Pope's quote/comments on Islam

[Edward64]

I'm not sure I understand the fuss. The western news sites seem to have the quote but don't explain the context of why the Pope quoted the book (see below).

The pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," Benedict 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."'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213930,00.html

On the surface, if the Pope quoted a passage of the book, I don't understand the problem and will chalk this up to an overreaction.

Does anyone know the context of why the Pope quoted this text?

[st.cronin]

The headline starts "Religious leaders across mideast rage..."

So you know it's probably not about anything important.

[WVUFAN]

They're gonna riot over anything, so it's not surprising this does it.

When a group of people throw a fit over a cartoon, they're not all there to begin with.

[Edward64]

The headline starts "Religious leaders across mideast rage..."

So you know it's probably not about anything important.

They're gonna riot over anything, so it's not surprising this does it.

When a group of people throw a fit over a cartoon, they're not all there to begin with.


St. Cronin and WVUFAN Your quotes above seem to indicate a 'contempt' for the muslim indignation. Is this correct?

[st.cronin]

St. Cronin and WVUFAN Your quotes above seem to indicate a 'contempt' for the muslim indignation. Is this correct?

Not exactly. Look, it's perfectly ok for anybody to feel aggrieved or insulted by whatever. I have my sensitive spots as well. My point was simply that "mideast Muslim leaders" have a strong tendency to teach that everything bad that happens is somebody else's fault.

[WVUFAN]

St. Cronin and WVUFAN Your quotes above seem to indicate a 'contempt' for the muslim indignation. Is this correct?

In my case, it's entirely correct. It's a small group of people (Islamic extremists) making an entire religion look bad.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest fan of the religion to begin with, but this certainly doesn't endear it to the general populace when they bitch over ANYTHING remotely derrogatory towards the religion. This is in many ways similar to extremist Christians (that moronic group in Kansas who pickets funerals as an example -- snakehandlers in my area as another example) doing quite frankly idiotic things that casts a shadow over everyone who follows that same religion.

For a group that demands that others be respectful of what they are, they have no tolerance for criticism. You don't get it both ways.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Full text of the speech here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf).

Key excerpt:

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed 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 emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

[WVUFAN]

Full text of the speech here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf).

Key excerpt:

I don't see a single thing wrong with what he said. He's teaching against forced conversion. Makes sense to me.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

You'd think with all the fuss he drew a picture of the guy or something...

[stevew]

Benedict is just making a power play so he can control the gallactic senate.

[stevew]

These guys are fucking pissed~!

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060915/capt.sri10209151139.india_kashmir_pope_protest_sri102.jpg

[Oilers9911]

1) If a non-muslim even says the word Muslim or Mohammed there will be a riot.
2) The Pope and the Catholic church have their heads up their asses regardless.

Sits back and prepares to be char broiled in flames.

[MIJB#19]

I still can't understand how someone says Islam is all about violence and the next day people are buring flags and images of that person in name of Islam. It almost makes me think these people have been told "He said we don't do violence, show us we are all about it!"

[dbd1963]

Dudes, the Pope just said Muhammad was evil. Don't you think they would be a little pissed? When a pre-eminent muslim holy man says Jesus was evil, I think you will understand just how far down these things go.. we'd have riots here in the US over that. The Pope is supposed to be smart enough not to start crap like that, unless he's of the opinion Jesus can't come until the big war starts, and W hasn't been pulling his own weight..

Organized religions are a lot of trouble lately..

[st.cronin]

When a pre-eminent muslim holy man says Jesus was evil, I think you will understand just how far down these things go.. we'd have riots here in the US over that.

No, we absolutely would not.

[dbd1963]

Yes, we absolutely would. I can't believe you don't know the people you live with!

[WVUFAN]

Yes, we absolutely would. I can't believe you don't know the people you live with!

There's people who say negative things about Christianity and Jesus constantly, and you don't see riots.

[st.cronin]

Yes, we absolutely would. I can't believe you don't know the people you live with!

Oh, ok. When was the last time something like that happened here? I must have forgot about it.

[Edward64]

Yes, we absolutely would. I can't believe you don't know the people you live with!

I agree with WVUFAN and st.cronin, we absolutely would not "riot".

I can't help but feel the Muslim faith is going through their era of 'crusades' whereas Christianity has progressed beyond.

This is NOT to say one faith is better, more correct etc. than the other. It is to say one faith's follower's has progressed and evolved beyond violence and the need to impose its will by the sword/threats.

[Toddzilla]

There's people who say negative things about Christianity and Jesus constantly, and you don't see riots.I think I come down on the side that feels that followers of Islam have every right to be angry and have every right to protest. When those protests turn violent however, as in the case of the riots over the infamous cartoon, it feeds the stereotype and makes Islam look bad.

I don't believe that Christianity or Christian leaders are particulary more tolerant or peaceful than Islam, and there are the fundamentalist nutjobs that give the religion as a whole a bad rap.

That being said, if the Pope or an Islamic leader were to speak out strongly against Protestant Christianity, you'd hear a backlash, and maybe some ridiculous banter from the Pat Robertsons of the world, but I cannot for a minute believe there would ever be rioting in the streets.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Well, John Lennon almost derailed his career here with the remarks about being bigger than Jesus, and his were taken more out of context than anything Benedict said.

[st.cronin]

I agree with WVUFAN and st.cronin, we absolutely would not "riot".

I can't help but feel the Muslim faith is going through their era of 'crusades' whereas Christianity has progressed beyond.

This is NOT to say one faith is better, more correct etc. than the other. It is to say one faith's follower's has progressed and evolved beyond violence and the need to impose its will by the sword/threats.

I don't know if I would agree with either one of those statements. The "crusades" were not purely aggresive wars waged by Christians. The actual reality is more nuanced than that; there were aggresions and atrocities committed by Muslims in that era as well.

And while I am reluctant to say that one faith is better than another, there is something disturbing about the way Islam is presented, particularly it's emphasis that God only speaks/understands Arabic, and also it's emphasis on material and sexual rewards for righteousness.

I suspect/hope that what is happening in Islam now is more like the changes Luther brought to the Church, where the religion was no longer 'working' at the social level, and needed to adapt.

[WVUFAN]

Dudes, the Pope just said Muhammad was evil. Don't you think they would be a little pissed? When a pre-eminent muslim holy man says Jesus was evil, I think you will understand just how far down these things go.. we'd have riots here in the US over that. The Pope is supposed to be smart enough not to start crap like that, unless he's of the opinion Jesus can't come until the big war starts, and W hasn't been pulling his own weight..

Organized religions are a lot of trouble lately..

dola ...

Mojo Jojo posted the excerpt for what he said. If you read it, you would know that's NOT what the Pope said. What he said, and I agree, is that any religion that believes in conversion by violence is not doing God's will.

But it seems you, Muslims (not surprising), and the media didn't bother to read his speech and take his comments in context.

[dbd1963]

Oh, ok. When was the last time something like that happened here? I must have forgot about it.

Well, if you wanted riots in the streets, we had a few big ones in the 60s, but not for religious reasons. Since then, there have been various riots in reaction to, if memory is still working, perceived police misbehavior in California and Philladelphia. And there are the "after Superbowl" celebratory riots. So rioting is not foreign to us. During the 2000 Florida debacle, there was a small, but well publicized "riot" while the counts were going on. Americans like to assemble and yell, but that's not the worst that would come of it.

Yes, people do criticize Christianity, but we're looking for an equivalent to a Pope here. I don't know if you can find one easily now, but the Ayatolla Khomeni (sp?) would have been comparable in his day.

I mean, we're not too far away from "freedom fries" and that whole "Kick Iraq's butt because we are angry, and we can!" Right now Americans are skeptical of any more war, but if someone over there started dissing Christ, a lot of opinions would change over night.

Now, if your point is that we wouldn't riot like them because we are civilized and they are not..

[st.cronin]

Well, if you wanted riots in the streets, we had a few big ones in the 60s, but not for religious reasons. Since then, there have been various riots in reaction to, if memory is still working, perceived police misbehavior in California and Philladelphia. And there are the "after Superbowl" celebratory riots. So rioting is not foreign to us. During the 2000 Florida debacle, there was a small, but well publicized "riot" while the counts were going on. Americans like to assemble and yell, but that's not the worst that would come of it.

Yes, people do criticize Christianity, but we're looking for an equivalent to a Pope here. I don't know if you can find one easily now, but the Ayatolla Khomeni (sp?) would have been comparable in his day.

I mean, we're not too far away from "freedom fries" and that whole "Kick Iraq's butt because we are angry, and we can!" Right now Americans are skeptical of any more war, but if someone over there started dissing Christ, a lot of opinions would change over night.

Now, if your point is that we wouldn't riot like them because we are civilized and they are not..

Yes, it was so upsetting when we renamed our french fries. That really horrified the world.

[dbd1963]

dola ...

Mojo Jojo posted the excerpt for what he said. If you read it, you would know that's NOT what the Pope said. What he said, and I agree, is that any religion that believes in conversion by violence is not doing God's will.

But it seems you, Muslims (not surprising), and the media didn't bother to read his speech and take his comments in context.

I did read it, and the context of the words is this:

1. The Pope said them in his official capacity as Pope
2. The Pope said the words in public

Any idiot could have detected in advance the passage that would inflame the Muslim world. Do not for a second believe that, if the Pope didn't see this coming, one of his advisors didn't. You can't say, particularly in the world climate as it is now, that Mohammed brought evil when he uttered his divinely inspired words and not understand that you are causing problems.

[Edward64]

Sorry dbd1963, your rebuttal about riots in the US has nothing to do with your original premise.

When a pre-eminent muslim holy man says Jesus was evil, I think you will understand just how far down these things go.. we'd have riots here in the US over that.

[dbd1963]

Yes, it was so upsetting when we renamed our french fries. That really horrified the world.

That's not really all that went on, is it? Wasn't there a lot of nationalistic "rah rah" going on then, renaming French fries being a symbol of it? Not to say anything about the misdirection play that was at the root of it all, which never could have worked if the nation wasn't seething with (justifiable) rage.

[dbd1963]

Sorry dbd1963, your rebuttal about riots in the US has nothing to do with your original premise.

I thought it showed that Americans would riot, but maybe that wasn't at issue after all. I'm not a history buff, but I can't think of any religious riots in the last decades, so perhaps I'm all wrong. Nobody would riot if Jesus got dissed.

I bet we'd get our war on tho.

[st.cronin]

That's not really all that went on, is it? Wasn't there a lot of nationalistic "rah rah" going on then, renaming French fries being a symbol of it? Not to say anything about the misdirection play that was at the root of it all, which never could have worked if the nation wasn't seething with (justifiable) rage.

You have a hard time staying on topic.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

dola ...

Mojo Jojo posted the excerpt for what he said. If you read it, you would know that's NOT what the Pope said. What he said, and I agree, is that any religion that believes in conversion by violence is not doing God's will.


Well that was the general theme of his speech, but in fairness he did employ and endorse (without any qualifications) a quote that said that Mohammed's only contributions were evil and inhuman. If he had qualified the quote to note that he didn't agree with that part, you could argue that it was taken out of context, but as it is I don't think you have to read it out of context to find it offensive. That part of the quote was entirely unnecessary to the point he was making, and seemed a rather gratuitous cheap shot...

[JonInMiddleGA]

You have a hard time staying on topic.

That isn't unusual with trolls.

[WVUFAN]

I did read it, and the context of the words is this:

1. The Pope said them in his official capacity as Pope
2. The Pope said the words in public

Any idiot could have detected in advance the passage that would inflame the Muslim world. Do not for a second believe that, if the Pope didn't see this coming, one of his advisors didn't. You can't say, particularly in the world climate as it is now, that Mohammed brought evil when he uttered his divinely inspired words and not understand that you are causing problems.

So, lemme get this right:

We're all (and this includes religious leaders) supposed to never criticize any aspect of Islam for fear of riots, but Islamic leaders are free to say, for example, that all Jews should die, or that the Holocaust never happened, or any such nonsense?

Bullshit. The Pope was RIGHT in his words, and I'm glad his refuses to retract them.

[dbd1963]

I'm a troll all of a sudden? That's kida riotous of you all, ganging up on poor little me.. There's a riot in this thread!

Look, I believe there'd be lots of trouble if the Muslim Pope, whoever that is, called Jesus the bringer of evil. I think it's defensible, but maybe nobody would riot in the streets, maybe it'd just be a lot of noise on internet chat rooms and bbs.

[Edward64]

That isn't unusual with trolls.
JonInMiddleGA I sincerely would like to hear more from dbd1963. I think his point of view on this event is probably shared by the rioters and I want to understand their pov.

[st.cronin]

I'm a troll all of a sudden? That's kida riotous of you all, ganging up on poor little me.. There's a riot in this thread!

Look, I believe there'd be lots of trouble if the Muslim Pope, whoever that is, called Jesus the bringer of evil. I think it's defensible, but maybe nobody would riot in the streets, maybe it'd just be a lot of noise on internet chat rooms and bbs.

I take it you don't know much about Islam. Or, for that matter, Christianity.

[WVUFAN]

I'm a troll all of a sudden? That's kida riotous of you all, ganging up on poor little me.. There's a riot in this thread!

Look, I believe there'd be lots of trouble if the Muslim Pope, whoever that is, called Jesus the bringer of evil. I think it's defensible, but maybe nobody would riot in the streets, maybe it'd just be a lot of noise on internet chat rooms and bbs.

<shrug>. If I'm reading this right, you just said that saying Jesus is the bringer of evil is "defensible". If that's right, I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.

And, no, there wouldn't be riots on the street if a high cleric of the Islam faith said something negative about Jesus (which would NEVER happen, since Jesus is a Prophet in Islam, but I digress). There wouldn't be riots on the street if a cartoon depicts Jesus as an evil figure (which has happened MANY times).

But you miss the point -- the Pope never said Muhammed was evil. Read the entire snippet.

[dbd1963]

So, lemme get this right:

We're all (and this includes religious leaders) supposed to never criticize any aspect of Islam for fear of riots, but Islamic leaders are free to say, for example, that all Jews should die, or that the Holocaust never happened, or any such nonsense?

Bullshit. The Pope was RIGHT in his words, and I'm glad his refuses to retract them.

I see why trolls like to troll because then people keep asking you questions and they get all the attention. Frankly, I don't want your attention if you are going to say things like that.. because the Pope is just the Pope, not all religious leaders (and I don't think anyone said anything about all religious leaders doing this or that, did they?) and the Pope wasn't criticising Islam, he flat out said Muhammed was evil. He didn't say (or didn't stop at saying) "You ought to try to get your people to, you know, be more peaceful." That would be (good) criticism.

You understand, I hope, the vast difference between you saying something about Islam and the Pope doing it? I believe the Pope should never say words that would inflame people, as it is his job to convert them. I think Paul said something about that, in a totally different context, about never doing that thing that will upset the converts, even if it is a thing permitted to you, because we are in this for the converts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

JonInMiddleGA I sincerely would like to hear more from dbd1963.

Well, nobody is stopping him from posting, nor you from listening to the troll if you choose to.

I think it seriously calls your judgement into reason, but hey, that's your biz too.

[dbd1963]

<shrug>. If I'm reading this right, you just said that saying Jesus is the bringer of evil is "defensible".

What?

Thus endeth my time in this thread. :rolleyes:

</shrug>

[-Mojo Jojo-]

That being said, if the Pope or an Islamic leader were to speak out strongly against Protestant Christianity, you'd hear a backlash, and maybe some ridiculous banter from the Pat Robertsons of the world, but I cannot for a minute believe there would ever be rioting in the streets.

