Muslims bash Il Papa for bashing Muslims

[boutons_]

September 14, 2006
Muslim Leaders Assail Pope’s Speech on Islam

By IAN FISHER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/ian_fisher/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

ROME, Sept. 14 — As Pope Benedict XVI arrived back home from Germany, Muslim leaders strongly criticized a speech he gave on his trip that used unflattering language about Islam.

Some of the strongest words came from Turkey, possibly putting in jeopardy Benedict’s scheduled visit there in November.

“I do not think any good will come from the visit to the Muslim world of a person who has such ideas about Islam’s prophet,” Ali Bardakoglu, a cleric who is head of the Turkish government’s directorate of religious affairs, said in a television interview there. “He should first of all replace the grudge in his heart with moral values and respect for the other.”

Muslim leaders in Pakistan, Morocco and Kuwait, in addition to some in Germany and France, also criticized the pope’s remarks, with many demanding an apology or clarification. The extent of any anger about the speech may become clearer on Friday, the Muslim day of prayer in which grievances are often vented publicly.

As the criticisms gathered force, the Vatican (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org) worked quickly to quell a potentially damaging confrontation with Muslims. It issued a statement saying that the church seeks to “cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward other religions and cultures and obviously also toward Islam.”

The statement, from the pope’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said: “It should be said that what is important to the pope is a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation of violence.”

“It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to do an in-depth study of jihad and Muslim thinking in this field and still less so to hurt the feelings of Muslim believers,” he added.

Benedict’s remarks came on Tuesday, when he delivered a major address — which some church experts say was a defining speech of his pontificate — saying that the West, and specifically Europe, had become so beholden to reason that it had closed God out of public life, science and academia.

But the pope began this speech at Regensburg University with what he conceded were “brusque” words about Islam: He quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Benedict also used the word “jihad,” or holy war, saying that violence was contrary to God’s nature and to reason. But, at the end of a speech that did not otherwise mention Islam, he also said that reason could be the basis for “that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.”

After his address on Tuesday, his spokesman said the pope did not intend to insult Islam.But many experts on Islam warned that Benedict ran the risk of offense in using such strong language, with tensions between religions so high.

And today, criticism began pouring the pope’s way. The 79-year-old Benedict has taken a more skeptical, hard-nosed approach to Islam than did his predecessor, John Paul II (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/_john_paul_ii/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who died in April 2005.

“I don’t think the church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions, Aiman Mazyek, president of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, told the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, recalling the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Vatican’s relations with Nazi Germany.

The French Council for the Muslim Religion demanded that Benedict “clarify” his remarks. “We hope that the Church will very quickly give us its opinion and clarify its position so that it does not confuse Islam, which is a revealed religion, with Islamism, which is not a religion but a political ideology,” Dalil Boubakeur, the council’s president, told Agence France-Presse.

In Kuwait, the leader of the Islamic Nation Party, Haken al-Mutairi, demanded an apology for what he called “unaccustomed and unprecedented” remarks.

“I call on all Arab and Islamic states to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican and expel those from the Vatican until the pope says he is sorry for the wrong done to the prophet and to Islam, which preaches peace, tolerance, justice and equality,” Mr. Mutairi told Agence France-Presse.

In Pakistan, Muslim leaders and scholars said that Benedict’s words widened the gap between Islam and Christianity, and risked what one official called greater “disharmony.”

“The pope’s statement is highly irresponsible,” said another ranking Muslim, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, an Islamic scholar. “The concept of jihad is not to spread Islam with the sword.”

The criticism from Mr. Bardakoglu, the Islamic leader in Turkey, was especially strong, and carries with it particular embarrassment if Benedict is forced to cancel or delay his visit to Turkey. Many Turks are already critical of Benedict, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had in 2004 opposed Turkey’s entry into the European Union (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/european_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

The official, Mr. Bardakoglu, demanded an apology, saying that the remarks “reflect the hatred in his heart — it is a statement full of enmity and grudge.”

In Morocco, the newspaper Aujourd’hui questioned whether Benedict’s call for a real dialogue between religions was made in good faith.

“Pope Benedict XVI has a strange approach to the dialogue between religions,” the paper wrote in an editorial. “He is being provocative.”

The paper also drew a comparison between the pope’s remarks and the outcry in the Muslim world over unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published around Europe beginning last year.

“The global outcry over the calamitous cartoons have only just died down and now the pontiff, in all his holiness, is launching an attack against Islam,” the newspaper wrote.

===========

OK, you "Muslim voices", where the fuck where you and your defense of Muslims:

* about the fatwa on Rushdie?

* when Hamas send chilldren as sucide bombers into crowds of Israeli?

* when that Iran President calls for pushing the Jew-dogs into the sea?

* when Hezbollah was sending rockets into civilian populations?

* etc, etc, etc.

Total, deafening silence from all you motherfuckers.

Had you stood up repeatedly for Islam as a religion of peace and moderation, loudly condemned unending violence and terrroism against civilians then the Pope wouldn't have any grounds for his positions, and the world wouldn't think both Muslims and all their countries were losers, corrupt, and murderers.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yeah the Pope is such a bad person. He called a religion who has been at war with itself and the rest of the world for 1500 years (the entirety of its existence) violent.

The horror :rolleyes

[E20]

OK, you "Muslim voices", where the fuck where you and your defense of Muslims:

* about the fatwa on Rushdie?

* when Hamas send chilldren as sucide bombers into crowds of Israeli?

* when that Iran President calls for pushing the Jew-dogs into the sea?

* when Hezbollah was sending rockets into civilian populations?

* etc, etc, etc.

Total, deafening silence from all you motherfuckers.

Had you stood up repeatedly for Islam as a religion of peace and moderation, loudly condemned unending violence and terrroism against civilians then the Pope wouldn't have any grounds for his positions, and the world wouldn't think both Muslims and all their countries were losers, corrupt, and murderers.

Those are called Radical Extermists/Terrorists. There is probably 10% of them in the 2 Billion population of Muslims. 10% of 2 Billion is a lot.

[smeagol]

boutons and Aggie agreed!

:smchode:

[gtownspur]

Those are called Radical Extermists/Terrorists. There is probably 10% of them in the 2 Billion population of Muslims. 10% of 2 Billion is a lot.


yes and the other 90% vehemently disagree with those 10 percent.


I wonder how Hamas got elected.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

yes and the other 90% vehemently disagree with those 10 percent.


I wonder how Hamas got elected.

Because the other 90% don't have the balls to stand up for their religion.

[01Snake]

As with the Islam cartoons, the muslim world is going nuts over the Pope's statement. They have little to say about terrorists using their religion to kill but God forbid someone says something about Islam! They get worked up into a frenzy and start buring flags and pics of the Pope. Give it a few more days and I'm sure we will see some more large protest and deaths due to this.

IDIOTS!

EDIT: Now the Pope is being compared to Hitler. haha

[nkdlunch]

how can you take seriously a guy you call Potato

[gtownspur]

Because the other 90% don't have the balls to stand up for their religion.


I wasn't even being mildly sarcastic on that one. I was more on the range of Spicy Hot Habanero sarcastic.

[smeagol]

Muslims are not very tolerant (it seems).

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'm sure there's an audio tape forthcoming from Osama, saying it's more proof the Zionist west is waging a Crusade against the Muslims of the world :rolleyes

[Ocotillo]

Muslims are not very tolerant (it seems).

Y'think? :lol

[temujin]

yes and the other 90% vehemently disagree with those 10 percent.


I wonder how Hamas got elected.

ASK THE ISRAELIS.

[temujin]

[QUOTE=boutons_]September 14, 2006
Muslim Leaders Assail Pope’s Speech on Islam

By IAN FISHER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/ian_fisher/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

ROME, Sept. 14 — As Pope Benedict XVI arrived back home from Germany, Muslim leaders strongly criticized a speech he gave on his trip that used unflattering language about Islam.

Some of the strongest words came from Turkey, possibly putting in jeopardy Benedict’s scheduled visit there in November.

“I do not think any good will come from the visit to the Muslim world of a person who has such ideas about Islam’s prophet,” Ali Bardakoglu, a cleric who is head of the Turkish government’s directorate of religious affairs, said in a television interview there. “He should first of all replace the grudge in his heart with moral values and respect for the other.”
QUOTE]

Excellent.
Another nail to the coffin of Turkey joining the EU any time soon.
So much for erdogan and his masters.

[temujin]

This pope is performing precisely as expected.
Teutonic precision.

[Jamtas#2]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/16/D8K652801.html

Bertone said the pontiff sought in his university speech to condemn all religious motivation for violence, "from whatever side it may come." But the pope's words only seemed to fan rage.

