So have we all got to whisper stuff where these muslim dudes are concerned.

eek. · Sep 15, 2006

I realise we have to keep an eye on a trade off with the KKK type neocon dudes but if the Islamics can't take a ribbing then they're all going to end up isolated as far as the west is concerned.

The probabilities are that things are more polarised nowadays, which means the bad guys have an advantage.

Our bad guys, and their bad guys.

Watch out for the bad guys.

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

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>Pope 'meant no offence' to Islam

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

Muslims in Pakistan staged an anti-Papal protest

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The Vatican has denied that Pope Benedict XVI intended any offence to the Muslim religion, after a speech touching on the concept of holy war.
Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.
The remarks have angered clerics and commentators around the Muslim world.
However, the Vatican said the Pope had wanted to make clear that he rejected violence motivated by religion. 
The pontiff had not intended to offend Muslims, the Vatican said.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=208 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>HAVE YOUR SAY

Pope Benedict probably should self-criticise Christianity's violent past before commenting on the other faith

John Lin, Illinois

Send us your comments
Vatican braced for anger

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
"It certainly wasn't the intention of the Pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and of Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers," said chief Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi in a statement.
"It is clear that the Holy Father's intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam."
But the statement has failed to quell criticism. In developments around the world:

Pakistan summoned the Vatican's ambassador to express regret over the remarks, as parliament passed a resolution condemning the comments
The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said the remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world"
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya condemned the Pope's comments
In Iraq, the comments were criticised at Friday prayers by followers of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr
Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkey's ruling AK party, likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini
The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference said it regretted the Pope's remarks

Violence and faith
The controversy comes on an important day for the Vatican, with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, former Archbishop of Genoa, taking over as secretary of state.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=208 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>

The remarks do not express correct understanding of Islam

Mohammed Mahdi Akef
Muslim Brotherhood

Key excerpts: Pope's speech
In quotes: Muslim reaction
In pictures: Muslim anger

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Correspondents say Pope Benedict, who has been closeted with his chief advisers at his summer residence near Rome, is upset at the way in which his remarks have been interpreted.
The Vatican is seriously concerned that the protests might develop into violence directed at the tiny city state, says the BBC's David Willey in Rome.
But preparations for the Pope's forthcoming visit to Turkey, a predominantly Muslim secular nation, in November, are going ahead as planned.
In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.
Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=208 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>READ THE SPEECH

Read the Pope's speech [37KB]

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul". "The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech. "Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5349578.stm

eek. · Sep 15, 2006

...then again...I notice that you lot in the USA have to whisper stuff where the Jewish dudes are concerned...

No wonder we're in such a bloody mess.

ssshhhh...you might offend someone.

JDeuce · Sep 16, 2006

Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

Yeah...he quoted someone from the 14th centrury. And the reason there weren't any more Byzantine Emperors after the mid-15th century is because the Turks killed the last one when they stormed Christian Constantinople and converted the Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

Given the historical record of what happened when islam met the Byzantine Empire...I think it's pretty hard to condemn what Manuel II Paleogus said.

The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said the remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world"

Then show us what Islam is about. Not through anger and violence...but through peace. Condemn your radicals; stand up to them, and then maybe the rest of the world will begin to see a "Religion of Peace."

The truth is that militant islam is a very real malignancy, and someone needs to do something about it. So far, the moderate muslim world seems to lack the stomach to police itself except under the threat of U.S. military force. I'd love to see moderate muslims do something about this, but they appear unwilling. All we need remember is the horrible violence over a couple of cartoons to remind us what we're dealing with.

DungBeetle · Sep 16, 2006

Ya that's right. Muslims in America don't seem to mind so much that their religion has been taken over by a bunch of nut jobs. Their silence say more to me than their words. the remarks aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world? Everything seems to anger the Islamic world. I'm sick of 'em. They cut the heads off of their women if they don't cover their head and face, but a couple of the 9-11 hijackers were frequent customers of a titty bar in Boston before they killed themselves for their god. Our solders found porno in Saddams palace. But don't let him catch you without that head covered, or you dead. Hypocrites!! That religion has some real problem, and the whole world is suffering because of it.

Railbird · Sep 16, 2006

Satan is a counterfeiter, islam is satans great weapon.

Coldweather · Sep 16, 2006

I believe all Muslims are dangerous and need to be shipped to another planet so the Earth will be safe.

:suomi:

jeckll · Sep 17, 2006

Coldweather said:
I believe all Muslims are dangerous and need to be shipped to another planet so the Earth will be safe.

