[marden]

Pope’s apology does not quiet Muslims’ anger
Agence France-Presse
Monday, September 18, 2006 23:48 IST

ROME: Pope Benedict XVI’s personal apology for criticising Islam failed to stem the anger of hardline Muslims today despite calls for calm from Islamic and Western leaders.

Hundreds of angry demonstrators burned an effigy of the pope in the southern Iraqi port city of Basra, while Al-Qaeda pledged a jihad (holy war) until the “servant of the cross” (the pope), and the West, are defeated.

Iran was unmoved by Sunday’s apology, saying it was not abject enough and called on the 79-year-old pontiff to admit he had made a mistake.

“These explanations were necessary but not sufficient. He needs to say more clearly that what he said was an error and correct it,” Tehran government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said.

The Basra protesters — who burned German and American flags — said the Pope’s remarks had insulted Islam and called for him to be tried by an international court.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1053847

In this war of hearts and minds, words, icons, symbols and gestures mean everything.

Does this (the Islamic comments) have anything to do with the Church opening the files on the role of "Hitler's Pope?" I see a connection. The need for dialog and to spill the beans and come clean.

Interesting the timing of his Islamic comments and the death of Oriana Fallaci.

From my link in the other thread on her passing.

"I feel less alone when I read the books of Ratzinger." I had asked Ms. Fallaci whether there was any contemporary leader she admired, and Pope Benedict XVI was evidently a man in whom she reposed some trust. "I am an atheist, and if an atheist and a pope think the same things, there must be something true. It's that simple! There must be some human truth here that is beyond religion."

Ms. Fallaci, who made her name by interviewing numerous statesmen (and not a few tyrants), believes that ours is "an age without leaders. We stopped having leaders at the end of the 20th century." Of George Bush, she will concede only that he has "vigor," and that he is "obstinate" (in her book a compliment) and "gutsy. . . . Nobody obliged him to do anything about Terri Schiavo, or to take a stand on stem cells. But he did."

But it is "Ratzinger" (as she insists on calling the pope) who is her soulmate. John Paul II--"Wojtyla"--was a "warrior, who did more to end the Soviet Union than even America," but she will not forgive him for his "weakness toward the Islamic world. Why, why was he so weak?"

The scant hopes that she has for the West she rests on his successor. As a cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI wrote frequently on the European (and the Western) condition. Last year, he wrote an essay titled "If Europe Hates Itself," from which Ms. Fallaci reads this to me: "The West reveals . . . a hatred of itself, which is strange and can only be considered pathological; the West . . . no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure."

"Ecco!" she says. A man after her own heart. "Ecco!" But I cannot be certain whether I see triumph in her eyes, or pain.

[itai195]

This whole issue is just idiotic. Makes me yearn for the day we are independent of ME oil and can just disassociate ourselves entirely from that region.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

This whole issue is just idiotic. Makes me yearn for the day we are independent of ME oil and can just disassociate ourselves entirely from that region.

Would rad Isalmic aggression stop if we left the ME?

[Monique]

Maybe the Muslims that do protest, should get a life and find a job.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by itai195

This whole issue is just idiotic. Makes me yearn for the day we are independent of ME oil and can just disassociate ourselves entirely from that region.

Oh don't concern yourself too much. Most of these people can't even read and Iran has gone mental, snapping at everything and everyone.

They can't do anything but behave like the little monsters they are. Watch out for the muslims that can do something, i.e. the Western muslims who have money and can read.

Those self-important little shits in the Middle East are of no immediate concern and will be dealt with in time. Fortunately they represent a loud minority. Useful fools to desperate criminals and religious zealots, just itching to die for their Islam.

I'm sure that can be facilitated.

V

[Zeeb]

I'm not a fan of the current Pope. However, the fact that every other religion has to say only nice, politically correct things about Islam, while Islamic leaders are able to say whatever offensive thing they want about everyone else's religion or lack therof annoys me.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by marden

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1053847

In this war of hearts and minds, words, icons, symbols and gestures mean everything.