In West Bank attacks on four churches, Palestinians used guns, firebombs and lighter fluid, leaving church doors charred and walls scorched by flames and pocked with bullet holes. Nobody was reported injured. Two Catholic churches, an Anglican one and a Greek Orthodox one were hit. A Greek Orthodox church was also attacked in Gaza City.

A group calling itself "Lions of Monotheism" told The Associated Press by phone that the attacks were a protest of the pope's remarks on Islam.

During his speech, Benedict stressed that he was quoting words of a Byzantine emperor and did not comment directly on the "evil and inhuman" assessment. On Saturday, Bertone said that "the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way."

Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

The grand sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most powerful institution, condemned the pope's remarks as "reflecting ignorance."

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, whose Southeast Asian nation has a large Muslim population, demanded that Benedict retract his remarks and not "take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created."

Yeah, burning churches is the best way to prove how wrong the Pope's words were.

Cause, you know, the 2 acts are comparable.
Kind of like if you call me a thief I should break into your house and steal everything to prove you wrong. Cause that makes sense. Right?

[Zunni]

yes and the other 90% vehemently disagree with those 10 percent.


I wonder how Hamas got elected.
Because they provided food and other basic services to the people that the Fatah could or would not. It's not rocket science.

[Zunni]

Yeah the Pope is such a bad person. He called a religion who has been at war with itself and the rest of the world for 1500 years (the entirety of its existence) violent.

The horror :rolleyes

Well, you're half right. Islam and Christianity have been going at it for most of that period.

[jochhejaam]

“We hope that the Church will very quickly give us its opinion and clarify its position so that it does not confuse Islam, which is a revealed religion, with Islamism, which is not a religion but a political ideology,”

The Pope may want to choose his words more carefully lest the histrionics of peaceful Islam incite the fury of Radical Islamism. Extremists intentionally fed by those that claim they are adherents to a "peaceful" religion?

They are working in conjuction with each other now, aren't they...yet they claim that they are sooooooo far apart in philosophy that we must differentiate...

I don't believe them.

[Guru of Nothing]

Muslims are not very tolerant (it seems).

Obviously, you have never presented a Muslim a bottle of Crown Royal! They are VERY tolerant under the right circumstances.

[gtownspur]

Because they provided food and other basic services to the people that the Fatah could or would not. It's not rocket science.


or the fact that Hamas is better funded and is in better position to do so.

[Zunni]

or the fact that Hamas is better funded and is in better position to do so.
Fatah was receiving WAY more money than Hamas. The Israelis passed along the customs revenues (which they are now denying to Hamas), and the US even funded them. That money, however, mostly found it's way into the pockets of Arafat and his cronies. Fatah collapsed because of internal rot.

[boutons_]

Nun + bodyguard murdered in Somalia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5353850.stm

Looks like the Muslims won't kill as many of each other over the Pope's words as they did over the Danish newspaper Allah cartoons, but there's still time! :lol

[01Snake]

http://home.comcast.net/~all4bao/islam.jpg

[DarkReign]

http://home.comcast.net/~all4bao/islam.jpg

How succinct.

[E20]

http://home.comcast.net/~all4bao/islam.jpg
:bang :smchode: :frying:

[phyzik]

they fight and fight and fight... then turn around and say its only a small percentage.... then fight and fight and fight..... then complain when someone questions thier religion which is supposedly about piece...

Im sorry, either pull out of the middle east and let them kill eachother so we can take the oil for free, or bomb them until the sand turns to glass.... they are obviously not getting it.

for the record, I hate ALL religion... its only good for creating war.

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

Interesting video that was on one of middle eastern tv stations

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nu%20ll

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

what the heck do people expect from a religion that is built on worshipping satan?

The sad thing is that they dont even know they are worshipping nothing more than a fallan angel from heaven.

Only one God, one way to him (salvation through Christ) and one heaven, thats what i believe but it doesnt mean im going to kill or hate anyone else who doesnt believe that.

Its a load of rot that all religions are only good for creating war. Wars today arent about religion, the wars are about people the Muslims hate vs Islam , its not about Christianity or Buddhism vs Islam.

[cheguevara]

ppl still listen to the Pope these days??

the Pope's position is as useless as the queen of englands. come on

Even though I used to like the last pope. This one looks like Dracula.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Not so fast my friends! Third-world muslims are angry at the Pope because of a QUOTE by a Byzantine emperor--He's urged them to read the rest of his speech, but they wouldn't want to do that...might be blasphemous...



[quote=Well, you're half right. Islam and Christianity have been going at it for most of that period.[/quote]

Zunni,

The only times Shi'ia and Sunnis stopped fighting each other was to fight 'Christians'.

Like I said, they've been at war with someone their entire existence, and wonder where people get the idea they're violent.

Then you get dumbasses like the one holding the poster in the pic, and well, what the hell do they expect?

[Extra Stout]

This is an example of why trying to have a dialogue with the Muslim world is futile.

[DarkReign]

This is an example of why trying to have a dialogue with the Muslim world is futile.

Never known you to have a sense of humor....was this your first attempt?

[smeagol]

ppl still listen to the Pope these days??

1 billion Roman Catholics do.

[cheguevara]

1 billion Roman Catholics do.

I meant actually "listen". out of those "1 billion" catholics, im sure at least 1/2 of them don't attend church regularly.

[Nbadan]

http://xirdal.lmu.de/xirdalium/xpix/ratzinger.jpg
`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'."



AL-QAEDA in Iraq has said in response to remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence that it will wage jihad until the West is defeated, in a statement posted on the Internet today.

"We say to the servant of the cross (the Pope): wait for defeat ... We say to infidels and tyrants: wait for what will afflict you. "We continue our jihad. We will not stop until the banner of unicity flies throughout the world," said the statement attributed to the Mujahideen consultative council.

"We will smash the cross ... (you will have no choice but) Islam or death," the statement added, citing a hadith (saying of the Prophet Mohammed) promising Muslims they would "conquer Rome ... as they conquered Constantinople".

Two other armed groups in Iraq, Jaish al-Mujahideen and Asaeb al-Iraq al-Jihadiya, have already threatened the Vatican with reprisals in statements posted on Islamist websites.

Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20433599-5005961,00.html)

So in order to prove Benedict wrong, Al Queda is gonna prove Benedict right? Now that is wack!

[Yonivore]

A piece (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story) in today's Los Angeles Times by Sam Harris got us to thinking. Harris, who describes himself as liberal (and who describes his own views in ways that make clear he is one), is the author of a 2004 book called "The End of Faith," which, he writes, is "highly critical of religion. . . . I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization."

But this critic of religion takes fellow liberals to task for failing to take radical Islam seriously:


My correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world--specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world--for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy. . . .

And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.
To be sure, the history of Christianity has its violent periods. But apart from a few Eric Rudolph types, Christianity in America today is almost totally domesticated. The fearsome religious right threatens the secular left with nothing worse than the adoption, through democratic means, of policies with which the latter disagree. By contrast, the goals and methods of radical Islamists are genuinely terrifying.

Why is the liberal left more frightened of George W. Bush than of Osama bin Laden? Why do they see the Christian Right as more of a threat than Islam? It is a classic reaction formation, a neurotic response that a feminine Freud who dubs herself "Answer Girl (http://answergirlnet.blogspot.com/2005/09/reaction-formation.html)" defines concisely as "behavior or emotion that is the polar opposite of the way someone is or should be feeling, because the authentic emotion is too frightening to deal with." Other examples:


Reaction formation explains the Stockholm Syndrome, where kidnap victims ally themselves with their captors. It's why abused children often seem more attached to their abusive parent. It's also why I apologize profusely to total strangers who want to know why I have not yet done them massive favors other people have promised on my behalf.
In the L.A. Times, Harris describes just such a pattern:


At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode. . . .

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate.
Now there's a scary thought.

[ChumpDumper]

Unicity?

[smeagol]

So where are the defenders of "peaceful" Islam?

[ChumpDumper]

Being drowned out by the violent ones.

[Yonivore]

So where are the defenders of "peaceful" Islam?
Silent, as usual. Where are the vegetarian jackals?

[johnsmith]

what the heck do people expect from a religion that is built on worshipping satan?

The sad thing is that they dont even know they are worshipping nothing more than a fallan angel from heaven.

Only one God, one way to him (salvation through Christ) and one heaven, thats what i believe but it doesnt mean im going to kill or hate anyone else who doesnt believe that.

Its a load of rot that all religions are only good for creating war. Wars today arent about religion, the wars are about people the Muslims hate vs Islam , its not about Christianity or Buddhism vs Islam.


Is this a joke? Who worships satan?

[Mr. Peabody]

what the heck do people expect from a religion that is built on worshipping satan?

The sad thing is that they dont even know they are worshipping nothing more than a fallan angel from heaven.

Only one God, one way to him (salvation through Christ) and one heaven, thats what i believe but it doesnt mean im going to kill or hate anyone else who doesnt believe that.

