Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This would not be the first time Pope Benedict has been at the centre of criticism for his views on Islam due to earlier views he expressed during his time as a cardinal.
However, since his consecration, Pope Benedict has surprised many with his attempts to improve dialogue with the Muslim world. But there would have been signs of his earlier views nonetheless.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said it should not be assumed the quoted words of the emperor represented "the Pope' s beliefs about Islam today".

In the meanwhile, criticism is continuing to pour in from religious and political leaders in the Muslim world, while the Vatican is seriously concerned at the possibility of acts of violence being staged against them.

Opinions on this debacle?

"Whilst Muslims might express their criticism of Islam and of Christianity, he argued, they would never defame the Holy Bible or Jesus Christ."

Because that's part of their canon! It's like a Jewish person saying he would never attack the Christian Old Testament. Well, of course he wouldn't!

But many Muslims certainly treat JC and the Bible in a way that is highly offensive to Christians.

Jesus Christ, I'm really getting sick of Muslims bitching all the time. Find a new hobby for shit's sake.

Everyone know that muslims take words about religion more personal than christians or jews for example. So why insulting them? That's a weird hobby too.

I disagree, Sam. It's not everyones duty to watch their mouth so Muslims or any other group is not insulted. But that is a problem all religions have, the Islam just portrays it most obvious recently. I don't get how you can be one of the world religions, but still be offended all the time. It just sounds like no fun at all. Anyways, what the pope wanted to say (and if you are not a Muslim also did say) was very true and intelligent. Religious aggression from which side ever is not necessary or acceptable.

The Muslims demanding an apology is ridiculous. Religion should be treated like everything else and as such also be subject to criticism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, Sam. It's not everyones duty to watch their mouth so Muslims or any other group is not insulted. But that is a problem all religions have, the Islam just portrays it most obvious recently. I don't get how you can be one of the world religions, but still be offended all the time. It just sounds like no fun at all. Anyways, what the pope wanted to say (and if you are not a Muslim also did say) was very true and intelligent. Religious aggression from which side ever is not necessary or acceptable.

The Muslims demanding an apology is ridiculous. Religion should be treated like everything else and as such also be subject to criticism. That being said, frankly Benedict is a bit of a moron if he didn't anticipate such a reaction and the Catholic church is really in no position to be critical of other religions.

I think international leaders have an obligation to stay PC. Benedict has a sketchy past...and he clearly has motives. I don't trust him at all and I don't buy his comments that he was strictly giving a "comparative history."

Benedict is probably the Catholic church's foremost expert on Islam and has an established track record of showing an understanding of Muslims and their faith that puts most other Catholic clergy to shame. His language on Islam in the past has been conciliatory and understanding.

Remarks he makes must be seen in this context. The man may have many failings in general, but he is no bigot on Islam.

He must have felt very strongly about this subject, of never exercising faith through violence. He is not a person to mis-judge a Muslim audience.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He is not a person to mis-judge a Muslim audience.

So you're saying he expected this result? I know you're not, but really...why not a speech on the commonalities of Muslims and Christians...its slightly different from what his original speech was on, but with the same general message. That way he can axe the quotes that i think he reasonable could have assumed would be taken out of context.

Originally posted by Alliance
So you're saying he expected this result? I know you're not, but really...why not a speech on the commonalities of Muslims and Christians...its slightly different from what his original speech was on, but with the same general message. That way he can axe the quotes that i think he reasonable could have assumed would be taken out of context.

Because the violence in Religions is a subject that has to be addressed. Especially by the leader of the biggest religion of the world. That the Muslims reacted in the way they did just shows how right he was in saying what he did. Those Islamists probably never heard of irony.

I haven't read a transcript of the speech, but then why not address a broader slice of violence, emphasizing Christianity first, then making a point about Islam. Change in Islam is going to be internal, not from the Pope.

Originally posted by Alliance
I haven't read a transcript of the speech, but then why not address a broader slice of violence, emphasizing Christianity first, then making a point about Islam. Change in Islam is going to be internal, not from the Pope.

He just quoted a text from the middle ages. Not attacking the Islam of today. That the Islam reacts in that way shows he is absolutely right. And why do you hope that it will be internal?

Bardock42 is absolutely right, the Pope quotes 600 year old text and Muslims condemn him. He even added to his speech:


Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".


Personally, I am getting sick of the 'walk on eggshells' attitude Muslims expect out of everyone else. Stop your crying.

No, im you two are wrong on some things.

Why was this quote so necessary...? Why say it? It makes no sense to me. He spoke the words, so he obviously thought they were important enough to say. Why? Was there a condemnation of this quote by the Pope immediately after?

Originally posted by Alliance
No, im you two are wrong on some things.

Why was this quote so necessary...? Why say it? It makes no sense to me. He spoke the words, so he obviously thought they were important enough to say. Why? Was there a condemnation of this quote by the Pope immediately after?

The article explains it...

In his speech at Regensburg University, the Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between violence and faith.

He was using it as an exmaple to stress a point, that is all. Bardock also brought up a good point in saying "That the Islam reacts in that way shows he is absolutely right."

Originally posted by Alliance
So you're saying he expected this result? I know you're not, but really...why not a speech on the commonalities of Muslims and Christians...its slightly different from what his original speech was on, but with the same general message. That way he can axe the quotes that i think he reasonable could have assumed would be taken out of context.

No, I think he did expect it. Like I say, jusging on his previous expertise, he must have thought that the importance of spreading the message of faith never spreading by violence was important enough to justify it.

It appears to me that the Pope is quoting this passage to give a quick condemnation of modern islamic philosophy. The Pope reiterates a quote ststing that Islam is at its core, a violent religon...and then states that God speaks out against violence. Is not then, God speaking out against Islam?

Originally posted by Alliance
It appears to me that the Pope is quoting this passage to give a quick condemnation of modern islamic philosophy. The Pope reiterates a quote ststing that Islam is at its core, a violent religon...and then states that God speaks out against violence. Is not then, God speaking out against Islam?

Despite it clearly being a condemnation of someone else on medieval Islam? Err?

The Pope's speech clearly had modern connotations.

Originally posted by Alliance
The Pope's speech clearly had modern connotations.

Even if what you are saying was true (and I don't think it was meant to attack the Islam) it still is crazy how Islamists reacted on it...their leaders bring anti-semitic statements on a daily basis, but no one is allowed to condemn the violence the Islam brings? That is bullshit. This is wrong in two aspects, for one the pope didn't do what they claim he did and even if they have no right to react to it that way. They want to keep a double standard why should the pope have to submit to that?

I clearly stated that I didn't disagree with you on everything. I never made any comments about the Islamic community's reaction.

I was commenting on why the heck the Pope would/needed to include that quote.

Originally posted by Alliance
I clearly stated that I didn't disagree with you on everything. I never made any comments about the Islamic community's reaction.

I was commenting on why the heck the Pope would/needed to include that quote.

I am saying that it was not wrong to do so.

Well, if someone had said something offensive to you about something you believed in, wouldn't you expect an apology? I know I would.

Originally posted by Zero25
Well, if someone had said something offensive to you about something you believed in, wouldn't you expect an apology? I know I would.

Hey, people always claim that Evolution is bullshit....and I never ever demand an apology....weird?

Maybe the Pope used the quote because it's fairly accurate and still applies today.. need proof check the Islamic reaction to.. well just about anything.

Better to leave those people to destroy themselves........

Originally posted by debbiejo
Better to leave those people to destroy themselves........

Those people, debbie?

Militant angry people.........The Muslims here we have NEVER had a problems with.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey, people always claim that Evolution is bullshit....and I never ever demand an apology....weird?

Thats true, but thats not religion thats more scientific people can choose to believe that we were created, but then theres also scientific proof that we evolved. either or whatever floats your boat.

Originally posted by Zero25
Thats true, but thats not religion thats more scientific people can choose to believe that we were created, but then theres also scientific proof that we evolved. either or whatever floats your boat.

But why is the view with less proof protected, while my believe in something really ****ing likely can be ridiculed all it wants? Why do I only get taken seriously if I believe in a ****ing invisible man that tells me what to do?

Blame it on Constantine.........Otherwise you're a heathen!! How can a person, in the eyes of the church, be worthy of anything since you don't care about your eternal soul..........what a laugh!

Originally posted by Zero25
Thats true, but thats not religion thats more scientific people can choose to believe that we were created, but then theres also scientific proof that we evolved. either or whatever floats your boat.

So living in ignorance of fact is ok?

If ignorance of law is a way to defend yourself in a court case and you win then yeah i guess that living in ignorance of fact is ok, everyone has a period of time when there ignorant to fact.

Originally posted by Zero25
If ignorance of law is a way to defend yourself in a court case and you win then yeah i guess that living in ignorance of fact is ok, everyone has a period of time when there ignorant to fact.

Ignorance of law is not a way to defend yourself in court though.

Originally posted by Alliance
So living in ignorance of fact is ok? Well it does go both ways ya know............

what?