Does this (the Islamic comments) have anything to do with the Church opening the files on the role of "Hitler's Pope?" I see a connection. The need for dialog and to spill the beans and come clean.

Interesting the timing of his Islamic comments and the death of Oriana Fallaci.

From my link in the other thread on her passing.

Fallaci and Ratzinger, now that's a couple.

But on topic, the pope's apology is not an apology at all. He is only sorry that his remarks caused such furor, but he hasn't shown any remorse or apology where he repents that he dishonestly or ignorantly abused prophet Muhammad and the Quran in order to let catholicism look better in the eyes of secularists.

A very weak apology.

Taliesin

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Fallaci and Ratzinger, now that's a couple.

But on topic, the pope's apology is not an apology at all. He is only sorry that his remarks caused such furor, but he hasn't shown any remorse or apology where he repents that he dishonestly or ignorantly abused prophet Muhammad and the Quran in order to let catholicism look better in the eyes of secularists.

A very weak apology.

Taliesin

Why do you care about what one person thinks about the Muslim world? Again the protestors are just a bunch of losers that are too lazy to get a job.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I'm not a fan of the current Pope. However, the fact that every other religion has to say only nice, politically correct things about Islam, while Islamic leaders are able to say whatever offensive thing they want about everyone else's religion or lack therof annoys me.

The pope can criticize all day and night certain aspects of Islam or islamic extremism as a whole, but he has no right to offend prophet Muhammad, espescially not using wrong ideas and interpretations.

There are indeed quite a lot islamic preachers that are offending and criticizing christianity and judaism, but I doubt that there is even a single islamic preacher, who would offend Jesus or Moses.

Taliesin

P.S.: Bigmac, you asked me in the closed thread for scriptural basis for my claim that anyone, be it jew, christian or muslim, who believes in God, the last day and does good will find his/her reward with God in the afterlife:

Sura 2:

002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish, and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Monique

Why do you care about what one person thinks about the Muslim world? Again the protestors are just a bunch of losers that are too lazy to get a job.

1. Because it isn't just one person, it's the pope of a billion catholics.
2. I really wouldn't mind if the pope had chosen to critizise the current islamic world for their indifference and apathy they show when it comes to their radicals, but that's not what he did, he chose to offend prophet Muhammad using dishonest or ignorant arguments and wrong concepts, and that's something I really don't like: ignorance.

Taliesin

[TETENAL]

There is nothing wrong with criticising "prophet Muhammad".

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

1. Because it isn't just one person, it's the pope of a billion catholics.
2. I really wouldn't mind if the pope had chosen to critizise the current islamic world for their indifference and apathy they show when it comes to their radicals, but that's not what he did, he chose to offend prophet Muhammad using dishonest or ignorant arguments and wrong concepts, and that's something I really don't like: ignorance.

Taliesin

There is not a billion catholics and there is not a billion Muslims. There has never been a census of such or such religion in the world.

You choose to criticize the pope whey can't I criticize Muhammed.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

There is nothing wrong with criticising "prophet Muhammad".

I would wish he had done that, but he didn't. He offended prophet Muhammad using ignorant concepts and interpretations, halftruths and polemics.

Very bad form and manner, espescially from a pope.

Taliesin

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Monique

There is not a billion catholics and there is not a billion Muslims. There has never been a census of such or such religion in the world.

You choose to criticize the pope whey can't I criticize Muhammed.

Oh but there are such census and every religion is quite happy to tell that they have "more and more adherents every year".

These clubs have a nice PR system, believe me.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Monique

Why do you care about what one person thinks about the Muslim world? Again the protestors are just a bunch of losers that are too lazy to get a job.

My!

Reading such protest makes me wonder...

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Monique

There is not a billion catholics and there is not a billion Muslims. There has never been a census of such or such religion in the world.

You choose to criticize the pope whey can't I criticize Muhammed.

I really don't know the exact numbers of catholics or muslims, but that was the numbers that I heard thrown around.

