gain an edge on the psycological and verbal war with Azerbaijan.

[Armat]

Armen

Who the hell are you to even think about risking thirty thousand Armenian lives in Iraq because some misguided principles, which are inherently on shaky grounds. You think this is emotional? Damm right emotional!! These people are the raminants of survivors of Armenian Genocide! And don’t need another misguided freshly hatched chick wanna be analyst endangering their families. Get a grip on reality! Check on real people and know that everyday I wash my kids and the thought of some irresponsible moron endangering their lives just infuriates my being. You said -

I disagree with you on what wisdom is. The lessons we learn do not mean that we should make conclusions along the same patterns

.How analytical and arrogantly removed from reality. Do you have much historical knowledge? Do you know that thousands of Armenians were slaughtered because of irresponsible people like you! Like I said earlier you are clue less about people’s right to live!!

Intelligent decision should and must be made when all information is funneled through and arrived on best possible decision on any given circumstance and not based on political ideology alone specially when the root of that ideology originated on shaky and dubious principles from a foreign country whose objectives are inherently serve to its purpose!Stop the slave mentality paradigims such as A,B,C countries act so we should act the same as well.Just what happened to free indipendant Armenia?or at least in the minds of some Armenians!

 

 

Armen you already displayed your shallowness of character and insight by saying you will disagree with me no matter what.

Suffering is not related?-Armat

Sure it is. I just don't like you personally and tend not to agree with you in any case.-Armen

This is much more revealing and furthermore you said the above because I edited my own post? Need we continue?

 

 

To moderators. I am sorry that this post is intense but the subject is too close to me to "discuss" in typical removed cold analytical method that hardly displays what we truly feel.

Edited August 7, 2004 by Armat

[Sasun]

Armat, you are too emotional in your last post and I think also unfair to Armen. I don't think he is trying to get Armenians killed, but what he believes should be done is good for our common goal. Although I disagree with his argument I would not conclude that it has anything to do with his personality. We all have our opinions about everything and to be honest, who cares about our opinions, even we don't care about our own opinions.

[Accelerated]

sorta relevant: - guess what industry he works in?

 

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/08/08/benjaminvanderford_wideweb__430x322.jpg

 

STORY

[Armen]

OK Sasun, it's started to develop. Beslan events and our depolyment came about the same time...

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Eurasianet Organization

Sept 5 2004

 

ARMENIAN MILITARY GEARS UP FOR IRAQ DEPLOYMENT

Armen Zakarian and Emil Danielyan: 9/05/04

A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL

 

Armenia will send a team of military officials to Iraq in September

that will prepare for the deployment of a small Armenian army

contingent in the war-torn country by the end of the year, a senior

official said September 3.

 

Deputy Defense Minister Artur Aghabekian told RFE/RL that the

delegation comprising commanders of the Armenian army's special

peace-keeping battalion and U.S.-funded demining center will "take a

close look at the location where our contingent will be stationed and

ascertain on the spot the tasks which it will perform."

 

"We expect that after the completion of all formalities the Armenian

contingent will leave for Iraq at the end of the autumn or at the

beginning of the winter to start carrying out its mission," he said,

confirming that it will be made up of U.S.-trained sappers, doctors

and a company of military truck drivers.

 

The chief of the army staff, Colonel-General Mikael Harutiunian, said

earlier that a total of about 50 Armenian servicemen will be sent to

Iraq. Aghabekian revealed that the non-combat military personnel will

be based in the central southern region of the country administered

by a Polish-led multinational force. He said Defense Minister Serzh

Sarkisian will pass a relevant official note to his Polish

counterpart during President Robert Kocharian's visit to Warsaw which

begins on Sunday.

 

The Polish government, which has 2,500 troops on the ground, is

facing strong domestic opposition to the military presence in Iraq

and is gradually scaling it back. In August Polish troops handed over

some of the zone they control to U.S. forces, including the restive

province of Najaf. More such handovers are expected next year.

 

Unlike NATO member Poland, Armenia did not back the U.S. invasion of

Iraq last year. Nonetheless, it decided in principle to join the

U.S.-led occupation force there shortly after the overthrow of Saddam

Hussein's regime. Official Yerevan has said it is undaunted by

continuing unrest in the embattled country where deadly bombings and

hostage taking are a common occurrence.

 

Over the past year Iraqi insurgents have kidnapped scores of foreign

nationals in a bid to force their countries to withdraw troops from

Iraq or stop other forms of cooperation with the Americans. At least

25 of them have already been killed by their captors.

 

Among the victims are three Turkish truck drivers whose bodies were

found on Thursday. Seven other truck drivers from India, Kenya and

Egypt were set free recently after their Kuwaiti employers paid a

$500,000 ransom to the hostage-takers.

 

The planned Armenian deployment could also put at greater risk the

lives of thousands of ethnic Armenians living in Iraq. Like other

Iraqi Christians, they have been regarded as another potential target

of the Islamist-led insurgency since August's wave of bomb attacks on

churches in Baghdad and Mosul. An Armenian Catholic church in Baghdad

was among five Christian worship sites hit by the coordinated

bombings that left 11 people dead.