Originally posted by Alliance
I guess the bottom line is, Benedict didn't need to quote that passage...he never really spoke out against Christian violence. WHile I think the Muslime communities reaction is unjustified...I think Benedict made a poor choice. Why does he have to speak of Chirstian violence to be able to justify him speaking of Muslim violence? Sure, there are plenty of Christian atrocities throughout history to speak of, but the difference here is that Christians seemed to have, for the most part, stopped their violent ways. There are a select few psychos that still want to kill abortion doctors and whatnot, but the bottom line is the general Christian populace don't riot in the streets anytime anyone says or does something they disagree with.

Today's issue is not Christian violence, it's Muslim violence. So for him to address this issue by bringing up the flaws of Christianity, he'd be pussyfooting around the real issue at hand. Which is, apparently, what the Muslim world has come to expect.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, Sam. It's not everyones duty to watch their mouth so Muslims or any other group is not insulted. But that is a problem all religions have, the Islam just portrays it most obvious recently. I don't get how you can be one of the world religions, but still be offended all the time. It just sounds like no fun at all. Anyways, what the pope wanted to say (and if you are not a Muslim also did say) was very true and intelligent. Religious aggression from which side ever is not necessary or acceptable.

The Muslims demanding an apology is ridiculous. Religion should be treated like everything else and as such also be subject to criticism.

Exactly....it's against Muslim Law to even portray Muhammed...one can get killed for that, and those extremists may send another fkn plane to hit another one of our New York buildings...

Sam, you know you and I are cool, however, in many parts of the Arab world, the extremism is so absurd, it makes Christian extremism look like a joke...(which it already is, but u know what i mean)

question for everyone:
why do you think a lot of muslims are reacting like this?
Like, just as an example.. if someone was acting really defensive, what would you suspect is going on?

I mean, their is an explanation for what is happening here... its not like angry militant islam just appeared out of thin air.
This is something that I think the pope would or should be aware of... the history of the region, how things came to be.. how things perpetuate.... and how his words are going to be viewed.... I'm not saying nobody should ever say anything bad about islam, but I guess am having trouble understanding what exactly the purpose behind his words were...
If you want to make a point about how faith and violence do not go together thats all fine and dandy.. but it might not be so great an idea to single out another religion when your the pope...for one thing, I think we all know catholicism has no leg to stand on when critizing islam or any other religion for that matter about violence. Plus, look at whats happening in the world right now...wether you like it or not, thats reality...and a lot of muslims (understandably) are probably feeling very vulnerable right now... and when in a vulnerable place, human beings can be much more easily put on the defensive, be manipulated, victimized, and led along.....its common knowledge that in times of crisis people look for support. Often times people choose to join a religion or choose to be more pious...or perhaps join a religious group with a very extremist view point....can you really pass judgement on them for this?

So then you have the pope who decides to publicy pick out and criticize islam ... islam, the only support some of these people have in these communitys... just for example, after the ceasefire went into effect with isreal and lebanon, it was hezbollah that started rebuilding lebanons infrastructure and making sure people had water, electricty and so forth while the actual government of lebanon did very little.....

The pope really should understand this...his words are simply adding fuel to the fire...
If he really understood then he would not have said what he did IMO.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Why does he have to speak of Chirstian violence to be able to justify him speaking of Muslim violence? Sure, there are plenty of Christian atrocities throughout history to speak of, but the difference here is that Christians seemed to have, for the most part, stopped their violent ways. There are a select few psychos that still want to kill abortion doctors and whatnot, but the bottom line is the general Christian populace don't riot in the streets anytime anyone says or does something they disagree with.

Today's issue is not Christian violence, it's Muslim violence. So for him to address this issue by bringing up the flaws of Christianity, he'd be pussyfooting around the real issue at hand. Which is, apparently, what the Muslim world has come to expect.

Given the innate sensitivity of todays environment and his powerful role as a very public and obviously Christian leader. He needs to choose his words more carefully.

I live in the US, a nation that is 75% christian. Given loose correlation, 75% of religious crimes in the US are commited by Chirstians. There si still stuff to talk about, and it makes you seem much more correct and unbiased.

Originally posted by goatstradamus
question for everyone:
why do you think a lot of muslims are reacting like this?

Originally posted by Alliance
Because there is clearly an agenda to isolate the Islamic nations, consolidating government around Islam and removing the (often detramental) influence of "Western" nations.

There is also a great percieved hatred of Islam by Christianity, likely due a lot to the US invasion. This sort os statement just reinforces that, its almost like they expect it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But why is the view with less proof protected, while my believe in something really ****ing likely can be ridiculed all it wants? Why do I only get taken seriously if I believe in a ****ing invisible man that tells me what to do?

It probably protected because for thousands of years no being had an explantion for rain, wind, the simplest of elements. There was a time when people couldn't scientificly prove things. It was just some omnipotent being controlling things.

Originally posted by Zero25
It probably protected because for thousands of years no being had an explantion for rain, wind, the simplest of elements. There was a time when people couldn't scientificly prove things. It was just some omnipotent being controlling things.

So? Now we can explain thing sscientifically. We don't need to protect believes in invisible man. No need.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So? Now we can explain thing sscientifically. We don't need to protect believes in invisible man. No need.

Probably? But maybe its that lack of proof that god is a being that makes people want to see the scientific theory more and more.

Originally posted by Zero25
Probably? But maybe its that lack of proof that god is a being that makes people want to see the scientific theory more and more.

Fair enough. I don't care if God exists or not. That'S not the point. The point is, why should some very unlikely belief be protected by our secular laws?

Originally posted by Alliance
Given the innate sensitivity of todays environment and his powerful role as a very public and obviously Christian leader. He needs to choose his words more carefully.

I live in the US, a nation that is 75% christian. Given loose correlation, 75% of religious crimes in the US are commited by Chirstians. There si still stuff to talk about, and it makes you seem much more correct and unbiased. I live in the US too, however the Pope does not and it's given that he is speaking on a global scale in general so as far as he'd concerned, Muslim extremism is the most common. You can tie in the whole "hey, we're just as bad" speech in order to avoid offence if you choose to, however it is far from necessary to the point he was trying to prove. He chose not to make the formality of putting his own religion down to prove a point about another religion, and his point still stands. It's pretty much standard for people to say "well Christians are just as bad as Muslims" but on a whole they really aren't just as bad, not even close.

Maybe he didn't want to avoid offense. Perhaps the strongest point he made was in the reaction of the Muslim populace rather than in his actual words.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I live in the US too, however the Pope does not and it's given that he is speaking on a global scale in general so as far as he'd concerned, Muslim extremism is the most common. You can tie in the whole "hey, we're just as bad" speech in order to avoid offence if you choose to, however it is far from necessary to the point he was trying to prove. He chose not to make the formality of putting his own religion down to prove a point about another religion, and his point still stands. It's pretty much standard for people to say "well Christians are just as bad as Muslims" but on a whole they really aren't just as bad, not even close.

Maybe he didn't want to avoid offense. Perhaps the strongest point he made was in the reaction of the Muslim populace rather than in his actual words.

HA. Then apparentyl both the Pope and you need a crash course in diplomacy. Muslim-Christian tensions are too high right now to be able to absorb this crap.

Originally posted by Alliance
HA. Then apparentyl both the Pope and you need a crash course in diplomacy. Muslim-Christian tensions are too high right now to be able to absorb this crap.

Bullshit. He points out something very true. No reason to shut up, jsut cause Islamists are indeed crazy killers. They behave the way he said people should not behave just proving what he said. Idiots.

As a leader, you job is to be diplomatic. A direct attack will do nothing to imporve the situation.

If he wants to be productive, he should meet with the Ayatollahs.

Originally posted by Alliance
As a leader, you job is to be diplomatic. A direct attack will do nothing to imporve the situation.

If he wants to be productive, he should meet with the Ayatollahs.

Yeah and to be diplomatic includes to confront where confrontation is necessary. It's not a "Oh my God they could be offended" job. You think it will do nothing...he apparently thinks different.

What for? That would accomplish...err...nothing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough. I don't care if God exists or not. That'S not the point. The point is, why should some very unlikely belief be protected by our secular laws?

Don't know

Originally posted by Zero25
Don't know

Me neither.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah and to be diplomatic includes to confront where confrontation is necessary. It's not a "Oh my God they could be offended" job. You think it will do nothing...he apparently thinks different.

What for? That would accomplish...err...nothing.

If the pope offends everyone, people won't think he's a bigot singling out/calling for the destruction of a specific religion.

The meeting would at least be symbolic. ANd you don't know if it would accomplish anything or not.

Who cares if people think he's a bigot for singling out Muslims.. the point to be made here is that he can't offend these people without a massive reaction such as this.. it's getting out of hand.. and the more you feed into their bullshit the worse it's going to get.

So we should inflate the situation until its a catastrophe?

You can't beat a wound into healing.

Originally posted by Alliance
If the pope offends everyone, people won't think he's a bigot singling out/calling for the destruction of a specific religion.

The meeting would at least be symbolic. ANd you don't know if it would accomplish anything or not.
Err...what?


And you don't know if offending muslims accomplishes anything or not.

The situation is inflating reguardless of what the pope does or says. Sure he could go up and talk about how Christianity is just as violent and I'm sure the Muslim world wouldn't have been offended by it, but they wouldn't have been effected by it either, it wouldn't have even caught their attention.