There is no problem in constructively and honestly criticizing prophet Muhammad. The Quran itself criticized prophet Muhammad, now and then, but that's not what the pope did: He used wrong concepts, ideas and interpretations, polemics and halftruths to offend prophet Muhammad.

Taliesin

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

He offended prophet Muhammad

That's impossible. They guy is dead already.

Muslims who react violently to the criticism that Islam is a violent religion are the laughingstock of mankind. When Ratzinger says they lack rationality, that's not a "half-truth". It's an observable fact.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Monique

Again the protestors are just a bunch of losers that are too lazy to get a job.

Maybe, but what is important to understand is that these protests, just like the protests against the cartoons, are very well organized by islamistic organisations that use every opportunity where muslims are offended to show their strength and presence. In most of the authocratic arabic states, only the islamistic organisations can protest, since the islamists are the only ones the arabic regimes weren't able to break.

What the islamists are trying is to gain momentum with these protests, and once they have mobilised enough masses, they would use them to dethrone the authocratic arabic regimes. The arabic regimes on the other hand know that fact and are trying to take a bit vent out of the system by trying to get in front of the protests and openly and publically condemning the offence against the prophet.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

That's impossible. They guy is dead already.

Muslims who react violently to the criticism that Islam is a violent religion are the laughingstock of mankind. When Ratzinger says they lack rationality, that's not a "half-truth". It's an observable fact.

That's not the point that gets the people angry. He could have said that Islam is irrational and noone would have cared except for the educated elites, but he said, ok he quoted, that Muhammad brought only evil and inhuman "new things" to the table.

Those that protest violently, don't view violence as evil or inhuman, they view it as a normal reaction to vent the anger they feel.

Taliesin

[DBursey]

The irony of Muslim reaction to the Pope's comment certainly seems to have been played down. Contrast the violent reaction to that of Christendom following the perceived aspersions in the Da Vinci Code flick.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by DBursey

The irony of Muslim reaction to the Pope's comment certainly seems to have been played down.

you noticed that too. I forget the quote that sparked it all but it was his condemnation of violence in the name of faith and here we have violence in the name of faith. How could a religious leader say that nother faith is violent and that faiths so no and to prove it fire bombs churches, kills nuns and threatens his life hmmm... They really are peaceful

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

That's impossible. They guy is dead already.

Muslims who react violently to the criticism that Islam is a violent religion are the laughingstock of mankind. When Ratzinger says they lack rationality, that's not a "half-truth". It's an observable fact.

Good points.

What fascinates me the most about this is how this Byzantine emperor quoted by Benedict, seems to have provided some insight which has remained unchanged to this day.

Benedict then went on to quote him as saying "There is no compulsion in religion". Again, an especially reasonable observation, and one which many people have forgotten these days.

This whole affair has made me read up on the early Byzantine church, and one of the conclusions that many historians make is that the Eastern church really was the heir to Hellenic and Classical philosophy. Eastern Orthodox Christians should count themselves as lucky to have such a rich heritage in Plato, Aristotle, etc.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Those that protest violently, don't view violence as evil or inhuman, they view it as a normal reaction to vent the anger they feel.

Maybe THAT'S what Papa Ratzi criticised - rightfully so.

-t

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Maybe, but what is important to understand is that these protests, just like the protests against the cartoons, are very well organized by islamistic organisations that use every opportunity where muslims are offended to show their strength and presence. (snip) Taliesin

Let me get this straight.

The same "well -organized" Muslim community that reacts instantly to criticism against Islam - ceases to exist when Islam perpetrates violent acts against infidels?

Give me a break.

It's always explained as a 'fringe element' - far removed from any 'organization' that commits acts of violence in the name of the religion of peace.

The Muslim community never seems to be able to provide this same common voice when it comes to condemnation of Muslims who are destroying Islam.

A billion Muslims brought to their knees by one sentence uttered by a Catholic....or a cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb on his head. Sounds like Muslims don't have much faith in their faith.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Let me get this straight.

