This just in: Muslims are violent People...Merged With Here We Go Again

[insein]

Or they are little kids. Or maybe alittle of both. Why else would they decide to riot and burn pictures of the Leader of a religion they dont follow? Freaking animals with the mental capacity of little kids that throw temper tantrums everytime someone says something bad about them. Its only a matter of time before cars are destroyed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...1811&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Muslim fury grows at Pope's speech
Last updated at 13:42pm on 15th September 2006

Muslim activists burn an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI during a protest in Srinagar, India.

The furore over comments made by Pope Benedict about the Islamic concept of Holy War continues to grow. Today British Muslims joined in, fiercely criticising his remarks.

The pontiff was accused of falling into "the trap of bigots and racists" with the comments he made on a visit to Germany.

Last night Vatican officials were scrambling to defend the comments, saying the Pope had never intended to offend Muslims.

During a speech, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who said the prophet Mohammed had brought "things only evil and inhuman".

But Britain's Ramadhan Foundation, a youth organisation based in Rochdale, reacted angrily to the comments, comparing the Pope unfavourably to his predecessor John Paul II.

In a statement it said: "If the Pope wanted to attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad teachings he could have been brave enough to say it personally without quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor.

"The late Pope John Paul II spent over 25 years to build bridges and links with the Muslim community. He showed the world that its perception of Islam was false and that we are peace-loving people.

"The Ramadhan Foundation is disappointed that the current Pope has not followed the example of his predecessor; it is essential in today's world that we link together and encourage a wider understanding of our different faiths, celebrating our religious differences is essential in a ever expanding world."

Muhammad Umar, chairman of the foundation, said: "This attack on Islam and Prophet Muhammad by Pope Benedict is recognition that he has fallen into the trap of the bigots and racists when it comes to judging Islam on the actions of a small number of extreme elements."

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

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said.

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what 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'."

Benedict described the phrases on Islam as "brusque", while neither explicitly agreeing with nor repudiating them.

Pakistan's parliament condemned the "derogatory" remarks today and demanded an apology. The country's foreign ministry said they were "regrettable" and claimed they would encourage violence.

Vatican spokesman the Rev Federico Lombardi issued a statement defending the speech after Pope Benedict returned to Rome. "It certainly wasn't the intention of the Pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and on Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers," he said.

He insisted that the pontiff wanted to "cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, obviously also toward Islam".

But Turkey's top Islamic cleric Ali Bardakoglu asked Benedict to apologise and made a string of accusations against Christianity, raising tensions ahead of a planned papal visit to the country in November.

He said he was deeply offended by the remarks and called them "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate".

The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said it regretted "the Pope's quote and for the other falsifications". Militant Islamic websites also attacked the Pope.

 

[archangel]

SCREW EM' I am really tired of all this catering to PC BS! Islam is evil...get over it boys and girls! Unless ya want to join the dead!:food1:

 

[Kagom]

As if Catholics have any real claim anymore.

 

[archangel]

Seems as if CNN et al are getting the message...even the super lib from my state..Jack Cafferty...got the message...he is now pushing the viewers comments...'Screw em' there is hope boys and girls...that is if CNN et al wakes up to reality!:teeth:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Here we go again with another outburst from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Muslims worldwide are angry again, this time at (Can you guess who? Drum roll, please. . .) the pope!

Muslims are angry over some remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI during a lecture at a German university. The Vatican later said that the pope did not intend the remarks to be offensive, but you know how that goes. Anyway, here are some excerpts from the speech. As a sort of amusing exercise, see if you can pick out the parts that, once again, have Muslims worldwide having conniption fits.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... 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.

In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the 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 Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The 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."

Sounds kinda like the pope was basically saying that violent jihad might not be a particularly good thing. What could be more infuriating than that, especially coming from a pointy-headed chief infidel? As my grandmother used to say, it's enough to make an imam -- er, I mean, a preacher -- cuss.