This, I think is absolutely correct. These reactions are revealing. I recently Lawrence Wright (author of The Looming Tower) speak on Al Qaeda and Islamic militants, and part of the discussion centered on the deep-seated sense of cultural humiliation felt by Arabs and Muslims. According to Wright the history of this starts as far back as the defeat of Sultan Suleiman at Vienna in the 16th Century, and proceeds through colonial domination and Cold War manipulation to the present day. The humiliation of Islam by the West is apparently a favorite topic for Bin Laden and a strong draw on the young men who join him. It is also the reason for the powerful reactions to perceived Western insults against Islam.

It seems to me that some sensitivity is warranted, not because we should bow to extremism, but it seems irresponsible to needlessly throw fuel on the flames. Muslims need to get over this humiliation, and I'm not sure we help them with that by providing them with more evidence of our contempt. Moderate voices are hardest to hear when people have their blood up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... he flat out said Muhammed was evil.

Except that isn't what he said.

More the pity, 'cause it's about time somebody spoke directly on the subject, but he didn't.

[WVUFAN]

Look, I believe there'd be lots of trouble if the Muslim Pope, whoever that is, called Jesus the bringer of evil. I think it's defensible ...
</SHRUG>

So you didn't say this? You're saying you didn't say this?

Or perhaps I took it out of context from what your intent was.

That sounds eerily familiar ...

[WVUFAN]

dola --

And, for what it's worth, the Pope's job ISN'T to "convert" people.

[rexallllsc]

The pope is out of touch (duh!) and some fundamentalists love to riot.

That picture of the guys going ape is hilarious.

[JPhillips]

WVU: I don't agree. Isn't it the Pope's job to bring souls to God and doesn't he believe the surest route to God is through the Catholic church?

[WVUFAN]

The pope is out of touch (duh!) and some fundamentalists love to riot.

Out of curiosity, in what way is the Pope out of touch? That he isn't afraid to speak (GOSH!) the actual truth?

I agree with Jon -- he didn't go far enough.

[rexallllsc]

This, I think is absolutely correct. These reactions are revealing. I recently Lawrence Wright (author of The Looming Tower) speak on Al Qaeda and Islamic militants, and part of the discussion centered on the deep-seated sense of cultural humiliation felt by Arabs and Muslims. According to Wright the history of this starts as far back as the defeat of Sultan Suleiman at Vienna in the 16th Century, and proceeds through colonial domination and Cold War manipulation to the present day. The humiliation of Islam by the West is apparently a favorite topic for Bin Laden and a strong draw on the young men who join him. It is also the reason for the powerful reactions to perceived Western insults against Islam.

It seems to me that some sensitivity is warranted, not because we should bow to extremism, but it seems irresponsible to needlessly throw fuel on the flames. Muslims need to get over this humiliation, and I'm not sure we help them with that by providing them with more evidence of our contempt. Moderate voices are hardest to hear when people have their blood up.

Good post.

[rexallllsc]

Out of curiosity, in what way is the Pope out of touch? That he isn't afraid to speak (GOSH!) the actual truth?

I agree with Jon -- he didn't go far enough.

Do you think the pope should be promoting peace or a Crusades mentality? He should know how imflammatory hiscomments would be.

Here's a quote from the story:

""The declarations from the pope are more dangerous than the cartoons, because they come from the most important Christian authority in the world — the cartoons just came from an artist," said Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo, Egypt, who studies Islamic militancy."

[st.cronin]

Do you think the pope should be promoting peace or a Crusades mentality? He should know how imflammatory hiscomments would be.

Here's a quote from the story:

""The declarations from the pope are more dangerous than the cartoons, because they come from the most important Christian authority in the world — the cartoons just came from an artist," said Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo, Egypt, who studies Islamic militancy."


I don't believe you read the Pope's comments. He was explicitly arguing FOR peace!

[Passacaglia]

Weird, I thought Bucc was the only one here old enough to have actually met Mohammed, and know whether or not he was evil. Guess I was wrong. :P

[rexallllsc]

I don't believe you read the Pope's comments. He was explicitly arguing FOR peace!

Because we all know that when you're arguing for peace, you should degrade someone who one group reveres.

[st.cronin]

Because we all know that when you're arguing for peace, you should degrade someone who one group reveres.

Ok, you definitely didn't read the Pope's comments.

[rexallllsc]

Ok, you definitely didn't read the Pope's comments.

I read exactly what he said. I agree with him that spreading a message through violence is unacceptable.

However, Yes or No: The pople quoted a piece that degrades Mohammed?

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

Good to see some support of B-16 here. If anyone wants to look into what the Pope was truly saying. They could do a little research about the who the Pope was quoting and see the circumstances of the Byzantine Emperor's remarks. He is at his military camp outside Constantinople - his capital city is under seige by Turkish Muslims. He is trying to have a civilized rational discussion with a Muslim (one of the enemy) about the very thing that is threatening his 1000+ yr empire and capital. Perhaps he was trying to find some way that the two religions could live in real peace.

I wish we could read the rest of the conversation in that book from which the quote came. I wonder if in modern lingo the Emperor is trying to say: Why are you attacking us and saying that God approves of this violence? Isn't that what all of us in the US are wondering today since 9/11?

I.E. Explain yourself: why the heck are you attacking us and saying that your God wants you to do it to spread his faith ("by the sword')?

Benedict wants the Muslim world to think about that and give us a thought-out answer so that we can enter a dialogue about our differences based on reason. If the Muslim world can't do that, then how the heck can we make real "peace" and avoid all-out clash of civilizations?

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

I read exactly what he said. I agree with him that spreading a message through violence is unacceptable.

However, Yes or No: The pople quoted a piece that degrades Mohammed?

Degrading Mohammed and all forms of faith,including his own, that force conversion by the sword.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If the Muslim world can't do that, then how the heck can we make real "peace" and avoid all-out clash of civilizations?

1) They can't.
2) We can't.
3) We can't.

[Edward64]

1) They can't.
2) We can't.
3) We can't.

I think I know your answer to this, nevertheless care to expound on how the 'clash of civilizations/religion' will play out?

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

1) They can't.
2) We can't.
3) We can't.

It is the decisive people who have become civilised; it is the indecisive, otherwise called the higher sceptics, or the idealistic doubters, who have remained barbarians." GK Chesterton

Jon - I saw your signature was a quote from Chesteron, who is my favorite author, and had to quote something by him....All is possilbe , we must try to keep dialogue open and communicate which is what the Pope was trying to do. Whether you or the rest of the world believe it.

[Edward64]

I read exactly what he said. I agree with him that spreading a message through violence is unacceptable.

However, Yes or No: The pople quoted a piece that degrades Mohammed?

I like your direct questioning. The answer is Yes.

But lets be fair. Quoting a piece that degrades Mohammed in a speech that he (Pope) does not say he agrees with does not mean he (Pope) is degrading Mohammed himself.

Can you not agree that this distinction is lost on the Muslim masses (and some on this board) in Karachi et al? Yes or No?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... care to expound on how the 'clash of civilizations/religion' will play out?

All depends upon whether the targets of Islam pull their heads out of their asses in time to adequately defend themselves. At this point, I'd rather not hazard a guess on which way that'll turn out

[st.cronin]

I like your direct questioning. The answer is Yes.

But lets be fair. Quoting a piece that degrades Mohammed in a speech that he (Pope) does not say he agrees with does not mean he (Pope) is degrading Mohammed himself.

Can you not agree that this distinction is lost on the Muslim masses (and some on this board) in Karachi et al? Yes or No?

Evidently it's a distinction lost on some members of this board.

[MrBigglesworth]

My point was simply that "mideast Muslim leaders" have a strong tendency to teach that everything bad that happens is somebody else's fault.
Unlike our enlightened leaders, who take full responsibility for everything :rolleyes:

I love how talking about Muslims always brings out the racist crazies here. Benedict shouldn't have said it and not expected a reaction. C'mon, he's the Pope, you can't just be going around quoting someone calling the founder of a major world religion evil and inhuman and not expect a backlash. I can see why Muslims are upset (look at some of the comments here to see where propoganda like that leads). Obviously some have taken it too far, I'm not defending all of their actions. But that is not a quality singular to Muslims. Any group that feels that they are a minority or disadvantages behaves in the same way. For example the Rodney King riots in LA, the Stonewall riots in NYC, etc. I don't think a day goes by where I don't see a story about Christians over-reacting to some perceived slight. God forbid Wal-Mart says, "Happy Holidays".

There are a good number of Christians like JIMG that would say we have to kill all the Muslims because they are a violent people. That doesn't make all Christians bloodthirsty savages.

[cougarfreak]

Maybe the Pope should treat Muslims the way Muslims treat other religions.......like those of Jewish faith........errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maybe not. Telling the truth anymore does nothing but stir up those that don't want to own up to the idiots they have become.

[cougarfreak]

There are a good number of Christians like JIMG that would say we have to kill all the Muslims because they are a violent people. That doesn't make all Christians bloodthirsty savages.


The problem with the above is...........those "bloodthirsty savages" aren not at the forefront representing the Christian faith, nor are they out there ACTUALLY killing people on a basis that is large enough to be representative. If they were, the rest of the Christian faith would put a cap in their ass.

[WVUFAN]

Unlike our enlightened leaders, who take full responsibility for everything :rolleyes:

What does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? Or do you just want to take potshots at them just because you can?

Clinton sucks. There, we're even. :)


I love how talking about Muslims always brings out the racist crazies here.

And I love how when someone call extremist Muslims to task for their ridiculous behavior than suddenly we're "racist". No, when someone is acting stupid, Christian, Muslin, Jew, regardless of who they choose to worship, they they deserve what they get. I said in my initial post that I akin the people who are throwing a fit over this to the extremist Christians. Both are making the entire group look bad.

The word "racist" gets tossed around much more than it should. Heaven forbid you have a negative thing to say about someone, even if they deserve it.



Benedict shouldn't have said it and not expected a reaction. C'mon, he's the Pope, you can't just be going around quoting someone calling the founder of a major world religion evil and inhuman and not expect a backlash.

He spoke the truth.


I can see why Muslims are upset (look at some of the comments here to see where propoganda like that leads).

SOME Muslims are upset because they WANT to be upset. They're looking for something, anything to riot and protest over. They (the people who are protesting and rioting) are a violent culture that has no redeeming value whatsoever.

The plain truth: These extremists are some of the same people who have beheaded Americans just because they're Americans, but we don't riot about that. They are some of the same people who have stated time and time again they want to eradicate every single Jew off the face of the Earth, but they're not rioting about that. They deserve NO respect -- NO mercy -- NO consideration. They deserve NOTHING but to simply die.


Obviously some have taken it too far, I'm not defending all of their actions. But that is not a quality singular to Muslims. Any group that feels that they are a minority or disadvantages behaves in the same way.

And they're wrong too.


I don't think a day goes by where I don't see a story about Christians over-reacting to some perceived slight. God forbid Wal-Mart says, "Happy Holidays".

Different discussion, since the issue wasn't that they said "Happy Holidays", but that they couldn't say "Merry Christmas".

But, you're right, you saw mass rioting and demonstrations over that. Wait ... no, you didn't.


There are a good number of Christians like JIMG that would say we have to kill all the Muslims because they are a violent people. That doesn't make all Christians bloodthirsty savages.

I don't remember JIMG ever saying that. Could I get a quote?

[MrBigglesworth]

The problem with the above is...........those "bloodthirsty savages" aren not at the forefront representing the Christian faith, nor are they out there ACTUALLY killing people on a basis that is large enough to be representative. If they were, the rest of the Christian faith would put a cap in their ass.
The world's largest Christian nation recently launched a war that has killed tens of thousands of Muslims. This war was supported by and cheered for by that country's largest Christian leaders. The Christian world has the luxury of large dominating armies that can help propogate their worldview.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

But lets be fair. Quoting a piece that degrades Mohammed in a speech that he (Pope) does not say he agrees with does not mean he (Pope) is degrading Mohammed himself.


He clearly endorses the quotes in a general sense (they are central to his argument) and in no way disclaims the part referring to all of the teachings of Mohammed as evil and inhuman. That part simply did not need to appear in his speech and contributes nothing to the point the Pope was trying to argue (other than to ensure that those who most needed to hear his speech would reject it outright).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't remember JIMG ever saying that. Could I get a quote?

I might be able to help with that (I figure it'll save some time).

If that's what it takes to end terroristic campaigns conducted by Muslims, I'm all for it.

Who/what/how they choose to conduct their spiritual life is a matter between them and God ... except when their religion calls for, condones, or willingly facilitates the murder of my countrymen and/or our allies. At which point, I don't believe they can be killed fast enough to suit my taste.

That ought to be plenty enough to suit anybody who wants to invest time in flaming me.

[MrBigglesworth]

What does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? Or do you just want to take potshots at them just because you can?

Clinton sucks. There, we're even. :)
I wasn't taking potshots at Bush, I was speaking in a general sense: our leaders don't take responsibility and they blame someone or something else. Bush does have that reputation though, doesn't he? It's human nature, and it's wrong no matter who does it. It's relevant because st.cronin was taking a common human failing and attributing it to one group, something that pops up very very often in situations like this generally, and with Muslims specifically.


And I love how when someone call extremist Muslims to task for their ridiculous behavior than suddenly we're "racist". No, when someone is acting stupid, Christian, Muslin, Jew, regardless of who they choose to worship, they they deserve what they get. I said in my initial post that I akin the people who are throwing a fit over this to the extremist Christians. Both are making the entire group look bad.
I wasn't calling anyone racist that said what certain Muslims are doing are wrong, I was referring to people that were calling Islam evil, or something even worse, since one person said that Benedict didn't go far enough.


The word "racist" gets tossed around much more than it should. Heaven forbid you have a negative thing to say about someone, even if they deserve it.




He spoke the truth.
"I'm not racist, but Islam is evil and inhuman," is a kind of contradiction.


SOME Muslims are upset because they WANT to be upset. They're looking for something, anything to riot and protest over. They (the people who are protesting and rioting) are a violent culture that has no redeeming value whatsoever.

The plain truth: These extremists are some of the same people who have beheaded Americans just because they're Americans, but we don't riot about that. They are some of the same people who have stated time and time again they want to eradicate every single Jew off the face of the Earth, but they're not rioting about that. They deserve NO respect -- NO mercy -- NO consideration. They deserve NOTHING but to simply die.
Would you say the same about Americans that want to kill Muslims? I wouldn't, I think there are redeeming qualities, and that their views merely reflect a certain ignorance that could be cured. And, 'just because they are Americans'?
We did invade and occupy their country and kidnap and torture their countrymen after all, I'm not justifying the acts, but let's get the motivations correct here.

I don't remember JIMG ever saying that. Could I get a quote?
"1) They can't.
2) We can't.
3) We can't."

[WVUFAN]

I might be able to help with that (I figure it'll save some time).

If that's what it takes to end terroristic campaigns conducted by Muslims, I'm all for it.

Who/what/how they choose to conduct their spiritual life is a matter between them and God ... except when their religion calls for, condones, or willingly facilitates the murder of my countrymen and/or our allies. At which point, I don't believe they can be killed fast enough to suit my taste.

That ought to be plenty enough to suit anybody who wants to invest time in flaming me.

To be fair, that's not saying "kill all Muslims", that's expecting Muslims to ask like human beings and not monsters. You respect Human Beings, you kill Monsters. How a Muslim behaves is up to them, but there are consequences to their actions.

There's plenty of Muslims that live in peace and conduct themselves properly while still being spiritually strong. Those people have my respect. Its the others I have issue with.