The same "well -organized" Muslim community that reacts instantly to criticism against Islam - ceases to exist when Islam perpetrates violent acts against infidels?

Give me a break.

It's always explained as a 'fringe element' - far removed from any 'organization' that commits acts of violence in the name of the religion of peace.

The Muslim community never seems to be able to provide this same common voice when it comes to condemnation of Muslims who are destroying Islam.

A billion Muslims brought to their knees by one sentence uttered by a Catholic....or a cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb on his head. Sounds like Muslims don't have much faith in their faith.

In other words,: "Why should you care about what other people think?"

Good point.

[Spliffdaddy]

Muslims have to fly airplanes into buildings to get the attention of Christians.

Christians merely have to doodle a cartoon or recite a 500 year old quote - and they have the undivided attention of all Muslims.

I think we just found the weakness of Islamic fundamentalists. Their faith.

[goMac]

The pope never meant to do anything wrong, but honestly, trying him trying to interoperate Islam was a mistake. It would be about as wise as a Muslim Imam giving a lecture on Christian theology. Sure, on a basic level I'm sure both religions understand each other. But just as Islam probably doesn't understand Christianity very well from our perspective, we probably don't understand Islam very well from there perspective.

That said, the Muslims in the middle east who are mad about this need to unwad their panties. They'd do a lot better... you know... actually explaining why the pope is wrong instead of just saying "Death to the pope" all day. I wouldn't mind seeing an open talk between Catholic leaders and Muslim leaders on the subject. But as long as Muslims spend all their time with violence no one is going to take them seriously.

[Kerrigan]

Frankly I can't envision Islam ever moving forward when you have these morons out on the streets chanting "Death to pope" and "Infidels die".

[goMac]

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about this entire thing is that we're not sure how many Muslims support the anger over the Pope's comments and how many are against the violence. Today I saw a Middle Eastern woman on TV saying that the Pope's comments were more in line with Islam than a lot of comments she hears Muslim's make. So there are Muslims, in positions where they can communicate their views to a broad audience, who are against the violence. But the American media isn't covering how much of the population is angry and how much aren't involved. It just gives Islam one face when there is actually many. Of course, I think the right would like us to believe all Muslims are upset over this comment, as it makes their position look stronger, but it seems that isn't true.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think 'the right' would love to see a Muslim community that is critical of the fundamentalist element. To give people hope.

'The right' has been saying that Islam is violent. And they keep being proved correct.

The fact that they're correct doesn't make them feel better, it's just an unfortunate innocent by-product that it's true.


All the understanding and diplomacy in the world won't fix a disagreement between religious ideologies. That much can be proven in *any* religious thread in this forum.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I think 'the right' would love to see a Muslim community that is critical of the fundamentalist element. To give people hope.

'The right' has been saying that Islam is violent. And they keep being proved correct.

The fact that they're correct doesn't make them feel better, it's just an unfortunate innocent by-product that it's true.

Ahhhh... but this is exactly what I'm talking about. Right here:

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

'The right' has been saying that Islam is violent. And they keep being proved correct.

[Kerrigan]

Let's assume for a moment that the 'right' and the 'left' exist in America as, roughly, Republicans and Democrats.

I think the left tends to over analyze the right's reasons for criticizing Islam. We're not criticizing Islam because we want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy which in turn enhances the power of elected neocons. We criticize Islamic fundamentalism because we genuinely believe that it is a threat to our liberties.

If conservative politicians exploit this sentiment to further the development of the military-industrial complex, then that is too bad and it should be stopped.

But make no mistake about it: the revolting displays of invective which play out daily on the Arab street is what infuriates the right, not our supposed to desire to use such images to create a police state.

Like the 'left' we just want a resilient constitutional democracy along with social harmony, and we don't want Muslims endlessly chanting orders to kill our religious leaders, civilians, etc.

[Spliffdaddy]

While I'm on a rant...

You know what really burns my ass?