Its a load of rot that all religions are only good for creating war. Wars today arent about religion, the wars are about people the Muslims hate vs Islam , its not about Christianity or Buddhism vs Islam.

I thought the Jews caused all of the wars...

http://bear-blog.blogspirit.com/images/medium_mel-gibson.4.jpg

[101A]

A piece (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story) in today's Los Angeles Times by Sam Harris got us to thinking. Harris, who describes himself as liberal (and who describes his own views in ways that make clear he is one), is the author of a 2004 book called "The End of Faith," which, he writes, is "highly critical of religion. . . . I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization."

But this critic of religion takes fellow liberals to task for failing to take radical Islam seriously:


To be sure, the history of Christianity has its violent periods. But apart from a few Eric Rudolph types, Christianity in America today is almost totally domesticated. The fearsome religious right threatens the secular left with nothing worse than the adoption, through democratic means, of policies with which the latter disagree. By contrast, the goals and methods of radical Islamists are genuinely terrifying.

Why is the liberal left more frightened of George W. Bush than of Osama bin Laden? Why do they see the Christian Right as more of a threat than Islam? It is a classic reaction formation, a neurotic response that a feminine Freud who dubs herself "Answer Girl (http://answergirlnet.blogspot.com/2005/09/reaction-formation.html)" defines concisely as "behavior or emotion that is the polar opposite of the way someone is or should be feeling, because the authentic emotion is too frightening to deal with." Other examples:


In the L.A. Times, Harris describes just such a pattern:


Now there's a scary thought.


Very good post.

[Ozzman]

that pic of the pope.....did you see the guy next to him??? what the heck is he doing?????

[Mr. Peabody]

A piece (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story) in today's Los Angeles Times by Sam Harris got us to thinking. Harris, who describes himself as liberal (and who describes his own views in ways that make clear he is one), is the author of a 2004 book called "The End of Faith," which, he writes, is "highly critical of religion. . . . I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization."

But this critic of religion takes fellow liberals to task for failing to take radical Islam seriously:


To be sure, the history of Christianity has its violent periods. But apart from a few Eric Rudolph types, Christianity in America today is almost totally domesticated. The fearsome religious right threatens the secular left with nothing worse than the adoption, through democratic means, of policies with which the latter disagree. By contrast, the goals and methods of radical Islamists are genuinely terrifying.

Why is the liberal left more frightened of George W. Bush than of Osama bin Laden? Why do they see the Christian Right as more of a threat than Islam? It is a classic reaction formation, a neurotic response that a feminine Freud who dubs herself "Answer Girl (http://answergirlnet.blogspot.com/2005/09/reaction-formation.html)" defines concisely as "behavior or emotion that is the polar opposite of the way someone is or should be feeling, because the authentic emotion is too frightening to deal with." Other examples:


In the L.A. Times, Harris describes just such a pattern:


Now there's a scary thought.

So your assertion is that liberals are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and have become sympathetic to Osama bin Laden? Are you serious? You really believe this? :depressed

Yoni, I give you too much credit sometimes.

It's just the standard GOP-mantra that anyone who opposes Bush and his administration on any issue are on the side of the terrorists.

[101A]

So your assertion is that liberals are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and have become sympathetic to Osama bin Laden? Are you serious? You really believe this? :depressed

Yoni, I give you too much credit sometimes.

It's just the standard GOP-mantra that anyone who opposes Bush and his administration on any issue are on the side of the terrorists.

The piece was written by a left-coast liberal, who is charging (accurately, at that) that liberals don't fully comprehend the nature of the hatred toward the West that the militant Muslims have; that yes, they did fly those planes into the WTC, that they saw the heads off of reporters, etc...AND that those people believe that is the single greatest act they can perform in this lifetime! The author further suggests that it is the liberal's hatred for George Bush that is bliding them to this reality.

Your response kind of makes his point.

[Mr. Peabody]

The piece was written by a left-coast liberal, who is charging (accurately, at that) that liberals don't fully comprehend the nature of the hatred toward the West that the militant Muslims have; that yes, they did fly those planes into the WTC, that they saw the heads off of reporters, etc...AND that those people believe that is the single greatest act they can perform in this lifetime! The author further suggests that it is the liberal's hatred for George Bush that is bliding them to this reality.

Your response kind of makes his point.

Oh, the piece was written by a liberal? Oh hell, it must be accurate then, right? Because he obviously attended the secret liberal meetings that we have where we talk about how we prefer bin Laden to Bush.

The article is simplistic and condescending. Obviously, if we all don't react the same way to the threat of terrorism (i.e., willingly surrendering our liberty) then it must be because we don't understand the threat as much as other people do. Because if we all understood the threat the way the author or the Bush administration does, we would give the administration carte blanche to do anything they want. That's ridiculous.

Also, I haven't heard too many people state that they sympathize with bin Laden more than Bush (I actually haven't heard anyone, but if I make that statement, someone is sure to mention some nutty liberal who make some ridiculous statement). But if anyone opposes Bush's policies, they must like bin Laden more than Bush, right?

Also, how does my response make the author's point. I don't have a blinding hatred for Bush. I just don't like the fact that you can't disagree with his policies without being labeled a terrorist sympathizer by his administration or its followers (which is basically what the article alleges).

[cheguevara]

So where are the defenders of "peaceful" Islam?

I ain't a defender but I can tell you most of Islam wants peace. We have many things going on here,
- muslims take their religion very seriously so yes they will get very pissed and talk shit if insulted
- the media like ususal is taking shit out of proportion even maybe influenced by some goverments
- terrorist organizations and extremists(iran) are taking this opportunity to stir up more shit and the whole world is eating it up
- everyone is using the dumbass pope to achieve their means

yes it is hard to beleive most muslims want peace, but it's probably even harder for a muslim living in Iraq or Lebanon to beleive americans want peace.

2 billion crazy muslims and only 1 nun killed? you kiddin me? I thought they were all crazy killers :rolleyes

now I ain't defending their religion, cause I think it's pretty fucked up, but catholics being ruled by a scary dracula looking old man with a scary hat ain't that great either

[Yonivore]

So your assertion is that liberals are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and have become sympathetic to Osama bin Laden? Are you serious? You really believe this? :depressed
Well, to be sure, liberals are more concerned with "understanding" why Islamofascists want us dead and, further, seem overly concerned with making sure the "peaceful" Muslims aren't lumped in with the violent ones -- even as the "peaceful" Muslims don't make as much of an effort, on their own, to differentiate themselves from their violent religion-mates.

So, you tell me? Why are liberals more concerned with the wellbeing of the Islamic religion than are the "peaceful" Muslims of the world?


Yoni, I give you too much credit sometimes.
Well, I give you no credit at all so, we're even.


It's just the standard GOP-mantra that anyone who opposes Bush and his administration on any issue are on the side of the terrorists.
When it comes to liberal/left stances on the administration's foreign policy, as it relates to terrorism, they are on the side of the terrorists.

[Mr. Peabody]

When it comes to liberal/left stances on the administration's foreign policy, as it relates to terrorism, they are on the side of the terrorists.

Think about how irrational that statement is.

I can't believe that you would allege that a substantial part (almost majority) of this country has allegiances to Muslim terrorists that are greater than their allegiances to their own country. You cannot honestly believe this.

[Yonivore]

Oh, the piece was written by a liberal? Oh hell, it must be accurate then, right? Because he obviously attended the secret liberal meetings that we have where we talk about how we prefer bin Laden to Bush.

The article is simplistic and condescending. Obviously, if we all don't react the same way to the threat of terrorism (i.e., willingly surrendering our liberty)...
Exactly what liberties have you been asked or forced to surrender?


...then it must be because we don't understand the threat as much as other people do. Because if we all understood the threat the way the author or the Bush administration does, we would give the administration carte blanche to do anything they want. That's ridiculous.
This administration hasn't sought "carte blanche," and, again, exactly what administration proposals -- in relation to the war on terrorism -- have endangered your freedoms or liberties?


Also, I haven't heard too many people state that they sympathize with bin Laden more than Bush (I actually haven't heard anyone, but if I make that statement, someone is sure to mention some nutty liberal who make some ridiculous statement). But if anyone opposes Bush's policies, they must like bin Laden more than Bush, right?

Also, how does my response make the author's point. I don't have a blinding hatred for Bush. I just don't like the fact that you can't disagree with his policies without being labeled a terrorist sympathizer by his administration or its followers (which is basically what the article alleges).
Well, when it isn't obvious to those of us who are to the right of Howard Dean, why you are so resistant to the Bush policies on the war on terrorism, then we can only conclude you hate Bush and that this hatred outweighs your hatred of Islamofascism.