[MrBigglesworth]

If that's what it takes to end terroristic campaigns conducted by Muslims, I'm all for it.
Well there you go: JIMG, in order to stop terrorist attacks that occur every 5 years or so, is willing to kill millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people. You are going to be hard pressed to find a more morally bankrupt stance, and he is a Christian. Muslims don't have a monopoly on hate. If we got rid of them, we'd just find some other group to hate. It's not like everyone in the world would get along if only it weren't for that inhumane Mohammed.

[st.cronin]

Boy, the rhetorical hoops people are willing to jump through to defend lunacy is just absolutely astounding. How is this about America, at all? The Pope has nothing to do with America.

[st.cronin]

Well there you go: JIMG, in order to stop terrorist attacks that occur every 5 years or so, is willing to kill millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people. You are going to be hard pressed to find a more morally bankrupt stance, and he is a Christian. Muslims don't have a monopoly on hate. If we got rid of them, we'd just find some other group to hate. It's not like everyone in the world would get along if only it weren't for that inhumane Mohammed.

Funny, that's not how I read what he said at all. I think you read it that way because you prefer to imagine him a horrible racist, instead of somebody who might possibly have some ideas which are different than yours.

[ice4277]

Boy, the rhetorical hoops people are willing to jump through to defend lunacy is just absolutely astounding. How is this about America, at all? The Pope has nothing to do with America.

Have you forgotten the vast Judeo-Christian conspiracy?

[JonInMiddleGA]

See WVU, I told you that would be plenty to suit the purposes of our left wing trolls ;)

[WVUFAN]

Well there you go: JIMG, in order to stop terrorist attacks that occur every 5 years or so, is willing to kill millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people. You are going to be hard pressed to find a more morally bankrupt stance, and he is a Christian. Muslims don't have a monopoly on hate. If we got rid of them, we'd just find some other group to hate. It's not like everyone in the world would get along if only it weren't for that inhumane Mohammed.

I think he expects Muslims to act civilized, and if they don't, then do something about it.

So, what is the solution to those extremist Muslims out there, Bigglesworth? Should we never do anything that might get them mad? Think that'll stop them?

Or maybe we should try to "share" and "understand" what they're feeling. Because I'm sure they will go with that.

So, what is your solution, then?

[st.cronin]

I think he expects Muslims to act civilized, and if they don't, then do something about it.

So, what is the solution to those extremist Muslims out there, Bigglesworth? Should we never do anything that might get them mad? Think that'll stop them?

Or maybe we should try to "share" and "understand" what they're feeling. Because I'm sure they will go with that.

So, what is your solution, then?

His solution is to accuse people of being morally bankrupt racists, even when it's clearly a lie, because for some reason it gives him satisfaction.

[WVUFAN]

See WVU, I told you that would be plenty to suit the purposes of our left wing trolls ;)

Heh. Doesn't take much.

[Edward64]

Okay, trying to get this back to topic at hand instead of another MrBigglesworth vs st.cronin.

He clearly endorses the quotes in a general sense (they are central to his argument) and in no way disclaims the part referring to all of the teachings of Mohammed as evil and inhuman.
I don't agree with "clearly endorses". He is quoting an historian's passage on an historical conversation to setup his further discussion on a delineation of the 2 religions, one bound by reason the other "not bound up with any of our categories".

If this delineation is NOT correct, that's what Muslims should be in uproar about (ex. misquoting Mohammed's teachings), not the Pope's quote on a historian's quote on a historical incident.

That part simply did not need to appear in his speech
I agree with you here. Another example probably could have been used. However, I am not sure another example specific to Islam/Mohammed could have been used without being another reason for an uproar.

and contributes nothing to the point the Pope was trying to argue (other than to ensure that those who most needed to hear his speech would reject it outright).
It did contribute to the discussion as it delineated differences in the religions (again, if this delineation is incorrect that's a different issue).

[Oilers9911]

I might be able to help with that (I figure it'll save some time).

If that's what it takes to end terroristic campaigns conducted by Muslims, I'm all for it.

Who/what/how they choose to conduct their spiritual life is a matter between them and God ... except when their religion calls for, condones, or willingly facilitates the murder of my countrymen and/or our allies. At which point, I don't believe they can be killed fast enough to suit my taste.

That ought to be plenty enough to suit anybody who wants to invest time in flaming me.

Germans in WW2 were trying to kill Americans and their allies but that doesn't mean all Germans needed to die. That a small percentage of Muslims advocate killing innocent people to further their twisted view of their religion doesn't mean all Muslims must die. That would make us as extreme as the extremeists.

[Oilers9911]

His solution is to accuse people of being morally bankrupt racists, even when it's clearly a lie, because for some reason it gives him satisfaction.

I don't think Jon is a racist. If he had said all muslims are evil terrorists then that would be more racist. However, to suggest wiping out an entire religion to prevent a small percentage of wackos from killing is extreme. Why not just say if the police can't get black people from committing crimes we jail or kill them all?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but that doesn't mean all Germans needed to die.

Which is pretty much what I said up the thread. Read it again.

My point was/is "ever how many it takes". The objective is to put an end to their role in terrorist activity against the U.S. and our allies. If that requires one more dead, fine by me. And if it's every single one, so be it.

The biggest place you & I seem to disagree may not be on whether stopping them will involve killing but rather on what the percentage of Muslims who support terrorist activity is.

[panerd]

It's hard to take the Muslims seriously with the way they treat their women. The Catholics on the other hand, oh wait never mind.

It is sad that once again a debate (just like almost every debate in the past 5-10 years) seems to come down to being on one side or the other. How about we agree that people who become in involved in religion to help others and spread the word of love and community = good. People (even sometimes the Pope) who use religion to tear apart groups of people who don't think exactly like they do = bad. Then there is a lot of gray area in the middle.

Unfortunatly there are quite a few posters on this board who have some great insight in the sports and business related threads who feel they must choose all of the views of one side or the other in the political/religious threads and end up coming across as very ignorant and uninformed.

[Oilers9911]

Which is pretty much what I said up the thread. Read it again.

My point was/is "ever how many it takes". The objective is to put an end to their role in terrorist activity against the U.S. and our allies. If that requires one more dead, fine by me. And if it's every single one, so be it.

The biggest place you & I seem to disagree may not be on whether stopping them will involve killing but rather on what the percentage of Muslims who support terrorist activity is.

It is obvious the number of muslims that support terrorist activity is too high, even 1 is too high but there are over a billion muslims in the world. What percentage do you think supports terrorist actions? 5%? Hell even at 1% if that were true we'd be ass deep in an all out war against the muslims and we are not. There is approaching a million muslims in Canada where I live and I would bet that a very small number of those support terrorist activities.

[EagleFan]

I love how talking about Muslims always brings out the racist crazies here.

Muslim is not a race!!!!!

Personally, I love how whenever someone who is not a Muslim even mentions the word, there is a riot of some sort by the Islamic radicals. "They say we are violent, how dare they, they must die! That'll show them how non-violent we are!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hell even at 1% if that were true we'd be ass deep in an all out war against the muslims and we are not.

Just FTR, I meant both active & passive support, i.e. I'm not just talking about the bombers & shooters, but those who hide them, turn a blind eye to their activity and otherwise render aid to their crimes.

[cartman]

If you want to talk about people supporting and aiding those committing crimes, I would venture to guess that, as a percentage, the numbers of white folks supporting and aiding those who were members of lynch mobs back in the late 1800s/early 1900s, is comparable to or exceeds the percentages of Muslims supporing Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, et al. Good thing all of those whities weren't systematically wiped out to curtail racism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good thing all of those whities weren't systematically wiped out to curtail racism.

Tell you what cartman, when those folks climb up out of their graves & start flying planes into the WTC, I'll give that more weight as an argument.

In the meantime, we're at war.

[EagleFan]

If you want to talk about people supporting and aiding those committing crimes, I would venture to guess that, as a percentage, the numbers of white folks supporting and aiding those who were members of lynch mobs back in the late 1800s/early 1900s, is comparable to or exceeds the percentages of Muslims supporing Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, et al. Good thing all of those whities weren't systematically wiped out to curtail racism.

:rolleyes:

That has what to do with this situation?

[Edward64]

If you want to talk about people supporting and aiding those committing crimes, I would venture to guess that, as a percentage, the numbers of white folks supporting and aiding those who were members of lynch mobs back in the late 1800s/early 1900s, is comparable to or exceeds the percentages of Muslims supporing Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, et al. Good thing all of those whities weren't systematically wiped out to curtail racism.

I know there was some sarcasm involved but not sure if you seriously believe what you wrote...

I think the % of whites supporting lynch mobs back then is far less than the % of Muslims support Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah et al. Doubt there are any studies to quote but here's my logic.

Assume we are talking about passive/active support of these terrorist groups.

Total pop of US in 1900s = Today approx 300M. I'm just guessing approx 150M back then. Split the US into 3 (North, South, West), presume 33% supported lynch mobs.

Total pop of Muslims in the World = I think I heard 1B plus. Vast majority live in non-Western countries. Assume 50%+ support.

% wise and pure #s, I can easily believe your argument to be false.

... and of course, most of us agree those lynch mobs were wrong. Would you care to concede these terrorist supports and groups are wrong?

[cartman]

I know there was some sarcasm involved but not sure if you seriously believe what you wrote...

I think the % of whites supporting lynch mobs back then is far less than the % of Muslims support Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah et al. Doubt there are any studies to quote but here's my logic.

Assume we are talking about passive/active support of these terrorist groups.

Total pop of US in 1900s = Today approx 300M. I'm just guessing approx 150M back then. Split the US into 3 (North, South, West), presume 33% supported lynch mobs.

Total pop of Muslims in the World = I think I heard 1B plus. Vast majority live in non-Western countries. Assume 50%+ support.

% wise and pure #s, I can easily believe your argument to be false.

... and of course, most of us agree those lynch mobs were wrong. Would you care to concede these terrorist supports and groups are wrong?

Of couse pure #s-wise the amount is much higher for the Muslim community. That is why I referenced percentages. And yes, there are no studies that can accurately say what is the % of those practicing Islam that support terrorists, versus the % of whites that supported lynch mobs. However, there is/was a great amount of support for the evil doers in both instances, with an overlap of their ranges of possible support. I completely agree that terrorists and those that actively support them are wrong. I never mentioned that this was not my position. What I was trying to get across is that wholesale killing of the supporters of the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah/etc. is not a valid response to the situation, no more than if all of the whites that supported lynch mobs were killed en masse.

[Oilers9911]

Just FTR, I meant both active & passive support, i.e. I'm not just talking about the bombers & shooters, but those who hide them, turn a blind eye to their activity and otherwise render aid to their crimes.

Yes that is fair. I think you will find passive support for all kinds of insidious behaviour. For example, not everyone in America was actively involved in slavery but passively alot of people didn't complain much.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What I was trying to get across is that wholesale killing of the supporters of the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah/etc. is not a valid response to the situation ...

Bullshit.

[PSUColonel]

In my case, it's entirely correct. It's a small group of people (Islamic extremists) making an entire religion look bad.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest fan of the religion to begin with, but this certainly doesn't endear it to the general populace when they bitch over ANYTHING remotely derrogatory towards the religion. This is in many ways similar to extremist Christians (that moronic group in Kansas who pickets funerals as an example -- snakehandlers in my area as another example) doing quite frankly idiotic things that casts a shadow over everyone who follows that same religion.

For a group that demands that others be respectful of what they are, they have no tolerance for criticism. You don't get it both ways.



This is the politically correct thing to say, and the same sentiment being echoed by politicians and others, but if you closely examine Islam as a religion, and the Koran as it's "Bible", you'll see that it really isn't the case of a a few bad eggs, or a few rotten tomatoes. Islam as a religion DOES in fact preach violence and DOES in fact encourage it against infadels. Here is a poll number to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, and to in essence show you the plans Islamos have for the future, and how the plan to root themselves within western democracy. (It's funny, it was the Solviets who told the U.S. they would "take us over from within") 44 percent of Muslims living in London say they felt the attacks on the London subways were "warranted." 44 PERCENT!!! .....Now these are supposed to be westernized muslims who are supposedly less secular and perhaps even life long residents of the UK. Yet 44 percent of them STILL felt the bombings were justified. Now I don't know how much stock we can always put in poll numbers, but I will admit that is scary!! So, when you say it's a few bad people making an otherwise peaceful religion look bad, I really think you might want to do some more historical (and contemporary) research. This just isn't the case, but it's what you will hear every politician say in order as not to offend anyone.(simply because politicians today have no balls) So it's really a case of: "if you repeat a lie long enough, eventually it becomes truth."

[cartman]

Bullshit.

Funny how you left off the rest of the sentence I wrote.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Funny how you left off the rest of the sentence I wrote.

It appeared to me that the quoted part was your basic premise.

Cartman, you seem to be attempting to make this something it isn't. If that floats your boat, so be it, but only damned fools are going to buy into it. If that's the company you choose to keep ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

And PSUColonel provides another voice of reason in the wilderness.

[cartman]

And, to draw another parallel between my points, and what PSUColonel wrote, he said 44% of the Muslims in London agreed with the attacks on the subways. No one in their right mind is going to argue that all 44% of those are Al-Qaeda, and they all need to be killed. That is just ignorant. To draw the parallel, those that supported the lynch mobs weren't all members of the KKK. Is it really THAT tenous of a link between the two? No, and for you to argue that it is a ranting of a "damned fool" is completely off base.

I really am worried the mental state about some supporting Stalin-esqe purges of entire swaths of people. Instead of going after those who are doing the evil, let's just take an easy way to make ourselves feel better and execute anyone who might be sympathetic towards the evil doers. Yep, that will definitely make those Al-Qaedas see the light, and give up their arms.

[PSUColonel]

And PSUColonel provides another voice of reason in the wilderness.



Then please explain to me which part of it you didn't understand.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then please explain to me which part of it you didn't understand.

Umm ... :confused: :confused: :confused:

If I read you correctly, I thought you had one of the more spot-on takes I've seen here.

In other words, my comment was intended as praise, not criticism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Instead of going after those who are doing the evil, let's just take an easy way to make ourselves feel better and execute anyone who might be sympathetic towards the evil doers.

You're attempting to draw too fine a point & therefore failing to make one (rather obvious) connection: Those supporting A-Q, et al ARE "doing the evil". There's more to being a part of a war effort than just picking up a rifle.

Yep, that will definitely make those Al-Qaedas see the light, and give up their arms.

Do you really believe that's going to happen in any fashion other than taking those weapons from their cold, dead fingers?

[Edward64]

Newsweeks take
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14866559/site/newsweek/

Then why did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation” about the role of faith in the life of the world. “He knew exactly what he was doing,” says Weigel. “He is saying that irrational violence is displeasing to God. The question Benedict is putting on the table is: ‘Does a significant part of Islam have the capacity to be self-critical?’ ”

the pope must have known his words would carry. And by speaking of jihad without alluding to Christianity’s dark history of violence in the name of God—the Crusades, forced conversions, pogroms, the Inquisition—Benedict seemed to be denouncing Islam while failing to acknowledge that any religion, including his own, can be manipulated and perverted to evil ends. “It is very hard to construe the pope’s remarks in a benign way,” says William A. Graham, the dean of the Harvard Divinity School. “Historically, there is no more basis for arguing that Islam is irrational than there is for arguing the same about Christianity or Judaism. In all three you can find tremendous discussion about revelation and reason, and there are people in all three who have landed outside the rational. Islam has bloody borders right now, but Christianity has certainly been bloody, as has Judaism in its more extreme forms.”

