# Muslim anger follows Pope's comments



## aluc (15 Sep 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158313811049&call_pageid=1144159007037



Muslim anger follows Pope's comments
In unanimous vote, Pakistan's parliament demands apology
Sep. 15, 2006. 12:17 PM
REUTERS

CAIRO — Muslims deplored today remarks on Islam by Pope Benedict, and many of them said the Catholic leader should apologise in person to dispel the impression that he had joined a campaign against their religion.....

see link above for more .....




> The Pope on Tuesday repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said everything Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
> 
> The Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added "violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".




These critics are hypocrates.....what he said seems to make sense....is this not what is going on today in the world?  You know....I really don't see what the upraor is all about, I guess the truth must hurt.  Que  the mass protests, complete with the beating chests, derogatory placards against the west and Christianity ,  disciminatory chanting, firing gunshots in the air....we all know the drill.  The seemingly growing support for Jihad  in muslim nations around the globe kind of prove his case for him, doesn't it?  Islam may not be about violence and jihad, however, do we see any mass protests, any statements from the multitude of Muslim/Arab groups really denouncing this behaviour......  And I'm not agreeing with him because I'm "catholic". I've distanced myself from the Church years ago.  




Also....

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158313812313&call_pageid=1144159007037
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158313810984&call_pageid=1144159007037


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2006)

Are they paranoid or feeling the 'guilt' in identifying with the statement: "violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul"?


----------



## Taylor187 (15 Sep 2006)

Taken from the T-Star article:



> In his speech, the Pope appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that the early Muslims spread their religion by violence.



Is that not what they do now? Kidnap people and force them to convert at gun point? So they are protesting that the Pope forgot to mention that that's how they go about spreading Islam now too, but at gun point instead of the tip of a sword?

I'm not a religious person at all, but I hope the Pope sticks to his guns and tells the world to stick it where the sun dont shine. He read a quote from a Byzantine Emperor, not dictated his thoughts on the religion.

My two cents.


----------



## Kalatzi (15 Sep 2006)

It'll be interesting to see which of their "Religious" and/or political leaders, support the pope's position, if any of them do


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Sep 2006)

decoy said:
			
		

> Point being - the Pope has no moral high ground; no religious instuition does...these are just the words of a frail old man heading up a backward and outdated organization.



Regardless of your point, the fact is he is right about Mohammed's message of spreading the religion at sword point and all the rest, you can call the Church Hypocritical and the Pope and old man but it doesn't make him or his statements any less accurate of factual.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Sep 2006)

decoy said:
			
		

> The Muslim world, and indeed, the whole world, shouldn't be giving credence to the hypocritical words of the Catholic church,


but it does. So there!



> who have killied, maimed and murdered more people than any religious institution...


uhhh, the Catholic Church *IS* a religious institution



> and don't forget the child molestation...


which is unlike the child molestation found throughout the Islamic world? Thursdays are a bad time to be a boy-child in Afghanistan.



> these are just the words of a frail old man


 Sexism and age-ism? Shame, shame, shame. There's nothing wrong with being a frail old man. I hope to be one myself, someday.



> heading up a backward and outdated organization.


 and contesting another backward and outdated loosely-affiliated, highly dis-organized organization.

However anyone feels about the Catholic Church, the facts remain that the Muslim faith propagated itself via fire and the sword. I'd like to see if his speech mentioned the Catholic Church propagating ITSELF through the same means, however. Just for shits and giggles.

All told: meh.

edited: typo


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2006)

decoy said:
			
		

> The Muslim world, and indeed, the whole world, shouldn't be giving credence to the hypocritical words of the Catholic church, who have killied, maimed and murdered more people than any religious institution...and don't forget the child molestation...



Seems someone is bitter and twisted and mixed up on their facts.  Yes the Catholic Church has done many of those things, but much of what it did is ancient history.  I would not be so defeatist, Anti-West or such an 'Apologist' as to state that the Catholic Church "killed, maimed and murdered more people than any religious institution" when all religions seem to hold equal credit in that category, and some like Islam seem to be, in fact actually are, still conducting those practices against their 'enemies'.



			
				decoy said:
			
		

> Point being - the Pope has no moral high ground; no religious instuition does...these are just the words of a frail old man heading up a backward and outdated organization.



If the Pope isn't permitted the moral high ground, who are you to do so?  Not being a RC, I find it fascinating how many turn into fanatics when religion becomes a topic, even those who claim to not hold any religious beliefs.


----------



## JackD (15 Sep 2006)

ohh don't worry, some obscure cartoonist will soon do another cartoon series and then it will be fury, chanting etc towards cartoonists again - or maybe someone will write some rather boring, high-faluting novel and then there will be fury, chanting etc towards novelists -or someone will build a school, or... ad infinatum...


----------



## foo32 (15 Sep 2006)

I read the transcript of the Pope's speech.  I admit it is hard to deduce what point he is trying to make, since he tends not to say anything straight out. However, I'm reasonably sure he was trying persuade his audience (and perhaps a broader audience of Muslims) that violence was incompatible with faith and God.  Whatever... Being a public and influential figure he should have known better than to make even a single statement easily taken out of context -- especially concerning Islam in light of world politics.

Still, you would have to be brain-dead to miss the irony that any implication that Islam has a problem with intolerance and violence almost immediately sparks cries for murderous retribution, and that far too many of the intellectual leaders of Islamic societies quickly resort to disingenuous, dishonest, and sometimes inflammatory public statements at any opportunity. Until these societies grow up, it is hard to see how Western countries can amicably coexist with them. With events like this becoming more common, I find it rather worrying that Pakistan (for example) is just a coup away from being a nuclear-armed fanatical Islamic state.


----------



## orange.paint (15 Sep 2006)

Knights of Columbus.(Terrorist)
Although not a issue now during my Gradfathers day in Newfoundland there was much secular violence between protestant and Catholics.
I wouldn't say it was THAT long ago.

Maybe its a plot to get people back to the church through hate of Muslims.And now during these times we live in it just may work.


----------



## Trinity (15 Sep 2006)

decoy said:
			
		

> Paracowboy - I'm not disagreeing with you at all!


well

then pick a side.. because para doesn't quite agree with you.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Sep 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> because para doesn't quite agree with you.


let's face it, I don't quite agree with anyone. In any sense of the phrase.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Knights of Columbus.(Terrorist)
> Although not a issue now during my Gradfathers day in Newfoundland there was much secular violence between protestant and Catholics.
> I wouldn't say it was THAT long ago.



I could say the same thing about PEI thirty or forty years ago too.......but they were not killing people in order to convert them to Catholism like they did during the Spanish Inquisition.  Heck.....there is still sectarian violence in Ireland......but again it is not to convert one religion to another with penalty of death if you don't comply.


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2006)

I think decoys's point was that the Catholic Church, and its figure head are not the most credible people to be lecturing the world on what's right or wrong.

Pope Benedict may be right but his credibility doesen't lend well to getting the message out.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2006)

So what you are saying is "the Sins of the Father's Father's Father" will also be the "Sins of the 'Son'!" ?