How else do you explain explain leftist support for the McCain "Detainee Treatment Act of 2005," (which defined acceptable treatment of detainees) and their completely rabid response to the Bush administration's proposed "Military Commissions Act of 2006," which, in deference to Senator McCain, included the identical language with respect to how the detainees were to be treated.

In the case of John McCain, the left said the Act amounted to banning torture and they applauded it. In the case of the administrations proposed legislation, the left is saying the President is wanting to circumvent Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions so that he can "continue" to torture detainees.

So, you tell me who's being the terrorists' best friend here?

[Yonivore]

Think about how irrational that statement is.

I can't believe that you would allege that a substantial part (almost majority) of this country has allegiances to Muslim terrorists that are greater than their allegiances to their own country. You cannot honestly believe this.
You know, when your actions amount to support for the enemy, what else can one conclude? Particularly when your actions seem to only defy reason when they are in opposition to this President?

Further, I believe whatever poll showing a "near majority" of Americans opposed to the Bush foreign policies are ill-informed Americans. The common misconception of the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" being just the latest example of how the left has lied in order to try and drive debate against the administration.

Frankly, if what the left were saying about the President were true, I'd be opposed to the President's policies. But they aren't. And, obviously, the left is depending on the majority of Americans to be useful idiots who fail to inform themselves on issues of great import.

[boutons_]

"when your actions amount to support for the enemy"

Dissent against the phony Iraq war doesn't support the terrorist, so the rest of your post and your position is totally dishonest bullshit, just like the Repugs.

[Extra Stout]

So your assertion is that liberals are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and have become sympathetic to Osama bin Laden? Are you serious? You really believe this? :depressed

Yoni, I give you too much credit sometimes.

It's just the standard GOP-mantra that anyone who opposes Bush and his administration on any issue are on the side of the terrorists.
Is that really what the article says? Because what I read rings true with a thought I have been trying to find a way to express.

There seems to be this delusion that we have significant control over how we are regarded by the Muslim world. On the right, this delusion has manifested itself as a policy where if we go take over other countries and install democracy, and show them how nifty and keen it is, they will love us and Islamic terrorism will go away.

(The futility of this notion is self-evident in the results of recent U.S. policy.)

On the left, this has manifested itself as a belief that we must have committed some terrible atrocities for people to be so mad at us that they want to kill us, so if only we stop those atrocities, Islamic terrorism will go away. Alternatively, it must be that these people are so mad because of poverty and hopelessness in their societies, so if we go in and root out poverty and hopelessness, Islamic terrorism will go away.

All of these assume falsely that the Islamist threat exists because of reasons we can control, and that if we just do the right thing, it will go away.

It is far more comfortable to imagine that we would have control over the situation if we only would choose to exercise it, rather than confronting the notion that we don't have all that much control at all.

That would explain why so many on the left have the tendency so often to overblow the malice of the West, while projecting upon the rest of the world a collective sense of justice and magnanimity that has never existed in the real world. We can do something about our own behavior, but we are more or less powerless to control that of other societies. It's comfortable in a chaotic and scary world to assume it's all our fault, because then it would be within our grasp to fix it. If it's not within our grasp... then the world becomes a much more sobering and frightening place.

[101A]

Is that really what the article says? Because what I read rings true with a thought I have been trying to find a way to express.

There seems to be this delusion that we have significant control over how we are regarded by the Muslim world. On the right, this delusion has manifested itself as a policy where if we go take over other countries and install democracy, and show them how nifty and keen it is, they will love us and Islamic terrorism will go away.

(The futility of this notion is self-evident in the results of recent U.S. policy.)

On the left, this has manifested itself as a belief that we must have committed some terrible atrocities for people to be so mad at us that they want to kill us, so if only we stop those atrocities, Islamic terrorism will go away. Alternatively, it must be that these people are so mad because of poverty and hopelessness in their societies, so if we go in and root out poverty and hopelessness, Islamic terrorism will go away.

All of these assume falsely that the Islamist threat exists because of reasons we can control, and that if we just do the right thing, it will go away.

It is far more comfortable to imagine that we would have control over the situation if we only would choose to exercise it, rather than confronting the notion that we don't have all that much control at all.

That would explain why so many on the left have the tendency so often to overblow the malice of the West, while projecting upon the rest of the world a collective sense of justice and magnanimity that has never existed in the real world. We can do something about our own behavior, but we are more or less powerless to control that of other societies. It's comfortable in a chaotic and scary world to assume it's all our fault, because then it would be within our grasp to fix it. If it's not within our grasp... then the world becomes a much more sobering and frightening place.


...so we are essentially left with playing defense, correct?

[spurster]

So if we're not stupid on terrorism (BushCo), we must be soft on terrorism("liberals")? Hell of a dichotomy. I would much rather be smart on terrorism.

[101A]

So if we're not stupid on terrorism (BushCo), we must be soft on terrorism("liberals")? Hell of a dichotomy. I would much rather be smart on terrorism.

There's the rub...what IS "smart on terrorism"? I think the Israeli model is a pretty good one, myself.

[Extra Stout]

...so we are essentially left with playing defense, correct?
I don't follow your reasoning there.

[clambake]

While in France, most opinions were questioning what kind of "gift" is this democracy when half of americans get what they want and the other half recognize that they're completely screwed? They say "what kind of gift comes with needless death and destruction". The french have a very good sense of humor. They ask what kind of wine does one serve with this gift.

They're smart. I didn't meet one who couldn't speak less than 3 languages.

[101A]

I don't follow your reasoning there.

Sorry to be so vague - I liked you post.

Basically, we can't change their minds, they ARE going to hate us; the more we respond, the more they use that response to create more hatred, etc....

We are left to respond to their terrorism. There is no entity to beat into submission until they quit; these are individual, fanatical, religious zealots spread accross the globe. We cannot possibly get to all of them before they might attempt to do us harm, so we have to defend ourselves from the inevitible.

[101A]

While in France, most opinions were questioning what kind of "gift" is this democracy when half of americans get what they want and the other half recognize that they're completely screwed? They say "what kind of gift comes with needless death and destruction". The french have a very good sense of humor. They ask what kind of wine does one serve with this gift.

They're smart. I didn't meet one who couldn't speak less than 3 languages.

Ironic.

France as a sovereign entity exists as a gift from the U.S.

[101A]

Regarding France (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1619246.ece)


Chirac calls for threat of Iran sanctions to be lifted
By John Lichfield in Paris and Anne Penketh
Published: 19 September 2006


President Jacques Chirac has broken ranks with the US and Britain by calling for the suspension of UN Security Council action against Iran during negotiations over its nuclear programme.

In a radio interview yesterday before flying to New York for the UN General Assembly, the French President provoked a diplomatic storm by backing Iran's demand that the Security Council should halt its involvement in the nuclear dossier.

The demand is spelt out in Iran's confidential 20-page response to a Western offer of technological and economic co-operation in return for a freeze on nuclear activities which could lead to production of a nuclear weapon. The Independent has obtained a copy of the document.

M. Chirac suggested that the group of six nations involved in talks with Iran - Britain, the US, France, Germany, Russia and China - should "set an agenda, then start negotiations".

"We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda, then start negotiations. Then, during these negotiations, I suggest that the six renounce referring [Iran to] the UN Security Council and that Iran renounce uranium enrichment during negotiations," M. Chirac said.

The French President is the first European leader to state publicly that a freeze by Iran is not a precondition for opening talks. The concession to Iran seems to be linked to events in Lebanon, where there had been concern that French soldiers may be targeted by Iran's proxy militia, Hizbollah, over France's previously hardline stance in the nuclear negotiations.

Iranian diplomats say that there has been "positive co-operation" between Iran, France and Italy, which has also stationed troops in southern Lebanon and whose Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, announced that he would meet the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in New York this week. Diplomats in Paris suggested that M. Chirac's switch of position might be intended to protect the French troops.

But M. Chirac's abrupt announcement is likely to complicate talks in New York involving the foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany, by demonstrating that Iran has succeeded in driving a wedge between them.

The six have been unanimous in insisting that negotiations cannot take place until Iran suspends uranium enrichment in line with a UN demand that called for such a freeze before the end of August. Iran says that a suspension cannot be a precondition for the talks.

A Foreign Office spokesman played down suggestions of a rift, saying that "we have always said that action in the Security Council is reversible if the Iranians suspend". But President Chirac's initiative is privately being described as "unhelpful" and it is hoped that his statement is a personal initiative which does not signal a change in the official French position.

With the US publicly pressing for sanctions against Iran, M. Chirac said on the Europe-1 radio channel: "I don't believe in a solution without dialogue. I am not pessimistic. I think that Iran is a great nation, an old culture, an old civilisation, and that we can find solutions through dialogue."

However, he ruled out a meeting on the sidelines of the General Assembly session with Mr Ahmadinejad.