[st.cronin]

What I find fascinating about this is that there are people (on both sides of the discussion) who can't seperate out what the Pope said and the "reaction" in the Muslim community. My initial point is that Muslim reaction has zero to do with what the Pope actually said, and everything to do with the bizzaro politics that go on within the Mideast.

Consider a thought experiment: What would happen if Martin Scorsese decided to make a movie similiar in tone to his Passion, about the life of Mohammed?

[Oilers9911]

Umm ... :confused: :confused: :confused:

If I read you correctly, I thought you had one of the more spot-on takes I've seen here.

In other words, my comment was intended as praise, not criticism.

Maybe he thinks you're in the wilderness ;)

[WVUFAN]

Consider a thought experiment: What would happen if Martin Scorsese decided to make a movie similiar in tone to his Passion, about the life of Mohammed?

They would do to him what they did to Salmon Rushdie, and make him hide for fear of his life.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

They would do to him what they did to Salmon Rushdie, and make him hide for fear of his life.

You mean, kind of what actually did happen to Scorsese when he released The Last Temptation of Christ? He received death threats and (according to Wikipedia) a Christian fundamentalist group in France attacked a theater showing the film with Molotov cocktails. A bounty wasn't placed on his head like what happened with Rushdie, but there was plenty of outrage by the Christian community.

[st.cronin]

You mean, kind of what actually did happen to Scorsese when he released The Last Temptation of Christ? He received death threats and (according to Wikipedia) a Christian fundamentalist group in France attacked a theater showing the film with Molotov cocktails. A bounty wasn't placed on his head like what happened with Rushdie, but there was plenty of outrage by the Christian community.

Martin Scorsese has continued to work and has not gone into hiding, and no heads of state have called for his assasination. There are many, many Christians who loved his movie. Nice try.

[Raiders Army]

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

[Glengoyne]

My thoughts on the above quoted criticisms from the Newsweek peice.

I don't think one has to mention failings of the past when discussing a contemporary problem. I also don't believe it would have made one iota difference in the manner his statements were received my a number of muslims.

I don't think that today there is an option for an open dialogue between Christianity and Islam, or for that matter between Islam and outsiders. The only way to curb the violence pervasive to Islam in the middle east today is through internal moderation. Only the moderate clerics of today and years to come can bring about change to what has become, for a number of reasons at least regionally, a religion of discontent.

[Edward64]

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

I take it you are an atheist or agnostic.

Its simple to say and probably has some truth to it but I suspect even without religion, there would be other causes (ex. lebansrum, manifest destiny etc) that would cause war/violence etc.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I don't think that today there is an option for an open dialogue between Christianity and Islam, or for that matter between Islam and outsiders. The only way to curb the violence pervasive to Islam in the middle east today is through internal moderation. Only the moderate clerics of today and years to come can bring about change to what has become, for a number of reasons at least regionally, a religion of discontent.

I think that's right. We can't be the ones to do the heavy lifting in this (and will fail if we try). But there are things that we can do that will create an environment conducive to that internal moderation, and conversely things that will be create an environment hostile to moderation. The challenge for our foreign policy is to figure which things are which.

[Groundhog]

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

I doubt it. People would always find something to war over, and religion just gives them a banner to fight under. If you erased religion, then it would be between political systems or any other convenient issue at hand.

[Edward64]

I think that's right. We can't be the ones to do the heavy lifting in this (and will fail if we try). But there are things that we can do that will create an environment conducive to that internal moderation, and conversely things that will be create an environment hostile to moderation. The challenge for our foreign policy is to figure which things are which.
I agree with you and Glengoyne. I tend to believe the change needs to be from within and nothing in our foreign policy can make it 'right'.

In another thread, my theory was we could not make Muslim countries pro-US, the best we can do is shift them to 'neutral'.

Anyone has any insights into whether the Sunni's are more 'moderate' than the Shites and why that may be so? It seems to me that most of the sectarian radicalism/extremist are Shite whereas the Sunni's are more secular.

[Grammaticus]

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

Although I think this comment was made with a certain pragmatic intent, it is far from true.

In modern times the most violent situations where human life was subdued and eliminated out of abuse of power is communist Russian and China. The two situations that come the closest to eliminating religion as I can think of.

[Greyroofoo]

Personally I blame the heat

[Buccaneer]

It would be hard, at least in the short-term, to see internal moderation in a country like Iran where it is eliminating all liberalism, western teachings and non-fundamentalist professors from its universities.

[st.cronin]

Personally I blame the heat

Damn global warming.

[Chief Rum]

Then please explain to me which part of it you didn't understand.

Wow, want a toothpick to help displace that foot?

[Mac Howard]

You can't help but feel that this is the Islamic world deliberately (paranoically?) seeking out examples to justify its antagonism to other religions and western culture in particular. The Pope may well have been careless but my understanding is that this was a lecture he was giving to a small bunch of students at his old University on faith and reason, not his usual advice to the world. He was arguing essentially against the use of violence and the threat of violence in promoting religion. He referred to earlier medieval debates on this and the "quotation" was taken from such a debate. It wasn't a "quotation" in the sense of using it to express his own views but to illustrate the nature of the debate. Not particularly diplomatic in current circumstances but not particularly offensive either and not in a public forum.

I read this morning that the Pope's current tendancy to put his foot in his mouth has continued with a quotation from the bible that speaks of the Jewish "shame of the crucifixion". Fortunately the Jewish community has responded more with a rolling of the eyes than violence.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

It would be hard, at least in the short-term, to see internal moderation in a country like Iran where it is eliminating all liberalism, western teachings and non-fundamentalist professors from its universities.

And yet a mere five years ago it was going in precisely the opposite direction...

[molson]

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

It would probably balance out. If people gave up the myth of an afterlife, they would probably be less likely to sacrifice themselves in certain types of conflicts. On the other hand, opressed people, without an afterlife to placate them, would probably be quicker to bring violence against their government.

[Glengoyne]

And yet a mere five years ago it was going in precisely the opposite direction...

I'm not exactly sure what exactly has prompted that shift away from reformation. Not all that long ago there were indications that almost 90% of the population wanted to move away from fundamentalism. The population that had experienced the relative freedoms of a secular government, albeit a dictatorship, was straining against fundamentalist rule. Now they elect someone who might very well be a terrorist as well a mad man.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It would probably balance out. If people gave up the myth of an afterlife, they would probably be less likely to sacrifice themselves in certain types of conflicts.

Just for food for thought: I think you would probably be replacing wars/larger conflicts with crime in the streets on an unprecedented scale, something that would make the Old West look like a tea party.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Martin Scorsese has continued to work and has not gone into hiding, and no heads of state have called for his assasination. There are many, many Christians who loved his movie. Nice try.

Salman Rushdie has continued to work as well. I didn't say the two experienced the same thing, I was merely stating that threats were made on Scorsese's life, just like there were on Rushdie. There were protests against both works, and in some instances, violence did occur.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Consider a thought experiment: What would happen if Martin Scorsese decided to make a movie similiar in tone to his Passion, about the life of Mohammed?

They would do to him what they did to Salmon Rushdie, and make him hide for fear of his life.

Jonathan Ezarik. Do you really disagree with what WVUFAN is saying? Of course this would happen, why argue the obvious?

Now, if you believe the same happened to Scorsese with the Christian crowd, I just don't see it.

The Scorsese and Rushdie experiences are no where close to being the same in 'degree of hostility/threats'.

Can you confirm you really believe these 2 examples are approx the same in 'degree of hostility/threats'?

[Edward64]

I'm not exactly sure what exactly has prompted that shift away from reformation. Not all that long ago there were indications that almost 90% of the population wanted to move away from fundamentalism. The population that had experienced the relative freedoms of a secular government, albeit a dictatorship, was straining against fundamentalist rule. Now they elect someone who might very well be a terrorist as well a mad man.
From what I remember ...

The prior President Khatami, a reformer, had a broad base of younger generation support but was not willing to confront the hardliners and slowly saw his support base and popularity wane away over 2 terms.

In the past election, candidates had to be approved by the hardline mullahs. This lead to a limited number of reformers.

The current madman apparently did have a broadbase of support as he was the former mayor of Tehran.

I think the answer is that the younger generation got disillusioned with Khatami and broken promises.

[MrBigglesworth]

You can't help but feel that this is the Islamic world deliberately (paranoically?) seeking out examples to justify its antagonism to other religions and western culture in particular.
Here is the point I was making before: EVERY minority does this! There is the Italian-American organization that got pissed at the Sopranos, Jessie Jackson going on TV for every perceived slight, Christian groups picketing for Terri Schiavo, etc. People here are taking a common negative occurance due to human psychology, attributing it to one group, and denegrating that one group because of it. This doesn't make Muslims a bad group of people any more than it makes black people a bad group of people for rioting in the streets after the Rodney King verdict.

[MrBigglesworth]

Funny, that's not how I read what he said at all. I think you read it that way because you prefer to imagine him a horrible racist, instead of somebody who might possibly have some ideas which are different than yours.
There is no other way to read that. He wants to kill every Muslim who supports in any was Al Qaeda, which will only make more people support it, which will mean more people to kill. That's easily millions of people.

[st.cronin]

Here is the point I was making before: EVERY minority does this! There is the Italian-American organization that got pissed at the Sopranos, Jessie Jackson going on TV for every perceived slight, Christian groups picketing for Terri Schiavo, etc. People here are taking a common negative occurance due to human psychology, attributing it to one group, and denegrating that one group because of it. This doesn't make Muslims a bad group of people any more than it makes black people a bad group of people for rioting in the streets after the Rodney King verdict.

If you can't see what's different about the Islamic reaction to the Pope's remarks (which were not even public remarks, mind you), and the rest of this, then you are trying way too hard.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think he expects Muslims to act civilized, and if they don't, then do something about it.

So, what is the solution to those extremist Muslims out there, Bigglesworth? Should we never do anything that might get them mad? Think that'll stop them?

Or maybe we should try to "share" and "understand" what they're feeling. Because I'm sure they will go with that.

So, what is your solution, then?
The best case scenario of the "War on Terrorism" is the same as the "War on Poverty": a reduction in the targetted noun, not the complete abolition of it. Terrorism is like crime: it would certainly be possible to have a near zero crime rate, but the things neccessary to do that (spending most of the budget on police, cameras everywhere, death penalty for the smallest misdemeanors, having people inform on each other, etc) make it counter-productive. It is better as a society to live with a relatively low amount of crime than to eradicate it all. Same with terrorism: there will always be a certain percentage of people out there with extremist views. So you go after the support networks, put pressure on those harboring them, and act in a way that makes your influence mostly positive in the regions known to generate terrorism. Killing them all and letting God sort them out is both immoral and counter-productive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There is no other way to read that. He wants to kill every Muslim who supports in any was Al Qaeda, which will only make more people support it, which will mean more people to kill. That's easily millions of people.

Biggles, as strange as this may seem, that is a pretty accurate summation.

The exception I take, the strong exception, is any implication that this is somehow "racial" or "ethnic" in its origin.

Categorically, I don't give a flying rat's ass if we're talking about white, black, brown, green, or purple. It also doesn't make a flying fuck to me if we're talking about Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, Baptists, Atheists, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterists.

The origin is the support of an enemy/enemies that we are at war with. Period.

I'm very equal opportunity when it comes to advocating the eradication of anybody who fits that description, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

[cougarfreak]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html?eref=yahoo

This oughta help things out quite a bit!

[MrBigglesworth]

Biggles, as strange as this may seem, that is a pretty accurate summation.

The exception I take, the strong exception, is any implication that this is somehow "racial" or "ethnic" in its origin.

Categorically, I don't give a flying rat's ass if we're talking about white, black, brown, green, or purple. It also doesn't make a flying fuck to me if we're talking about Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, Baptists, Atheists, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterists.

The origin is the support of an enemy/enemies that we are at war with. Period.

I'm very equal opportunity when it comes to advocating the eradication of anybody who fits that description, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
Actually you are right, in your case, in this instance, it's not racial, as you have shown a willingness to kill people over downloading songs on the internet. So I think this is more to do with your autocratic nature.

[Oilers9911]

as you have shown a willingness to kill people over downloading songs on the internet.

Sweet Chocolate Christ, I hope Jon never finds out I downloaded the new Bob Dylan album.....ooops.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sweet Chocolate Christ, I hope Jon never finds out I downloaded the new Bob Dylan album.....ooops.

Go forth and sin no more.
(If you suffered through a Dylan album, you've suffered enough) ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually you are right ... I think this is more to do with your autocratic nature.

That assessment I don't have a problem with. I don't completely agree with it, but it isn't offensively off base AFAIC.

Thank you for acknowledging the distinction.

[EagleFan]

The exception I take, the strong exception, is any implication that this is somehow "racial" or "ethnic" in its origin.


That's always his easy way out in this situation, throw around the racism accusations at anyone who is on the right side of the arguement (the logical side, logic seems to be his worst enemy).

[MrBigglesworth]

That's always his easy way out in this situation, throw around the racism accusations at anyone who is on the right side of the arguement (the logical side, logic seems to be his worst enemy).

WTF are you talking about? I've called maybe three statemens racist in my entire time here. And you know why I did it? Because they were. Like these comments:

They're gonna riot over anything, so it's not surprising this does it.

When a group of people throw a fit over a cartoon, they're not all there to begin with.
My point was simply that "mideast Muslim leaders" have a strong tendency to teach that everything bad that happens is somebody else's fault.
(again, this one is racist because it ascribes a universal negative human tendancy to one specific group, then denigrates that entire group because of it)
The Pope was RIGHT in his words, and I'm glad his refuses to retract them.
More the pity, 'cause it's about time somebody spoke directly on the subject [of Muhhamed being evil], but he didn't.

I agree with Jon -- he didn't go far enough [in calling Muslims evil and inhuman]
That's just from the first page. To test for racism, change the subject to black people and see if you can say them in polite company. "Blacks are going to riot over anything, so it's not surprising." "Black leaders have a tendencay to teach that everything bad that happens is somebody else's fault." "It's about time somebody spoke directly on the subject of black people being evil." Easy calls. There is no logic there at all.

People here that are calling Muslims violent are the same ones that have continually supported a war of agression against a country primarily filled with Muslims. Extreme Christian groups bomb abortion clinics. Humans are violent, being Muslim has nothing to do with it.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Jonathan Ezarik. Do you really disagree with what WVUFAN is saying? Of course this would happen, why argue the obvious?

Now, if you believe the same happened to Scorsese with the Christian crowd, I just don't see it.

The Scorsese and Rushdie experiences are no where close to being the same in 'degree of hostility/threats'.

Can you confirm you really believe these 2 examples are approx the same in 'degree of hostility/threats'?

I wasn't arguing how the Islamic world would react if Scorsese made a film that slighted Islam. I'm sure they would react the same as they did with Rushdie, or maybe even worse. My point was that the Christian realm isn't exactly innocent when you start talking about outrage over a controversial film/book.

I equate any death threat equally. I'm sure Scorsese had some moments where he was actually scared for his life. There are plenty of crazies out there, and if something like this sets them off, then what's going to stop them? Especially if they take it as an insult to their religion. Are Christian extremists as determined as Islamic extremists? If you look back in history you can say yes, but in today's world that is no longer true. Of course, abortion doctors would probably disagree with this notion.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

This is the politically correct thing to say, and the same sentiment being echoed by politicians and others, but if you closely examine Islam as a religion, and the Koran as it's "Bible", you'll see that it really isn't the case of a a few bad eggs, or a few rotten tomatoes. Islam as a religion DOES in fact preach violence and DOES in fact encourage it against infadels.