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is "the Sins of the Father's Father's Father" will also be the "Sins of the 'Son'!" ?



Nope. Didn't say that.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Sep 2006)

Wow, the "muslim world" is upset when someone points out their faults! :
Decoy don't let your anti-RC feelings colour your opinion. : I personally give far more creedence to his opinion then the Muslims who seem to "perpetually angry" about anything and everything.


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is "the Sins of the Father's Father's Father" will also be the "Sins of the 'Son'!" ?



That kinda fits right in with Islam and the whole tribal thing too. 

Rather than this thread degenerate into This Religion/That Religion thingy...

I don't honestly think there is an organized religion out there that has not "converted souls" in one hideous way or another. The mock anger is more about territorial credibility than it is about the sins of anybody. 

my 1 cent...I need the other


----------



## paracowboy (15 Sep 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I don't honestly think there is an organized religion out there that has not "converted souls" in one hideous way or another.


to the best of my knowledge, Buddhism has never forcibly converted anyone. If anyone (and I've offered this before with no takers) knows of any instances otherwise, I'd be interested to hear of them.



> The mock anger is more about territorial credibility than it is about the sins of anybody.


 yup



			
				decoy said:
			
		

> I give the Roman Catholic Church and The Islamic fundamentalists equal suspicion and distrust.


 yup


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Sep 2006)

The Pope's point was about scriptural passages promoting violence in conversion of non Muslims. In the Koran you have to ask three times to convert someone to Islam, after which if they refuse you must kill them. You must also kill them if you think the conversion was not sincere. You must also kill apostate (lapsed or fallen) Muslims. There have been brief periods in history where Islam has been reasonable and tolerant, like the Mughal period during Akbar and Shah Jahan, but there is always a hard liner like Aurangzeb who uses the Koran to whip up support for old school war and murder under the guise of religion. The Koran is much easier to use for these purposes because Mohammed was not a prince of peace but the General of an army who put his religion in place by the sword. Makes the whole peace and love thing ring a little hollow. Unlike Christians, Muslims can be as warlike as they want and not be the least bit hypocritical. 

I can understand why they want it both ways, all the cool kids have peaceful saintly saviors. Hard to put halo's on a tribal horde laying siege to a city and plundering it, even if it is for God.

My demented 2 cents,...


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> to the best of my knowledge, Buddhism has never forcibly converted anyone.



Never thought of them...you are right...the only thing I've seen them do is to themselves.


----------



## North Star (15 Sep 2006)

Not being a Roman Catholic, I decided to look the speech up and found it on the BBC. I thought it was pretty good and well-balanced. Too bad fundamentalist Islamists are using it to fuel misinformation in order to garner support on "Arab street" for their murderous campaign, like they did with the Danish cartoons. 

As for the "pot calling the kettle black" argument, if an Islamic scholar made a pointed criticism of the RC church, would Catholics be in such an uproar? Probably not. Sure, the RC church has some sketchy things in its past (my Northern Irish Prot side talking) but you can't really judge an institution wholly on its past actions. Its current status also has to be taken into account and seeing the charitable work the RC church has undertaken, combined with its attempts at inter-faith dialogue, reconciliation, social activism (regardless of your opinion of its "backwardness"), and pacifism, it's not doing half-bad relative to others.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Sep 2006)

decoy said:
			
		

> The Muslim world, and indeed, the whole world, shouldn't be giving credence to the hypocritical words of the Catholic church, who have killied, maimed and murdered more people than any religious institution...and don't forget the child molestation...
> 
> Point being - the Pope has no moral high ground; no religious instuition does...these are just the words of a frail old man heading up a backward and outdated organization.


Stop.  Please stop.
Thank you


----------



## Trinity (15 Sep 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Stop.  Please stop.
> Thank you



+1 
ty garvin


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Sep 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Never thought of them...you are right...the only thing I've seen them do is to themselves.



This is a good point to note the differences between religions. The Buddha said that all religion was to be respected. Tried to destroy the Caste system as much as he was able saying ones actions dictated ones class, not ones birth. He forbade the slave trade as a livelihood for Buddhists. He allowed the ordaining of women, against public opinion. Made rules for the ethical treatment of animals and banned animal sacrifice which was very popular at the time. He respected warriors and understood politics, he was a Prince and new well the ways of war. But he thought that violence rarely solved problems and often made them worse. He described it as an angry man picking up a hot coal from a fire with his bare hand and throwing it at his enemy, both of whom get burned. He also said that hate never dispelled hate. As well the Buddha asked for his students to be sceptical, as wisdom comes from experience, not mindless dogma.

Rather difficult to turn that into a platform for a holy war, lol

edit: I should also say that it would have been the most populous religion on earth today if not for repeated Muslim invasions of India/Afghanistan etc, the murder of countless monks and the plundering of thousands of monasteries and universities.


----------



## warrickdll (15 Sep 2006)

Could depend on how you view the conflict in Sri Lanka. 

Forced conversion to Buddhism might not figure highly but military forces have been used (or backed). If you have time to waste you could always dig up the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (but again that isn't about conversion).


----------



## DBA (15 Sep 2006)

The Japanese mixture of Buddhism and Shinto spread a lot of grief during the first half of the 20th century. It doesn't have to be the actual teachings of a religion that cause the problem. Its when a movement decides their way is so beneficial to mankind or is the will of a God that any actions to spread it are justified. Implicit in this is a sense of superiority that others are somehow inferior for not already accepting the truth. 

The Pope's speech from what I read of it is a renunciation of the use of force to spread a religion and included supporting religious arguements to that effect. The Pope has already made several formal apologies for actions during the Crusades and other periods. No such apology has appeared from the Muslim side for the Jihads against countless countries across the Middle East and Europe. 

From my viewpoint it's pretty obvious a large number of Muslims if not a large percentage of them view speading Islam by the sword as a good thing. They believe the world will be a better place and more pleasing to God if all non-Muslims were brought to heal. So them using violence is the will of God and our use of violence is against the will of God.


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Sep 2006)

DBA said:
			
		

> The Japanese mixture of Buddhism and Shinto spread a lot of grief during the first half of the 20th century. It doesn't have to be the actual teachings of a religion that cause the problem. Its when a movement decides their way is so beneficial to mankind or is the will of a God that any actions to spread it are justified. Implicit in this is a sense of superiority that others are somehow inferior for not already accepting the truth.
> 
> The Pope's speech from what I read of it is a renunciation of the use of force to spread a religion and included supporting religious arguements to that effect. The Pope has already made several formal apologies for actions during the Crusades and other periods. No such apology has appeared from the Muslim side for the Jihads against countless countries across the Middle East and Europe.
> 
> From my viewpoint it's pretty obvious a large number of Muslims if not a large percentage of them view speading Islam by the sword as a good thing. They believe the world will be a better place and more pleasing to God if all non-Muslims were brought to heal. So them using violence is the will of God and our use of violence is against the will of God.