Reaction from various imams, clerics and other Islamic authority figures continues to pour in now. Here are a few choice comments:

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. . . . It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades." So said Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of the Turkish prime minister's party.

Sure, sure, it's the Crusades all over again. Anyone can see that.

Or how about this from Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam: "What he had done is that he has quoted very offensive remarks by some emperor hundreds of years ago. It is not helpful (because) we have been trying to bridge the gap, calling for dialogue and understanding between religions."

Really? I must have missed that call for dialogue and understanding in between the alleged Gitmo Koran-flushing riots and the Mohammad cartoon riots. I'll have to pay better attention from now on.

Ms. Aslam went on to say that Muslims had a long history of tolerance, adding that when the Catholic kingdom of Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 they were welcomed by Muslim nations such as the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Well, they're not very welcome now, are they? Iran's President Ahmadgenocide -- er, excuse me, Ahmadinejad -- wants to wipe that tiny little Zionist regime off the map and the funny thing is, I haven't heard anything about the Muslim masses protesting his intolerance of Jews.

But maybe the best comment of all came, once again, from the same silver-tongued spokeswoman: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."

Wait a minute. If Islam was actually tolerant as the good lady says, then the mere description of it as intolerant wouldn't encourage violence, would it? Doesn't her statement actually confirm the very thing she is denying, which is the intolerance of Islam?

There I go again, trying to make logical points about something that was said by a representative of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Talk about an exercise in futility.

http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/09/muslims-worldwide-angry-over-pope.html

 

[archangel]

I really think Insein already started this thread...could be wrong though as I did not master English 101...lol:huh:

 

[Eightball]

Man alive......these folks have so many people, big and small on their "hit list" it's incredible?

Remember old Rushdi or Rushti.....probably mispelled the authors name, who as a Muslim wrote a book that was critical of his faith...........?

He was on the run for years..........
.....
Muslim Ayatolahs mantras.......follow the same old theme for anyone who doesn't agree with them..."Our way, or no way!".
......
Why do we have to walk on egg shells around these folks......do they do the same for us and our religion, culture and values?

Who was it that said something about "drawing a line in the sand"?

 

[trobinett]

Man alive......these folks have so many people, big and small on their "hit list" it's incredible?

Remember old Rushdi or Rushti.....probably mispelled the authors name, who as a Muslim wrote a book that was critical of his faith...........?

He was on the run for years..........
.....
Muslim Ayatolahs mantras.......follow the same old theme for anyone who doesn't agree with them..."Our way, or no way!".
......
Why do we have to walk on egg shells around these folks......do they do the same for us and our religion, culture and values?

Who was it that said something about "drawing a line in the sand"?

Here's a "line" they should be able to understand, "FUCK 'EM", and the camel they road to town on.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

And now the venerable rag of a magazine Time is blaming the Pope for the violent reaction of the Muslims Pope Benedict said were violent.

Pope Benedict XVI's controversial comments about Islam have already ignited a firestorm of criticism in the Muslim world, but it may end up costing the Vatican more than just its reputation. A top Catholic Church official inside Turkey says the polemics following Benedict XVI's comments about Islam may cause the cancellation of his November visit to the majority Muslim country, which is nevertheless governed on secular principles.

Oh, noes, these comments might end up costing more than the Vatican's reputation! They might even call another jihad, watch it, Pope.

The title of this article is "The first Casualty of the Pope's Islam Speech".

The full article, unfair and unbalanced:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1535432,00.html?cnn=yes

The best argument against provoking Islamic terrorists is that it's redundant.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Pope has already backed down from his statements, which honestly surprises me. If you are going to make a statement i think you need to stick with it. Atleast if you are going to claim to be a moral leader for the world.

But what I cant understand the reaction. "What?! We are violent?! How dare he! Lets threaten him!"

i mean why on earth would people think Muslims were violent.

 

[nt250]

There is no hope for this world.

There really isn't.

How many of these types of instances will it take before Islam is seen for what it really is?

Seriously. How many?