Just curious: Have you actually studied the Koran?

[EagleFan]

Again, Muslim is not a race!!!!

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Again, Muslim is not a race!!!!

I think the dictionary might disagree with you.

race2  /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology.
a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

[Groundhog]

Just curious: Have you actually studied the Koran?

Or the Old Testament?

[Glengoyne]

I think the dictionary might disagree with you.

I don't think it is possible that we both read the same definition, yet you bolded a part of it that seemingly does nothing to make what I believe is your intended point.

I'm thinking that this assertion, along with your conclusion that a few christian whackos threatening Scorsese compares even obliquely with what Salmon Rushdie faced after writing Satanic Verses, is evidence that you are attempting to prolong this arguent by being intentionally obtuse.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I don't think it is possible that we both read the same definition, yet you bolded a part of it that seemingly does nothing to make what I believe is your intended point.

I'm thinking that this assertion, along with your conclusion that a few christian whackos threatening Scorsese compares even obliquely with what Salmon Rushdie faced after writing Satanic Verses, is evidence that you are attempting to prolong this arguent by being intentionally obtuse.

Do you disagree that followers of Islam are "united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc."? Do you consider Judaism a race? If not, what is your definition of race?

And once again, I'm not saying that what Scorsese experienced is the same as Rushdie. My point was this: Christians have a history of doing exactly what they are criticizing Muslims for doing. They might not do them on the same scale as the Islamic world, but they still do them.

[Groundhog]

And once again, I'm not saying that what Scorsese experienced is the same as Rushdie. My point was this: Christians have a history of doing exactly what they are criticizing Muslims for doing. They might not do them on the same scale as the Islamic world, but they still do them.

The bolded part of your statement is important to note, and it's what tickles me every time something like this happens. The pope may like to take a holier than thou stance and criticize the Islamic people for resorting to violence, but how many religious institutions over history have as much innocent blood on their hands as his own?

Religion in the Islamic society today holds the same sort of position that Catholicism did in its dark days, and it was only when the church lost it's power that it began to clean up its act.

This is why I get so irritated when Bush throws god's name around so much. Do we need any clearer proof of the irrationality and violence that is caused by the combination of religion and state than the current problems in the Islamic world, as well as our own history?

[WVUFAN]

Religion in the Islamic society today holds the same sort of position that Catholicism did in its dark days, and it was only when the church lost it's power that it began to clean up its act.



Regardless of the reason, the plain truth of the matter is many Muslims and the Islamic society in general are still acting like the same Barbarian, blood-thirsty monsters that they did in the Dark Ages. Christianity has changed, reformed from our dark times. Islam, or many parts of it, has not. The rest of the parts seem to be unwilling to hold those extremists responsible in check.

Again, when a Christian group flies planes into buildings so they can go to heaven with virgins, then come back and tell me that we need to understand them.

[molson]

The bolded part of your statement is important to note, and it's what tickles me every time something like this happens. The pope may like to take a holier than thou stance and criticize the Islamic people for resorting to violence, but how many religious institutions over history have as much innocent blood on their hands as his own?



Why is Chritianity's past relevant? Isn't the whole point of the opposing view that Islam is still in the "dark ages" that Christianity has advanced past? I'm not particularly concerned about the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades claiming too many lives in the next few years.

[Groundhog]

Why is Chritianity's past relevant? Isn't the whole point of the opposing view that Islam is still in the "dark ages" that Christianity has advanced past? I'm not particularly concerned about the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades claiming too many lives in the next few years.

It's particularily relevant when you take in to consideration what time period the pope was quoting from, and that he was using an Islamic reference when he could have just as easily referred to his own religion.

[Glengoyne]

Do you disagree that followers of Islam are "united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc."? Do you consider Judaism a race? If not, what is your definition of race?

And once again, I'm not saying that what Scorsese experienced is the same as Rushdie. My point was this: Christians have a history of doing exactly what they are criticizing Muslims for doing. They might not do them on the same scale as the Islamic world, but they still do them.

Followers of Islam DO NOT have a common history. They hail from any number of nations and regions around the world. Those nations and regions don't share anything approaching a common history.

They DO NOT share a common language. How many Indonesian muslims can communicate to an arab muslim?

On the Scorsese/Rushdie front, claiming that something is "exactly the same thing" while removing scale from the equation just doesn't cut it. The scope and scale of the threat against Rushdie is what sets it apart from the Scorsese threat. Scorsese continued to make public appearances after he was threatened. Where is Rushdie again?

[Groundhog]

Regardless of the reason, the plain truth of the matter is many Muslims and the Islamic society in general are still acting like the same Barbarian, blood-thirsty monsters that they did in the Dark Ages. Christianity has changed, reformed from our dark times. Islam, or many parts of it, has not. The rest of the parts seem to be unwilling to hold those extremists responsible in check.

There are many Islamic folk who don't react like the angry mob we are all seeing on TV. But you wont see much of these guys on TV having civilised discussions, for the exact same reasons that you wont see positive comments regarding Christian/Buddhist/whatever views on Islamic society in Islamic societies.

The problem isn't with the religion, it's with the people propogating hate at a religious level in particular Islamic societies.

Again, when a Christian group flies planes into buildings so they can go to heaven with virgins, then come back and tell me that we need to understand them.

True, instead we can just shrug off the murder of abortion clinic doctors, and picketing at gay funerals.

All religion can be used as a tool of hate, no matter what the scale.

[MrBigglesworth]

Followers of Islam DO NOT have a common history. They hail from any number of nations and regions around the world. Those nations and regions don't share anything approaching a common history.

They DO NOT share a common language. How many Indonesian muslims can communicate to an arab muslim?
I think you are missing the obvious: they share the cultural trait of having the same religion.

[MrBigglesworth]

Again, when a Christian group flies planes into buildings so they can go to heaven with virgins, then come back and tell me that we need to understand them.
What if I were to tell you that a Christian group had thrown 6 million Jews into ovens to purify the human race? Would that be something that you would be interested in?

[stevew]

Godwin'd

[Edward64]

Quote:
Again, when a Christian group flies planes into buildings so they can go to heaven with virgins, then come back and tell me that we need to understand them.
True, instead we can just shrug off the murder of abortion clinic doctors, and picketing at gay funerals.

And once again, I'm not saying that what Scorsese experienced is the same as Rushdie. My point was this: Christians have a history of doing exactly what they are criticizing Muslims for doing. They might not do them on the same scale as the Islamic world, but they still do them.
Groundhog and Jonathan Ezarik. I would like to formally propose the assumption of 'scale/degree' to this discussion thread.

I just don't see that you can have a productive conversation with most on this board if you don't account for this.

The bolded part of your statement is important to note, and it's what tickles me every time something like this happens. The pope may like to take a holier than thou stance and criticize the Islamic people for resorting to violence, but how many religious institutions over history have as much innocent blood on their hands as his own?
Groundhog. I believe most people on this board (myself included) concede that historically, Christians have much innocent blood on their hands ... no doubt.

However, I would like to formally propose the assumption of 'contemporary' events to this discussion thread. Bringing historical Christian wrongs to counterpoint current Muslim wrongs because there is no contemporary equivalent of Christian wrongs (on the same scale) is not, IMO, a relevant debate.

What if I were to tell you that a Christian group had thrown 6 million Jews into ovens to purify the human race? Would that be something that you would be interested in?
Mr.Bigglesworth. The counterpoint to this is (1) was this really done for religious/sectarian purposes or for secular reasons (2) concentration camps and the 'extent' were largely unknown and a surprise to many non-SS/Nazi (ex. band of brother's episode?) and (2) it was mainly another Christian group B that put an end to the first Christian group A (albeit not for that specific purpose as group B did not know the extent).

In this analogy, I don't see another Muslim group B trying to do the same to Muslim group A.

In Bosnia, another Christian group B put an end to another Christian group A and helped Muslim group A.

Its not that there are Muslim extremists, because there always be the fringe groups. I think much of my issue is there is no Muslim group B (of any significance) trying to put an end to Muslim group A. Can you name a Grand Ayatollah of any significant following that is taking 'actions to stop Muslim group B'? I think the answer is no (but I may be wrong).

[Drake]

I think you are missing the obvious: they share the cultural trait of having the same religion.

Er, I share the same religion with millions of African Christians, but I don't think anyone would say we were of the same race.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Followers of Islam DO NOT have a common history. They hail from any number of nations and regions around the world. Those nations and regions don't share anything approaching a common history.

They DO NOT share a common language. How many Indonesian muslims can communicate to an arab muslim?

You didn't answer my question. Are Jews a separate race?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all Islamic services done in Arabic? So, technically, an Indonesian Muslim could speak with an Arab.

Where is Rushdie again?

In London where he has continued to make public appearances.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Groundhog and Jonathan Ezarik.

You can just call me Jonathan. No need to be formal. :)

I would like to formally propose the assumption of 'scale/degree' to this discussion thread.

I just don't see that you can have a productive conversation with most on this board if you don't account for this.

And I don't see how a productive conversation on this subject can be had when people conveniently ignore the history of their religion. What happened in the past most definitely plays into what happens today, so the Crusades and the Inquisition are extremely relevant.

[Anthony]

You can just call me Jonathan. No need to be formal. :)



And I don't see how a productive conversation on this subject can be had when people conveniently ignore the history of their religion. What happened in the past most definitely plays into what happens today, so the Crusades and the Inquisition are extremely relevant.

so you place relevance in a time when people thought the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was flat and that the heart was the center of thinking?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Er, I share the same religion with millions of African Christians, but I don't think anyone would say we were of the same race.

There's a huge difference in the way Christians value religion in their daily lives than Muslims.

To most Christians, religion is what they have on Sunday or on the holidays. For Muslims, it is who they are. Any religion that requires you to pray five times a day, fast for a month, make a pilgrimage to Mecca once in their life, among other things, calls for dedication towards their religion that most Christians don't have. The same holds for Jews. Their religion is their heritage. Which is why even non-practicing Jews still call themselves Jews.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

so you place relevance in a time when people thought the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was flat and that the heart was the center of thinking?

First off, man has known since the ancient Greeks that the world was round.

Secondly, the Inquisitions didn't end until 1834. So, yes, I'd say that's relevant.

[Anthony]

First off, man has known since the ancient Greeks that the world was round.

Secondly, the Inquisitions didn't end until 1834. So, yes, I'd say that's relevant.

not interested in a history lesson, just saying we're many hundreds of years passed since the Crusades, to put stock in the actions and beliefs of those times is silly.

[Glengoyne]

I think you are missing the obvious: they share the cultural trait of having the same religion.

Obviously, thus they are of the same religion. Not the same race.

edit to add that it seems your intentional obtuseness (it should be a word, if it isn't) is an effective tactic, because I'm still arguing with you. Shame on me.

[Glengoyne]

You didn't answer my question. Are Jews a separate race?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all Islamic services done in Arabic? So, technically, an Indonesian Muslim could speak with an Arab.
...


Jews are a separate race. They pretty much share a common language, heritage and history, especially since the establishment of the state of Israel. They were a race in biblical times. They all hail historically from the same nation. The nation of Israel. The Jewish religion isn't all that big on proselytizing. There are relatively few converts to Judaism. For the most part, if you are a Jew it is because your parent are Jewish. It IS your heritage as much as your religion. There are Muslims all over the world, that are first generation worshipers of Islam.

Islam is a religion. Not a race. This isn't hard.


Edit: I'm sorry for confusing Biggle's ramblings for your own. Obtuse is as obtuse does.

[MalcPow]

First off, man has known since the ancient Greeks that the world was round.

Secondly, the Inquisitions didn't end until 1834. So, yes, I'd say that's relevant.

The problem with your argument is that the whole 'Christians have their own bloody past' angle is most useful as a way to diminish the West's sense that Muslim extremism is completely bizarre, an apple to the orange of civilization as we know it. People talk about the Crusades or Inquisition in the context of this discussion because, looking at its own past, the West can come to understand that a whole religion should not be judged by a few bad actors or a few slices of history. Doing that, they can essentially realize that there is hope, and that there is nothing fundamentally evil about Islam.

You seem to be arguing that the bloody past of Christianity is somehow causing or justifies the current behavior of Muslim extremists. That doesn't hold up. It's about as lazy an approach to the issue as I can think of.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Jews are a separate race. They pretty much share a common language, heritage and history, especially since the establishment of the state of Israel. They were a race in biblical times. They all hail historically from the same nation. The nation of Israel. The Jewish religion isn't all that big on proselytizing. There are relatively few converts to Judaism. For the most part, if you are a Jew it is because your parent are Jewish. It IS your heritage as much as your religion. There are Muslims all over the world, that are first generation worshipers of Islam.

Islam is a religion. Not a race. This isn't hard.


Edit: I'm sorry for confusing Biggle's ramblings for your own. Obtuse is as obtuse does.

So if I convert to Judaism, do I enter the Jewish race?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

not interested in a history lesson, just saying we're many hundreds of years passed since the Crusades, to put stock in the actions and beliefs of those times is silly.

Just as silly as putting stock in the actions and beliefs of a book written over 2,000 years ago?

[Glengoyne]

So if I convert to Judaism, do I enter the Jewish race?

You'd be one of the few converts. I do not personally know what they would consider your race to be. I do know you would be accepted as part of their religion.

My assessment is, no. You would be a convert, and a follower of their religion. But I do not know.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

The problem with your argument is that the whole 'Christians have their own bloody past' angle is most useful as a way to diminish the West's sense that Muslim extremism is completely bizarre, an apple to the orange of civilization as we know it. People talk about the Crusades or Inquisition in the context of this discussion because, looking at its own past, the West can come to understand that a whole religion should not be judged by a few bad actors or a few slices of history. Doing that, they can essentially realize that there is hope, and that there is nothing fundamentally evil about Islam.

You seem to be arguing that the bloody past of Christianity is somehow causing or justifies the current behavior of Muslim extremists. That doesn't hold up. It's about as lazy an approach to the issue as I can think of.

The bolded part is my point. I'm not trying to defend extremists of any kind since I think they are all horrible. I would just like Christians who are so quick to jump on Islam as a violent religion to take a look at their own history and realize that it isn't squeaky clean either.

On a side note, I do think Christianity's violent history is something that must be talked about when discussing clashes between Christianity and Islam. Not to justify anyone's actions, but to try to understand them. And if you don't think the Crusades are relevant to this discussion, I'm sure Muslims would disagree.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Islam is a religion. Not a race. This isn't hard.

Let's try looking at it this way. If you ask a Christian if he considers himself an American first or a Christian, chances are he will say American. If you ask a Muslim if he's an Iraqi first or a Muslim, he will say Muslim. Yes, Islam is a religion, but it's also a culture. Just like Judaism is a religion and a culture as well.

[Drake]

I don't think you know many Christians, and I know a bunch of Christians who would take offense to your assumptions about how much impact their beliefs have on their daily lives and their self-definition.

Let's try looking at it this way. If you ask a Christian if he considers himself an American first or a Christian, chances are he will say American.

So you don't think I'm just talking out of my ass ( :) ): I consider myself a Christian first and an American second. How American policies affect other Christians around the world is a serious concern for me. After all, I plan on spending eternity with those other Christians. I only have to deal with Americans for one lifetime.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I don't think you know many Christians, and I know a bunch of Christians who would take offense to your assumptions about how much impact their beliefs have on their daily lives and their self-definition.

I was born in Tulsa (the buckle of the Bible belt as some call it) and grew up in Louisiana. During my high school years I was a devout Christian who went to church Sunday morning, evening, and Wednesday night, and was active in our youth group. I read the Bible daily. I even considered going into the ministry. So, I know plenty of Christians. And the majority of them fit my description.