:smoking:

DELSOLII · Sep 17, 2006

God forbid that something happened to the Pope that was terrorist related. That would start WWIII.

This was a bad thing that happened today and will not go away anytime soon.

deucedeuce · Sep 17, 2006

what muslims are doing now and have done is nothing compared to all the Christian religions have done in the past. Frankly i have never understood religion and i doubt i ever will.

bblight · Sep 17, 2006

deucedeuce said:
what muslims are doing now and have done is nothing compared to all the Christian religions have done in the past. Frankly i have never understood religion and i doubt i ever will.

What I don't understand is how you can equate something Christianity did hundreds of years ago to attrocities that Muslims are committing today.

The world was a different and every barbaric place back then.

Does this mean that all women should wear burkas because Arab women have worn burkas for hundreds of years?

docmercer · Sep 17, 2006

Dung Beetle said:
Ya that's right. Muslims in America don't seem to mind so much that their religion has been taken over by a bunch of nut jobs. Their silence say more to me than their words. the remarks aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world? Everything seems to anger the Islamic world. I'm sick of 'em. They cut the heads off of their women if they don't cover their head and face, but a couple of the 9-11 hijackers were frequent customers of a titty bar in Boston before they killed themselves for their god. Our solders found porno in Saddams palace. But don't let him catch you without that head covered, or you dead. Hypocrites!! That religion has some real problem, and the whole world is suffering because of it.

I think you generalize a bit. When the attacks occured in Jordan last year, over 80 muslim leaders in the US alone signed a joint condemnation along with over 500 in Europe. Doesn't excuse the savagry of those who kill in the name of Islam or Mohamad or whatever, but to say that there is silence is wrong.

There was plenty of supposed silence in the Christian community during the IRA bombings.

I'm pretty sure Saddam didn't enforce those strict Muslim rules about head scarves etc either. If he preached the virtues of a religion and then snapped off to some forbidden porno in the back room, he'd hardly be the first hypocrite hiding behind religion.

bblight · Sep 17, 2006

ktvvegas said:
I think you generalize a bit. When the attacks occured in Jordan last year, over 80 muslim leaders in the US alone signed a joint condemnation along with over 500 in Europe. Doesn't excuse the savagry of those who kill in the name of Islam or Mohamad or whatever, but to say that there is silence is wrong.

There was plenty of supposed silence in the Christian community during the IRA bombings.

I'm pretty sure Saddam didn't enforce those strict Muslim rules about head scarves etc either. If he preached the virtues of a religion and then snapped off to some forbidden porno in the back room, he'd hardly be the first hypocrite hiding behind religion.

ktv - you are such a hypocritical bullshit artist!

When the attacks occured in Jordan last year, over 80 muslim leaders in the US alone signed a joint condemnation along with over 500 in Europe.

When these Muslim animals attack other Muslims as they did in Jordan, the Muslim "leaders" open their mouths in condemnation - but what about when they murder, mutilate and blow up "infidels"? Not a word from any of them!

There was plenty of supposed silence in the Christian community during the IRA bombings.

Again - that's a crock of shit - there was widespread ecumenical and secular condemnation every time there was an IRA attrocity - I'll agree that the IRA position was over represented - but the violence was not supported the way it is in the Muslim community.

Why are you left wing bigots so anti-Christian - and why do you always have to support and seemingly prefer a bunch of murdering Muslim zealots to peace loving Christians.

docmercer · Sep 17, 2006

bblight said:
ktv - you are such a hypocritical bullshit artist!

When the attacks occured in Jordan last year, over 80 muslim leaders in the US alone signed a joint condemnation along with over 500 in Europe.

When these Muslim animals attack other Muslims as they did in Jordan, the Muslim "leaders" open their mouths in condemnation - but what about when they murder, mutilate and blow up "infidels"? Not a word from any of them!

There was plenty of supposed silence in the Christian community during the IRA bombings.

Again - that's a crock of shit - there was widespread ecumenical and secular condemnation every time there was an IRA attrocity - I'll agree that the IRA position was over represented - but the violence was not supported the way it is in the Muslim community.

Why are you left wing bigots so anti-Christian - and why do you always have to support and seemingly prefer a bunch of murdering Muslim zealots to peace loving Christians.

I guess its to be expected you'd be all riled up. Sunday cross burnings tend to get the juices flowing - even in the elderly.