In its response to the 6 August offer from the six powers, Iran said: "If negotiation is to be considered as a way for mutual understanding and concord, then it is intrinsically in contradiction with tabling the issue at the Security Council. Therefore cessation of the Security Council involvement ... is self-evident."

President Jacques Chirac has broken ranks with the US and Britain by calling for the suspension of UN Security Council action against Iran during negotiations over its nuclear programme.

In a radio interview yesterday before flying to New York for the UN General Assembly, the French President provoked a diplomatic storm by backing Iran's demand that the Security Council should halt its involvement in the nuclear dossier.

The demand is spelt out in Iran's confidential 20-page response to a Western offer of technological and economic co-operation in return for a freeze on nuclear activities which could lead to production of a nuclear weapon. The Independent has obtained a copy of the document.

M. Chirac suggested that the group of six nations involved in talks with Iran - Britain, the US, France, Germany, Russia and China - should "set an agenda, then start negotiations".

"We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda, then start negotiations. Then, during these negotiations, I suggest that the six renounce referring [Iran to] the UN Security Council and that Iran renounce uranium enrichment during negotiations," M. Chirac said.

The French President is the first European leader to state publicly that a freeze by Iran is not a precondition for opening talks. The concession to Iran seems to be linked to events in Lebanon, where there had been concern that French soldiers may be targeted by Iran's proxy militia, Hizbollah, over France's previously hardline stance in the nuclear negotiations.

Iranian diplomats say that there has been "positive co-operation" between Iran, France and Italy, which has also stationed troops in southern Lebanon and whose Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, announced that he would meet the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in New York this week. Diplomats in Paris suggested that M. Chirac's switch of position might be intended to protect the French troops.

But M. Chirac's abrupt announcement is likely to complicate talks in New York involving the foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany, by demonstrating that Iran has succeeded in driving a wedge between them.

The six have been unanimous in insisting that negotiations cannot take place until Iran suspends uranium enrichment in line with a UN demand that called for such a freeze before the end of August. Iran says that a suspension cannot be a precondition for the talks.

A Foreign Office spokesman played down suggestions of a rift, saying that "we have always said that action in the Security Council is reversible if the Iranians suspend". But President Chirac's initiative is privately being described as "unhelpful" and it is hoped that his statement is a personal initiative which does not signal a change in the official French position.

With the US publicly pressing for sanctions against Iran, M. Chirac said on the Europe-1 radio channel: "I don't believe in a solution without dialogue. I am not pessimistic. I think that Iran is a great nation, an old culture, an old civilisation, and that we can find solutions through dialogue."

However, he ruled out a meeting on the sidelines of the General Assembly session with Mr Ahmadinejad.

In its response to the 6 August offer from the six powers, Iran said: "If negotiation is to be considered as a way for mutual understanding and concord, then it is intrinsically in contradiction with tabling the issue at the Security Council. Therefore cessation of the Security Council involvement ... is self-evident."

[Extra Stout]

Sorry to be so vague - I liked you post.

Basically, we can't change their minds, they ARE going to hate us; the more we respond, the more they use that response to create more hatred, etc....

We are left to respond to their terrorism. There is no entity to beat into submission until they quit; these are individual, fanatical, religious zealots spread accross the globe. We cannot possibly get to all of them before they might attempt to do us harm, so we have to defend ourselves from the inevitible.
OK, I think I agree.

I wasn't sure whether you were saying we should just retreat behind our borders and erect "Fortress America." That I don't agree with.

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

Another way to express my opinion:

Let's say somehow we get behind the "root causes" of unrest in the Muslim world. We find ways to reduce poverty and powerlessness in those societies. We discontinue where feasible activities that make them angry.

These countries become prosperous and powerful within the region.

The end result for us, I believe, may not be peace, but rather people who believe a turn back to Islam has brought them prosperity, and who are confident that they have a "manifest destiny" with their newfound power for conquest and expansion in the name of Allah. Their hatred for us would turn into contempt.

And we would have helped them to acquire the strength they would use to attack us.

We have little control over whether that society becomes peaceful and moderate, or becomes a conquering power.

As Reinhold Niebuhr might explain it (thanks boutons for the heads up), a group of people who individually would be moral and peaceful can become monsters as a group. See: the history of the West.

[Extra Stout]

While in France, most opinions were questioning what kind of "gift" is this democracy when half of americans get what they want and the other half recognize that they're completely screwed? They say "what kind of gift comes with needless death and destruction". The french have a very good sense of humor. They ask what kind of wine does one serve with this gift.

They're smart. I didn't meet one who couldn't speak less than 3 languages.
Are you sure this is in the right thread? I don't see the connection between what the Pope says about Islam, and the opinions of smarmy French regarding American democracy. Can you elaborate?

[clambake]

It's not just the French. We traveled all over Europe. This administration has lost all credibility.

One person coined a phrase, " It's your rapist telling you it's love".

[Extra Stout]

It's not just the French. We traveled all over Europe. This administration has lost all credibility.

One person coined a phrase, " It's your rapist telling you it's love".
What is the connection between the Pope's comments on Islam, and the credibility of the Bush Administration in Europe?

[clambake]

Western ideals. Have you been to Vatican City? The opulence is embarrassing.

[Extra Stout]

Western ideals. Have you been to Vatican City? The opulence is embarrassing.
I'm being left to guess here...

Are you saying that educated Europeans are losing faith in Western ideals because of the opulence of the Vatican and the lack of credibility in the Bush Administration?

[clambake]

They feel that western ideals have morphed into all out aggression against the world. We take actions without thought of conseqence or mercy. We treat the world as an undeserving nuiscence. (all their words)

They're disgusted with the Vaticans dancing around the child abuse horror. I'm having a hard time trying to explain it the way they did.

How the two entity's ignore the mistakes and pretend to disappear.

[Extra Stout]

They feel that western ideals have morphed into all out aggression against the world. We take actions without thought of conseqence or mercy. We treat the world as an undeserving nuiscence. (all their words)

They're disgusted with the Vaticans dancing around the child abuse horror. I'm having a hard time trying to explain it the way they did.

How the two entity's ignore the mistakes and pretend to disappear.
Do they feel that Western ideals in general have morphed into aggression, or that Western ideals of late, in the United States have morphed into aggression?

I'll speculate further...

Are you simply speaking to the disillusionment Europeans feel toward both the United States and the Vatican, feeling that each one has squandered what once was considerable moral authority?

[01Snake]

You just can't please everyone can you? It doesn't matter what the US does, a lot of the world is always going to be critical of us.

[Extra Stout]

You just can't please everyone can you? It doesn't matter what the US does, a lot of the world is always going to be critical of us.
Part of the reason the U.S. receives a lot of criticism, even a lot more than other countries doing much worse things, is that the people of the world believe Americans care about doing the right thing.

If they stop believing that we care, the criticism will die down.

[DarkReign]

Part of the reason the U.S. receives a lot of criticism, even a lot more than other countries doing much worse things, is that the people of the world believe Americans care about doing the right thing.

If they stop believing that we care, the criticism will die down.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I stopped caring ages ago.

[nkdlunch]

I ain't a defender but I can tell you most of Islam wants peace. We have many things going on here,
- muslims take their religion very seriously so yes they will get very pissed and talk shit if insulted
- the media like ususal is taking shit out of proportion even maybe influenced by some goverments
- terrorist organizations and extremists(iran) are taking this opportunity to stir up more shit and the whole world is eating it up
- everyone is using the dumbass pope to achieve their means

yes it is hard to beleive most muslims want peace, but it's probably even harder for a muslim living in Iraq or Lebanon to beleive americans want peace.

2 billion crazy muslims and only 1 nun killed? you kiddin me? I thought they were all crazy killers :rolleyes

now I ain't defending their religion, cause I think it's pretty fucked up, but catholics being ruled by a scary dracula looking old man with a scary hat ain't that great either

those 2 billions crazy ass muslims are a menace. have you seen how they drive their cabbies?

[clambake]

They don't understand how americans can support pure fabrication.

They also mentioned that of all the americans they've met, not one suggested that they support our administrations actions.

I suggested that they probably had but were too ashamed to admit it.

These people are smart, friendly, funny and very generous. We didn't pay for one meal and never ate alone in France. Stereotypes are inaccurate. They deserve much more credit than we give them.

[johnsmith]

They don't understand how americans can support pure fabrication.

They also mentioned that of all the americans they've met, not one suggested that they support our administrations actions.

I suggested that they probably had but were too ashamed to admit it.

These people are smart, friendly, funny and very generous. We didn't pay for one meal and never ate alone in France. Stereotypes are inaccurate. They deserve much more credit than we give them.


Bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys if you ask me.

[Extra Stout]

They don't understand how americans can support pure fabrication.

They also mentioned that of all the americans they've met, not one suggested that they support our administrations actions.