Through criticism maybe he will reach some of the more reasonable Muslims, and if not Muslims then certainly many non-Muslims will start to see that the current situation with Islamists and their aggressive, over-sensitive ways is unacceptable.

I thought that the quotation was meant for comparing the way that both Christianity and Muslim have evolved.

In a sense he was saying "If you pulled this shit 300 years ago we would say kill those heathenistic dogs and our god will be pleased , now were Tolerant , why the hell aren't you" ?

It's 2006; those ****ing Arabs seriously need to get with it.

They adapt to to technology, yet their mentality is still in 800 A.D. .......

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's 2006; those ****ing Arabs seriously need to get with it.

They adapt to to technology, yet their mentality is still in 800 A.D. .......

Thats what annoys me , it's a complete backwards nation that follow an archiac religion which refuses to be 'diluted' . Look at Modern bibles , those have been revised so many times it's probably 50% bullshit (Not that it isn't 100% bullshit anyway)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err...what?


And you don't know if offending muslims accomplishes anything or not.

Generally, offending people only sitrs them into action against you.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's 2006; those ****ing Arabs seriously need to get with it.

They adapt to to technology, yet their mentality is still in 800 A.D. .......

Maybe if we stopped assassinating their leaders. We'll..we did take a short break. The arab world is not in 800 CE. In 800 CE Baghdad was the intellectual and cultural capital of the world. The Arabs have a very modern mentality, its just not the one that you (and I) would prefer them to have.

I'm sure bombing the hell out of them is a productive way to help them industrialize...oh wait...we don't want them to industrialize. Why? Because we made them hate us.

Originally posted by BoogerEater
I am not a kid. I do agree with what the pope said. I agree with this statement. If you believe the Koran teaches peace make sure you are looking over your shoulder.

Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

Originally posted by Alliance
Generally, offending people only sitrs them into action against you.



Maybe if we stopped assassinating their leaders. We'll..we did take a short break. The arab world is not in 800 CE. In 800 CE Baghdad was the intellectual and cultural capital of the world. The Arabs have a very modern mentality, its just not the one that you (and I) would prefer them to have.

I'm sure bombing the hell out of them is a productive way to help them industrialize...oh wait...we don't want them to industrialize. Why? Because we made them hate us.

You're being a a Islamic extremist apologist. They hate us because they fear Democracy and progressive thinking. Look what happened in Iran in 1979, the Shah was leading his country into modern times, the religious powers knew that would kill their religious stranglehold on the populace and they lead a religious violent revolt, overthrew him and sent him into exile. If the revolt never happened, we'd most likely have a much more stable and peaceful Middle East right now

Originally posted by Robtard
You're being a a Islamic extremist apologist. They hate us because they fear Democracy and progressive thinking. Look what happened in Iran in 1979, the Shah was leading his country into modern times, the religious powers knew that would kill their religious stranglehold on the populace and they lead a religious violent revolt, overthrew him and sent him into exile. If the revolt never happened, we'd most likely have a much more stable and peaceful Middle East right now

never mind that the CIA and m16 through a covert operation years before put that shah into power....
the prime minister at the time was trying to nationalize Iran's oil and Great Britain did not like that, so they decided to get the U.S. to help them initiate a coup to overthrow him...
Guess what one of the strategies was that the u.s. used to overthrow the prime minister? get the religious leaders of Islam to declare a holy war against the government... yea, the same people who would later call the united states "the great satan"... hmmm

oh yeah, and never mind that the shah who was pretty much a puppet of the united states, was already facing a lot of opposition because of how he used his secret police, the savak, to control the country...and oil.

Without the actions of the U.S. years before its unlikely any sort of Islamic revolution would have occurred in such a manner.... People were already angry at the united states and the prime minister, the leaders of the Islamic revolution just harnessed the discontent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, Sam. It's not everyones duty to watch their mouth so Muslims or any other group is not insulted. But that is a problem all religions have, the Islam just portrays it most obvious recently. I don't get how you can be one of the world religions, but still be offended all the time. It just sounds like no fun at all. Anyways, what the pope wanted to say (and if you are not a Muslim also did say) was very true and intelligent. Religious aggression from which side ever is not necessary or acceptable.

The Muslims demanding an apology is ridiculous. Religion should be treated like everything else and as such also be subject to criticism.

Ok i agree, freedom of speech and all. Religion must also be a subject of criticism. But it works either way. Pope said something about islam because he has freedom of speech, and muslims started "bitching" about it and they ALSO has a freedom of speech and right to be dissapointed about that. So Pope started it, muslims continued, so now i don't see why everyone start that "muslims are whining again" thing, they have right and can do that just like Pope can criticise Islam.
Long live freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But i still do think it only works to the point untill it turns in obvious insult, like swearing.

Originally posted by Sam Z
Ok i agree, freedom of speech and all. Religion must also be a subject of criticism. But it works either way. Pope said something about islam because he has freedom of speech, and muslims started "bitching" about it and they ALSO has a freedom of speech and right to be dissapointed about that. So Pope started it, muslims continued, so now i don't see why everyone start that "muslims are whining again" thing, they have right and can do that just like Pope can criticise Islam.
Long live freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But i still do think it only works to the point untill it turns in obvious insult, like swearing.

They have right to express their opinion. They burn puppets and demand apologies. That's a difference. They may do it, but I may point out that they behave like little retarded children.

Originally posted by Sam Z
Ok i agree, freedom of speech and all. Religion must also be a subject of criticism. But it works either way. Pope said something about islam because he has freedom of speech, and muslims started "bitching" about it and they ALSO has a freedom of speech and right to be dissapointed about that. So Pope started it, muslims continued, so now i don't see why everyone start that "muslims are whining again" thing, they have right and can do that just like Pope can criticise Islam.
Long live freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But i still do think it only works to the point untill it turns in obvious insult, like swearing.

I would prefer to hear provoked complaining as oppose to forced silence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They have right to express their opinion. They burn puppets and demand apologies. That's a difference. They may do it, but I may point out that they behave like little retarded children.

It doesn't really matter, they still can do that. My point is that it's funny that Pope has freedom of speech to say these things about islam but when they get upset and express their feelings about it everyone forget about that right and start blaming them for only trying to get apologies. It's simply not fair.

They need to learn to stop crying foul for every thing they deem is disrespectful and enter into dialogue, the same way the Vatican did when The Da Vinci code was on the bookshelves.

Originally posted by Sam Z
It doesn't really matter, they still can do that. My point is that it's funny that Pope has freedom of speech to say these things about islam but when they get upset and express their feelings about it everyone forget about that right and start blaming them for only trying to get apologies. It's simply not fair.

It's entirely fair and the comparison is silly. Someone expressing opinions to make a point as the Pope did is an application of free speech and fair enough, though controversial.

People holding mass, hate-filled demonstrations and making death threats is completely beyond the pale. There is no moral equivalence between the two actions.

Even accepting that the majority of complainants were not so extreme, the fact remains that almost every time Islam exercises its right to free sppech (a right that does not exist in several Muslim countries), they simply expose how petty and childish alot of the mentality behind it is. It weakens them. Many of the complaints made against them are simply in despair at this kind of mentality.

Of course, plenty of Muslims do not feel compelled to complain so, and fair enough to them.

And so it is absolutely and totally fair to criticise such unjustified reaction whilst giving the Pope a pass on the free speech card.

This whole thing has been taken WAY out of context.

The things that the pope said in his speech were NOT his words.
He was quoting a byzantine emperor, to show how much things had changed. I dont see anything wrong with this, as the pope hasnt said anything deregetory against islam

Originally posted by Robtard
You're being a a Islamic extremist apologist. They hate us because they fear Democracy and progressive thinking. Look what happened in Iran in 1979, the Shah was leading his country into modern times, the religious powers knew that would kill their religious stranglehold on the populace and they lead a religious violent revolt, overthrew him and sent him into exile. If the revolt never happened, we'd most likely have a much more stable and peaceful Middle East right now The only reason the autocratic Shah rule was installed by a U.S. engineered coup in the first place was ideological conflict with the Soviet Union and oil. The Islamic Revolution was a culmination of 26 years of Shah dictatorship.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The only reason the autocratic Shah rule was installed by a U.S. engineered coup in the first place was ideological conflict with the Soviet Union and oil. The Islamic Revolution was a culmination of 26 years of Shah dictatorship.

The Shah had been in power since 1941, since it was a monarchy; he was next in line when his father was thrown out by the Allies because of his Pro-Nazi ways. Also, his "dictatorship" was much more humanitarian than the Ayatollah lead theocracy that replaced it. The guy was modernizing his country; he was actually giving women equal rights which is almost unheard of it that part of the world. Was he a complete saint? Of course not. But yes, blame America...

The 'coup' in the 50's is arguably a coup, there are two or more sides to every story.

Yay. American martyr complex. It doesn't matter whether or not I "blame America" by making a simple statement about historical actions. Whether Iranians blamed America and the impact of the installment of the Shah on perception of the West is the important thing.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yay. American martyr complex. It doesn't matter whether or not I "blame America" by making a simple statement about historical actions. Whether Iranians blamed America and the impact of the installment of the Shah on perception of the West is the important thing.