Well said. Personally I think this clash was inevitable, but I expected it to start 60 to 100 years from now. Theocracy doesn't play well with Western Democracy. We look like we are having way too much fun. Hard to explain after awhile why God does not smote us like he should for our perverted hedonism, strangely he seems to reward us for our tolerance,....Like it was a good thing or something.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2006)

If they would riot in the streets over cartoons then I am amazed they havent marched on the Vatican. What is very clear is that the muslim street doesnt believe in freedom of speech.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Sep 2006)

-"As for the "pot calling the kettle black" argument, *if an Islamic scholar made a pointed criticism of the RC church,* would Catholics be in such an uproar?"-

  They do.... I believe they call it "Thursday".


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2006)

Friday would be a better day. ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Sep 2006)

First of all Buddhism is not a religion it's a philosophy. 
They don't believe in a God per se. If you want to have a debate on spirituality or religion that is probably the seeds of a different thread....and let's get a few people who know what they are talking about.

Religion is a major force in human endeavors....it is people searching for the answers to ultimate questions (why am I here? does my life have meaning? etc); a truth which is bigger than all of us. Yes it is and has been highjacked for a lot of bad stuff over the centuries...but it has also done a lot of good...our public education system, charitable causes, compassion for our neighbours and enemies....etc etc

The basis of Western society is the law of Moses and the teachings of Christ. LIke it or not folks that is why Western Society is at the point we are at....when we stray from it we get Hitlers and Mussolinis and Stalins.....kinda like the Taliban!


----------



## Nemo888 (16 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> First of all Buddhism is not a religion it's a philosophy.
> They don't believe in a God per se. If you want to have a debate on spirituality or religion that is probably the seeds of a different thread....and let's get a few people who know what they are talking about.
> 
> Religion is a major force in human endeavors....it is people searching for the answers to ultimate questions (why am I here? does my life have meaning? etc); a truth which is bigger than all of us. Yes it is and has been highjacked for a lot of bad stuff over the centuries...but it has also done a lot of good...our public education system, charitable causes, compassion for our neighbours and enemies....etc etc
> ...



I guess those three years I lived in a Buddhist Monastery were just a dream,...
But too quote my new favourite blowhard, "and let's get a few people who know what they are talking about."

And I have a new nominee for most ironic public statement of the year:
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.  ;D

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060915/pakistan_pope_060915/20060915?hub=CTVNewsAt11


----------



## Magravan (16 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> First of all Buddhism is not a religion it's a philosophy.
> They don't believe in a God per se. If you want to have a debate on spirituality or religion that is probably the seeds of a different thread....and let's get a few people who know what they are talking about.
> 
> Religion is a major force in human endeavors....it is people searching for the answers to ultimate questions (why am I here? does my life have meaning? etc); a truth which is bigger than all of us. Yes it is and has been highjacked for a lot of bad stuff over the centuries...but it has also done a lot of good...our public education system, charitable causes, compassion for our neighbours and enemies....etc etc
> ...



I sincerely.hope that you are saying that the Taliban are as they are because they have strayed from the core concepts of Islam... And not stating that anything other than Christian belief results in a lesser state and people.


----------



## sigpig (16 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Religion is a major force in human endeavors....it is people searching for the answers to ultimate questions (why am I here? does my life have meaning? etc); a truth which is bigger than all of us. Yes it is and has been highjacked for a lot of bad stuff over the centuries...but it has also done a lot of good...our public education system, charitable causes, compassion for our neighbours and enemies....etc etc
> 
> The basis of Western society is the law of Moses and the teachings of Christ. LIke it or not folks that is why Western Society is at the point we are at....when we stray from it we get Hitlers and Mussolinis and Stalins.....kinda like the Taliban!



Seems to me that the law of Moses and the teachings of Christ were the basis of the Dark Ages. Most of the things that we'd think of as being central to Western society - law, democracy, philosophy, medicine, education, science, to name but a few - owe their origins to ancient Greece or pre-Christian Rome. At one time or another, the Christian church has opposed all of the things on that list as being ungodly. 

Many of our greatest medical achievements - transplants, vaccinations, fertility treatments, to name but a few - were initially opposed by the church, and, it seems, are still held to be blasphemous in certain parts of christianity.

At one time, Arabic science, medicine, technology and culture was the most advanced on the planet, bar none. But then, the Mullahs decided that nothing in science could contradict the Koran, and now look what religion has brought for the region. 

Here is a great statement:


> From the time when the barbarians overran the Western Empire to the time of the revival of letters, the influence of the Church of Rome had been generally favourable to science, to civilisation, and to good government. But, during the last three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been in inverse proportion to her power.
> 
> - The History Of England Vol. I.
> 
> 1858, by Thomas Babington Macaulay.



With the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons available today, can we really afford to have the hatred and division caused by the debate over whose ancient superstition is the right one?


----------



## Magravan (16 Sep 2006)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Seems to me that the law of Moses and the teachings of Christ were the basis of the Dark Ages. Most of the things that we'd think of as being central to Western society - law, democracy, philosophy, medicine, education, science, to name but a few - owe their origins to ancient Greece or pre-Christian Rome. At one time or another, the Christian church has opposed all of the things on that list as being ungodly.
> 
> Many of our greatest medical achievements - transplants, vaccinations, fertility treatments, to name but a few - were initially opposed by the church, and, it seems, are still held to be blasphemous in certain parts of christianity.
> 
> ...



Probably not, but that's never stopped anyone before...


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Sep 2006)

Whinge, whinge, whinge! Seems many muslims these days always want an excuse, and are always volitile as nitro glycerin. Seen an efigy of the pope being burned by a bunch of nutcases, again anything to have a stab at the west to express their hatred for us. They always think they are hard done by. Boo hoo!

Come on muslims, time to suck it up and get over it. Time to stop living in the 13th century.

Sadly the gap again has been widened between us and them, and quite frankly I DON'T CARE!


Wes


----------



## Juvat (16 Sep 2006)

Seems that tolerance is not for everyone.  Or is this incident actually proving the pope right?

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060916/w091602.html

My deux cents


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Sep 2006)

Apparently they're thick sods, too.  A Catholic Pope makes an innocuous comment, so a Greek Orthodox and an Anglican church get the business.  I'm a live and let live kind of guy, usually, but this is waaay out of hand.  Almost time to declare a New Crusade.  Always remember to bring your nukes to an RPG fight......


----------



## Juvat (16 Sep 2006)

Not only Greek Orthodox or Anglican, but it seems that Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic churches have also felt the scorn in Palestine.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060916.wgaza0916/BNStory/International/home


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Sep 2006)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I guess those three years I lived in a Buddhist Monastery were just a dream,...
> But too quote my new favourite blowhard, "and let's get a few people who know what they are talking about."
> 
> And I have a new nominee for most ironic public statement of the year:
> ...



You need to check your definitions there pal....good to know that i'm your favorite something thanks for that.
Take note please that just because we're all somewhat anonymous on here doesnt give you the licence to be rude. *Calling each other names is usually not how we conduct business on here.*

I didn't say, to answer someone else that Christianity is the only truth,. I said that Western society was formulated from the Judeo/Christian philosophy and religion....and that much of that freedom you enjoy in this society, including the rule of law that guarantees you the right to insult me and others who practice a living faith (not an ancient superstition) is due to that faith background.