I suggested that they probably had but were too ashamed to admit it.

These people are smart, friendly, funny and very generous. We didn't pay for one meal and never ate alone in France. Stereotypes are inaccurate. They deserve much more credit than we give them.
Red-state Americans aren't that likely to be galavanting around Europe. That may explain why they haven't met so many Bush supporters.

[johnsmith]

Red-state Americans aren't that likely to be galavanting around Europe. That may explain why they haven't met so many Bush supporters.


That's a pretty big assumption there.

[johnsmith]

Red-state Americans aren't that likely to be galavanting around Europe. That may explain why they haven't met so many Bush supporters.


I think it's more that there just aren't that many supporters any more. No one can honestly sit there and actually win an argument about the merits of our war with Iraq against anyone with half a brain........believe me, I've tried, and since given up trying to defend the decision to invade.

[clambake]

One said were an unchained pitbull that will eventually need to be caged or worse. He hopes we (the people) take steps to tame this dangerous dog because we (the people) are the rightful owners of it's actions.

[101A]

One said were an unchained pitbull that will eventually need to be caged or worse. He hopes we (the people) take steps to tame this dangerous dog because we (the people) are the rightful owners of it's actions.


We (the people) will vote in November, then we (the people) will tell the dog what, or what not, we want done.

[johnsmith]

One said were an unchained pitbull that will eventually need to be caged or worse. He hopes we (the people) take steps to tame this dangerous dog because we (the people) are the rightful owners of it's actions.


i would have punched him in his giant French nose.

[Extra Stout]

That's a pretty big assumption there.
And one I'll have to retract, since I can't find any evidence to back it up.

All I have is anecdotal evidence from colleagues who protest that there is nothing in the world worth seeing that can't be found in the good ol' U S of A.

Except Israel.

[clambake]

The pitbull comment came from Italy.

[Extra Stout]

One said were an unchained pitbull that will eventually need to be caged or worse. He hopes we (the people) take steps to tame this dangerous dog because we (the people) are the rightful owners of it's actions.
Do the Italians have a good track record of effectively curtailing the ambitions of powers they see as reckless? It's all well and good to say that the U.S. will "need to be caged or worse," but I've yet to see any evidence of their ever effecting anything beyond words against any country in recent history. If anything, Italy is somewhere around the nadir of its historical influence.

[johnsmith]

And one I'll have to retract, since I can't find any evidence to back it up.

All I have is anecdotal evidence from colleagues who protest that there is nothing in the world worth seeing that can't be found in the good ol' U S of A.

Except Israel.


That always cracks me up when people say that......yes, God forbid you experience any other cultures then your own. That is usually followed up by the argument that America has plenty of different cultures such as the southerners, native-americans, etc.......which is then followed up by me with a giant roll of the eyes and a "you're an idiot".

[johnsmith]

The pitbull comment came from Italy.


Then I would have punched him in his LAZY nose.

[clambake]

Anyone been to London? There is a muslim for every blink of the eye!

[johnsmith]

Anyone been to London? There is a muslim for every blink of the eye!


I wonder why that is?

Ever been to Detroit? Me neither, but I hear they have lots of them there too.

[clambake]

Italy will never be confused with taking the forefront. Through hundreds of conversations, it was clear that europe has always looked to us for hope and stability. They are leaning toward making their own decisions now out of fear for our recklessness. I guess I feel they were saying we lost our way, and they must find their own.

They just don't understand how so many people (americans) can trust a liar. They feel very letdown by our government. They don't want their governments to trust and follow our lead.

[DarkReign]

I wonder why that is?

Ever been to Detroit? Me neither, but I hear they have lots of them there too.

A suburb of Detroit (Dearborn to be presumptive) but very accuarte indeed. 2nd largest Arab population in the United States resides in Metro Detroit (which includes Chaldeans whom are Christian).

[johnsmith]

A suburb of Detroit (Dearborn to be presumptive) but very accuarte indeed. 2nd largest Arab population in the United States resides in Metro Detroit (which includes Chaldeans whom are Christian).


I wonder if they count Nation of Islam in there because that is not Islam.

[Yonivore]

A suburb of Detroit (Dearborn to be presumptive) but very accuarte indeed. 2nd largest Arab population in the United States resides in Metro Detroit (which includes Chaldeans whom are Christian).
I guess they'll be safe when the nuke goes off.

[Extra Stout]

Italy will never be confused with taking the forefront. Through hundreds of conversations, it was clear that europe has always looked to us for hope and stability. They are leaning toward making their own decisions now out of fear for our recklessness. I guess I feel they were saying we lost our way, and they must find their own.

They just don't understand how so many people (americans) can trust a liar. They feel very letdown by our government. They don't want their governments to trust and follow our lead.
Well... Europe has looked to the US since WWII, anyway. It is time, whether the US has a wise government or a foolish one, for Europe to embark upon following its own agenda. It can align with the U.S. on issues of common interest, but we no longer live in a bipolar world where nations need to choose one side or the other, and the last few years have pretty much shredded the notion that this is a unipolar world.

If you stay in contact with those folks, one insight to offer is that having the President serve both as head of state and head of government is a profound weakness of our system. The Founding Fathers meant for there to be no head of state like a king. We were to be free peoples with no need for such a thing. In other countries, there is a ceremonial king or president to be the object of national pride. The prime minister or chancellor runs the government, and the people can tear them up as much as they wish, because they are not symbols of the state itself.

[Extra Stout]

I guess they'll be safe when the nuke goes off.
Did you miss the big Hezbollah rally they had up in al-Dearborn? Good to see they're integrating into American culture so well.

[johnsmith]

Well... Europe has looked to the US since WWII, anyway. It is time, whether the US has a wise government or a foolish one, for Europe to embark upon following its own agenda. It can align with the U.S. on issues of common interest, but we no longer live in a bipolar world where nations need to choose one side or the other, and the last few years have pretty much shredded the notion that this is a unipolar world.

If you stay in contact with those folks, one insight to offer is that having the President serve both as head of state and head of government is a profound weakness of our system. The Founding Fathers meant for there to be no head of state like a king. We were to be free peoples with no need for such a thing. In other countries, there is a ceremonial king or president to be the object of national pride. The prime minister or chancellor runs the government, and the people can tear them up as much as they wish, because they are not symbols of the state itself.


Can you imagine an American President being the object of national pride? It almost made me choke on my coffee...........why am I drinking coffee at 2 in the afternoon?

[Extra Stout]

Can you imagine an American President being the object of national pride? It almost made me choke on my coffee...........why am I drinking coffee at 2 in the afternoon?
The institution of the Presidency is an object of pride in a way that, for example, the Supreme Court or Congress is not. Even if a particular President is unpopular, the office itself is a national symbol.

When Clinton was being serviced in the Oval Office, people took great offense because the Oval Office is hallowed, and Clinton degraded the institution of the Presidency.

If Hillary were getting serviced by her courier in her Senate office, would it be considered quite as big an outrage?

[101A]

If Hillary were getting serviced by her courier in her Senate office, would it be considered quite as big an outrage?

**shudders**

[johnsmith]

The institution of the Presidency is an object of pride in a way that, for example, the Supreme Court or Congress is not. Even if a particular President is unpopular, the office itself is a national symbol.

When Clinton was being serviced in the Oval Office, people took great offense because the Oval Office is hallowed, and Clinton degraded the institution of the Presidency.

If Hillary were getting serviced by her courier in her Senate office, would it be considered quite as big an outrage?


Obviously humor isn't your thing.

[Yonivore]

If Hillary were getting serviced by her courier in her Senate office, would it be considered quite as big an outrage?
:smchode: :vomit:

[boutons_]

"Clinton degraded the institution of the Presidency."

... was the post I was responding to with:

What's the problem with getting a piece of ass in the WH? You people have a childish, Puritanical view of morals of powerful people, esp those in DC.

But there's no problem with wasting 3000 US military lives in Iraq? There's no dishonor on the imperial, kingly office of the President when the commander-in-chief commands so poorly he takes heavy loss of life for absolutely no advantage to the USA?

dubya is a shit-stain on the office.

[Extra Stout]

Obviously humor isn't your thing.
It depends on how much sleep I've been getting. :spin

[Extra Stout]

What's the problem with getting a piece of ass in the WH? You people have a childish, Puritanical view of morals of powerful people, esp those in DC.

But there's no problem with wasting 3000 US military lives in Iraq? There's no dishonor on the imperial, kingly office of the President when the commander-in-chief commands so poorly he takes heavy loss of life for absolutely no advantage to the USA?

dubya is a shit-stain on the office.
Yet another classic example of the boutons auto-retort, which completely misses the point a poster is making, and reinforces the hypothesis that boutons is not an actual person, but rather a web bot.

[Mr. Peabody]

Is that really what the article says? Because what I read rings true with a thought I have been trying to find a way to express.