When the mere words the Pope can bring out the outrage that is oh so lacking from Muslims whenever their brothers in faith kill people in the most heinous ways, when will the Islam apologists ever get it?

They never will because they don't want to. They think all of Islam's victims deserve what they get. 9/11, Spain, London, Beslen. Nick Berg, Daniel Perl, Margeret Hassan.

Why is it that people who have no problem calling Abu Grhaib an "atrocity" never seem bothered by the wholesale slaughter of innocents in the defense of Islam? Not only are they not bothered by it, they deny that Islam plays any role at all.

"Root cause". That's what they say we need to look for. If we just stop doing whatever it is we're doing, they won't hate us and they'll stop killing us.

But the search for that "root cause" always begins with the actions of the victims and ends at Islams door.

Islam will win in the end. It will win because too many people not only won't see it for what it is, they hate it's targets just as much.

 

[KarlMarx]

The Pope should apologize when the Muslims of the world apologize for 9/11, for USS Cole, the bombings of American embassies, the subway attacks in London, the attacks in Spain, Bali, the attacks on our servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan....until then they'll have to settle for this.... :tongue1: :funnyface :finger: :fu2:

 

[nt250]

The Pope should apologize when the Muslims of the world apologize for 9/11, for USS Cole, the bombings of American embassies, the subway attacks in London, the attacks in Spain, Bali, the attacks on our servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan....until then they'll have to settle for this.... :tongue1: :funnyface :finger: :fu2:

You stupid fool.

Don't you know that Christians are the real threat? Don't you know that Christians are the real terror?

Islam is The Religion Of Peace, you moron.

They're only killing people who deserve to die, or they're doing it because.....

well...because.....

Oh, hell. It's all Bush's fault and just go fuck yourself you...right wing conservative you. And shut the fuck up.

 

[musicman]

From the article:"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. . . . It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades." So said Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of the Turkish prime minister's party.

Actually, I hope Kapusuz is right. Somebody in the West had fucking well BETTER start "reviving the mentality of the Crusades" - because that's exactly how Islamofascism has it figured. We're talking about a civilization that has never progressed beyond the eighth century - glaring hatefully and jealously at the modern world - and judging (rightly, in some cases) that it is no longer either tough enough or Christian enough to defend itself. This is about murderous barbarians, bent on conquest and domination, and believing that the time is ripe. One can almost understand their optimism, considering the trouser-soaked appeasement mentality of the world body, Post-Christian Europe, and American liberals. I wouldn't be shaking in my sandals either.

 

[KarlMarx]

You stupid fool.

Don't you know that Christians are the real threat? Don't you know that Christians are the real terror?

Islam is The Religion Of Peace, you moron.

They're only killing people who deserve to die, or they're doing it because.....

well...because.....

Oh, hell. It's all Bush's fault and just go fuck yourself you...right wing conservative you. And shut the fuck up.

Yes, that's right, silly me, Rosie O'Donnell told us so! And it must be so... because... Rosie O'Donnell is the tower of all knowing, all seeing....

Of course, if Rosie O'Dumbell should ever live to see the day when Islamist take over the United States, she'd find out first hand which is the real threat. Since she's gay, they'd have her tortured, maimed, and probably killed, if she was lucky. Otherwise, they'd probably have her branded with a hot iron, forced to live in servitude to some cruel so and so who would regularly beat and rape her. She'd probably learn quickly not to speak unless spoken to, unless she wanted to feel the end of the lash on her back....

Then she would be longing for the day for "dictators" like George W Bush.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, that's right, silly me, Rosie O'Donnell told us so! And it must be so... because... Rosie O'Donnell is the tower of all knowing, all seeing....

Of course, if Rosie O'Dumbell should ever live to see the day when Islamist take over the United States, she'd find out first hand which is the real threat. Since she's gay, they'd have her tortured, maimed, and probably killed, if she was lucky. Otherwise, they'd probably have her branded with a hot iron, forced to live in servitude to some cruel so and so who would regularly beat and rape her. She'd probably learn quickly not to speak unless spoken to, unless she wanted to feel the end of the lash on her back....