 

The dispatch of the servicemen to Iraq will mark Armenia's second

military mission abroad. Thirty-three Armenian soldiers and officers

began the first such mission last February when they joined the

NATO-led peace-keeping force in the breakaway Serbian province of

Kosovo. Aghabekian said they will return home and be replaced by

another platoon of the Armenian peace-keeping battalion in the coming

days.

[Arpa]

It does say below that Dr. Munir Mardirosian is Armenain (catholic?) but no word about the other Armenians who have been seeking refuge in Syria and Hayastan.

BTW Munir is Arabic and it means enlightener/lusavorich, or in the least- enlightened/lusavorial.

 

Monday, Sep. 20, 2004

Iraq's Persecuted Christians

Members of one of Iraq's minority faiths face new repressions and discrimination after the fall of Saddam's regime

By CHRISTOPHER ALLBRITTON/ BAGHDAD

When Keis Isitfan headed home from work one recent night, he had reason to watch his back. As a laundry worker for the U.S. embassy inside Baghdad's green zone, he risked being attacked by insurgents targeting Iraqis who work for the U.S. But there was another source of anxiety: Isitfan, 27, is a Christian and, like others of his faith, is facing growing hostility from hard-line Islamic groups who accuse Christians of being sympathetic to the Western occupiers.

 

As Isitfan was driving home on Sept. 7, his worst fears came true. After he left the green zone, two cars pulled up alongside, and attackers inside opened fire. Four bullets hit Isitfan, who died on the street. His family, convinced Isitfan was killed for his faith, plans to flee the country. "Christians in Iraq are weak," says his sister Layla, a translator for the U.S. embassy. "All they can do is leave here, like we will do."

 

 

Between 10,000 and 30,000 of Iraq's 800,000 Christians have fled the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, according to Christian groups in Baghdad. Although Christians make up only about 3% of Iraq's 25 million people, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has said they account for about 20% of the refugees fleeing Iraq for Syria. They are escaping a climate of violence and a surging Islamic radicalism that have made the practice of their faith a deadly enterprise.

 

The worst moment came on Aug. 1 when Islamic insurgents — most likely connected with terrorist leader Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, according to Iraqi government officials — attacked five churches in Baghdad and Mosul with car bombs, killing a dozen people. While Muslim authorities in Iraq widely condemned those attacks, local Christians say security has continued to deteriorate. Says Layla Isitfan: "If I can't go to church because I'm scared, if I can't dress how I want, if I can't drink because it's against Islam, what kind of freedom is that?"

 

Like the larger insurgency targeting U.S. troops and the new Iraqi government, the campaign against Christians appears to be becoming more organized. Sa'ad Jusif, a Chaldean-Assyrian Christian, was kidnapped on Sept. 8, according to Dr. Munir Mardirosian, who heads a political party for Armenian Catholics in Baghdad. His captors showed him a list of 200 names, most of them Christian, and demanded to know where they lived. When he refused, he was hung from the ceiling and beaten with iron pipes. He was released only when his family paid a $50,000 ransom on Sept. 13. He left the next day for Jordan. Says Mardirosian: "If they opened the doors to America or Australia, I can say there would not be one Christian left in Iraq."

 

The violence in Iraq threatens one of the world's oldest Christian communities, dating back 2,000 years. The population includes Chaldean Assyrians (Eastern-rite Catholics who recognize the Pope's authority); Assyrians, who form an independent church; Syrian Catholics; and Armenian Catholics. Under Saddam, Christians coexisted more or less amicably with the Muslim majority. Easter services were broadcast on state television, and Christians were allowed to own and operate liquor stores.

 

Christians today keep a low profile. While most of the anti-Christian violence has been committed by a small group of Islamic extremists, Christians say they are encountering rising anger among their Muslim neighbors. Layla Isitfan says taxi drivers have insulted her when they realized she was Christian, in some cases saying all Christians should be shot and killed. At work, she wears a Muslim head scarf and tells colleagues that she is Muslim. Raja Elias, a Syrian Catholic in Baghdad, says that recently a neighbor began to dump garbage on her front porch. When Elias complained, the neighbor said, "You are a Christian, and I can put it inside your house if I want to."

 

With so many other problems to contend with, the new Iraqi government hasn't done much to protect Christians. Businesses traditionally owned by Christians, such as liquor stores and beauty salons, have been regularly vandalized by Islamic fundamentalists who some suspect may be loyal to Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Elias, who ran a dental clinic in central Baghdad before the war, recently asked the Health Ministry to reopen it. But she was told to work in Sadr City, the seething Shi'ite slum dominated by al-Sadr's men. So her clinic remains shuttered. "I think they will come for me sooner or later," she says.

 

For Iraqis like Elias, the best option is to leave. Many Iraqi Christians say their reversal of fortune has been especially disappointing given the backing the Bush Administration receives from evangelical Christians. "Why did the U.S. come here?" asks Mardirosian, the Armenian-Catholic leader. "To protect the Christians or allow others to kill them?"

 

With reporting by Samantha Appleton/Baghdad

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2004 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Privacy Policy