There were condemnations after the London bombing attacks as well. The problem being that (much like the condemnatioins against the IRA) - people are more apt to listen to what they WANT to hear and ignore anything else that doesn't suit their position (we're ALL guilty of this at some point - myself included)

I'm by no means anti-Christian. For a combat veteran, you certainly work the crybaby victim routine quite well on behalf of your sect. War on Xmas..War on Christian Values...War on the cancellation of Matlock.

"and why do you always have to support and seemingly prefer a bunch of murdering Muslim zealots to peace loving Christians." --- I appreciate that you're riled up and 4 hours late for your 4pm Dennys special, but that kind of rhetoric just makes you seem like a party line blowhard.

ScottL · Sep 17, 2006

"When these Muslim animals attack other Muslims as they did in Jordan, the Muslim "leaders" open their mouths in condemnation - but what about when they murder, mutilate and blow up "infidels"? Not a word from any of them!"

It was very telling watching the average citizens protest that day, in what their signs said. They didn't say, "NO TERRORISM!" What they said was, "NO TERRORISM IN JORDAN!" The meaning was unmistakable.

docmercer · Sep 17, 2006

Scott L said:
It was very telling watching the average citizens protest that day, in what their signs said. They didn't say, "NO TERRORISM!" What they said was, "NO TERRORISM IN JORDAN!" The meaning was unmistakable.

Is it that much different than people believing that the war on terror began on 911 because it was on US soil?

barman · Sep 17, 2006

"Satan is a counterfeiter, islam is satans great weapon."

SH: lol

ScottL · Sep 17, 2006

KTV,

I don't get the correlation between the two points, but I agree one would have to be lost in a haze to think 9/11 was a start. For the attackers it was the culmination of years of planning, and an inspiration to carry on for their followers. For many Americans it was a wake up call, but I was expecting it.

My point was about the hypocrisy in the Muslim world regarding the BS claims of "freedom fighting" and "resistance." What the signs I mentioned told me was Jordanians were OK with terrorism outside their own borders. Like next door.

docmercer · Sep 17, 2006

Scott L said:
KTV,

I don't get the correlation between the two points, but I agree one would have to be lost in a haze to think 9/11 was a start. For the attackers it was the culmination of years of planning, and an inspiration to carry on for their followers. For many Americans it was a wake up call, but I was expecting it.

My point was about the hypocrisy in the Muslim world regarding the BS claims of "freedom fighting" and "resistance." What the signs I mentioned told me was Jordanians were OK with terrorism outside their own borders. Like next door.

Of course they (Jordanians) were quiet about bombings elsewhere. The NIMBY concept isn't unique to rich Democrats who don't want wind farms obscuring their ocean view. It ties into what I said actually. We were ok with training the Mujahadeen with SAM's (which subsequently were used to down commerical jets, not just military). We (by we I mean the CIA) trained Afghani's in such time honored military techniques of car bombing and smuggling of weapons into "medium value military targets" (translation - bringing bombs into cities and attacking bars frequented by soldiers). We were more than ok with the Nicaraguan "freedom fighters" (some of which just happened to employ terror techniques).

The hypocrisy you talk about is not unique to one part of the world.

ScottL · Sep 17, 2006

Maybe so....but you are talking about a government making decisions to support one side over another in past wars, in trying to help the side whose victory we believe to be beneficial for us, mistakenly or not. And I am talking about tolerance/cheering by Jordanians when Jews are exploded by Islamic fanatics when they don't realize that they reap what they sow, and that global jihad cannot be contained. Evil is evil, whether it's a deli in Tel Aviv, a church in India, a train in Madrid, or a resort in Jordan.

I don't think it's hypocritical to hope in 1980 that the Muslims defeat the Russians, or Hussein defeats Iran. A mistake? Apparently. But not hypocrisy.

xpanda · Sep 17, 2006

JDeuce said:
Then show us what Islam is about. Not through anger and violence...but through peace. Condemn your radicals; stand up to them, and then maybe the rest of the world will begin to see a "Religion of Peace."

Well, so far, so good. A nun killed in Somalia. Two churches burned in Palestine.

WTF would a Muslim care what a Catholic leader says about them?

So have we all got to whisper stuff where these muslim dudes are concerned.

bushman

bushman

New member

And the Thunder Rolls...

The Great Govenor of California

Member

New member

She's either funnin' or bunnin' or else I'm runnin

New member

Is that a moonbat in my sites?

RX Senior

Is that a moonbat in my sites?

RX Senior

Member

RX Senior

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit

Member

RX Senior

Member

hangin' about

Forum statistics

Share this page