Martyr complex? America didn't sacrifice itself; we're still the sole world superpower and will be for some time to come, no complex here. Of course the Iranians blame America, they were lead and are currently lead by Islamo-facist extremist who view America as the "Great Satan" because they fear Democracy and progressive thinking, those ideologies threaten their control. Iran would crumble if women were equals, God forbid...

By your tone "U.S. engineered coup" you clearly blame America as the fiend yet again, but you are right, it doens't matter. Most of the world hates America, then again, when you're #1, in the right or wrong, people tend to hate you. Who ever becomes the next world superpower, be it China, Iran or New Zealand, they'll be despised just the same. Something to consider, if a country like Iran were to have hegemonic world power like America does currently, how will they use/abuse that power?

Originally posted by Robtard
Martyr complex? America didn't sacrifice itself; we're still the sole world superpower and will be for some time to come, no complex here.You either didn't grasp what I meant by martyr complex or did and decided to be ironic, as illustrated by the second part of your post.Originally posted by Robtard
No worries though, most of the world hates America, then again, when you're #1, in the right or wrong, people tend to hate you. Who ever becomes the next world superpower, be it China, Iran or Guatemala, they'll be despised just the same. Something to consider, if a country like Iran were to have hegemonic world power like America does currently, how will they use/abuse that power? Originally posted by Robtard
Of course the Iranians blame America, they were lead and are currently lead by Islamo-facist extremist who view America as the "Great Satan" because they fear Democracy and progressive thinking, those ideologies threaten their control. By your tone "U.S. engineered coup" you clearly blame America as the fiend yet again.What tone? It was a C.I.A. i.e. U.S. engineered coup d'etat.

"By your tone" U.S. foreign policy over the last half decade or so has had nothing to do with current Middle Eastern perceptions of the West.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You either didn't grasp what I meant by martyr complex or did and decided to be ironic, as illustrated by the second part of your post.What tone? It was a C.I.A. i.e. U.S. engineered coup d'etat.

"By your tone" U.S. foreign policy over the last half decade or so has had nothing to do with current Middle Eastern perceptions of the West.

I did grasp that you didn't mean "martyr" in a literal sense obviously, I was throwing it back in your face is all and it wouldn't be ironic, it would be hypocritical. The tone that the U.S. was in the wrong to help the Shah, that tone.

You're reading my tone wrong then, obviously foreign policy guides peoples opinions and views of a country. But we are not talking about the last 5 years (A.K.A. Bush & Co.), these anti-West views started long ago as stated in my first/second post that you responded too.

Any thoughts on my hypothetical question?

My statement about the coup d'etat was in regard to the causes of current animosity towards the West due to foreign policy going back a long time.

The question about an Iranian hegemony. I'd imagine they'd exert their influence to affect the world in the same manner. However the likelihood of such a scenario is remote to say the least, and a hypothetical scenario doesn't really mitigate U.S. foreign policy nor give carte blanche to U.S. action.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My statement about the coup d'etat was in regard to the causes of current animosity towards the West due to foreign policy going back a long time.

The question about an Iranian hegemony. I'd imagine they'd exert their influence to affect the world in the same manner. However the likelihood of such a scenario is remote to say the least, and a hypothetical scenario doesn't really mitigate U.S. foreign policy nor give carte blanche to U.S. action.

Well of course, if the Ayatollahs weren't successful in their religious revolt, Iran would most likely have a pro-West attitude and the world would most likely be a safer/better place.

Wow... You really think an Islamic Theocracy like Iran would "exert their influence to affect the world in the same manner" as the U.S. has since becoming the sole world superpower? It wasn't supposed to excuse or condemn U.S. action, that wasn't the reason why I asked.

Originally posted by Sam Z
It doesn't really matter, they still can do that. My point is that it's funny that Pope has freedom of speech to say these things about islam but when they get upset and express their feelings about it everyone forget about that right and start blaming them for only trying to get apologies. It's simply not fair.

That's not true, no one is denying them their freedom of speech. No one at all.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well of course, if the Ayatollahs weren't successful in their religious revolt, Iran would most likely have a pro-West attitude and the world would most likely be a safer/better place.

Wow... You really think an Islamic Theocracy like Iran would "exert their influence to affect the world in the same manner" as the U.S. has since becoming the sole world superpower? It wasn't supposed to excuse or condemn U.S. action, that wasn't the reason why I asked. What manner do you think the Iranian regime would act? Would they arbitrarily deploy nuclear weaponry on the rest of the world? Or invade all their neighbours? Or cripple the global economy for fun? All while cackling hysterically?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What manner do you think the Iranian regime would act? Would they arbitrarily deploy nuclear weaponry on the rest of the world? Or invade all their neighbours? Or cripple the global economy for fun? All while cackling hysterically?

Considering they are currently extremist and religious fundamentalist, I wouldn't doubt it, with the exception of nuclear warfare, that isn't logical, it destroys land and land is money, well, maybe they would make an exception and nuke Israel. Those damn "Zionist" you know.

Well it has been a long time since I read so much crap in one thread.


How did the irony of ''you said we are not peaceful, and therefore you will pay with your life for it'' got lost in this situation?

These are the people which are trying to convince all the world that they are a religion of peace.

In the demonstration yesterday in London, Muslims asked for Pope to be executed, saying that anyone who inslults islam deserves death.

They have killed a nun, and burned and attacked churches over one simple comment.

Please someone tell me last time you have recalled a Jew protest by burning down a church? When was the last time you Christian protested by Buring down a Mosque? When did a Buddhist protest by burning down either?


And those who somehow concluded that Christians were more violent than Muslims, doesn't seem to have even the basic knowledge of Islamic history, so please, read up on it before making such bold and historically innactuarte statements.

Besides, Pope appologised. I think its stupid and immature to keep on having a hissy fit.

Oh ad please, Im waiting for all the muslims clerics to appologise to Jews for calling them pigs and monkeys on their national television and in their children's books.

Im waiting for them to appologise for killing Theo Van Gogh.

Im waiting for them to appologise for stirring up shit because of Danish cartoons.

....I think i might wait very long time.


http://www.cagle.com/working/050519/stahler.gif

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well it has been a long time since I read so much crap in one thread.


How did the irony of ''you said we are not peaceful, and therefore you will pay with your life for it'' got lost in this situation?

These are the people which are trying to convince all the world that they are a religion of peace.

In the demonstration yesterday in London, Muslims asked for Pope to be executed, saying that anyone who inslults islam deserves death.

They have killed a nun, and burned and attacked churches over one simple comment.

Please someone tell me last time you have recalled a Jew protest by burning down a church? When was the last time you Christian protested by Buring down a Mosque? When did a Buddhist protest by burning down either?


And those who somehow concluded that Christians were more violent than Muslims, doesn't seem to have even the basic knowledge of Islamic history, so please, read up on it before making such bold and historically innactuarte statements.

Besides, Pope appologised. I think its stupid and immature to keep on having a hissy fit.

Oh ad please, Im waiting for all the muslims clerics to appologise to Jews for calling them pigs and monkeys on their national television and in their children's books.

Im waiting for them to appologise for killing Theo Van Gogh.

Im waiting for them to appologise for stirring up shit because of Danish cartoons.

....I think i might wait very long time.


http://www.cagle.com/working/050519/stahler.gif

You have the stupidest logic i've ever saw.
Ok, tell me now. Is christianity a violant religion because George Bush is an a$$hole? He is obviously not a man of peace, so it proves that Christianity is a violant religion!!!
Or may be jewdaism is a violant religion because of the Ariel Sharon? How many serial killers were among christians, jews, bhuddists and atheists? Do they determine religion? Do their behaivour makes it violant? Or may be you yourself should read Qur'an and only then judge if Islam violant or not. I remembered we debated about that on another thread and all your "proofs" that Qur'an approvs violance failed, and i even wasted my own time and commented on the quotes and quoted Qur'an myself, but you wouldn't listen because you are too much got used to the idea that it is violant. I don't even know why i wasted time quoting Qur'an and explaining other quotes.
And i'd rather die and go to hell than apologise to Jews that currently live in Israel, why don't they apologise for killing my relatives? It doesn't seem to me that they feel sorry for inocent people they killed, raped and tortured (and yes, believe it or not i don't care but this DID happened). I'd never apologise to these f@#kers and i don't need apologies from Pope, i just know he is not the one to criticise any religion since Catholicism has lots of things to be "proud" of itself.
Now lets together wait till I get banned, you see i said that israeli jews are f!#kers, but i can't say such things about jews on the public forum, but when somebody say things like "f@#king Arabs" or "dumb canadians" it's just fine...

Most of this wouldn't have happened if the Pope just had cut the comments from his speech. There were inflamatory and really contributed nothign to his argument. He could've been proactive about the situation.

But the "Islamic" response is still unacceptble. But I really don't know how large it is. I could find 200 people to riot about almost anything.

Originally posted by Alliance
Most of this wouldn't have happened if the Pope just had cut the comments from his speech. There were inflamatory and really contributed nothign to his argument. He could've been proactive about the situation.

But the "Islamic" response is still unacceptble. But I really don't know how large it is. I could find 200 people to riot about almost anything.

In what way were his words inflamatory? He quoted an ancient text.