The fact that the entire world believes I'm a Christian simply because I live in the United States. People want to kill me because I was born here and I live here. While I'd like to think I had something to do with America being a 'world power' - I'm pretty darn certain this country would be much the same if I had never lived here.

Why do some Muslims believe that by killing me they would be one step closer to their goal? They killed 3,000 people just like me and they got further from their goal. Those dozen terrorists would have accomplished considerably more simply by donating cash to a political campaign.

How stupid do you have to be? They claim we don't understand them. Hell, it's pretty apparent they don't understand us! We're the same folks that turned on our very first ally (France) because they wanted to dictate our trade policies. We have never, in our existence, allowed any other nation to tell us what to do - or force us to do something...even if it was in our best interest. The worst method of getting our cooperation is to tell us what we should do.

"But, Spliffy, your dumbass country invaded Iraq for no reason."

For no reason? pfft. How about because ya'll insisted that we shouldn't. When will you learn? If you had insisted that we should invade Iraq, by golly it'd be the last thing we did.

You act like we don't have a history of such invasions. Heck, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor we invaded Europe. Short memories, folks.

So yeah, radical Islam can have America. When we're all dead. Not one second before. And all because they tried to force us to give it to them.

[n8236]

Originally Posted by marden

DNA - World - Pope�s apology does not quiet Muslims� anger - Daily News & Analysis

In this war of hearts and minds, words, icons, symbols and gestures mean everything.

Does this (the Islamic comments) have anything to do with the Church opening the files on the role of "Hitler's Pope?" I see a connection. The need for dialog and to spill the beans and come clean.

Interesting the timing of his Islamic comments and the death of Oriana Fallaci.

From my link in the other thread on her passing.

I'm not surprised at all. As a matter of fact, I think many Islamic fundamentalists have been waiting for something like this to happen. The Pope won't be able to take back what he said no matter how many sorrys he sends out, and with that in mind, that gives those fundamentalists the perfect excuse/scapegoat to carry ou their terrorizing actions. Now they can claim their actions to be justified.

I think this speech has permanently hurt Western relations w/ the Islamic world. It will take generations of people before this stigma can be forgotten.

[Kerrigan]

I think 9/11 had a far far greater impact on those relations than any Byzantine allusion in lecture could have.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

But on topic, the pope's apology is not an apology at all. He is only sorry that his remarks caused such furor, but he hasn't shown any remorse or apology where he repents that he dishonestly or ignorantly abused prophet Muhammad and the Quran in order to let catholicism look better in the eyes of secularists.

A very weak apology.

...and the pope was right NOT to apologize!!
There's no need to apologize to violent protestors who do not know how to translate German!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Maybe THAT'S what Papa Ratzi criticised - rightfully so.

-t

If he had done that, there would be no problem at all in my eyes. It would be his right and opinion to condemn violence in the name of faith, and preaching instead pacifism, that's a-ok. But unfortunately that's not what he quoted. What he quoted said nothing other than that prophet brought nothing new, except evil and inhuman things.

If the pope really wanted doalogue like he often said, that is not the way to start one.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

you noticed that too. I forget the quote that sparked it all but it was his condemnation of violence in the name of faith and here we have violence in the name of faith. How could a religious leader say that nother faith is violent and that faiths so no and to prove it fire bombs churches, kills nuns and threatens his life hmmm... They really are peaceful

It's not the topic of faith and violence that sparked the protests, it's his quote that said that prophet Muhammad brought nothing new, except evil and inhuman things.

While that quote might have been used in the context of faith and violence, that's not the way it has been received by the protesters.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Good points.

What fascinates me the most about this is how this Byzantine emperor quoted by Benedict, seems to have provided some insight which has remained unchanged to this day.

Benedict then went on to quote him as saying "There is no compulsion in religion". Again, an especially reasonable observation, and one which many people have forgotten these days.