----------



## tamouh (16 Sep 2006)

If the Pope intention was to provide a historical quote supporting his message that Faith doesn't require violence, then he had chosen the most inappropriate quote available in history books. Manuel II have had his shares of alliances and wars with the Ottomans, and his views reflect an era when Ottoman empire was a clear threat to what had left of Manuel's Byzantine empire. This quote is as controversial as someone claiming that Moses or Jesus brought nothing new to humanity.

The Pope choice of quote, timing and in general his view on the incident doesn't serve well the current "War on Terrorism"

The Muslim reaction is also disproportionate but anticipated especially when extreme elements use these instances to enflame already oppressed people who believe the current US led war on Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Iraq and Terrorism is mere extension to the old crusades against Islam.



> "The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said. "He said, I quote, '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.'"
> 
> The pontiff quoted Manuel's argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable, adding: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."



Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/16/pope.html


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Sep 2006)

Muslims around the world are protesting, saying that the Popes apology is not enough.  Apparently, nothing but a full retraction will do.  So, in other words, if the Pope doesn't take back a comment linking radical Islam to violence, they are going to riot and kill Christians (AQ says it will "declare war").  Am I alone in seeing the stupidity irony in this?   :


----------



## silentbutdeadly (18 Sep 2006)

Its really kinda funny! He He


----------



## tamouh (18 Sep 2006)

> So, in other words, if the Pope doesn't take back a comment linking radical Islam to violence, they are going to riot and kill



I don't think anyone is upset over linking radical Islam to violence, but rather that one quote linking Muhammad the prophet of Islam to Evil!

Though the Pope has distant himself from the quote saying it doesn't represent his view, one can help but wonder why would he use such a quote if its content is meaningless. It is like Iran's president quoting Khomeini on the Jews and Israel then saying these quotes don't necessarily represent his views!


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Sep 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is upset over linking radical Islam to violence, but rather that one quote linking Muhammad the prophet of Islam to Evil!
> 
> Though the Pope has distant himself from the quote saying it doesn't represent his view, one can help but wonder why would he use such a quote if its content is meaningless. It is like Iran's president quoting Khomeini on the Jews and Israel then saying these quotes don't necessarily represent his views!



Difference being that Jews around the world wouldn't take to the streets threatening violence.  They would just call him a nutjob and get on with their lives.  When in the flippin' flyin' phak are you going to wake up?  He called them violent because they are, well... violent is as good a word as any.  I'm fed right up to my tits with your staunch defence of these assfuks.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Sep 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Difference being that Jews around the world wouldn't take to the streets threatening violence.  They would just call him a nutjob and get on with their lives.  When in the flippin' flyin' phak are you going to wake up?  He called them violent because they are, well... violent is as good a word as any.  I'm fed right up to my tits with your staunch defence of these assfuks.



join the club !!


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Sep 2006)

Why is the Pope being chastised for words when others are burning and destroying stuff because they were told that they are violent?
 ???


----------



## paracowboy (18 Sep 2006)

"How dare you all us violent! Just for that, I'm going to burn down two churches and murder a nun! That'll teach you to call us violent!"

MO-rons! Hey, wait...Murdering, moronic, Muslims might maim and mutilate many more munchkins unless mollified!


----------



## aluc (18 Sep 2006)

> How dare you all us violent! Just for that, I'm going to burn down two churches and murder a nun! That'll teach you to call us violent!"





All I can say is that this whole situation is deliciously ironic! Hmmm...time for lunch.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Sep 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is upset over linking radical Islam to violence, but rather that one quote linking Muhammad the prophet of Islam to Evil!



mini rant on

Either way there has now been people killed over this nonsense. Thats wrong and thats from a peaceful religion? Yes, and look what happened over a cartoon! A ratbag Indonesian islamic cleric (Bashir) is now say the CIA was responsible for the Bali bombings of 2002. Nutcases!!! Look whats going on here, a peaceful religion at war with itself! I say let them go at it, and when its all over, don't come crying to the west for assistance unless they are requesting a big glass K-Mart parking lot! 

Get over it! All this crap that happened centuries ago, who really cares. I have a gutful of it all. I dont give a fat rats arse what happened in 1400, its about now the present and future. If nothing can become if it, we're in for a long haul. 

Time to get on with the times, and have the balls to do it, but knowing the ever growing hatred of the west, by this islamic extremism (and thats being taught in our own countries right now) its only going to get worse before it gets better. 

Wes


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2006)

Some commentary from Chaos Manor: A reader writes in and Jerry's reply is in italics

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view431.html#Thursday



> *Subject: Fearful symmetry*,
> 
> Jerry
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2006)

If you wish to troll through the past twenty centuries to find examples of excess in the name of Christian religions, you can easily find some.  You will of course have to include that awkward point at which the Catholic church reconciled itself to the importance of Reason.  Also, you shouldn't discount the values of the people at any point in time toward human life instead of pinning blame wholly on a church.  I'm not sure why the beliefs and attitudes and acts of people dead for hundreds of years should be a stick to beat the churches and their followers of today, but perhaps that's a special sort of understanding that requires a special sort of brain chemistry.  Meanwhile, the question isn't what Islam did yesterday; the question is what Islam is doing today.  The problem is that Islam is an expression of a cultural snapshot in time and space which is in principle inalterable according to its own tightly written scripture, as though the whole world should aspire to mimic seventh century Arabia.

The Pope is the mortal leader of the Catholic church.  It isn't in his job description to reinterpret the religion to suit the tastes of any particular faction of modernized westerners.  To the extent that anyone disagrees with him, by definition they will have to look to themselves to understand why they have fallen away from their faith.


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Sep 2006)

infidels.

The lot of them, First it is  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 now it is Benedict XVI.

What next....

dileas

tess


----------



## tamouh (18 Sep 2006)

Wesley 'Over There' (formerly Down Under) said:
			
		

> mini rant on



If you read the posts above you'll know why I've replied with a clarification because it seems some people want to convince the rest of us that this whole incident because the Pope addressed violence in "radical Islam" , yet the truth of the matter is the whole incident revolves around the Pope quoting Manuel II who linked the Prophet of Islam to Evil. There is a big difference between saying Al-Qaeda and Taliban are violent organizations, and labelling Islam and Muslims as Evil doers.

I also said above my disagreement and disappoint of the way Muslims have reacted in a barbarian way to say the least!



> Get over it! All this crap that happened centuries ago, who really cares. I have a gutful of it all. I dont give a fat rats arse what happened in 1400, its about now the present and future. If nothing can become if it, we're in for a long haul.
> 
> Time to get on with the times, and have the balls to do it, but knowing the ever growing hatred of the west, by this islamic extremism (and thats being taught in our own countries right now) its only going to get worse before it gets better.