[Drake]

I believe you. It's strange that your experience of Christians is so different from mine.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

You seem to be arguing that the bloody past of Christianity is somehow causing or justifies the current behavior of Muslim extremists. That doesn't hold up. It's about as lazy an approach to the issue as I can think of.

I don't know that it's argument to justify the behavior of extremists so much as a request for perspective. Go back to my page 1 post (#41) on the way that Muslim sense of humiliation is a driving factor in Islamic extremism. It seems that a far more effective way for the Pope to get his message across would have been to highlight the history of violence in Christianity and discuss how and why that came to an end, rather than ripping into Islam while ignoring Christianity's own checkered past. Given the Islamic mindset on this issue I suspect we could be far more effective approaching the topic with some humility and respect rather than with scorn and derision. Their perception that we view Islam as something they should be ashamed of is a powerful force working against us. We need to moderate that rather than feed into it.

[PSUColonel]

Wow, want a toothpick to help displace that foot?



My mistake

[st.cronin]

There's a huge difference in the way Christians value religion in their daily lives than Muslims.

To most Christians, religion is what they have on Sunday or on the holidays. For Muslims, it is who they are. Any religion that requires you to pray five times a day, fast for a month, make a pilgrimage to Mecca once in their life, among other things, calls for dedication towards their religion that most Christians don't have. The same holds for Jews. Their religion is their heritage. Which is why even non-practicing Jews still call themselves Jews.

I get a big chuckle out of people who obviously know nothing about Christianity making comments like this. To paraphrase Huston Smith, Christians do not ask if life has meaning, they breathe in the meaning of life every waking second.

Aside: I would like to congratulate Edward64 for moderating this discussion. He has done a terrific job, and I'd like to see more of him on this board.

[illinifan999]

I would just like Christians who are so quick to jump on Islam as a violent religion to take a look at their own history and realize that it isn't squeaky clean either.



The reason this won't happen is because presently Christians are not blowing themselves up in crowded city centers or flying planes into buildings. While there are still some acts of violence by Christians, it is far outnumbered by the violence shown by people of Islamic faith. And that is why people are starting to say, "hey it looks like this is a violent religion." and it doesn't help when after someone says something like that, Muslims start to riot and firebomb churches, kill nuns, etc.

[MalcPow]

I don't know that it's argument to justify the behavior of extremists so much as a request for perspective. Go back to my page 1 post (#41) on the way that Muslim sense of humiliation is a driving factor in Islamic extremism. It seems that a far more effective way for the Pope to get his message across would have been to highlight the history of violence in Christianity and discuss how and why that came to an end, rather than ripping into Islam while ignoring Christianity's own checkered past. Given the Islamic mindset on this issue I suspect we could be far more effective approaching the topic with some humility and respect rather than with scorn and derision. Their perception that we view Islam as something they should be ashamed of is a powerful force working against us. We need to moderate that rather than feed into it.

I agree with you, I was trying to say much the same thing. But there are a few problems that I'm seeing. I think there is a sense of humiliation in the era of globalization across many cultures, including our own (hence we passionately seek pride from sports teams or other outlets). The dangerous issue seems to be that Islam (or simply the domestic situations of many Muslim countries, it's hard to separate) currently seems to be more conducive, or a philosophical enabler in some ways, for violent reactionaries. It's difficult to discern if this is merely circumstance or if Islam, in its current form, does leave more "wiggle room" to justify these violent acts, and as others have mentioned, the "rewards" on offer for those that die fighting the infidels imply a certain tacit consent to violence toward non-Muslims that has been open to broad, and sometimes horrific, interpretation.

Ultimately, you can have only so much perspective. Yes, there are times throughout history where other church or ideological structures have acted in horrific ways, and they simply do not exist anymore in those forms. Pushing the "perspective" argument too far gets you to the same place, essentially an accusation that Islam is backward or antiquated, and as it currently stands, is more conducive to promoting violence among extremists than other ideologies. The passage the Pope quotes seems to imply that this is a fundamental flaw of the religion, Muhammad's original sin, which probably isn't productive because it implies a kind of inherent evil in Islam without accounting for future ideological development. Thankfully, the quote was just a piece of a much bigger speech intended to open dialogue on the struggles of modern Islam and fundamentalist extremism, so I find it defensible, bold, even laudable as it simply couldn't be said by anyone else and spark any kind of reasonable dialogue. Even with the rioting, I think this will ultimately lead to some good debate and thought.

But who knows, maybe the Pope will be dead in six months... what happens then? I honestly don't know. :(

[MrBigglesworth]

Obviously, thus they are of the same religion. Not the same race.

edit to add that it seems your intentional obtuseness (it should be a word, if it isn't) is an effective tactic, because I'm still arguing with you. Shame on me.
Religion isn't part of culture now? Muslims, Jews, Arabs, etc, have all been called races. This is just a dumb semantics argument to distract from the real point, as if if you don't call it a race then it is all of a sudden ok to make negative generalizations about them. :rolleyes:

[MrBigglesworth]

The reason this won't happen is because presently Christians are not blowing themselves up in crowded city centers or flying planes into buildings. While there are still some acts of violence by Christians, it is far outnumbered by the violence shown by people of Islamic faith. And that is why people are starting to say, "hey it looks like this is a violent religion." and it doesn't help when after someone says something like that, Muslims start to riot and firebomb churches, kill nuns, etc.
THE MOST POWERFUL CHRISTIAN IN THE WORLD INVADED A COUNTRY WITH A FAULTY CASUS BELLI AND KILLED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS.

The only Jewish nation killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians in a recent conflict.

Why is this ignored by people? If you count up the number of Christians killed by Muslims and Muslims killed by Christians/Jews in this century, the latter number will be far, far higher. How can you call Muslims a violent people and not say the same about Christians?

[MrBigglesworth]

Mr.Bigglesworth. The counterpoint to this is (1) was this really done for religious/sectarian purposes or for secular reasons (2) concentration camps and the 'extent' were largely unknown and a surprise to many non-SS/Nazi (ex. band of brother's episode?) and (2) it was mainly another Christian group B that put an end to the first Christian group A (albeit not for that specific purpose as group B did not know the extent).

In this analogy, I don't see another Muslim group B trying to do the same to Muslim group A.

In Bosnia, another Christian group B put an end to another Christian group A and helped Muslim group A.

Its not that there are Muslim extremists, because there always be the fringe groups. I think much of my issue is there is no Muslim group B (of any significance) trying to put an end to Muslim group A. Can you name a Grand Ayatollah of any significant following that is taking 'actions to stop Muslim group B'? I think the answer is no (but I may be wrong).
WVUFAN just said that if a Christian would do something crazy (ie, fly a plane into a building), then we could talk. My point is only that Christians do crazy things all the time. WVUFAN is taking a common human trait (extremism on the fringes), applying it to just a single specific group, and calling that group evil and inhuman because of it.

That being said, there are many Muslim groups that are opposing the extremists: a number of middle eastern states are our allies in the War of Terror.

[WVUFAN]

THE MOST POWERFUL CHRISTIAN IN THE WORLD INVADED A COUNTRY WITH A FAULTY CASUS BELLI AND KILLED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS.

It all goes back to Bush. Whatever. He didn't attack Iraq because they are Muslims living there.


The only Jewish nation killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians in a recent conflict.

Let's not get into that whole thing, which was caused BY Muslims. Oh, and let's not forget that at least TWO separate countries have declared publically their desire to kill every single Jew BECAUSE they're Jewish.


Why is this ignored by people? If you count up the number of Christians killed by Muslims and Muslims killed by Christians/Jews in this century, the latter number will be far, far higher. How can you call Muslims a violent people and not say the same about Christians?

... Wha? What world do you live in again, Bigglesworth?

I cannot fathom how people can honestly take the side of the Muslims on this. "Oh, they're mistreated" ... "They're misunderstood" ... that's all complete crap. Christians protesting against gays is NOTHING compared to the fact that being gay in a Muslim country is LITERALLY a death sentence (it's punishable by death, that is) -- that being a woman in a Muslim country means you're LITERALLY property -- that it's considered noble to strap a bomb to you and kill innocents for no reason other than they're NOT Muslim, and that your family is paid and rewarded when you do it.

So you can continue to delude yourself when bashing Christians and saying they're just as violent as Muslims -- the truth is quite a bit different.

[MrBigglesworth]

It all goes back to Bush. Whatever. He didn't attack Iraq because they are Muslims living there.
I didn't say he did, but Muslims didn't attack us because there are Christians living here either. Both had certain political goals, both used violence to try and achieve them. Because humans are violent.

... Wha? What world do you live in again, Bigglesworth?

I cannot fathom how people can honestly take the side of the Muslims on this. "Oh, they're mistreated" ... "They're misunderstood" ... that's all complete crap. Christians protesting against gays is NOTHING compared to the fact that being gay in a Muslim country is LITERALLY a death sentence (it's punishable by death, that is) -- that being a woman in a Muslim country means you're LITERALLY property -- that it's considered noble to strap a bomb to you and kill innocents for no reason other than they're NOT Muslim, and that your family is paid and rewarded when you do it.

So you can continue to delude yourself when bashing Christians and saying they're just as violent as Muslims -- the truth is quite a bit different.
It's a stone cold mortal lock that more Muslims have died than Christians this century due to violence. That's not even a point worth debating.

I have not 'taken the side' of Muslims. I have not said that all Christians are evil, what you have said about Muslims. I have said that all have their problems. Many Muslim countries have human rights problems, but there was genocide in the Christian Baltic less than a decade ago. Hell, our own President is demanding to Congress that he be allowed to torture people (something that is also legal in several Muslim countries).

[Glengoyne]

Let's try looking at it this way. If you ask a Christian if he considers himself an American first or a Christian, chances are he will say American. If you ask a Muslim if he's an Iraqi first or a Muslim, he will say Muslim. Yes, Islam is a religion, but it's also a culture. Just like Judaism is a religion and a culture as well.

Heard an American muslim talk about this earlier this week on NPR. Essentially her answer was that she would respond differently based on where she was.

Here in the US, she would describe herself as a muslim. If she were in Europe or visiting the Middle East, she would describe herself as an American.

I agree with Drake, that most christians would describe themselves as christians first.

Also a distinction between Islam and Judaism and race versus religion.

I believe it is possible to be both Jewish(heritage) and an athiest(religion). I don't believe that is possible for a muslim.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I get a big chuckle out of people who obviously know nothing about Christianity making comments like this.

I was born in Tulsa (the buckle of the Bible belt as some call it) and grew up in Louisiana. During my high school years I was a devout Christian who went to church Sunday morning, evening, and Wednesday night, and was active in our youth group. I read the Bible daily. I even considered going into the ministry.

What part is difficult for you to understand? I'm very familiar with Christianity, thank you very much.

[WVUFAN]

I have not 'taken the side' of Muslims.

See, here's where I apologize to you because it wasn't my intention to say that you personally take their side, even though that's how it came out.


I have not said that all Christians are evil, what you have said about Muslims. I have said that all have their problems. Many Muslim countries have human rights problems, but there was genocide in the Christian Baltic less than a decade ago. Hell, our own President is demanding to Congress that he be allowed to torture people (something that is also legal in several Muslim countries).

Well, for one, I agree with Bush's demand to be able to torture -- we need to have the ability to do what needs to be done to get the information we need. Prisoners of War should not be entitled to rights under our Constitution, and I believe the Geneva Convention to be outdated. It's useless because we are the only doggone country that's even attempting to abide by it. Again, we don't do enough to get the infomation we need. But that's been discussed before.

As Edward64 put it, there's no Group B. When a Christian group goes violent, oftentimes it's Christians that put a stop to it. There's none of that in the Muslim world.

On a side note: St Cronin is right, and I also commend Edward64 in this thread. I also have to note that this is the most civilized political discussion I've seen here in a while. Proves we can discuss and disagree and not flame.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

He didn't attack Iraq because they are Muslims living there.

That's obvious to you, but a hard sell to Arab Muslims. They might buy that he didn't attack solely because there were Muslims living there, but I think they're pretty sure he wouldn't have attacked had there not been Muslims living there. In the same way it is obvious to Arab Muslims that Al Qaeda did not attack us because they hate our freedom, but that seems to be a difficult sell for Americans... Perspective can be a difficult thing to grasp sometimes, but it is stupid to try to evaluate these situations without at least making the effort see the opposing perspective.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

The reason this won't happen is because presently Christians are not blowing themselves up in crowded city centers or flying planes into buildings.

I think it has to deal more with a refusal to look at our own dirty past and focus instead on the horrors created by an outside group. That's human nature.

[WVUFAN]

I think it has to deal more with a refusal to look at our own dirty past and focus instead on the horrors created by an outside group. That's human nature.

Again, what Christians did in the Crusades have no bearing on what's happening today. Christianity evolved, and it seems to a growing number of people, especially in light of the past few weeks, that Islam has not.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

The dangerous issue seems to be that Islam (or simply the domestic situations of many Muslim countries, it's hard to separate) currently seems to be more conducive, or a philosophical enabler in some ways, for violent reactionaries. It's difficult to discern if this is merely circumstance or if Islam, in its current form, does leave more "wiggle room" to justify these violent acts, and as others have mentioned, the "rewards" on offer for those that die fighting the infidels imply a certain tacit consent to violence toward non-Muslims that has been open to broad, and sometimes horrific, interpretation.

These are good questions, and ones that can hopefully be answered soon. Is Islamic extremism a result of theocratic societies? As you mentioned, Christians don't have an extremist equivalent, but they did in the past, when things were more theocratic. Are the two related?

Maybe the Pope's statements will get dialogue going, although I doubt it. I'm not sure what it would take to get both sides talking to each other, but insulting one of the religions doesn't seem to be the correct first step.

[MrBigglesworth]

Why is anything done by a Muslim seen as condemning the entire religion, while anything done by a Christian doesn't reflect on their religion at all? How is random riots and suicide bombings any more violent than militarily bombing, invading, and occupying a country?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Again, what Christians did in the Crusades have no bearing on what's happening today. Christianity evolved, and it seems to a growing number of people, especially in light of the past few weeks, that Islam has not.

And again, I think the Arab world completely disagrees with the notion that the Crusades have no bearing on today's world.

I'm curious how far Christianity actually has evolved. It lost it's power over the state, sure, but other than that? Case in point:

Well, for one, I agree with Bush's demand to be able to torture -- we need to have the ability to do what needs to be done to get the information we need.

[MalcPow]

Why is anything done by a Muslim seen as condemning the entire religion, while anything done by a Christian doesn't reflect on their religion at all? How is random riots and suicide bombings any more violent than militarily bombing, invading, and occupying a country?

It's not anything done by a Muslim, it's Muslims like Osama Bin Laden (and many others) who proclaim to be waging a holy war on behalf of Islam that reflect poorly on the religion. Bush said he was looking for yellow cake. There are differences. You don't really think the administration pursued this war solely to kill Muslims do you? I mean at least be cynical enough to think it was engineered to raise gas prices or something like that.

[illinifan999]

THE MOST POWERFUL CHRISTIAN IN THE WORLD INVADED A COUNTRY WITH A FAULTY CASUS BELLI AND KILLED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS.


Again, it wasn't based on religion. ""you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword.""

2 choices. Convert or die.

"In the Middle East, where Muslims threw firebombs at seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the weekend, Christian leaders posted guards outside some churches."

What a great way to show how peaceful your religion is. You said mean things about us so we're gonna firebomb your church to show you how peaceful we are.