This is the question I pose - What makes Muslims better than any other religious group, that noone may say anything regarding their religion?
Why is their religion more important than that of Jews and Christians?

And why may the Arab nations call Jews all kinds of names, teach their children to hate jews and praise Hitler, yet pope's words, which by the way, were mare quoting of medevil text, cause such an upheavel?

Second, your assumption of 200 people rioting is not right. Considering that a Italian nun has been shot in Somalia over this, and a numerous churches in Gaza stripp attacked and bombed, and the Muslim clerics have called out for the death of Pope, I would take that as a more than 200 people rioting.

I only saw the demonstrations in London, however.

If you believe that any comment can produce this kind of oubrake, and feel its justifyable, then I say you are wrong, in my opinion.

Why is our freedom of speach limited when it comes to Muslims?
I praise Pope for having the guts to say what he did, and I praise him more for being the only Pope to have ever made such an appology in history of Catholisism.

All Muslims did with this rioting is prove his comments correct.

It is perfectly legitimate for them to complain and lodge protests against the quote. However, riots and threats are not only inappropriate, but they only serve to validate some of the criticisms being made. The proper reaction is not threatening to kill people, and generally acting in a manner contrary to all civilized standards of decency.

I don't know where that praising Hitler thing came from but as for calling Jews names it is the least thing Arabs could do for what Jews did. By the way about freedom of speech, it usually limited when it comes to Jews, not muslims. Try talking about Holocaust. Do you know how many people were charged for doubting Holocaust? And not only that. When it comes to middle east conflicts media ussually only covers actions of countries israel fights against and never actions of israel itself.

Originally posted by Storm
It is perfectly legitimate for them to complain and lodge protests against the quote. However, riots and threats are not only inappropriate, but they only serve to validate some of the criticisms being made. The proper reaction is not threatening to kill people, and generally acting in a manner contrary to all civilized standards of decency.

I concur.
Everyone has the right to complain, just as everyone has the right to get offended.


Once people start fearing for their safety due to a comment or an opinion, is the point where people should stop and think, and perhaps release there is a problem.

I am sure you are familiar with the incident which lead to Theo Van Gogh's dead.

Dan Brown has not been shot and stabbed for writing The Da Vinchi Code, a book which has denied the very bases of Christian faith.

Originally posted by Sam Z
You have the stupidest logic i've ever saw.
Ok, tell me now. Is christianity a violant religion because George Bush is an a$$hole? He is obviously not a man of peace, so it proves that Christianity is a violant religion!!!
Or may be jewdaism is a violant religion because of the Ariel Sharon? How many serial killers were among christians, jews, bhuddists and atheists? Do they determine religion? Do their behaivour makes it violant? Or may be you yourself should read Qur'an and only then judge if Islam violant or not. I remembered we debated about that on another thread and all your "proofs" that Qur'an approvs violance failed, and i even wasted my own time and commented on the quotes and quoted Qur'an myself, but you wouldn't listen because you are too much got used to the idea that it is violant. I don't even know why i wasted time quoting Qur'an and explaining other quotes.
And i'd rather die and go to hell than apologise to Jews that currently live in Israel, why don't they apologise for killing my relatives? It doesn't seem to me that they feel sorry for inocent people they killed, raped and tortured (and yes, believe it or not i don't care but this DID happened). I'd never apologise to these f@#kers and i don't need apologies from Pope, i just know he is not the one to criticise any religion since Catholicism has lots of things to be "proud" of itself.
Now lets together wait till I get banned, you see i said that israeli jews are f!#kers, but i can't say such things about jews on the public forum, but when somebody say things like "f@#king Arabs" or "dumb canadians" it's just fine...

Your analogy is way off... Do you not see how radical Islam has become these days? The religion itself may or may not be violent, I do not personally know, I haven't studied the Qur'an in depth to make that judgement. But do you not see how the Muslim population reacts these days to anything they see as an infraction? Burning churches, murdering and rioting are not peaceful acts. Islamic leaders condemn Jews and Christians without a care, but God forbid if someone says anything even remotely negative about Islam.

Please watch this movie, if you already haven't.

Do not contrencate if you do not wish, on what the people say, but pay very close attention to the kind of things Arab television transmits.

''Kill all Jews'' ''Death to America''

Hmmm...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1211228663574416724&q=Obsession+The+Movie

Originally posted by Robtard
Your analogy is way off... Do you not see how radical Islam has become these days? The religion itself may or may not be violent, I do not personally know, I haven't studied the Qur'an in depth to make that judgement. But do you not see how the Muslim population reacts these days to anything they see as an infraction? Burning churches, murdering and rioting are not peaceful acts. Islamic leaders condemn Jews and Christians without a care, but God forbid if someone says anything even remotely negative about Islam.

Muslims reacts just like many others react on something they are warried about. Burning churches, fighting is not an act of religion and not something Qur'an tells them to do, it's an act of croud. There was a gay parade in moscow recently, there was a HUGE fight, people all over Moscow came to fight gays for holding a freaking parade only. Or how about all demonstrations that turn into fights, and often because of stupid reasons. The only difference that some people are more worried about cutting off woods or killing animals or they don't like gays, muslims are just too sensitive when ot comes to their religion. Fighting and burning is an overreacting but that is how crouds usually react and it is not the reason to make judgements about religion itself and call it violant.

You see there are people in this thread who were just taught to hate muslims just like She recently said that arab children were tought "to hate Jews". And it doesn't matter what reasons you give, what quotes you type. I can tell a lot about what Qur'an teaches but She formed her opinion and she'd blindly follow it even if it's falls because She was taught this way. Take me for example, I do hate Jews (not all of them but some certain that live in Israel) and they were violant with arabs and with my relatives as well, but it doesn't make me think that Jewdaism is a violant religion.

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe if we stopped assassinating their leaders. We'll..we did take a short break. The arab world is not in 800 CE. In 800 CE Baghdad was the intellectual and cultural capital of the world. The Arabs have a very modern mentality, its just not the one that you (and I) would prefer them to have.

I'm sure bombing the hell out of them is a productive way to help them industrialize...oh wait...we don't want them to industrialize. Why? Because we made them hate us.

Nobody made them hate us; they hate Americans for their own farfetched reasons.

And yeah, the Arab World is very backwards. I've been to Saudi Arabia (the very birthplace of that religion) and their mentality and world views are still set back 1000 years ago. Sure they have cars, computers, cell phones, and modern weapons (something they seem to have a particular fondness for) yet their society hasn't progressed in the least, ey. They make their women cover up and they can't even go out in public without a male escort. Not to mention, Jews can't even step foot in that country.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Nobody made them hate us; they hate Americans for their own farfetched reasons.

And yeah, the Arab World is very backwards. I've been to Saudi Arabia (the very birthplace of that religion) and their mentality and world views are still set back 1000 years ago. Sure they have cars, computers, cell phones, and modern weapons (something they seem to have a particular fondness for) yet their society hasn't progressed in the least, ey. They make their women cover up and they can't even go out in public without a male escort. Not to mention, Jews can't even step foot in that country.

Interesting, I know this guy at my work who I talk to usually, well anyways the topic of religion came up and he told me he lived in Saudia Arabia for 16 years, he is Christian though not Jewish, and he said he loved it and called it his homeland, I was surprised as shit. He also said that Americans have a backwards view of the middle east. Was a really interesting conversation.

I find that hard to believe. Your co-worker is either lying or he's extremely optomistic and loves people....

Why would he be lying? Have you been there, have you lived there for 16 years? He is a true Christian, 100 percent, believes it to the core, he is not my co-worker, he is a member at the health club I work for. His experience was good, is there something wrong with that? He seems like an average guy, would never have guessed he was from Saudia Arabia, I was very surprised when he told me all of this, I was very inquisitive, but I do not think he was lying.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In what way were his words inflamatory? He quoted an ancient text.

This is the question I pose - What makes Muslims better than any other religious group, that noone may say anything regarding their religion?
Why is their religion more important than that of Jews and Christians?

And why may the Arab nations call Jews all kinds of names, teach their children to hate jews and praise Hitler, yet pope's words, which by the way, were mare quoting of medevil text, cause such an upheavel?

Second, your assumption of 200 people rioting is not right. Considering that a Italian nun has been shot in Somalia over this, and a numerous churches in Gaza stripp attacked and bombed, and the Muslim clerics have called out for the death of Pope, I would take that as a more than 200 people rioting.

I only saw the demonstrations in London, however.

If you believe that any comment can produce this kind of oubrake, and feel its justifyable, then I say you are wrong, in my opinion.

Why is our freedom of speach limited when it comes to Muslims?
I praise Pope for having the guts to say what he did, and I praise him more for being the only Pope to have ever made such an appology in history of Catholisism.

All Muslims did with this rioting is prove his comments correct.

Listen. I've repeatedly said that I disagree with the Islamic communites reaction. So please stop arguing that point with me. Becasue its redundant...amd I'm not arguing it.

The pope quoted a text that made an inflamatory statement about Muslims. He didn't need to quote it, it didn't add anything to his speech. It was just extra inflamatory bullshit.

Given his role as an international leader and a very public Christian figure, as well as the current relations between Muslims and Christians, he should not quoted it.