Agree, the problem with many Arab and Muslim countries that they continue to live in the past and point fingers at the West! Something that must be changed if the Arabs are ever to move forward and become in-line with the rest of civilization.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Sep 2006)

Tamouh,

True or false: "The terrorists of today are more closely following the example set by Muhammed than the secularist and pacificist muslims."

He waged war on everyone around him.
He converted people by the sword or killed "non-believers" with no mercy.
He used horrible violence and terror to acheive his ends.
He used dishonesty and outright lies to mislead and gain advantage against his more trusting enemies, especially the principle of 'hudna' (truce).



Matthew.   ???


----------



## tamouh (18 Sep 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Tamouh,
> 
> True or false: "The terrorists of today are more closely following the example set by Muhammed than the secularist and pacificist muslims."
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Sep 2006)

The Pope finally has realized the threat that radical islam represents to the Church and to all who love their freedom.


----------



## paracowboy (18 Sep 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> True or false: "The terrorists of today are more closely following the example set by Muhammed than the secularist and pacificist muslims."
> 
> He waged war on everyone around him.
> He converted people by the sword or killed "non-believers" with no mercy.
> ...


all true.



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> False
> 
> False
> 
> ...


all revisionism.



> You need to grab couple of good books and read up on early Islam.


trust me, I have.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Sep 2006)

Tamouh, 

I've read 2-english translations of the Quran and the Hadiths....as well as about 200 hours of other interpretative analysis.

Bottom Line:  If you're willing to lie like you just did with a straight face, you're definitely part of the problem.



Matthew.


----------



## Remius (18 Sep 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why the beliefs and attitudes and acts of people dead for hundreds of years should be a stick to beat the churches and their followers of today, but perhaps that's a special sort of understanding that requires a special sort of brain chemistry.



I think one of the reasons for that is that, largely, the Vatican owes it's wealth and power to hundreds of years of the acts of those people.  While I agree that the Church of today is not the same as the church of yesteryear some people will not view it that way.

Can anyone honestly say they didn't see this coming?  Pope says (quotes) something about Mohammed, fanatics start retaliating.  His advisors should have known better.  Unfortunately world politics requires measured language because people are just looking for excuses.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Sep 2006)

Here is a test, get any a Muslim to attempt to renounce their religion in any country outside of the West and see want happens to them.

For sharia law to work, Islam must be compulsory, If you are conquered, captured by Muslims, you are given a choice to convert. If you no, you will be dead.

 If you move to a Islamic country, they will require you to pay a tax and restrict you activities. Some exemptions for foreign workers that are needed, but they mostly live in compounds.


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2006)

The Shia Council just condemned the pope...and AQ declared a jihad against the church....not sure of the source...just announced on "Adler (idiot) on Line"


----------



## Remius (18 Sep 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> infidels.
> 
> The lot of them, First it is
> 
> ...



ROOOONNNNNNALD!!!!!  What have they done to you!!!???? :crybaby:


----------



## cplcaldwell (18 Sep 2006)

There's guys out of sight that are after Mayor McCheese and the Hamburglar. 

Once they get those two they are going to build a pyramid.


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2006)

The next thing you know, they'll be roasting "Big Bird"


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Sep 2006)

GAP,

Where did you get that picture??  The heretics...how could they do that....

dileas

tess


----------



## Remius (18 Sep 2006)

Colonel Sanders won't stand for anything involving birds that doesen't include deep frying.  Just let them try :threat:


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2006)

hehehehe.....big birds....um....cousin...hic


----------



## aluc (19 Sep 2006)

http://www.torontosun.ca/News/World/2006/09/19/1862081-sun.html

Tue, September 19, 2006
Al-Qaida pounds Pope
Group vows war against West over Pontiff's comments

By AP


CAIRO -- "Al-Qaida in Iraq" warned Pope Benedict yesterday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the Pontiff's remarks on Islam.

Small protests broke out in Syria and Indonesia, with Muslims saying Benedict's statement of regret a day earlier did not go far enough.

Islamic leaders around the world issued more condemnations of the Pope's comments, but some moderates in the Mideast appeared to be trying to put a damper on the outrage, fearing it could spiral into attacks on Christians.

'EVIL AND INHUMAN'

On Sunday, Benedict said he was "deeply sorry" over any hurt caused by his comments made in a speech last week, in which he quoted a medieval text characterizing some of Mohammed's teachings as "evil and inhuman" and calling Islam a religion spread by the sword.

Benedict said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion, but he did not retract what he said or say he was sorry he uttered what proved to be explosive words.

The Vatican yesterday sought to defuse the anger, ordering papal representatives around the world to meet with leaders of Muslim countries to explain the Pope's point of view and full context of his speech.

Few in the Islamic world were satisfied by Benedict's statement of regret.

Extremists said the Pope's comments proved the West was in a war against Islam.

"Al-Qaida in Iraq" issued a statement warning the Pope: "You and the West are doomed ... we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism."

In Iran, leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the Pope's words give the West an "excuse for suppressing Muslims" by depicting them as terrorists.

"Those who benefit from the Pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests," he said, referring to the U.S.



Thems fightin words  nyuk , nyuk, nyuk....woo ,woo, woo, woo :blotto:  what a bunch of stooges.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2006)

: "Al-Qaida in Iraq" issued a statement warning the Pope: "You and the West are doomed ... we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism."

Don't you think it is about time that all Christians around the world took frontal lobotomy's and ran out into the streets to burn effigies of OBL and denounced Islam as being the "Great Satan"?   :


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Sep 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> False
> 
> False
> 
> ...


----------



## aluc (19 Sep 2006)

+1 Wes....well said!


----------



## silentbutdeadly (19 Sep 2006)

+2 Wes !


----------



## tamouh (19 Sep 2006)

> Tamouh, your thoughts scare me, and are very much of a pro-terrorist brainwashed mentality.
> 
> It gives me more resolve to even do our jobs better here, and for the the Canadian government to stengthen immigration laws to keep people with your views outside the border.
> 
> ...



I only scare those ignorant of their own beings and others surrounding them. Your views and many on the extreme right are as dangerous as the Muslim extremists themselves. I'm more than glad you're a very small minority of people with twisted look at the world. 

I'm with many more who will continue to build Canada as a peaceful, balanced and welcoming home for many immigrants to come.

I've not preached any ideals, this is another twisted joke you and your fellow conspirators keep using. I preach what Canada did stand for and will continue standing for until people like yourself ruin it.

Your anti-Rights, anti-Freedom, anti-Islam, racist and nonequivalent self denial of the rights of others is the problem. Ironically, this is the same problem AQ and extremists have that you claim to fight.

p.s. Just because someone favors another method to deal with terrorism, doesn't mean he/she is pro-terrorist. It is only in your little brain washed way the alternative becomes the opposite.

Tamouh


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Sep 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> blah,blah, blah.
> 
> Tamouh



You sound like Charlies Browns teacher. Lots of noise, nothing of importance said. :


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Sep 2006)

>I preach what Canada did stand for and will continue standing for until people like yourself ruin it.