It doesn't matter what happened in the past. It's exactly that, the past. People will not forget about it just like we won't ever forget about slavery. But you don't hear everytime there is a black on white crime the excuse is well, white people were violent towards us 100 years ago so we have every right to do it.

Right now Islam is portrayed as a violent religion. And it will continue to be until they can stop trying to force their religion onto people. Which is funny because the last 5 years after 9/11 we've been taught that one of the reasons they hate us is because we try to force our policies on them. So why is it ok for them to force their religion on people or kill them, but it makes us the great sinners of the west to try to impose our policies on them?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

It doesn't matter what happened in the past. It's exactly that, the past. People will not forget about it just like we won't ever forget about slavery. But you don't hear everytime there is a black on white crime the excuse is well, white people were violent towards us 100 years ago so we have every right to do it.

Have you lived in the South? The Civil War might be in the past, but people down there sure haven't forgotten it. And the issue of slavery is a very important player in the realm of race relations in this country.

I guess we should just forget about World War II, right? And the Holocaust? I mean, that's all ancient history. It has no bearing in today's world. For that matter, let's just forget about 9-11 as well. That was five years ago. We should really just move on.

I can't repeat this enough: What has happened in the past plays a huge role in the world. Especially in the Arab world, where history means a lot more to them than it does to us in the West. Choosing to ignore the past is one of the reasons we are in this mess to begin with.

Right now Islam is portrayed as a violent religion. And it will continue to be until they can stop trying to force their religion onto people. Which is funny because the last 5 years after 9/11 we've been taught that one of the reasons they hate us is because we try to force our policies on them. So why is it ok for them to force their religion on people or kill them, but it makes us the great sinners of the west to try to impose our policies on them

Um, your quotes are from an Al Qaeda linked group. Do you think they speak for all Muslims? Does Pat Robertson speak for all Christians?

[illinifan999]

Well seeing as how most Muslims in the Middle East are not speaking up against Al Qaeda......

and if you had read my post I said people will NOT forget about these events, what I am saying is that unlike Muslims using the Crusades as an excuse to be violent, black people (at least around me) are not using slavery as an excuse to be violent towards white people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Choosing to ignore the past is one of the reasons we are in this mess to begin with.

No, these sorry ass motherfuckers engaging in terrorism is the only reason we give a damn about them right now. You aren't going to find anything past or present that excuses or justifies those activities, at least not that is acceptable to rational human beings.

What you don't seem to get -- this isn't some intellectual, philisophical, or spiritual exercise. It's a war.

I really don't give a shit if their mommies were mean to them, if they got their feelings hurt over what somebody said, or if they're ticked off because somebody pissed in the general direction of Mecca.

What matters, the ONLY thing that matters is eliminating them as a threat, by whatever means necessary. And that's a task that would be a lot more likely to be accomplish if so many people weren't foolishly fixated on trying to "understand" the miserable bastards we ought to be eliminating.

If this were 1941, I swear there'd be people trying to figure out a way to ship the freakin' Japanese some oil for free & trying to apologize for any inconvienience we may have caused them in forcing them to bomb Pearl Harbor.

I swear, I read threads like these & I actually understand why the terrorists believe this is a winnable conflict for them.

[MrBigglesworth]

Again, it wasn't based on religion.
The attacks against us are not based on religion any more than our attacks against Iraq. I've heard that they 'hate our freedom', or whatever, but not that it was because we are Christian.

[st.cronin]

It's a stone cold mortal lock that more Muslims have died than Christians this century due to violence. That's not even a point worth debating.


It's also a stone cold mortal lock that in this century more people have converted to Islam at the point of a sword than Christianity. So, getting back to the original topic, which was the Pope's comments...

[MrBigglesworth]

No, these sorry ass motherfuckers engaging in terrorism is the only reason we give a damn about them right now. You aren't going to find anything past or present that excuses or justifies those activities, at least not that is acceptable to rational human beings.

What you don't seem to get -- this isn't some intellectual, philisophical, or spiritual exercise. It's a war.

I really don't give a shit if their mommies were mean to them, if they got their feelings hurt over what somebody said, or if they're ticked off because somebody pissed in the general direction of Mecca.

What matters, the ONLY thing that matters is eliminating them as a threat, by whatever means necessary. And that's a task that would be a lot more likely to be accomplish if so many people weren't foolishly fixated on trying to "understand" the miserable bastards we ought to be eliminating.

If this were 1941, I swear there'd be people trying to figure out a way to ship the freakin' Japanese some oil for free & trying to apologize for any inconvienience we may have caused them in forcing them to bomb Pearl Harbor.

I swear, I read threads like these & I actually understand why the terrorists believe this is a winnable conflict for them.
Jon, being in rural Georgia, your odds of dying from a terrorist attack are about 1 in 1,000,000 or so. Your odds of dying in a drunk driving accident are about 1/180. During the 11 year period from 1990 to 2001, an average of 287 Americans died from terrorism while 617 people died from the weather and 312 people fell of ladders. The weather is twice as likely as a terrorist to kill you.

Does that put any kind of perspective on this 'threat' that you are willing to eliminate by any means necessary, including the wholesale genocide of millions of people?

[WVUFAN]

Jon, being in rural Georgia, your odds of dying from a terrorist attack are about 1 in 1,000,000 or so. Your odds of dying in a drunk driving accident are about 1/180. During the 11 year period from 1990 to 2001, an average of 287 Americans died from terrorism while 617 people died from the weather and 312 people fell of ladders. The weather is twice as likely as a terrorist to kill you.

Does that put any kind of perspective on this 'threat' that you are willing to eliminate by any means necessary, including the wholesale genocide of millions of people?

So it's ok to allow them to kill innocent people because their average is low? C'mon now, you'll have to do better than that.

1 American dead by these monsters is one too many.

[WVUFAN]

This is the politically correct thing to say, and the same sentiment being echoed by politicians and others, but if you closely examine Islam as a religion, and the Koran as it's "Bible", you'll see that it really isn't the case of a a few bad eggs, or a few rotten tomatoes. Islam as a religion DOES in fact preach violence and DOES in fact encourage it against infadels. Here is a poll number to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, and to in essence show you the plans Islamos have for the future, and how the plan to root themselves within western democracy. (It's funny, it was the Solviets who told the U.S. they would "take us over from within") 44 percent of Muslims living in London say they felt the attacks on the London subways were "warranted." 44 PERCENT!!! .....Now these are supposed to be westernized muslims who are supposedly less secular and perhaps even life long residents of the UK. Yet 44 percent of them STILL felt the bombings were justified. Now I don't know how much stock we can always put in poll numbers, but I will admit that is scary!! So, when you say it's a few bad people making an otherwise peaceful religion look bad, I really think you might want to do some more historical (and contemporary) research. This just isn't the case, but it's what you will hear every politician say in order as not to offend anyone.(simply because politicians today have no balls) So it's really a case of: "if you repeat a lie long enough, eventually it becomes truth."

I just caught this one:

PSUColonel: I would agree with you, but if I came out and said "Islam is evil", someone would bitch and I'd probably get boxed.

[Glengoyne]

THE MOST POWERFUL CHRISTIAN IN THE WORLD INVADED A COUNTRY WITH A FAULTY CASUS BELLI AND KILLED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS.

The only Jewish nation killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians in a recent conflict.

Why is this ignored by people? If you count up the number of Christians killed by Muslims and Muslims killed by Christians/Jews in this century, the latter number will be far, far higher. How can you call Muslims a violent people and not say the same about Christians?


First of all, not all of the casus belli (I thought this was spelled differently) were faulty, and you can really only make such a statement with 20/20 hindsight. That isn't even the most ridiculous statement you make. Tens of thousands? huh? American force was no where near that lethal to civilians.

Yes Israel killed civilians during their little foray into Lebanon. The civilians weren't targetted as a political maneuver. They weren't even targetted. Not to mention that the incursion into Lebanon was prompted by millitary attacks launched from there. There is lots of violence aimed at civilians today in the name of Islam. The same can't be said about Christians, and I'd argue not even Jews. I doubt there is any room for us to agree on that point.

[Glengoyne]

Why is anything done by a Muslim seen as condemning the entire religion, while anything done by a Christian doesn't reflect on their religion at all? How is random riots and suicide bombings any more violent than militarily bombing, invading, and occupying a country?

I honestly can't fathom that you can't tell the difference.

[Brillig]

Soooo.... how many Americans have to die in that wretched part of the world because "1 Amercan dead" was too many?

And once we kill one innocent civilian on their side, why shouldn't they come after all of us, because "1 Iraqi dead" was too many?

I know thinking about consequences is out of vogue, but you might want to try it some time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

1 American dead by these monsters is one too many.

Not for a lot of people it isn't ... which is really the whole friggin problem :( :mad:

[st.cronin]

I honestly can't fathom that you can't tell the difference.

I actually think he can tell the difference, I think he argues for sport rather than out of any conviction or curiosity.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

No, these sorry ass motherfuckers engaging in terrorism is the only reason we give a damn about them right now. You aren't going to find anything past or present that excuses or justifies those activities, at least not that is acceptable to rational human beings.

What you don't seem to get -- this isn't some intellectual, philisophical, or spiritual exercise. It's a war.

I really don't give a shit if their mommies were mean to them, if they got their feelings hurt over what somebody said, or if they're ticked off because somebody pissed in the general direction of Mecca.

What matters, the ONLY thing that matters is eliminating them as a threat, by whatever means necessary. And that's a task that would be a lot more likely to be accomplish if so many people weren't foolishly fixated on trying to "understand" the miserable bastards we ought to be eliminating.

If this were 1941, I swear there'd be people trying to figure out a way to ship the freakin' Japanese some oil for free & trying to apologize for any inconvienience we may have caused them in forcing them to bomb Pearl Harbor.

I swear, I read threads like these & I actually understand why the terrorists believe this is a winnable conflict for them.

Wow, more evidence of how Christianity has "evolved" since the Middle Ages. How are you different than those you deem "miserable bastards", Jon?

What you don't seem to get is that while this is war, there is a reason behind their actions. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor for a reason, not because it seemed like it would be cool. September 11th happened for a reason, not because some extremists were bored and had nothing else to do. These people are motivated by something and the only way to defeat them is to understand their motives. You can bomb the hell out of them if you want, but that's only going to make matters worse. This is not a conflict we can win with our mighty military, which is exactly why they are fighting the way they are.

[WVUFAN]

Soooo.... how many Americans have to die in that wretched part of the world because "1 Amercan dead" was too many?

And once we kill one innocent civilian on their side, why shouldn't they come after all of us, because "1 Iraqi dead" was too many?

I know thinking about consequences is out of vogue, but you might want to try it some time.

First, I couldn't care two cents about their perspective. They started this. We should finish it, and if that means Iraqi civilians die, then they're gonna die.

Secondly, WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIMS THERE. That's the difference. We're not out to kill innocents AT ALL, and more than one American soldier has died defending innocent Iraqis from their own people.

But, you're right about consequences ... there are consequences for killing over 2,000 Americans in an attack. If this had happened during the 40's or 50's, there would be no discussion, no argument, we would have our justice. Far too many people have a desire to "understand" our enemy rather than eliminating them.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

First, I couldn't care two cents about their perspective. They started this. We should finish it, and if that means Iraqi civilians die, then they're gonna die.

The Iraqis started this???

[WVUFAN]

Wow, more evidence of how Christianity has "evolved" since the Middle Ages. How are you different than those you deem "miserable bastards", Jon?

What you don't seem to get is that while this is war, there is a reason behind their actions. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor for a reason, not because it seemed like it would be cool.

I've read quite a bit about Pearl Harbor, and I don't remember FDR or the American general populace saying "Gee, maybe we shouldn't go to war with Japan right now. We should understand why they attacked us and empathize with their situation". No, we went after them immediately and without hesitation.


September 11th happened for a reason, not because some extremists were bored and had nothing else to do. These people are motivated by something and the only way to defeat them is to understand their motives.

Actually, the only way to defeat them is to kill them. Motives be damned. I DO NOT CARE WHY THEY KILLED AMERICANS. I only care that they did. I'm sure Americans in 1942 could not give one damn why Japan attacked us. Same situation applies now.

[WVUFAN]

The Iraqis started this???

In a single word: Yes.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The Iraqis started this???

Well obviously... :rolleyes:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wow, more evidence of how Christianity has "evolved" since the Middle Ages.

See, that isn't the conversation topic, although damned if you don't seem determined to try to make it so.

How are you different than those you deem "miserable bastards", Jon?


Gee, lemme check. I haven't bombed a cafe in a while. I haven't beheaded anybody in ages. Lord knows (irony intended, btw) it isn't for the lack of wanting to.


What you don't seem to get is that while this is war, there is a reason behind their actions.

And what you don't seem to be getting is that I really don't give a flying fuck what reason they think they have. Once you go flying planes into buildings, I run out of giveashit really quickly. I'm funny like that I guess.

These people are motivated by something and the only way to defeat them is to understand their motives.

Tell you what. You sit over there on the side & contemplate, or better yet, go over there & have a nice long cup of hot tea with them & discuss it. But please stay the hell out of the way of the people who have the slightest friggin clue how to deal with them properly.

This is not a conflict we can win with our mighty military, which is exactly why they are fighting the way they are.

Oh, it could be. The question that remains to be answered is whether we have the courage & wisdom to make that happen.

[st.cronin]

I don't think the Iraqis started it. Personally, I blame the Babylonians.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

But, you're right about consequences ... there are consequences for killing over 2,000 Americans in an attack. If this had happened during the 40's or 50's, there would be no discussion, no argument, we would have our justice. Far too many people have a desire to "understand" our enemy rather than eliminating them.

I'm all for going after those responsible for September 11. I'm pretty sure everyone is. So let's go get them! Um, where are they? Afghanistan? Iran? Pakistan? Never mind, let's go get Saddam instead! :rolleyes:

There's a huge difference between conflicts in the 40's and 50's. If the Soviet Union had attacked us, there would have been an easy target to go against since they were a nation. But Al Qaeda isn't a government, they're an organization, so why respond to them like a state? How is the military going to take down an international organization? Why not go after them like other criminal organizations, like the Mafia?

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Iraqis started this???

Oh, silly us.

We're supposed to wait until they kill hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands.

And then, naturally, we're supposed to just "understand" that too.

Gosh, what ever was I thinking?

[Klinglerware]

So, getting back to the original topic, which was the Pope's comments...

Reading through the text of the speech, it really does seem to be aimed at his theological enemies, rather than the Islamic community. There is a theological movement in the Catholic church that aims to strip the Greek philosophical influences that have been superimposed on Old Testament and Jesus' core teachings. Personally I have mixed feelings on this, on one hand, Greek translations have no doubt clouded some of the original intent and meaning of the Hebrew sources, on the other hand, the early Christian Church did spring forth in a Hellenic context. Leaving that debate aside, the pope has traditionally been a staunch detractor of this movement, and this speech seems primarily an opportunity to continue the attack.

If there is any "culture war" fodder in the speech, it actually seems to be aimed at the west. The potshot he takes at scientific positivism is telling. If this is his attempt to revive the fortunes of Christianity in Western Europe from the continued sinking into irrelevance (as some commentators suspect), perhaps he should go back to the drawing board...

[st.cronin]

Reading through the text of the speech, it really does seem to be aimed at his theological enemies, rather than the Islamic community. There is a theological movement in the Catholic church that aims to strip the Greek philosophical influences that have been superimposed on Old Testament and Jesus' core teachings. Personally I have mixed feelings on this, on one hand, Greek translations have no doubt clouded some of the original intent and meaning of the Hebrew sources, on the other hand, the early Christian Church did spring forth in a Hellenic context. Leaving that debate aside, the pope has traditionally been a staunch detractor of this movement, and this speech seems primarily an opportunity to continue the attack.