Of course he has free speech, but he has an international obligation. If he can quote about the evils of Islam....why can Muslims say that Israel can be destroyed.

The Pope should be more cautious about the words he chooses given his international status and the extremely volitale global situation. I've read the contaect that the quote was given in. It could have easily been left out and it would have made no difference. It was stupid.

Beating a wound does not help it heal...it only makes it worse.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"Whilst Muslims might express their criticism of Islam and of Christianity, he argued, they would never defame the Holy Bible or Jesus Christ."

Because that's part of their canon! It's like a Jewish person saying he would never attack the Christian Old Testament. Well, of course he wouldn't!

But many Muslims certainly treat JC and the Bible in a way that is highly offensive to Christians. I just hope they know they are making fools of themselves because there is nothing anti islamic in that speech. The pope was talking about violence in religion, any religion and was saying that it is not compatable with the will of God. He said he was reminded of a 14th century document where the emperor said mohammed only brought evil. Muslims thought he was trying to link islam to violence so they go out and commit violence. If he was trying to link islam to violence it looks like they just proved him right but he wasn't. He wants to have dialog but him and muslims can't have meaningful dialog if they can't say what they think. Muslims reaction to this imaginary offense is totally rediculous and they're acting like spoiled brats with all the logic and temperment of a 2 year old.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That being said, frankly Benedict is a bit of a moron if he didn't anticipate such a reaction and the Catholic church is really in no position to be critical of other religions. He didn't criticise islam or any other religion. He was talking about violence not being compatible with the will of God. Muslims twist things around so much to make themselves look like the victim it's pathetic. Here is the speech and there isn't anything anti islamic in it.
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002966.html#more

This is the quote that they're mad about. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". They don't have a reason to be mad.

Ha. You think that's not quoting an attack on Islam?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if what you are saying was true (and I don't think it was meant to attack the Islam) it still is crazy how Islamists reacted on it...their leaders bring anti-semitic statements on a daily basis, but no one is allowed to condemn the violence the Islam brings? That is bullshit. This is wrong in two aspects, for one the pope didn't do what they claim he did and even if they have no right to react to it that way. They want to keep a double standard why should the pope have to submit to that? They act like spoiled brats and make themselves and islam a laughing stock but it's their religion. It's like they're saying slam is a religion of peace and you better believe it or we'll kill you, we'll burn dowmn churches and do violence until you agree that islam is peaceful. I just hope they know they're making fools of themselves.

Kind of like how Christians do? Repeatedly?

Originally posted by Alliance
I haven't read a transcript of the speech, but then why not address a broader slice of violence, emphasizing Christianity first, then making a point about Islam. Change in Islam is going to be internal, not from the Pope. I thought it was a good speech and it wasn't anti islamic at all. http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002966.html#more
was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.

It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".

According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.

I know the context of the statement, I've read the transcript of the speech.

Congratualtions on your copy and paste skillz.

The statement was hateful and anti-Islam, as it specifically attacks Muhammad. The Pope quotes it and then does not refute it. Its not a jump at all to then project the statemetns of the Emperor onto the quote itself.

You haven't counteracted any of my points, which make self-evident that that quote should not have been in that speech. Period.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Why does he have to speak of Chirstian violence to be able to justify him speaking of Muslim violence? Sure, there are plenty of Christian atrocities throughout history to speak of, but the difference here is that Christians seemed to have, for the most part, stopped their violent ways. There are a select few psychos that still want to kill abortion doctors and whatnot, but the bottom line is the general Christian populace don't riot in the streets anytime anyone says or does something they disagree with.

Today's issue is not Christian violence, it's Muslim violence. So for him to address this issue by bringing up the flaws of Christianity, he'd be pussyfooting around the real issue at hand. Which is, apparently, what the Muslim world has come to expect. He was speakingof violence in general and how it relates to religion. His message was that religious people shouldn't be violent so the muslims become violent which doesn't make a bit of sense.

Originally posted by Alliance
You can complain about the Islamic reaction all you want. But the bottom line is that quote shouldn't have been in his speech...or he sould have made it clear that the Emperor was a twisted f*ck who didn't understand Islam.

Oh I love this!

And you understand Islam?

Not only do you have no idea regarding ANY aspect of Islamic history, you also have no clue regarding the religion nor what it says nor do you know any of Muhammad's biography, past or deeds, yet you insist on making a bold statements which are mind numbing with stupidity.

You know nothing reagrding Islam beyond what the TV tells you! How can you debate medevil text?!

Islam spread by sword. A Muhammad himself says so in the Hadiths!
What Pope said (technically) was true!

While Muslim religious leaders are calling out for murder of all Jews, Christians and West, its ok. But when Pope points this out it is all of a sudden an outrage?

This double standard bullshit does not work on me.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I love this!

And you understand Islam?

Not only do you have no idea regarding ANY aspect of Islamic history, you also have no clue regarding the religion nor what it says nor do you know any of Muhammad's biography, past or deeds, yet you insist on making a bold statements which are mind numbing with stupidity.

You know nothing reagrding Islam beyond what the TV tells you! How can you debate medevil text?!

Islam spread by sword. A Muhammad himself says so in the Hadiths!
What Pope said (technically) was true!

While Muslim religious leaders are calling out for murder of all Jews, Christians and West, its ok. But when Pope points this out it is all of a sudden an outrage?

This double standard bullshit does not work on me.

Nuff said.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I love this!

And you understand Islam?

Not only do you have no idea regarding ANY aspect of Islamic history, you also have no clue regarding the religion nor what it says nor do you know any of Muhammad's biography, past or deeds, yet you insist on making a bold statements which are mind numbing with stupidity.

You know nothing reagrding Islam beyond what the TV tells you! How can you debate medevil text?!

Islam spread by sword. A Muhammad himself says so in the Hadiths!
What Pope said (technically) was true!

While Muslim religious leaders are calling out for murder of all Jews, Christians and West, its ok. But when Pope points this out it is all of a sudden an outrage?

This double standard bullshit does not work on me.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I love this!

And you understand Islam?

Not only do you have no idea regarding ANY aspect of Islamic history, you also have no clue regarding the religion nor what it says nor do you know any of Muhammad's biography, past or deeds, yet you insist on making a bold statements which are mind numbing with stupidity.

You know nothing reagrding Islam beyond what the TV tells you! How can you debate medevil text?!

Islam spread by sword. A Muhammad himself says so in the Hadiths!
What Pope said (technically) was true!

While Muslim religious leaders are calling out for murder of all Jews, Christians and West, its ok. But when Pope points this out it is all of a sudden an outrage?

This double standard bullshit does not work on me.


lil bitchiness are you raising the standards on us?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I love this!

And you understand Islam?

Not only do you have no idea regarding ANY aspect of Islamic history, you also have no clue regarding the religion nor what it says nor do you know any of Muhammad's biography, past or deeds, yet you insist on making a bold statements which are mind numbing with stupidity.

You know nothing reagrding Islam beyond what the TV tells you! How can you debate medevil text?!

Islam spread by sword. A Muhammad himself says so in the Hadiths!
What Pope said (technically) was true!

While Muslim religious leaders are calling out for murder of all Jews, Christians and West, its ok. But when Pope points this out it is all of a sudden an outrage?

This double standard bullshit does not work on me.

Good points, but unfortunately one has to be PC these days in regards to Islam. Islamic leaders can without a care in the world, drop lines like "The Great Satan" and "Zionist" in derogatory tones and it is expected to be taken with a grain of salt... But anyone even implies that Islam has caused harm is automatically labeled an insensitive bigot and as we have seen in respect to the Pope, their beheading is called for as you have mentioned.

"Of course he has free speech, but he has an international obligation. If he can quote about the evils of Islam....why can Muslims say that Israel can be destroyed."

I presume you mean "can't", but regardless, your comparison is poor.

People can criticise Israel all they like. Saying it should be destroyed it an entirely different matter.

The Pope was not asking for Islam to be eliminated. He was making a speech in which he abhored the use of violence to spread faith, and highlighted, using that quote, that this is an issue with Islam. Which is absolutely the truth, there IS an issue there.

I am sick of people censoring themselves fromn the truth on this kind of issue. Kudos to the Pope for refusing to be so censored.

Some points need to be made.

Bottom line is- it is absolutely and fundamentally wrong to exempt Religions from being criticised. It is a fundamental free sppech issue, and more people with international standing should be unafraid to take such a stance.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I love this!

And you understand Islam?

Not only do you have no idea regarding ANY aspect of Islamic history, you also have no clue regarding the religion nor what it says nor do you know any of Muhammad's biography, past or deeds, yet you insist on making a bold statements which are mind numbing with stupidity.

You know nothing reagrding Islam beyond what the TV tells you! How can you debate medevil text?!

Islam spread by sword. A Muhammad himself says so in the Hadiths!
What Pope said (technically) was true!

While Muslim religious leaders are calling out for murder of all Jews, Christians and West, its ok. But when Pope points this out it is all of a sudden an outrage?

This double standard bullshit does not work on me.


I find it hilarious how the hypocrisy between religions keeps going back and forth...both Christianity AND Islam are the basis for much violence, discrimination, etc. that has occured throughout history.

I just find it funny how Christianity and Islam will both accuse each other of corruption, etc. when BOTH are corrupt and have been used to power, greed, etc.