Canada stands for freedom of religious belief and practices, freedom of sexual expression, gender equality, freedom of association, against discriminatory treatment or taxation based on religious beliefs, separation of state from church and church from state, to name a few.  What exactly is the Islamic response to those ideas?

Is it reasonable to require of everyone who wishes to be Canadian that he renounce any practices which might militate against those Canadian ideals, except as he might wish to apply them against only himself?


----------



## warspite (19 Sep 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I only scare those ignorant of their own beings and others surrounding them. Your views and many on the extreme right are as dangerous as the Muslim extremists themselves. I'm more than glad you're a very small minority of people with twisted look at the world.
> 
> I'm with many more who will continue to build Canada as a peaceful, balanced and welcoming home for many immigrants to come.
> 
> ...



While I respect your right to defend your view of Islam, please don't bring my country into this and claim that you and those who agree with you are the ones building a better Canada. Everyone who is Canadian is responsible for building a better Canada, and just because you don't agree with their def intion of a better Canada doesn't make yours right.


----------



## North Star (19 Sep 2006)

Conspirators? Pardon me, but which conspiracy? The Zionist-crusader one? The "Conservative Hidden agenda" one? I'm sick and tired of hearing of conspiracies. 

The cry of conspiracy is usually the last desperate word supporting a fallacious argument.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2006)

'Muslim anger follows Pope's comments'

You know what? Who cares! I'm tired of the shyte. I don't care if they get pissed off at the Pope or at cartoons. They can rant, parade and protest. I don't care anymore. Just stay the F**K away from me. Don't bother me, I won't bother you. Get in my face, I"M not responsible for the consequences, you are! Wanna act like a spoiled brat? Do it where I don't have to watch or listen. It's simplistic, but it works for me.


----------



## tamouh (20 Sep 2006)

> Canada stands for freedom of religious belief and practices, freedom of sexual expression, gender equality, freedom of association, against discriminatory treatment or taxation based on religious beliefs, separation of state from church and church from state, to name a few.  What exactly is the Islamic response to those ideas?
> 
> Is it reasonable to require of everyone who wishes to be Canadian that he renounce any practices which might militate against those Canadian ideals, except as he might wish to apply them against only himself?



And what part of any of my posts I've stood against these ideals ?




> While I respect your right to defend your view of Islam, please don't bring my country into this and claim that you and those who agree with you are the ones building a better Canada. Everyone who is Canadian is responsible for building a better Canada, and just because you don't agree with their def intion of a better Canada doesn't make yours right.



True, and I sincerely respect that. You can't build a nation based on one idea alone. But there are logical limits for everything whether far-right or far-left. This is what I've been saying all along, we could have disagreements and different point of views, but we're all working for one thing and that is a better Canada.

Therefore, I'm sick of hearing ill-hearted people labelling me and others "pro-terrorists", "terrorist sympathizers", "french" or use the enfamous Bush slogan "you're with us or with the terrorist". Enough with this nonsense, there are many ways to solve terrorism. One of them (which have worked for many years in Europe and beyond) is better intelligence.


----------



## cplcaldwell (20 Sep 2006)

I find you tedious.

Go away.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2006)

Tamouh - I don't want you changing my Canada.

Let me know when the Pope can set up a Cathedral beside the Blue Mosque, the Kaba, in Qom and in Karbala.  Then we can talk.

A Presbyterian.

By the way.  Here's the good news.  The more that you talk the more Christian I become.  And I haven't been inside a Church in years.

FOAD.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Sep 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I only scare those ignorant of their own beings and others surrounding them. Your views and many on the extreme right are as dangerous as the Muslim extremists themselves. I'm more than glad you're a very small minority of people with twisted look at the world.
> 
> I'm with many more who will continue to build Canada as a peaceful, balanced and welcoming home for many immigrants to come.
> 
> ...



You always seem to go the right wing route (shakes head). It does not wash pal. Getting Canadian citizenship is more than a piece of paper and the right to vote. Many including myself are here in this world of shyte created by YOU,  and its YOUR people with YOUR mentality we are fighting and killing.

If this war widens and spreads out, FACT, we will win.

Like I said, you'll never NEVER EVER be able to think like us. You've proved that too many times, and especially today.

Should you ever return to fight for your cause here in shyteland, come to Baghdad, there are plenty of US and coalition forces who'd put you in your place quicksmart!

BTW, love the fellow racist conspiritors thing (ha!).


Wes


----------



## exsemjingo (20 Sep 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Let me know when the Pope can set up a Cathedral beside the Blue Mosque, the Kaba, in Qom and in Karbala.  Then we can talk.
> 
> A Presbyterian.



I don't think the Pope has broken any new ground with his speech.  All he has done is reminded Muslims that not everyone in the world agrees with them.  Many can live with this reality, but the protesters cannot.

It's a good these protesters do not read, or they might even target, say, Lutheran Churches on purpose and not by accident (like those non- Catholic ones in the West Bank...)



> http://users.frii.com/gosplow/augsburg.html#augs-003
> 
> 
> Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.
> ...


----------



## armyvern (20 Sep 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Therefore, I'm sick of hearing ill-hearted people labelling me and others "pro-terrorists", "terrorist sympathizers", "french" or use the enfamous Bush slogan "you're with us or with the terrorist". Enough with this nonsense, there are many ways to solve terrorism. *One of them (which have worked for many years in Europe and beyond) is better intelligence.*



A better way to solve terrorism is to use intelligence (either of the IQ type or of the Mil int type)? And this is working in Europe? Tamouh, I am center, not left nor right leaning, but even I must now advise you to unbury your head from the sand.

How quickly you have forgotten Madrid, London, Jordan, Karachi, Bali, the Moscow Theatre and the Beslan School bombing amongst many other examples. Guess what? These places are world-wide...right here on our Canadian doorstep. Europe my a$$. Intelligence (of the IQ type or the mil int type) does nothing to solve bombings. Difference between Europe and us at this point, is that is us who are in there fighting these terrorists as they (in some cases) sit at home hoping we'll solve their problems for them.

Very smart people do very stupid things all the time. IQ intelligence certainly does not solve terrorism.

However Military/strategic intelligence does have it's purpose... it simply allows us to prevent attacks if we manage to compile enough info on an upcoming terrorist attack beforehand...such as was recently done here in Canada and London.

Intelligence allows us to to lock our weapons sights onto the terrorist target either in a pre-emptive manner or after the fact, and that solves that little problem.


----------



## LeonTheNeon (20 Sep 2006)

The problem with trying to rely on intelligence is that intelligence is: a) never complete and generally obsoleted by taking action* and b) always secondary to action.

Intelligence can give planners clear vision but that is the extent of its power.  As John Keegan puts it in his book Intelligence in War



> War is about doing, not thinking



There are very few opportunities to intellectualize war.  Ultimately, battles are won or lost by the actions taken by the troops in the conflict.  Take for example Crete in WW2.  Despite having a nearly complete picture of the Axis attack, the Allies lost the battle because they didn't take the proper actions and the Axis forces fought with great courage and tenacity.  In Pearl Harbor, despite a seeming lack of intelligence on Japanese intentions**, damage was greatly reduced in areas which responded promptly and got their defenses online.  In fact, the prompt reaction of the few combat air patrols and the few AAA probably prevented a third strike from the Japanese which would have almost certainly eliminated the US Pacific strategic oil reserve and dealt a much more devastating blow.