Then she would be longing for the day for "dictators" like George W Bush.

Well she definately has the mass for a large tower.. i dont know about the all knowing part

 

[Gunny]

Here we go again with another outburst from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Muslims worldwide are angry again, this time at (Can you guess who? Drum roll, please. . .) the pope!

Muslims are angry over some remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI during a lecture at a German university. The Vatican later said that the pope did not intend the remarks to be offensive, but you know how that goes. Anyway, here are some excerpts from the speech. As a sort of amusing exercise, see if you can pick out the parts that, once again, have Muslims worldwide having conniption fits.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... 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.

In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the 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 Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The 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."

Sounds kinda like the pope was basically saying that violent jihad might not be a particularly good thing. What could be more infuriating than that, especially coming from a pointy-headed chief infidel? As my grandmother used to say, it's enough to make an imam -- er, I mean, a preacher -- cuss.

Reaction from various imams, clerics and other Islamic authority figures continues to pour in now. Here are a few choice comments:

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. . . . It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades." So said Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of the Turkish prime minister's party.

Sure, sure, it's the Crusades all over again. Anyone can see that.

Or how about this from Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam: "What he had done is that he has quoted very offensive remarks by some emperor hundreds of years ago. It is not helpful (because) we have been trying to bridge the gap, calling for dialogue and understanding between religions."

Really? I must have missed that call for dialogue and understanding in between the alleged Gitmo Koran-flushing riots and the Mohammad cartoon riots. I'll have to pay better attention from now on.

Ms. Aslam went on to say that Muslims had a long history of tolerance, adding that when the Catholic kingdom of Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 they were welcomed by Muslim nations such as the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Well, they're not very welcome now, are they? Iran's President Ahmadgenocide -- er, excuse me, Ahmadinejad -- wants to wipe that tiny little Zionist regime off the map and the funny thing is, I haven't heard anything about the Muslim masses protesting his intolerance of Jews.

But maybe the best comment of all came, once again, from the same silver-tongued spokeswoman: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."

Wait a minute. If Islam was actually tolerant as the good lady says, then the mere description of it as intolerant wouldn't encourage violence, would it? Doesn't her statement actually confirm the very thing she is denying, which is the intolerance of Islam?

There I go again, trying to make logical points about something that was said by a representative of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Talk about an exercise in futility.

http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/09/muslims-worldwide-angry-over-pope.html

If they're pissed, the Pope must've done something right.

 

[nt250]

Yes, that's right, silly me, Rosie O'Donnell told us so! And it must be so... because... Rosie O'Donnell is the tower of all knowing, all seeing....

Of course, if Rosie O'Dumbell should ever live to see the day when Islamist take over the United States, she'd find out first hand which is the real threat. Since she's gay, they'd have her tortured, maimed, and probably killed, if she was lucky. Otherwise, they'd probably have her branded with a hot iron, forced to live in servitude to some cruel so and so who would regularly beat and rape her. She'd probably learn quickly not to speak unless spoken to, unless she wanted to feel the end of the lash on her back....

Then she would be longing for the day for "dictators" like George W Bush.

Liberals defense of Islam is totally bewildering until you understand that liberals always care more about the source of something, than they do about the substance of something.

If I could pick one difference between conservatives and liberals, that would be it. Source versus substance.

Some of the best written, most eloquent criticisms I've read about George W. Bush, his administration, his policies, and his failures, have been written by conservatives.

Liberals just compare him to Hitler, call him the Anti-Christ, and like to say he looks like a chimp.

 

[KarlMarx]

I don't know, maybe it's me... but I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of this sort dictating public and ecclesiastical policy. Especially with the one who has his fist in the camera

 

[nt250]

I don't know, maybe it's me... but I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of this sort dictating public and ecclesiastical policy. Especially with the one who has his fist in the camera

The Religion Of Peace my ass.