There seems to be this delusion that we have significant control over how we are regarded by the Muslim world. On the right, this delusion has manifested itself as a policy where if we go take over other countries and install democracy, and show them how nifty and keen it is, they will love us and Islamic terrorism will go away.

(The futility of this notion is self-evident in the results of recent U.S. policy.)

On the left, this has manifested itself as a belief that we must have committed some terrible atrocities for people to be so mad at us that they want to kill us, so if only we stop those atrocities, Islamic terrorism will go away. Alternatively, it must be that these people are so mad because of poverty and hopelessness in their societies, so if we go in and root out poverty and hopelessness, Islamic terrorism will go away.

All of these assume falsely that the Islamist threat exists because of reasons we can control, and that if we just do the right thing, it will go away.

It is far more comfortable to imagine that we would have control over the situation if we only would choose to exercise it, rather than confronting the notion that we don't have all that much control at all.

That would explain why so many on the left have the tendency so often to overblow the malice of the West, while projecting upon the rest of the world a collective sense of justice and magnanimity that has never existed in the real world. We can do something about our own behavior, but we are more or less powerless to control that of other societies. It's comfortable in a chaotic and scary world to assume it's all our fault, because then it would be within our grasp to fix it. If it's not within our grasp... then the world becomes a much more sobering and frightening place.

I disagree (sorry for the delay in my response). I don't think liberals feel that we, as a nation, have control of the situation insofar as if we address poverty and hopelessness, then the terrorists will go away. I think the overriding concern of many liberals is that our foreign policy encourages others to take up arms against us. So, while we cannot solve some theoretical underlying problem and keep the terrorists from acting irrationally, we can add fuel to the fire and inspire hate in those that may have not otherwise felt that way.

[clambake]

I took many notes. They say "your (WH) words are empty and weightless and should be spoken to the wind". After many minutes of clarifications, what is meant is that we (US) have lost, no sqaundered our power of influence. They laughed aloud regarding the august deadline for Iran to end nuclear programs. Just more empty words. "You can't add more water to a bucket full of water".

Real good people. Very passionate. Sometimes moments of extreme tension, but never disrespectful.

[johnsmith]

Yet another classic example of the boutons auto-retort, which completely misses the point a poster is making, and reinforces the hypothesis that boutons is not an actual person, but rather a web bot.


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

It's funny and true.

[Extra Stout]

I disagree (sorry for the delay in my response). I don't think liberals feel that we, as a nation, have control of the situation insofar as if we address poverty and hopelessness, then the terrorists will go away. I think the overriding concern of many liberals is that our foreign policy encourages others to take up arms against us. So, while we cannot solve some theoretical underlying problem and keep the terrorists from acting irrationally, we can add fuel to the fire and inspire hate in those that may have not otherwise felt that way.
My rebuttal would be that among those parts of our foreign policy that our values might actually allow us to change, really only the Iraq war is driving people to attack the U.S. who otherwise would not.

Recent events show that Western nations which have opposed the Iraq war have fallen under at least as great a threat of terrorist attack as the U.S. does. So it's hard to claim that pulling out of Iraq is going to put a significant dent in terrorism.

The Iraq war was stupid.
Calling in public for outright regime change in several countries is stupid.
We can modify those policies.

We don't have a time machine to go back to 1953 and undo the coup in Iran.

Our values are not going to allow Muslims to exterminate the Israelis.

Our values are not going to allow Muslims to slay the Indians in Kashmir.

We are not going to start a war with Russia to protect the Chechens.

Our values are not going to allow us to keep women fully covered and out of public to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities.

We are not going to abandon our own prosperity in order to eliminate the contrast with their own cultural dysfunction that drives them to murderous envy.

We aren't going to sit back so that Islamists can carry out violent revolutions in places like Saudi Arabia.

We do not control OPEC.

Our penchant for working with their own despots is not separating them from what otherwise would be moderate, prosperous countries (would Pakistan be better off if Musharraf were overthrown?).

We aren't going to pack up and avoid all contact and all business dealings with Muslim countries.

We can't help it if their own populations like our culture more than they like repressive Islam.

We are not all going to convert to Islam.

We are not going to allow Muslim communities in our own country to practice Sharia law, and neither are our allies.

We are not going to suppress free speech in our societies to stave off worldwide riots whenever somebody says something bad about the prophet Mohammed or Islam.

Those are some of the big reasons the Muslim street takes up arms against Western society. If you can identify some other specific policies of ours that Muslims have cited as reasons they are driven to take up arms, I will be glad to read them.

[Yonivore]

I disagree (sorry for the delay in my response). I don't think liberals feel that we, as a nation, have control of the situation insofar as if we address poverty and hopelessness, then the terrorists will go away. I think the overriding concern of many liberals is that our foreign policy encourages others to take up arms against us. So, while we cannot solve some theoretical underlying problem and keep the terrorists from acting irrationally, we can add fuel to the fire and inspire hate in those that may have not otherwise felt that way.
And my response would be that these foreign policy actions the liberals feel are encouraging others to take up arms have actually been welcomed by those most directly affected.

In example, al Qaeda has claimed they attacked us in the 90's because we had soldiers in Saudi Arabia. Well, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia wanted us there. Why should we capitulate to al Qaeda on a matter that doesn't directly involve them?

It's like this in many of the other "gripes" they claim to have.

Any foreign policy is going to piss someone off. The only recourse, if you're a liberal, is to come home, throw up fences, and become an isolationist country.

The bottom line is this, the Islamofascists don't represent any country with which we can negotiate or have diplomatic relations and, therefore, it will always be impossible to satisfy their demands because, as evidenced above and in most other cases, their demands generally conflict with the aims and goals of the legitimate countries in the regions over which they wish to driver our foreign policy.

To capitulate to the Islamofascists on the basis that we're engaged in foreign policy actions that piss them off is to discount the allies and partners in those regions who support our foreign policy initiatives.

[clambake]

What about Hezbollah? Are we not on the road to negotiations with Iran? It's our incompetence and foolhardy endeavours that has left us toothless in the eyes of the world. Everyone is waiting for our next foolish move. You know it's coming.

[temujin]

My rebuttal would be that among those parts of our foreign policy that our values might actually allow us to change, really only the Iraq war is driving people to attack the U.S. who otherwise would not.

Recent events show that Western nations which have opposed the Iraq war have fallen under at least as great a threat of terrorist attack as the U.S. does. So it's hard to claim that pulling out of Iraq is going to put a significant dent in terrorism.

The Iraq war was stupid.
Calling in public for outright regime change in several countries is stupid.
We can modify those policies.

We don't have a time machine to go back to 1953 and undo the coup in Iran.

Our values are not going to allow Muslims to exterminate the Israelis.

Our values are not going to allow Muslims to slay the Indians in Kashmir.

We are not going to start a war with Russia to protect the Chechens.

Our values are not going to allow us to keep women fully covered and out of public to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities.

We are not going to abandon our own prosperity in order to eliminate the contrast with their own cultural dysfunction that drives them to murderous envy.

We aren't going to sit back so that Islamists can carry out violent revolutions in places like Saudi Arabia.

We do not control OPEC.

Our penchant for working with their own despots is not separating them from what otherwise would be moderate, prosperous countries (would Pakistan be better off if Musharraf were overthrown?).

We aren't going to pack up and avoid all contact and all business dealings with Muslim countries.

We can't help it if their own populations like our culture more than they like repressive Islam.

We are not all going to convert to Islam.

We are not going to allow Muslim communities in our own country to practice Sharia law, and neither are our allies.

We are not going to suppress free speech in our societies to stave off worldwide riots whenever somebody says something bad about the prophet Mohammed or Islam.

Those are some of the big reasons the Muslim street takes up arms against Western society. If you can identify some other specific policies of ours that Muslims have cited as reasons they are driven to take up arms, I will be glad to read them.

We all love pasta. And risotto, we like risotto too. We are not going to change that with whatever food muslims eat (and I don't have the foggiest idea about it).

We also like cappuccino and croissant. Not after lunch, in the morning. Strictly in the morning. Never at night anyway. We are not changing that with say, tea. Nor are we changing the time of sipping the cappuccino. Now of couse there could be a debate about a cold milk or hot milk, or a long one in the cup rather than a shorter one in the glass. Anyway, we ain't gonna discuss that with say Mubarak.

[RandomGuy]

Heh, you know you have done something roundly stupid when you get op-ed peices in a normally restrained rag like the Financial Times


SECOND TAKE - Financial Times
Financial Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail article Print-Friendly



THE furore ignited by the remarks about Islam embedded in Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture last Tuesday at the University of Regensburg is surely a surprise only to the terminally naive — among whom the former Cardinal Josef Ratzinger is surely not to be counted. In the context of a long reflection on the relationship between reason and belief, a characteristic preoccupation of this pope’s academic and theological career, Benedict made reference to derogatory remarks about Islam by Manuel II Paleologus, a Christian emperor of the late Byzantine era.