The intellect to recognize the threat for what it is and the will to strike, which is hopefully guided by good intelligence is what will stop terrorism.  Intelligence without action is useless.

Also, do not discount the inability of intelligence forces to provide a complete picture.  It is absolutely impossible for "better intelligence" to protect us.  There will be holes, there will be gaps and they will be exploited by our enemies... but perhaps not if we destroy them first, or keep the pressure up high enough that they cannot act.  We need to keep them pinned and on the run as best as we can.

* - I hate to post something so vague, but what I mean by this is that once you taken action based on any intelligence your opponent will ,generally speaking, unless completely surprised will make a counter-move.  This begins to unravel the picture provided by your intelligence and requires a new picture to be drawn.

** - Yes, I realize this is not so clear cut.  There were many indicators and generally speaking a war in the Pacific was considered more of a when and where not an if.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2006)

LeonTheNeon said:
			
		

> * - I hate to post something so vague, but what I mean by this is that once you taken action based on any intelligence your opponent will ,generally speaking, unless completely surprised will make a counter-move.  This begins to unravel the picture provided by your intelligence and requires a new picture to be drawn.
> 
> ** - Yes, I realize this is not so clear cut.  There were many indicators and generally speaking a war in the Pacific was considered more of a when and where not an if.



It may have been a lot clearer, had you not been bouncing back and forth off of all the "walls".   ;D


----------



## aluc (20 Sep 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158702614845&call_pageid=970599119419


Response to Pope shows hypocrisy
Sep. 20, 2006. 01:00 AM
ROSIE DIMANNO

The Pope better eat his words or there'll be hell to pay.

To refute the allegation and revenge the purported offence — linking the Prophet Muhammad to violence by quoting an obscure 14th-century Byzantine emperor — some righteous Muslims will ... get violent.

More than a few already have, in attacks against at least seven churches in the West Bank and — though a direct link has not been confirmed — the shooting of a missionary nun in Somalia, slain outside the hospital where she worked only hours after a Somali cleric condemned the Pope's speech.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is vowing war on "worshippers of the cross,"......


go to link for more.....


----------



## silentbutdeadly (20 Sep 2006)

Sounds like the Pope's words were not so far fetched. Sad really!


----------



## Haggis (20 Sep 2006)

SBD:  true!

Actions DO speak louder than words, even those in the 14th century.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Sep 2006)

>And what part of any of my posts I've stood against these ideals ?

I note you didn't bother to directly answer either question.  Is there a reason you are being evasive other than dishonesty or ignorance?


----------



## apostle (20 Sep 2006)

As a Catholic I have this to say to decoy and all the others who have a problem with the Catholic Church.  While the Church committed more than its fair share of atrocities in the past at least it has moved on and admitted that using force to convert people or impose one's religion on them was and is wrong.  Muslims on the other hand still refuse to let go of a medieval mentality that says "Convert to Islam or else".  Oh and by the way shooting a 66 year old nun in the back is such an appropriate way to protest against a quote about violence and Islam.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >And what part of any of my posts I've stood against these ideals ?
> 
> I note you didn't bother to directly answer either question.  Is there a reason you are being evasive other than dishonesty or ignorance?



C'mon Brad! That's his modus operandi! It's his favourite ploy, and never mind not direrctly answer it, most times he ignores the hard questions that will defeat his point of view. The forums are riddled with unanswered requests for him to respond. All ignored by him.


----------



## Too Poor II (22 Sep 2006)

There is no doubt that Pope Benedict XVI might have found a better example to use in his speech on Sept. 12, that has caused such a stir among Muslims. The controversial statement, quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologus, was: “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.”
Radical Muslims in numerous countries were so upset that the prophet and Islam were impugned as being violent that they promptly decided to make their displeasure known by responding with violence. Violent street protests have been seen in many countries and churches [have been] attacked.
It’s an unfortunate historical fact that Islam was, in part, founded with violence. Muhammad was a military and political leader as well as a religious leader. Whether it was in fighting with the forces of Meccan polytheists, raiding caravans or beheading 600 or so Jews in Yathrib (Medina) in the year A.D. 627, violence has been associated with Muhammad and the spread of Islam.
Right now, the face of Islam that most Westerners are seeing is violent street protests, attacks on churches and people, the beheading of people like Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl just to name the only 2 that I can think of right now. Is Islam being hijacked or is this Islam?
I am convinced that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, and every time that something happens, they are left on the sidelines wondering how they are going to be publicly scrutinized (Profiled). This silent majority needs to quickly and loudly speak up and demonstrate that they are mainstream Islam, and not the radicals who attacked five Christian churches in Palestine, violently protested, and killed a nun in what reportedly might be a response to the pope’s words.


----------



## Clarkey (22 Sep 2006)

Quite a satirical look at this situation.

This guy cracks me up everytime.
http://jaypinkerton.cracked.com/2006/09/islam_violent_well_kill_you_fo.php

Enjoy,
Clarkey


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (22 Sep 2006)

I think these two cartoons sadly say it all:


----------



## DBA (22 Sep 2006)

Cox and Forkum are allways good for cartoons like that as well.


----------



## twistidnick (22 Sep 2006)

Why do Muslims care what an infidel like the pope had to say about them?

Also why do we put up with these Zionist burning churches and killing a nun? This hypocrisy is hurting my head.


----------



## time expired (22 Sep 2006)

What ?
         Zionist ?????
 No wonder your head hurts.
                Regards


----------



## GAP (22 Sep 2006)

Pte. (R) Amlin said:
			
		

> Why do Muslims care what an infidel like the pope had to say about them?
> 
> Also why do we put up with these Zionist burning churches and killing a nun? This hypocrisy is hurting my head.



A little dyslectic are we?  :


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Sep 2006)

:rofl:


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Sep 2006)

Pte. (R) Amlin said:
			
		

> Why do Muslims care what an infidel like the pope had to say about them?
> 
> Also why do we put up with these Zionist burning churches and killing a nun? This hypocrisy is hurting my head.



Actually,

They are the infidels, not the Pope.  It is a word coined by the Crusaders, old French, derived from Latin meaning not of faith.  It was used against all those that were not Baptized. Definitions can be read here;

Catholic Encyclopedia

And here for a shorter version;

Catholic forums

dileas

tess


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Sep 2006)

Your right.

We're kaffirs.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Sep 2006)

> I was merely pointing out that the Church has a lot more historical blood on its hands



Challenge is, that Catholic church Does Not have way more blood on the hands.

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Sep 2006)

Ha, those cartoons made me laugh here in this world of shyte, finally some comedy for me. 

Hey you should be here and see this for real. There is not ONE thing positive I have to say about Iraq, Kuwait and the city of Baghdad.