It just so happens that TODAY Islam is responsible for more of the suffering and deaths that have occured....Christianity as of now, is pretty much only responsible for social injustices, but not for the massive terrorism and physical mistreatment of innocent people.

If I were to make an observation of which religion contains the more dangerous Zealotry.....Islam wins my a mile !

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"Of course he has free speech, but he has an international obligation. If he can quote about the evils of Islam....why can Muslims say that Israel can be destroyed."

I presume you mean "can't", but regardless, your comparison is poor.

People can criticise Israel all they like. Saying it should be destroyed it an entirely different matter.

The Pope was not asking for Islam to be eliminated. He was making a speech in which he abhored the use of violence to spread faith, and highlighted, using that quote, that this is an issue with Islam. Which is absolutely the truth, there IS an issue there.

I am sick of people censoring themselves fromn the truth on this kind of issue. Kudos to the Pope for refusing to be so censored.

Some points need to be made.

Bottom line is- it is absolutely and fundamentally wrong to exempt Religions from being criticised. It is a fundamental free sppech issue, and more people with international standing should be unafraid to take such a stance.



I agree the Pope can say whatever the hell he wants, just the way the rest of us say whatever the hell we want.....but..likewise....Muslims have every right to defend their Faith and offend him back.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree the Pope can say whatever the hell he wants, just the way the rest of us say whatever the hell we want.....but..likewise....Muslims have every right to defend their Faith and offend him back.

Yes, but when violence gets involved, the right to free speech must be waved, because the right to life is a higher right.

no right is absolute.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I love this!

And you understand Islam?

Not only do you have no idea regarding ANY aspect of Islamic history, you also have no clue regarding the religion nor what it says nor do you know any of Muhammad's biography, past or deeds, yet you insist on making a bold statements which are mind numbing with stupidity.

You know nothing reagrding Islam beyond what the TV tells you! How can you debate medevil text?!

Islam spread by sword. A Muhammad himself says so in the Hadiths!
What Pope said (technically) was true!

While Muslim religious leaders are calling out for murder of all Jews, Christians and West, its ok. But when Pope points this out it is all of a sudden an outrage?

This double standard bullshit does not work on me.

And once again you can't understand what a main point is. Can you not read?

I never claimed I understood everything. Get over yourself.

That quote should not have been there. Period.

The reaction is a whole different story, one which I have never argued. Being rational, deliberate, and in control solves problems. I'm sure your fight fire with fire solution will solve the issue. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Alliance
And once again you can't understand what a main point is. Can you not read?

I never claimed I understood everything. Get over yourself.

That quote should not have been there. Period.

The reaction is a whole different story, one which I have never argued. Being rational, deliberate, and in control solves problems. I'm sure your fight fire with fire solution will solve the issue. Good luck with that.

Sorry bro, but I find it funny how you can attack Christianity and then defend Islam when they are both guilty of hypocrisy, corruption, and conflict.


I do, however, agree that to just condemn Islam as a whole is the wrong way to go about this...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree the Pope can say whatever the hell he wants, just the way the rest of us say whatever the hell we want.....but..likewise....Muslims have every right to defend their Faith and offend him back.

Yes, they have every right to offend him back.

What they shouldn't have is the right to threaten his life, and make further hate-filled attacks, without reason or sense, against what he represents.

That kind of thing is beyond the pale. The reaction of the extremist part of the Muslim world goes beyond the borders of free sppech.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Sorry bro, but I find it funny how you can attack Christianity and then defend Islam when they are both guilty of hypocrisy, corruption, and conflict.


I do, however, agree that to just condemn Islam as a whole is the wrong way to go about this...

I'm commenting on the Pope's speech and his frankly stupid comment. I'm commenting on how he failed as an international leader and as a Christian.

SO. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE REACTION OF ISLAM.

I am attacking the Pope's stupid speech. And saying that this whole situation (out of which nothing good is coming right now) could have been avoided by a little common sensea nd proper speechwriting.

But I'm glad we agree on the last point.

Originally posted by Alliance
Kind of like how Christians do? Repeatedly? He might not have thought to say he didn't agree with the emperor since his speech wasn't specificly about islam.

Hence his stupidity. If you're going to quote something inflammitory and its not your opinion...you better damn well make it clear IMEDIATELY aftery ou say so. Any speaker can tell you this. The Pope didn't think...at all.

Originally posted by markie
He might not have thought to say he didn't agree with the emperor since his speech wasn't specificly about islam.

I don't know why a person would use a text in a speech if they didn't agree with it unless it was to use it to make a point about what he wasn't agreeing with.

Still, and even TV stations and news etc. knows they haven't use disclaimers "The opinions etc of the following in no way reflect those of this station etc." - Because people take things personally. Crazy as it is.

Originally posted by goatstradamus
question for everyone:
why do you think a lot of muslims are reacting like this?
Like, just as an example.. if someone was acting really defensive, what would you suspect is going on?

I mean, their is an explanation for what is happening here... its not like angry militant islam just appeared out of thin air.
This is something that I think the pope would or should be aware of... the history of the region, how things came to be.. how things perpetuate.... and how his words are going to be viewed.... I'm not saying nobody should ever say anything bad about islam, but I guess am having trouble understanding what exactly the purpose behind his words were...
If you want to make a point about how faith and violence do not go together thats all fine and dandy.. but it might not be so great an idea to single out another religion when your the pope...for one thing, I think we all know catholicism has no leg to stand on when critizing islam or any other religion for that matter about violence. Plus, look at whats happening in the world right now...wether you like it or not, thats reality...and a lot of muslims (understandably) are probably feeling very vulnerable right now... and when in a vulnerable place, human beings can be much more easily put on the defensive, be manipulated, victimized, and led along.....its common knowledge that in times of crisis people look for support. Often times people choose to join a religion or choose to be more pious...or perhaps join a religious group with a very extremist view point....can you really pass judgement on them for this?

So then you have the pope who decides to publicy pick out and criticize islam ... islam, the only support some of these people have in these communitys... just for example, after the ceasefire went into effect with isreal and lebanon, it was hezbollah that started rebuilding lebanons infrastructure and making sure people had water, electricty and so forth while the actual government of lebanon did very little.....

The pope really should understand this...his words are simply adding fuel to the fire...
If he really understood then he would not have said what he did IMO. They missed the point of the speech. They thought he was picking on islam but he was criticizing any religion. I guess they are mad because his quote refered to islam as an example. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008071.php
All this has shown is that Muslims missed the point of the speech, and in fact have endeavored to fulfill Benedict's warnings rather than prove him wrong. If one reads the speech at Regensburg, the entire speech, one understands that the entire point was to reject violence in pursuing religion in any form, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Bahai. The focal point of the speech was not the recounting of the debate between Manuel II and the unnamed Persian, but rather the rejection of reason and of God that violence brings

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm commenting on the Pope's speech and his frankly stupid comment. I'm commenting on how he failed as an international leader and as a Christian.

SO. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE REACTION OF ISLAM.

I am attacking the Pope's stupid speech. And saying that this whole situation (out of which nothing good is coming right now) could have been avoided by a little common sensea nd proper speechwriting.

But I'm glad we agree on the last point.

No actually, basing your point, which is rather unclear on your hate of Christianity as an institution.

Why don't we reverse the situation and assume that the Muslims religious leader said something about Christianity. What would you say to that then?

Nothing. You would say absolutely nothing, and perhaps you would even agree.
I know this for a fact, because it is happened, its happening and it will happen more, and noone says ANYTHING.

As Ush already mentioned, kudos to Pope for overlooking this kind of bullshit, and saying what he really means.
I am also sick of people putting double standards on Christianity and Islam, espacially since Islamic history is so soaked with blood it puts Christian history to shame.


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I find it hilarious how the hypocrisy between religions keeps going back and forth...both Christianity AND Islam are the basis for much violence, discrimination, etc. that has occured throughout history.

I just find it funny how Christianity and Islam will both accuse each other of corruption, etc. when BOTH are corrupt and have been used to power, greed, etc.

It just so happens that TODAY Islam is responsible for more of the suffering and deaths that have occured....Christianity as of now, is pretty much only responsible for social injustices, but not for the massive terrorism and physical mistreatment of innocent people.

If I were to make an observation of which religion contains the more dangerous Zealotry.....Islam wins my a mile !

Christianity has overcome its violence and persecution.
Christians are far less likely to react in violent ways. Let me give you an example.

Theo Van Gogh made a short movie expressing his feelings for Islam. Within a week or so he was stabbed 10 times and shot, with a note left on his bloody corpse saying that noone will say anything against Islam, and those who do will feel the wrath of Allah.

Dan Brown has written a book which defies the very base of Christian faith. They have made a movie too.
The actors, directors and Dan Brown are all still alive and well.

Let me ask you something, would you rather be a Christian in Egypt, or a Muslim in Rome?
Would you rather be a Christian in Saudi Arabia, or a Muslim in United States?
Would you rather be a Hindu in Iran or a Muslim in India?


Christianity has social damages - Islam has them more. Teaching a child to hate is the worst kind of child abuse.
Children of Muslim world are thought to hate the Jews, to hate Israel, to hate the west and all which is not muslim.