If there is any "culture war" fodder in the speech, it actually seems to be aimed at the west. The potshot he takes at scientific positivism is telling. If this is his attempt to revive the fortunes of Christianity in Western Europe from the continued sinking into irrelevance (as some commentators suspect), perhaps he should go back to the drawing board...

yes yes yes

My argument all along has been that the violence has nothing whatsoever to do with WHAT the Pope said, but rather that the Pope said something that the religious leaders in the Mideast can use to play their little games.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Actually, the only way to defeat them is to kill them. Motives be damned. I DO NOT CARE WHY THEY KILLED AMERICANS. I only care that they did. I'm sure Americans in 1942 could not give one damn why Japan attacked us. Same situation applies now.

Good luck killing every terrorist in the world. That should keep you busy for, well, how about forever?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I've read quite a bit about Pearl Harbor, and I don't remember FDR or the American general populace saying "Gee, maybe we shouldn't go to war with Japan right now. We should understand why they attacked us and empathize with their situation". No, we went after them immediately and without hesitation.

Actually, the only way to defeat them is to kill them. Motives be damned. I DO NOT CARE WHY THEY KILLED AMERICANS. I only care that they did. I'm sure Americans in 1942 could not give one damn why Japan attacked us. Same situation applies now.

And who are the Japanese in this story? :confused:

[MalcPow]

Wow, more evidence of how Christianity has "evolved" since the Middle Ages. How are you different than those you deem "miserable bastards", Jon?

What you don't seem to get is that while this is war, there is a reason behind their actions. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor for a reason, not because it seemed like it would be cool. September 11th happened for a reason, not because some extremists were bored and had nothing else to do. These people are motivated by something and the only way to defeat them is to understand their motives. You can bomb the hell out of them if you want, but that's only going to make matters worse. This is not a conflict we can win with our mighty military, which is exactly why they are fighting the way they are.

The counter point to that is we understand their motivation pretty well, for a lot of them it's simply to kill Americans or destroy the West. There are some serious cultural and social deficiencies that contribute to the creation of people like that, and we'd love to try to deal with those underlying issues of poverty, oppression, and incredible class discrepancies. But... the people that blow themselves up are usually just pissed, disaffected, hateful, you name it, a cup of coffee and a bj ain't gonna make them like us, and we better do what we can to keep them from killing us. Which basically amounts to playing cop in Iraq for awhile, trying to help them build democratic institutions, and killing the people that attack our/their troops. Lather, rinse, repeat if we have to in other places. I agree there needs to be some carrot, but right now we need a lot of stick too.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

See, that isn't the conversation topic, although damned if you don't seem determined to try to make it so.

Hypocrite Christians isn't the topic here?


Gee, lemme check. I haven't bombed a cafe in a while. I haven't beheaded anybody in ages. Lord knows (irony intended, btw) it isn't for the lack of wanting to.

So the only reason you haven't done the same actions as these "bastards" is because of lack of opportunity?

Tell you what. You sit over there on the side & contemplate, or better yet, go over there & have a nice long cup of hot tea with them & discuss it. But please stay the hell out of the way of the people who have the slightest friggin clue how to deal with them properly.

I'll tell you what. Instead of sitting over here spouting all your nonsense about how we have to kill them all, why don't you sign up and serve over there? Better yet, become a mercenary.

And please be so kind as to tell me who it is that has the "slightest friggin clue how to deal with" these people. The ones in charge of the government now? Hahahaha. That's a good one. They've sure done a great job the last five years.

[WVUFAN]

I'll tell you what. Instead of sitting over here spouting all your nonsense about how we have to kill them all, why don't you sign up and serve over there? Better yet, become a mercenary.

I've served my time in the military. I also served in the middle east. Have you?


And please be so kind as to tell me who it is that has the "slightest friggin clue how to deal with" these people. The ones in charge of the government now? Hahahaha. That's a good one. They've sure done a great job the last five years.

They would if it wasn't for people constantly trying to block any reasonable action to try and catch them, saying the terrorists are entitled to civil liberties (which is nonsense anyway).

An unhindered military can accomplish much more than one limited by people who've never bothered to serve their country, and haven't a clue what is needed to do so.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Oh, silly us.

We're supposed to wait until they kill hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands.

And then, naturally, we're supposed to just "understand" that too.

Gosh, what ever was I thinking?

Yes, because they were such a threat to us before we invaded. A nation that saw at least 400,000 children die due to United Nations sanctions, had basically no air force, no WMD programs, and was overrun in a matter of weeks. Yeah, that's a threat.

[MrBigglesworth]

I actually think he can tell the difference, I think he argues for sport rather than out of any conviction or curiosity.
st.cronin, thanks for providing a textbook example of trolling.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Iraqis started this???
Of course they did! They should know better than to be on top of OUR oil! :rolleyes:

[Jonathan Ezarik]

The counter point to that is we understand their motivation pretty well, for a lot of them it's simply to kill Americans or destroy the West. There are some serious cultural and social deficiencies that contribute to the creation of people like that, and we'd love to try to deal with those underlying issues of poverty, oppression, and incredible class discrepancies. But... the people that blow themselves up are usually just pissed, disaffected, hateful, you name it, a cup of coffee and a bj ain't gonna make them like us, and we better do what we can to keep them from killing us. Which basically amounts to playing cop in Iraq for awhile, trying to help them build democratic institutions, and killing the people that attack our/their troops. Lather, rinse, repeat if we have to in other places. I agree there needs to be some carrot, but right now we need a lot of stick too.

I agree that we are never going to win over the extremists. The only way we can win is to prevent them from gaining any more recruits. That's where the carrot comes in. Unfortunately, right now it is nothing but stick, stick, and more stick. Where's the carrot?

[MrBigglesworth]

Soooo.... how many Americans have to die in that wretched part of the world because "1 Amercan dead" was too many?

And once we kill one innocent civilian on their side, why shouldn't they come after all of us, because "1 Iraqi dead" was too many?
Brillig, great post. WVUFAN fails to see that his same attitude is part of the reason WHY we are being attacked.

First, I couldn't care two cents about their perspective. They started this. We should finish it, and if that means Iraqi civilians die, then they're gonna die.

Secondly, WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIMS THERE. That's the difference. We're not out to kill innocents AT ALL, and more than one American soldier has died defending innocent Iraqis from their own people.
Shorter WVUFAN: "I'm not out to kill innocent people, I just don't care if it happens, which makes me infinitely better than the evil Muslims."

[JonInMiddleGA]

So the only reason you haven't done the same actions as these "bastards" is because of lack of opportunity?

Sigh. Trust me, it isn't lack of opportunity (since they aren't the only people that generate a motivation).

They've sure done a great job the last five years.

Sadly, they haven't done as good a job as they could or should have. Alas, they've fallen victim to trying to appease people like you.
Fuck me, that isn't sad, it's downright tragic.

[MrBigglesworth]

The counter point to that is we understand their motivation pretty well, for a lot of them it's simply to kill Americans or destroy the West. There are some serious cultural and social deficiencies that contribute to the creation of people like that, and we'd love to try to deal with those underlying issues of poverty, oppression, and incredible class discrepancies. But... the people that blow themselves up are usually just pissed, disaffected, hateful, you name it, a cup of coffee and a bj ain't gonna make them like us, and we better do what we can to keep them from killing us. Which basically amounts to playing cop in Iraq for awhile, trying to help them build democratic institutions, and killing the people that attack our/their troops. Lather, rinse, repeat if we have to in other places. I agree there needs to be some carrot, but right now we need a lot of stick too.
I think this is a responsible way to address terrorism. We need teams on the ground, we need better intelligence, we need to bring to justice those that have violated the law. Invading and occupying doesn't help those goals. Attacking Iran doesn't help those goals. Killing a majority of the Muslims in any given area doesn't help those goals.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I've served my time in the military. I also served in the middle east. Have you?

??? Am I the one advocating killing everyone? Am I the one calling for more bloodshed?

They would if it wasn't for people constantly trying to block any reasonable action to try and catch them, saying the terrorists are entitled to civil liberties (which is nonsense anyway).

I see. If a terrorist tortures someone, it's evil and wrong and we should kill them all. When an American does it, it's good. Nice double standard.

An unhindered military can accomplish much more than one limited by people who've never bothered to serve their country, and haven't a clue what is needed to do so.

I think I've heard this before. Let's see, where? Oh, I know! A little place called Nazi Germany. Heard of it? They sure had a solution (get it?) to those that they viewed as their enemies.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Sadly, they haven't done as good a job as they could or should have. Alas, they've fallen victim to trying to appease people like you.
Fuck me, that isn't sad, it's downright tragic.

You're not seriously saying that Bush and company have done anything to appease people like me? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

[MrBigglesworth]

Sadly, they haven't done as good a job as they could or should have. Alas, they've fallen victim to trying to appease people like you.
Fuck me, that isn't sad, it's downright tragic.
You hear that Jonathan? The problem with the Bush administration and the Republican congress is that it caters to liberals too much!!!

Damn you Liberal Bush! Damn you Liberal Rove! Damn you Liberal DeLay!!! Daaaaaamn youuuuuuuu!!!

[WVUFAN]

Shorter WVUFAN: "I'm not out to kill innocent people, I just don't care if it happens, which makes me infinitely better than the evil Muslims."

No, it's more like "do what you want to on your own land, but when you invade my space or hurt my people or my friends, you suffer the consequences".

[WVUFAN]

see. If a terrorist tortures someone, it's evil and wrong and we should kill them all. When an American does it, it's good. Nice double standard.


I don't remember Americans beheading innocent Iraqis.

[Groundhog]

No, it's more like "do what you want to on your own land, but when you invade my space or hurt my people or my friends, you suffer the consequences".

Wait... can someone remind me what Iraq did to hurt WVUFAN's people and friends? Apart from getting invaded, that is? Was it those crafty Iraq folks that flew planes in to the WTC? Or was it those WMDs (my fave acronym of the last decade) that are still hidden in the country somewhere?

[Groundhog]

I don't remember Americans beheading innocent Iraqis.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212078,00.html


Court-Martial Recommended for 4 U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Rape-Slay Case

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A U.S. Army investigator has recommended that four American soldiers who face charges in connection with the rape and killing of 14-year-old girl and the killing of her family face a court-martial, a lawyer in the case confirmed on Monday.

Col. Dwight Warren, the investigator in the case, said in a report issued Sunday that "reasonable grounds exist to believe that each of the accused committed the offense for which he is charged."

The report was given to lawyers in the case and obtained by The Associated Press from David Sheldon, the lawyer of one of the defendants..

The four soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division are charged with raping Abeer Qassim al-Janabi in her family's home in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, then killing her along with her parents and her younger sister. Military prosecutors say the four set the teenager's body on fire in order to hide their crime.

The soldiers accused of rape and murder — Spc. James P. Barker, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard — could potentially face the death penalty. Another soldier, Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe, is accused of failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have been a direct participant.

Another soldier who was said to have allegedly planned the attack, Pfc. Steven D. Green, was discharged from the army due to a "personality disorder" before the allegations became known. He was arrested in June shortly after the allegations became known. He has pleaded not guilty to rape and murder charges and is being held in a civilian court in the United States.

Sheldon, who is counsel to Barker, said the soldiers were essentially abandoned by a military command that did not give them the support that they needed, either in the field or in the courtroom.

"I'm not surprised given the events in this case. It was apparent that neither Spc. Barker nor any of the other soldiers were going to get a fair hearing," Sheldon told the AP. He added that he would be filing an objection within the five days allowed after he received the recommendation from the investigator.

Mahmoudiya is an extremely violent region of Iraq within an area known as the "triangle of death" for the numerous attacks by insurgents, and lawyers are expected to use extreme combat stress as a defense.

Testimony in early August during the soldiers' Article 32 hearing — similar to a civilian grand jury hearing — painted a picture of a unit that was almost constantly on edge from repeated attacks and demoralized by the loss of fellow soldiers.

Sheldon said that in his reply to the investigator's recommendations, he would argue that Warren did not take into account the extenuating circumstances of where the soldiers were serving.

"Each one of these soldiers had experienced extreme combat distress," Sheldon said.

In his report, the army investigator did not make a recommendation on whether the accused should face the death penalty, but he outlined a number of aggravating factors that could be considered.

"I believe evidence exists that the actions of the accused could have created a grave risk of substantial damage to the mission of the United States, and that substantial damage to the national security might have resulted," Warren wrote.

The allegations of rape and murder have bolstered Iraqi accusations of misconduct by soldiers, including illegal killings, beatings and inhuman treatment. The allegations have increased the mistrust and resentment among Iraqis of the American military and increased calls for their withdrawal.

[yabanci]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212078,00.html

give me a break, gang raping a 14 year-old girl, shooting her, lighting her on fire, and shooting her mother, father, and 5 year-old sister is NOT a beheading.













/sarcasm

[MrBigglesworth]

WVUFAN, you previously said:
Yes, if I were President, I'd get the heck out of from Iraq. They don't want us there, and it's not worth any more American lives. In my opinion, the Iraqi people are just not worth it. If that makes me evil, so be it.
So when did your feelings change? Why must we now stay, and, I'm assuming, go to more places and kill people?

[Drake]

give me a break, gang raping a 14 year-old girl, shooting her, lighting her on fire, and shooting her mother, father, and 5 year-old sister is NOT a beheading.

/sarcasm

I don't care on which side of this argument you fall, if you didn't laugh out loud at this post, you're taking this thread way too seriously.

[Glengoyne]

I don't care on which side of this argument you fall, if you didn't laugh out loud at this post, you're taking this thread way too seriously.

I agree with this post.

I don't think the analogy is particulary apt, though. The soldiers who did that are going to jail for a long time, and may face the death penalty.

The Islamic Extremists who perpetrate such deeds are considered heroes. So much for that comparison.

[Glengoyne]

I don't think the Iraqis started it. Personally, I blame the Babylonians.

I always confuse them with the Assyrians.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I don't remember Americans beheading innocent Iraqis.

I'm sorry? I didn't say anything about beheading people. I was talking about torture.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I agree with this post.

I don't think the analogy is particulary apt, though. The soldiers who did that are going to jail for a long time, and may face the death penalty.

The Islamic Extremists who perpetrate such deeds are considered heroes. So much for that comparison.

Sad to say, I'm sure that there are those in America (hell, even those in this thread) that would applaud the same things that Islamic extremists do if those actions were being carried out by American soldiers.

[Klinglerware]

I don't think the analogy is particulary apt, though. The soldiers who did that are going to jail for a long time, and may face the death penalty.

The Islamic Extremists who perpetrate such deeds are considered heroes. So much for that comparison.

True, but the powers that be did try to cover it up, and discharged the main perpetrator quietly. There was a somewhat reasonable chance that they could have gotten off scot free if later incidents hadn't taken place...

[CraigSca]

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1431/islamyc4.gif

[Groundhog]

I don't think the analogy is particulary apt, though. The soldiers who did that are going to jail for a long time, and may face the death penalty.

The Islamic Extremists who perpetrate such deeds are considered heroes. So much for that comparison.

That's not the point of the comparison at all.

WVUFan said that he's OK with torturing the "terrorists" because the US are more humane than they are and don't go around slaughtering innocent citizens in barbaric fashion like they do.

That case is one example that's come to light saying otherwise.

[sabotai]

I always confuse them with the Assyrians.

I always confuse them with the Hittites!