This whole affair has made me read up on the early Byzantine church, and one of the conclusions that many historians make is that the Eastern church really was the heir to Hellenic and Classical philosophy. Eastern Orthodox Christians should count themselves as lucky to have such a rich heritage in Plato, Aristotle, etc.

While Plato and Aristotle were definitely some enlightened guys, they were also products of their times, their ideas about women and slaves...

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Let me get this straight.

The same "well -organized" Muslim community that reacts instantly to criticism against Islam - ceases to exist when Islam perpetrates violent acts against infidels?

Give me a break.

It's always explained as a 'fringe element' - far removed from any 'organization' that commits acts of violence in the name of the religion of peace.

The Muslim community never seems to be able to provide this same common voice when it comes to condemnation of Muslims who are destroying Islam.

A billion Muslims brought to their knees by one sentence uttered by a Catholic....or a cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb on his head. Sounds like Muslims don't have much faith in their faith.

You get it of course not straight (would that be gay?). The normal muslims are not well-organized, the islamists (!!) are well organized. The protests you always see when prophet Muhammad gets offende are not organized by normal muslims, but by islamistic organizations. They use these incidents as opportunities to mobilise people, to gain sympathy for their goals and to show and gather strenght, so that one day they will have enough supporters to throw off the arabic regimes.

People in the west always look at these protests and think, hey, the muslims are again venting their anger, not realizing that the protests are well-organized by islamists (!!), and their topic is not really the offense of prophet Muhammad but political gambling.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by goMac

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about this entire thing is that we're not sure how many Muslims support the anger over the Pope's comments and how many are against the violence. Today I saw a Middle Eastern woman on TV saying that the Pope's comments were more in line with Islam than a lot of comments she hears Muslim's make. So there are Muslims, in positions where they can communicate their views to a broad audience, who are against the violence. But the American media isn't covering how much of the population is angry and how much aren't involved. It just gives Islam one face when there is actually many. Of course, I think the right would like us to believe all Muslims are upset over this comment, as it makes their position look stronger, but it seems that isn't true.

From my experience many muslims are against the violence, and espescially condemn the murder of the italian nun and the burning of churches in Palestine, but nonetheless they are also offended because of the speech of the pope, and espescially the much talked about quote.

The protests are organized mostly by islamistic organizations, that take every opportunity to try to gain sympathy for their ideologies and goals, and to gather supporters so that they can one day dethrone arabic regimes.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I think 'the right' would love to see a Muslim community that is critical of the fundamentalist element. To give people hope.

'The right' has been saying that Islam is violent. And they keep being proved correct.

The fact that they're correct doesn't make them feel better, it's just an unfortunate innocent by-product that it's true.


All the understanding and diplomacy in the world won't fix a disagreement between religious ideologies. That much can be proven in *any* religious thread in this forum.

Strangely enough, that's exactly what the islamic fundemantalists are saying about christianity and judaism, that they are violent, and they keep being proved correct by the acts of the US and Israel.

Crazy world.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

While I'm on a rant...

You know what really burns my ass?

The fact that the entire world believes I'm a Christian simply because I live in the United States. People want to kill me because I was born here and I live here. While I'd like to think I had something to do with America being a 'world power' - I'm pretty darn certain this country would be much the same if I had never lived here.

Why do some Muslims believe that by killing me they would be one step closer to their goal? They killed 3,000 people just like me and they got further from their goal. Those dozen terrorists would have accomplished considerably more simply by donating cash to a political campaign.

How stupid do you have to be? They claim we don't understand them. Hell, it's pretty apparent they don't understand us! We're the same folks that turned on our very first ally (France) because they wanted to dictate our trade policies. We have never, in our existence, allowed any other nation to tell us what to do - or force us to do something...even if it was in our best interest. The worst method of getting our cooperation is to tell us what we should do.

"But, Spliffy, your dumbass country invaded Iraq for no reason."

For no reason? pfft. How about because ya'll insisted that we shouldn't. When will you learn? If you had insisted that we should invade Iraq, by golly it'd be the last thing we did.

