Muslims bash Il Papa for bashing Muslims

[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 , 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 cir vent 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 bull , 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?

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")? 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")? 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 en y 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 en y exists as a gift from the U.S.

[101A]

Regarding France

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 do ent.

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 do ent.

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 en y 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 en y'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 en y'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 if insulted
- the media like ususal is taking out of proportion even maybe influenced by some goverments
- terrorist organizations and extremists(iran) are taking this opportunity to stir up more 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

now I ain't defending their religion, cause I think it's pretty ed 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?