No wonder they wanna leave and come to our countries.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Sep 2006)

Feel free to.

We have spoken about this ad nauseum I will agree, but make no bone about it they do not have "More Blood on their hands" than other religions.

dileas

tess


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> We have spoken about this ad nauseum I will agree, but make no bone about it they do not have "More Blood on their hands" than other religions.


I'll back ya up on that one. I think I've made my opinion of organized religion in general fairly clear, but in terms of the Catholic Church being "more bloody" than any other, I have to call bullshit. Islam has slaughtered far more people in it's day in the mae of religion (in large part because they have so much a larger base of people to slaughter) and I would go so far as to say that more people have died for/because of the Hindu Faith than the Catholic Church, and probably Christianity in general. Christians have gleefully (and still do) killed millions for God, but they're still amateurs when compared to the true masters.

Y'know what I fervently hope? That the Druids, or the Aztecs had it right. I can picture all these billions of souls gathered outside Paradise, glaring balefully at a handful of priests, imams, and rabbis who are looking sheepish and saying "Who knew?" I'd spend Eternity giggling to myself in purgatory, or wherever. (Okay, I'd sneak my way over to Valhalla, and party. Who am I kidding?)


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I'll back ya up on that one. I think I've made my opinion of organized religion in general fairly clear, but in terms of the Catholic Church being "more bloody" than any other, I have to call bullshit. Islam has slaughtered far more people in it's day in the mae of religion (in large part because they have so much a larger base of people to slaughter) and I would go so far as to say that more people have died for/because of the Hindu Faith than the Catholic Church, and probably Christianity in general. Christians have gleefully (and still do) killed millions for God, but they're still amateurs when compared to the true masters.



Where are you getting this idea from?  I find it silly to call Catholic fervor "amateur" when one looks at the tragedy that occured in the Americas.

Anyways, since when did we chalk up a body count (which is impossible anyways) to see what religion is more hardcore?  C'mon....


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Sep 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Where are you getting this idea from?  I find it silly to call Catholic fervor "amateur" when one looks at the tragedy that occured in the Americas.
> 
> Anyways, chalking up some bodycount to see which religion is more hardcore is kinda lame anyways....



Tradgedy in North America?

Then we might as well talk about all of the forcing of religion a tradgedy...because North America has become the continent of superpower in our modern society.  Christianity has been around for 2006 years, Catholocism, less than than as an organized religion.  Are you say that they have reaped the most destruction?

C'mon now.

dileas

tess


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2006)

it is lame. But, then comparing anything about religions is, at best, silly.

I just feel, (and I don't have any facts, nor do I have the interest to look it up, so this post is worth...well, what most of my posts are worth, I suppose) that Islam, having a much larger base of followers to hack each other up, and having conquered more ground than Catholicism for longer, has butchered more people than Catholicism. I also think that the same holds true of Hinduism, especially if we go back a few centuries to when they were on a big expansion, then got their asses handed to them by various Muslim invaders. Now, they gleefully go at each other all over the sub-continent every year.

Catholics, especially the Spaniards killed a whole lotta people all over the Americas, but that wasn't really in the name of God. It was in the name of that other deity: greed. Of course, Islam wasn't taking control of everything they could find in pure religious fervour, either, since they tended to focus on the wealthy places first, so the whole conversation is moot, I suppose.

Briefly amusing, though.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Tradgedy in North America?
> 
> Then we might as well talk about all of the forcing of religion a tradgedy...because North America has become the continent of superpower in our modern society.  Christianity has been around for 2006 years, Catholocism, less than than as an organized religion.  Are you say that they have reaped the most destruction?
> 
> C'mon now.



I do find it a tragedy that whole societies were destroyed and the population of the Natives in the Americas dropped to (estimates vary) probably 10% of what it was before the European arrival.  I'm not going to stand here and lament the course of history, because that's how the world works - but on the whole, I have no problem stating that the clash of cultures definitely was a tragedy for a the society that came out on the bottom of the heap.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> I just feel, (and I don't have any facts, nor do I have the interest to look it up, so this post is worth...



Huh?  You're making a statement with nothing to justify it?  :tsktsk:





> Catholics, especially the Spaniards killed a whole lotta people all over the Americas, but that wasn't really in the name of God.



That is most definitely not what I've seen in my studies of early colonization - a casual read of colonial Spanish societies doesn't really support it either.  Spanish fundamentalism, like Islamic fundamentalism today, should not be written off as merely a cover to fit an alternate explanation.  It was a powerful motivation for young men driven by the Reconquista and the notion that the battle for souls was a very real and serious thing....


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Huh?  You're making a statement with nothing to justify it?


no, I'm expressing an opinion. And that's all anythign remotely connected to Religion is: an opinion. You can't really get into too many hard and fast facts, because Faith gets in the way, and EVERYTHING is distorted thereby.



> That is most definitely not what I've seen in my studies of early colonization - a casual read of colonial Spanish societies doesn't really support it either.  Spanish fundamentalism, like Islamic fundamentalism today, should not be written off as merely a cover to fit an alternate explanation.  It was a powerful motivation for young men driven by the Reconquista and the notion that the battle for souls was a very real and serious thing....


oh, I'm very much aware that the Conquistadors mouthed all sorts of platitudes, and brought priests along with them everywhere they went. I know they built churches every 10 feet, and they destroyed anything they saw that was connected to heathen religions. But, I highly doubt any of them would have gotten on the boats in the first place, if it weren't for all that gold and land to be had for the taking.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Sep 2006)

> I do find it a tragedy that whole societies were destroyed and the population of the Natives in the Americas dropped to (estimates vary) probably 10% of what it was before the European arrival.  I'm not going to stand here and lament the course of history, because that's how the world works - but on the whole, I have no problem stating that the clash of cultures definitely was a tragedy for a the society that came out on the bottom of the heap.



And the societies of Spain, North Africa, and the Balkans too a much greater degree by the calling of Islam.  So there is a hell of a lot more blood spilled by the infidels, person for for person, not the volume of land mass.

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Sep 2006)

Troops, gentlemen and ladies.
I highly doubt that God, Allah, Jehovah or whoever does NOT look kindly on people who use His name in the furtherence of violence or injustice.  To quote wassisface from the Cold Mountain (or whatever it was), "I think God is growing weary of being called in on both sides of arguments".
So, any violence "In the Name of God" is probably not really God's work, but the work of men, and we all know how evil they can be at times (see Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, et al)


----------



## patrick666 (23 Sep 2006)

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Sep 2006)

Not condoning the old Catholic geezer in what he said but those Islamists who murdered the nun kinda proved him right. I'm thankfull to be a non believer I can never be on the wrong side of the crappy going to war for god shite.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Not condoning the old Catholic geezer in what he said but those Islamists who murdered the nun kinda proved him right. I'm thankfull to be a non believer I can never be on the wrong side of the crappy going to war for god shite.



So you, as a non-believer, believe that there is no god?  >  

Wouldn't that also make you an unbelieving kaffir like the rest of us non-moslem infidels?


----------