You act like we don't have a history of such invasions. Heck, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor we invaded Europe. Short memories, folks.

So yeah, radical Islam can have America. When we're all dead. Not one second before. And all because they tried to force us to give it to them.

Exactly and that's what Al-Qaeeda was building upon. They exactly expected the reaction of the US, and attacked on 9/11 exactly so that the US would turn into revenge-mode and attack the islamic world. It's basically an inner-muslim-conflict, into which the US was drawn into as an asset to be used and played for the benifit of one of the conflict-players: The islamists of Al-Qaeeda wanted to reignite the sympathy for the islamistic dream among the muslims in the islamic world, and espscially weaken the arabic regimes that are mostly allies of the US, and there is no better way than to invite the US to play the bully in the islamic world.

Like I said already, crazy world.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by n8236

I'm not surprised at all. As a matter of fact, I think many Islamic fundamentalists have been waiting for something like this to happen. The Pope won't be able to take back what he said no matter how many sorrys he sends out, and with that in mind, that gives those fundamentalists the perfect excuse/scapegoat to carry ou their terrorizing actions. Now they can claim their actions to be justified.

I think this speech has permanently hurt Western relations w/ the Islamic world. It will take generations of people before this stigma can be forgotten.

I don't think so, an honest and full apology would go a long way to calm the tides, but unfortunately the pope seems not to be ready to retract anything of his speech.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by badidea

...and the pope was right NOT to apologize!!
There's no need to apologize to violent protestors who do not know how to translate German!

Why, I read the whole speech and I feel offended and want an honest apology, and I'm definitely not a violent protester and condemn the burning of churches and espescially the murder of the italian nun, and hope that the murderer gets caught and executed so that he can burn in hell.

Taliesin

[Nicko]

We need to ressurect Martin Luther so he can kick the Pope's ass again

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Why, I read the whole speech and I feel offended and want an honest apology, and I'm definitely not a violent protester and condemn the burning of churches and espescially the murder of the italian nun, and hope that the murderer gets caught and executed so that he can burn in hell.

Taliesin

Which translation did you read? Or do you understand German?
I'm really sorry but this time I completely fail to understand the Muslim world!!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by badidea

Which translation did you read? Or do you understand German?
I'm really sorry but this time I completely fail to understand the Muslim world!!

What's so hard to understand about the anger, when you hear that prophet Muhammad, even if only quoted, has supposedly brought nothing new, but evil and inhuman things?

By the way I read the english translation of the speech, that I googled.

While the normal protesters find that quote offending, I find the whole speech to be offending. What the pope wanted to reflect upon in that speech was the topic of religion and violence, and his stance was the violence in the name of religion is evil or at least bad and inhuman, and he uses the writing of the byzantine emperor as the basis, and goes on to say that God dislikes violence in his name, because it runs against rationality, and God is nothing but rational, then he goes on taking the interpretation of an islamist (!!) about God, namely that God would be unbound by any human categories, be it rationality, goodness or mercy... thinking that would be the God described in the Quran...

What offends me in that speech the most, is not necessarily the quote of the Byzantine-emperor, but the wrong concepts and interpretations about God in the Quran, the shocking ignorance, and the veiled attempt to define the quranic God as irrational and merciless and the catholic God as rational and merciful.

Basically instead of taking the bloody history of the catholic church as the basis to redefine the modern understanding of faith and God, he projects that bloody history onto Islam and uses that angle instead, since he obviously finds it easier to do that..

Taliesin

[Sayf-Allah]

Do Muslims have the right to be offended? Of course.

Is there a legitimate reason for Muslims to be offended? Absolutely.

Should Muslims turn to violence to protest this speech? Absolutely not.

Should Muslims accept Ratzingers explanation and move on? Absolutely.

Should the Western media focus on the Muslims that have both complained in a peaceful way and now accepted Ratzingers explanation or should the focus on the violent protests that are still few? It's up to them based on what image of Muslims they want to portray.

[Hawkeye_a]

I've refrained from the PL for awhile....