Specifically, he quotes the emperor, in supposed dialogue with an unidentified Persian scholar, thus: “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 Pope’s subsequent apology for his choice of such an incendiary text is remarkable: a rare admission of a mistake by the holder of an office that lays some claim to infallibility. But it is also a little disingenuous. Pope Benedict is not so unacquainted with power and the public arena that he does not know the difference between contributing to philosophical enquiry and the possible impact of the words of the leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics. His lecture “in its totality”, he claims, was an invitation to a frank and sincere inter-faith dialogue. Really?



This outstandingly learned pope would also know that there was little to choose between the Christian and Muslim practice of holy war in the Middle Ages from which he retrieved his provocative dialogue. It was papally endorsed Crusaders who massacred the Muslim, Jewish and Orthodox inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099, or sacked Constantinople in 1204, among the worst affronts ever to civilisation. His call for a frank debate is welcome, but to incense gratuitously the Muslim world is hardly the way to achieve it. Financial Times

[DarkReign]

I wonder if they count Nation of Islam in there because that is not Islam.

I just said Arab population, I cant go off on wild assumptions about their faith.

I went to school with many Arab people, but all were Christian. Albanian and Chaldean mostly.

In the Dearborn area you have the classic middle east clash. Lots of Jews, lots and lots of Arabs. I dont frequent down there very often (it isnt exactly on your way to Detroit unless you take side roads), but of the few times I have, it isnt like any other place I have ever been.

Hasidic Jews (sp?) "own" a portion of the area basically. I was surprised by the community there. All the signs were in Hebrew then in little letters, English. Full wardrobe and books in hand, school must have just been let out and all the youngsters were walking home (or what not). If you havent seen it, its kind of......foreign.

Then, of course, right down the way is the Arab culture. Lots of em. Definately Muslim (local problem when the Mosque in the area starts the prayer over a loud speaker that non-Muslim people dont exactly enjoy).

These are just observations, not judgements.

My opinion, why the fuck do the Arabs and Jews follow each other around everywhere? Logic would tell you "Hey, I being a <insert religion here> dont want to live here. The <insert different religion here> that my people have been fighting for centuries seem to have already mvoed in."

But who am I?

[101A]

“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”.

I would like to know the answer to the question posed by Paleoleous. I am not a scholar of Islam, and am curious. I think it is pretty apparent that THIS is what the Pope thinks, and he is trying to get it "out there" for discussion. The fact that parts of the Muslim community have a knee-jerk violent, or threat of violence, reaction, makes his point.

If he sees the situation as hopeless as it apparently is, based on this post by Extra Stout:



My rebuttal would be that among those parts of our foreign policy that our values might actually allow us to change, really only the Iraq war is driving people to attack the U.S. who otherwise would not.

Recent events show that Western nations which have opposed the Iraq war have fallen under at least as great a threat of terrorist attack as the U.S. does. So it's hard to claim that pulling out of Iraq is going to put a significant dent in terrorism.

The Iraq war was stupid.
Calling in public for outright regime change in several countries is stupid.
We can modify those policies.

We don't have a time machine to go back to 1953 and undo the coup in Iran.

Our values are not going to allow Muslims to exterminate the Israelis.

Our values are not going to allow Muslims to slay the Indians in Kashmir.

We are not going to start a war with Russia to protect the Chechens.

Our values are not going to allow us to keep women fully covered and out of public to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities.

We are not going to abandon our own prosperity in order to eliminate the contrast with their own cultural dysfunction that drives them to murderous envy.

We aren't going to sit back so that Islamists can carry out violent revolutions in places like Saudi Arabia.

We do not control OPEC.

Our penchant for working with their own despots is not separating them from what otherwise would be moderate, prosperous countries (would Pakistan be better off if Musharraf were overthrown?).

We aren't going to pack up and avoid all contact and all business dealings with Muslim countries.

We can't help it if their own populations like our culture more than they like repressive Islam.

We are not all going to convert to Islam.

We are not going to allow Muslim communities in our own country to practice Sharia law, and neither are our allies.

We are not going to suppress free speech in our societies to stave off worldwide riots whenever somebody says something bad about the prophet Mohammed or Islam.

Those are some of the big reasons the Muslim street takes up arms against Western society. If you can identify some other specific policies of ours that Muslims have cited as reasons they are driven to take up arms, I will be glad to read them.

I think the Pope has intentionally fired a shot clean accross the bow in this burgeoning holy war. He had to of known what would come of it.

[Yonivore]

I would like to know the answer to the question posed by Paleoleous. I am not a scholar of Islam, and am curious. I think it is pretty apparent that THIS is what the Pope thinks, and he is trying to get it "out there" for discussion. The fact that parts of the Muslim community have a knee-jerk violent, or threat of violence, reaction, makes his point.
What'e even more ironic is that when Paleoleous said this, it was too a learned and powerful Muslim who, by the way, did not immediately call for the death of Paleoleous but, instead, allowed that such discourse was good.

Wow! How times have changed.

Oh, and the answer to Paleoleous's question? Nothing. Abso-freakin'-lutely nothing.

[Ozzman]

Yet another classic example of the boutons auto-retort, which completely misses the point a poster is making, and reinforces the hypothesis that boutons is not an actual person, but rather a web bot.


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[PixelPusher]

What'e even more ironic is that when Paleoleous said this, it was too a learned and powerful Muslim who, by the way, did not immediately call for the death of Paleoleous but, instead, allowed that such discourse was good.

Wow! How times have changed.

Oh, and the answer to Paleoleous's question? Nothing. Abso-freakin'-lutely nothing.

Paleoleous's quote struck me as "sour grapes", since the Ottoman Empire basically surrounded Constantinople, and hadn't relied on the sword as exclusively as he implied; many Christian towns and villages welcomed the Ottomans openly as they demanded far less taxes and tolerated the open practice of Christianity and Judaism as a policy.

So what did Islam bring that was new? Well besides a more just and scientifically advanced civilization than the old Byzantines...

...they brought tax relief.

[Extra Stout]

the ottomans were republicans I presume? :lol

the ottomans were really liberal practicing muslims. there were far less islamic extremists in those days. hell there were far less muslims, period. :lol

that empereror was between a rock and sharp sword so he had to say something.
:rolleyes
It's not so much that the Ottomans were "liberal" (no such concept even existed in the 15th century) as that the European Christian rulers of the time were so much more oppressive and bloodthirsty. Oftentimes following Muslim conquest Christian sects were treated better than they were by the Christian kings.

Keep in mind that the Ottomans were not Arabs. :spin

[spurster]

My rebuttal would be that among those parts of our foreign policy that our values might actually allow us to change, really only the Iraq war is driving people to attack the U.S. who otherwise would not.

..........................

Maybe we can start by not making all Muslim countries our enemies. That's a no-win position.

We need to respect Islam, but at the same time demand that they respect Christianity and other religions.

We need to help defend Israel, but not support their settlements.

If we want Westernish democracies, we need to keep consistent with our values, work to support human rights, and beat the hell out of anyone who attacks us. I think most people, whether Muslim or not, can be persuaded eventually by that. We need a bipartisan long-term policy (e.g., containment and MAD for Soviet Communism) that we can work together on.

Regarding Iraq, I would give up on the Sunnis and Shiites and place my bets on Kurdistan (via a slow withdrawal and increasing aid to the Kurds). This would allow us to put more forces in Afghanistan, which we are letting out of control.

[temujin]

:rolleyes
It's not so much that the Ottomans were "liberal" (no such concept even existed in the 15th century) as that the European Christian rulers of the time were so much more oppressive and bloodthirsty. Oftentimes following Muslim conquest Christian sects were treated better than they were by the Christian kings.

Keep in mind that the Ottomans were not Arabs. :spin

Ask Greeks.
And Serbs.
And Romanians.

And, finally, ask Armenians.

[Extra Stout]

Ask Greeks.
And Serbs.
And Romanians.

And, finally, ask Armenians.
OK, scratch "oftentimes" and replace with "on occasion."

[temujin]

OK, scratch "oftentimes" and replace with "on occasion."


yes.
When they had to cut a deal.

[Nbadan]

Here is the biggest Irony of all this, you'll will get a kick

The Pope offended radical Islamists by reading a passage from a historical text, so the M$M and the wing-nuts religously (forgive the pun) defend the Pope because, well, he certainly didn't mean for his comments to reflect on the nature of Islam today, right?

Ok, but when the President of Iran said he wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map' he was also talking metaphysically about a historical passage in a ancient Islamic text, hummm, but that not what the wing-nuts and their pundits would have you believe.

Two religions, two differing standards? You decide.