I promise you. Those kids will grow up, the eggs will hatch, and i hope I will be long dead before the west turns its head towards the problem and once and for all recognises it.


Islamic extremists have declared the war on the west and all that is non-muslim!
And West WILL LOSE THIS WAR. You will lose this war because you will stranngle yourself with your political corectness and willing blindness to what is happening.

It makes me sad to see how many are willingly accpeting ignorance, too frightened to look into the issue. Too damn scared to research what is being shown in an ISlamic television, what is written in Childrens books and what are children thought.

The worst thing it not, not knowing is not willing to know.

I think it's funny that when the muslim religion is said to bring about violence, they retort the accusation by acting violently. I wonder if they're just trying to be cute about it.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think it's funny that when the muslim religion is said to bring about violence, they retort the accusation by acting violently. I wonder if they're just trying to be cute about it. They say they are peaceful but if you accuse them of violence they make liars out of themselves.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think it's funny that when the muslim religion is said to bring about violence, they retort the accusation by acting violently. I wonder if they're just trying to be cute about it.

Thank you!

Im glad that the irony has not been complitely lost.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No actually, basing your point, which is rather unclear on your hate of Christianity as an institution.

Why don't we reverse the situation and assume that the Muslims religious leader said something about Christianity. What would you say to that then?

Nothing. You would say absolutely nothing, and perhaps you would even agree.
I know this for a fact, because it is happened, its happening and it will happen more, and noone says ANYTHING.

As Ush already mentioned, kudos to Pope for overlooking this kind of bullshit, and saying what he really means.
I am also sick of people putting double standards on Christianity and Islam, espacially since Islamic history is so soaked with blood it puts Christian history to shame.




Christianity has overcome its violence and persecution.
Christians are far less likely to react in violent ways. Let me give you an example.

Theo Van Gogh made a short movie expressing his feelings for Islam. Within a week or so he was stabbed 10 times and shot, with a note left on his bloody corpse saying that noone will say anything against Islam, and those who do will feel the wrath of Allah.

Dan Brown has written a book which defies the very base of Christian faith. They have made a movie too.
The actors, directors and Dan Brown are all still alive and well.

Let me ask you something, would you rather be a Christian in Egypt, or a Muslim in Rome?
Would you rather be a Christian in Saudi Arabia, or a Muslim in United States?
Would you rather be a Hindu in Iran or a Muslim in India?


Christianity has social damages - Islam has them more. Teaching a child to hate is the worst kind of child abuse.
Children of Muslim world are thought to hate the Jews, to hate Israel, to hate the west and all which is not muslim.

I promise you. Those kids will grow up, the eggs will hatch, and i hope I will be long dead before the west turns its head towards the problem and once and for all recognises it.


Islamic extremists have declared the war on the west and all that is non-muslim!
And West WILL LOSE THIS WAR. You will lose this war because you will stranngle yourself with your political corectness and willing blindness to what is happening.

It makes me sad to see how many are willingly accpeting ignorance, too frightened to look into the issue. Too damn scared to research what is being shown in an ISlamic television, what is written in Childrens books and what are children thought.

The worst thing it not, not knowing is not willing to know.



Did you not read my actual post ? I was agreeing with you for the most part...

I clearly said that the ZEALOTRY in Islam is so much more dangerous than the zealotry in Christianity....

I also said that as of TODAY Islam is responsible for far more physical violence, while Christianity is pretty much only responsible for social injustices and equal rights violations.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Did you not read my actual post ? I was agreeing with you for the most part...

I clearly said that the ZEALOTRY in Islam is so much more dangerous than the zealotry in Christianity....

I also said that as of TODAY Islam is responsible for far more physical violence, while Christianity is pretty much only responsible for social injustices and equal rights violations.

I wasn't disagreeing, I was making extra points. I should have put '...' inbetween the paragraphs.

I appologize if I offend with my strong approach (Allience, apologiy to you as well), but this is something I feel very strongly about in real life, and such reflects strongly online.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree the Pope can say whatever the hell he wants, just the way the rest of us say whatever the hell we want.....but..likewise....Muslims have every right to defend their Faith and offend him back. Yes, it's called freedom of speech! Unfortunately the Muslims don't believe in that.

I think that the Islamic world is not being held to a eqaul standard right now, but I dont think it should be.

The danger of loosing the Islamic nations for ANOTHER generation, ESPECIALLY the Middle East, would be catastrophic (we've seen how catastophic loosing one generation can be already).

Lets remember that this incident tapped into a well of hatred that has been accumulating, (mostly and especially, but not exclusively) because of the US's actions since 2001. This is not an isolated incident.

Lets also remember that many people in these areas of the world do not have access to unbiased media and education systems, they will believe what they are told (by a powerful few that control information flow) out of an innate sense fo trust that will not be destroyed int eh short term.

Given the situation, comments like the Popes are unjustified, as is holding the Islamic world to an identical standard regarding free speech. If we tone down our rhetoric, they will likely tone down theirs. Provoking them will not solve the problem. And as the priveledged members of a GLOBAL society, it is in everyone's best interest to gain the confidence of the Islamic world, even if it means overlooking its current faults.

So freedom of speech my ass. Lets work towards a greater and real goal instead of furhter inflaming the situation just to maintain an eye-for-an-eye approach. I have a greater responsibility than that. I think you all should too.

It's not eye for an eye. It is simply accurate identification.

If you think keeping silent will defeat extreme fundamentalist attitudes and actions, then you are sorely mistaken.

Extremists don't care if the other side fights back or not. They have their agenda and they will stick to it.

Your 'greater responsiblity' is phony. It will just lead to a situation of great misery further down the line where people will say "How stupid were those people years ago who did not even comment on such obvious evils?"

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's not eye for an eye. It is simply accurate identification.

If you think keeping silent will defeat extreme fundamentalist attitudes and actions, then you are sorely mistaken.

Extremists don't care if the other side fights back or not. They have their agenda and they will stick to it.

Your 'greater responsiblity' is phony. It will just lead to a situation of great misery further down the line where people will say "How stupid were those people years ago who did not even comment on such obvious evils?"

I've stated repeated that we should simply not sit quiet. The only way this is going to end is to be proactive about bridging gaps. I've stated, referencing this incident in particular, that the Pope should meet with Islmaic leaders to fix this damn issue now. Though that quote had no significance in his speech and he did a poor job of writing it, Benedict XVI should have reached out from day one instead of waiting 3 days to realize what he'd done.

He is starting to enact my plan, meeting with his ambassadors to Muslim countries on Monday. He also MUST go to Turkey in November and meet with the heads of Church there.

Lets take a page from CHristian philosophy and treat everyone as our brothers...with infinite forgiveness and patience. Instead of acting like two-year-olds and pointing gout all your brothers faults, why don't you help to fix them? Flaming them won't solve the problem. If this had happened 6 years ago, I'm willing to bet this sort of reaction would NOT have been observed.

This is more then just a comment, this is a global foreign policy issue.

No, sorry, if you dance around the problem, it will never be solved. it is well for such an issue to be directly confronted from time to tim so that everyone has reference points to just how much of an evil fundamentalism is.

Calling out what he believes to be the truth- calling an evil thing evil- and using a quote to provide historical perspective is not juvenile in the slightest. it was brave and entirely appropriate.

Who's dancing? I'm throwing water on the problem. You're philosophy thows naplam on it.

Calling anything evil is wrong, especially if you hav international responsibility. You agree with Bush's policy then? He likes to refer to things as evil.

I believe its a decleration of war, from Islam to Judeo-Christian culture.

Does anyone know WHY Osama picked 9/11? Does anyone recall what happened on 9/11 in the 17th century?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I believe its a decleration of war, from Islam to Judeo-Christian culture.

Does anyone know WHY Osama picked 9/11? Does anyone recall what happened on 9/11 in the 17th century?

No, but please tell.

No, not offhand. I'm sure Osama had several dates in mind. It'd be hard to find symbolism for all of them.

However, Islam and Judeo-Christian war is not happening, and I think everyone would like to keep it that way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, but please tell.

September 11th 1683 was the date when the Muslim armies were defeated and stopped at the gates of Vienna.

It is the date which marked the decline of Muslim expansion in Europe.

September the 11th 1683, marked a date when the Muslims empire started to be expelled from Europe.

I strongly believe Osama picked this date VERY carefully.

Originally posted by Alliance
No, not offhand. I'm sure Osama had several dates in mind. It'd be hard to find symbolism for all of them.

However, Islam and Judeo-Christian war is not happening, and I think everyone would like to keep it that way.

No. Osama knew EXACTLY which day to pick.

Sept 11th marked the begining of the defeat of Muslims in Europe.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
September 11th 1683 was the date when the Muslim armies were defeated and stopped at the gates of Vienna.

It is the date which marked the decline of Muslim expansion in Europe.

September the 11th 1683, marked a date when the Muslims empire started to be expelled from Europe.

I strongly believe Osama picked this date VERY carefully.

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the information.

Then my question is, why didn't he attack Europe?

Originally posted by Alliance
Then my question is, why didn't he attack Europe?

No need too. Simple military strategy; if you take out the strongest enemy, the others will surrender without a fight.