But anyone notice a trend here ?.....
1. A Muslim man tried to assasinate Pope John Paul II. Where were the killings of Muslims in the name of Catholicism then ? Where was the deformation of the Quaran,etc,etc.....

But thats besides the point...... Chrisendom survived the Roman Empire, the Ottomans, the Moors, etc...and worst of all Christianity survived themselves(the inquisition et al, which went against everything "Christian"). I look around, and i see...Budhists, Hindus, Jews, Zorastrians, Prodestants, Catholics all living side by side, more often than not supporting one another. There is an arrogant, stubborn, narrow-minded, self righteous, self imposing force out there, that seems to be at war with every other belief system (and even athiests for that matter).

2. A dutch author was killed by muslims, for writing a book that voiced his opinion..... there was apparently somthing in that book that offended Islam to the degree where they sentenced him to death. (Wouldnt you just love to live in a place with people like these?)

You can bitch and moan all you want about the conservative right or your old fashioned granmother who still goes to church...i doubt any of them would kill you for questions yours/their beliefs in Christianity.

3. Remember the cartoon ? well....now.....what happens when majority of the people in the US/Europe/Australia (hopefully never) are muslim ?... i'm assuming they will all be for free speach, just so long as no one makes cartoon or talks about islam without their concent. (kinda like the way the ME is today)...wouldnt you JUST love that ?

having lived there...i absolutely hated it by the way....cause you turn on the TV, and you see this "immam" completely bashing the bible on public TV (with all BS)....but it isnt a debate...it's just a group of old muslim-nuts, who are considered scholars in t heir fields, so much so that they get air time for spreading lies. so what do i do ? do i protest ? do i burn a voodoo doll of the immam ? do i call for him to apologize ? no. i just change the channel.

4. This is my opinion. and i will stand by it, cuase i have experienced what it has done. Mohammed was the worst thing that happen to the middle east. he planted the seeds of war that have been blooming since the day he died. i dont know if the ME would have been a better place without Islam...but looking at the rest of the world, it's hard to see a worse governing influence that drive people to war....... the Nazi's and Japaneeses were similar in that they were brainwashed with the same sort of thinking "conquer the world, our way of life ensures that we get into heaven, we are better", but over a relitavely short period.

Once the cradel of civilization...brought us numbers, paper, soal, glass, pyramids, etc. Today, other cultures have evolved and are making contributions to humanity in SOME way. Now the ME has it's natural resources. Ever since the advent of Islam, there have been a total of 0 contributions made....and if there were any made by a muslim, they have been in the free world. Such as today....the first "muslim woman" in space, fled Iran as a refugee.... apart from the fact that none of the countries in the ME have anything close to a space program....what are the chances of a girl in the ME, living in the ME as a muslim even bothering to dream of going into space ? Islam stifeled progress in the ME...the results of that can be seen across the muslim world today, where every form of modern technology be it architecture, defence, entertainment, mining, etc...have been brought to them by the "evil" infedels.

I have known muslims, who went against these archaic teachings... mingeled with us "infedels" despite their immams telling them to avoid us, etc. and in that they became un-muslim in my eyes....and i think, in theirs as well....and they were happy about it. I dont blame the people completely...i blame the teacher of such hatred. In recent decades, the west's influence of cultures of the world became enormous....America was on any and every kids mind....that made the old farts mad.... and they strted trying to defend their culture (whatever that might be)...but none went so far as to kill people because of their opposing point of view, or at least not on this scale that islam seems to be taking it.

In my opinion, there needs to be a paradigm shift in the ME.....the people need to take Islam by the reigns and weild it to make their lives better, the same way the prodestan movement did for christianity(i'm catholic), of, whether they like it or not...the world will just shun them completely.

And seriously....everyone KNOWS Christianity is a derivitive of Jeudaism, and Islam is a derivative of Christianity+Jeudaism....so what makes the religion(way of life) of Christians+Jews different from muslims today ? Thats what Islam added.