I'd say given Copts' situation (de facto dhimmi, if not de jure), it's the sensible thing to do, a matter of survival.
In the first reaction from a top Christian leader, the head of Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church said in remarks published Saturday that Pope Benedict XVI's comments on Islam were "against the teachings of Christ." Coptic Pope Shenouda III told the pro-government Al-Ahram newspaper that he didn't hear the pope's exact words, but that "any remarks which offend Islam and Muslims are against the teachings of Christ."
"Christianity and Christ's teachings instruct us not to hurt others, either in their convictions or their ideas, or any of their symbols - religious symbols," Shenouda was quoted as saying. Egypt's Copts, whose liturgy follows Eastern Orthodox Christian traditions rather than the Vatican, account for an estimated 10 percent of Egypt's 73 million people. (AP)
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/16/2006 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Shenouda doesn't know Christ at all. He was not a weak, vascillating, milk toast, limp-wristed wimp who taught people not to offend anyone at all costs.
He did teach us to not offend whenever we can help it, but NEVER at the expense of the truth. His entire life was spent telling people the truth, which offended the vast majority. Eventually, this infuriated a world that did not want to hear the truth, to such an extent, that they nailed him to a cross in order to silence the voice that cut them so deeply.
There are really only 3 reactions to such truth. First, you can accept it. Second, you can pay it no mind, and go on with your life, defining truth as you see fit. Third, you can react violently to it, because you know it exposes you, and rather than change, you would rather do whatever is necessary to silence the criticism.
Over the last 2000 years, Christians have been killed in the most horrific ways imaginable for having committed only one crime: telling the truth.
DAKAR: Senegal has arrested more than 100 Pakistanis trying to sail to the Spanish Canary Islands, the authorities said on Friday. They were the first non-Africans to be seized during Spains struggle to cope with a vast tide of clandestine migrants.
Meanwhile in Spain, 200 other migrants from Asia, including 18 Pakistanis, were on Friday awaiting their fate after being caught off the Canaries in a precarious metal vessel. Senegalese security forces said they had arrested more than 100 Pakistanis this week. Overnight Tuesday to Wednesday, 56 clandestine migrants were arrested in Dakar, Senegalese police spokesman Daouda Diop said. They were to travel by dugout or by road to Mauritania on the way to Europe. According to their account, a Pakistani smuggler made them come to Dakar for $1,000, added the spokesman. He is being sought.
On Thursday 48 Pakistanis and a Ghanaian were arrested in Thies, a town 70 kilometres east of Dakar, according to another police spokesman, Alioune Ndiaye. They said that somebody had made them come here in order to take them to the Canaries, Ndiaye said.
The Pakistanis arrested this week were the first non-Africans during the current crisis to be apprehended in Senegal, itself a major source of illegal migrants to Europe. It is the first time that we have had a foreign network (involved in the movement of migrants), Diop said. The Ghanaian who was detained was the assistant of a Pakistani trafficker believed also to be responsible for the group arrested in Dakar. Surging numbers of migrants seeking a better life in Europe have taken the route to the Canaries via Senegal since its northern neighbours, Mauritania and Morocco, tightened their borders.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would feel more comfortable if Pakis - AKA: Arab wanna-bes - would hate us from afar, as in their own rat-hole.
JAPAN and the US will ratchet up sanctions pressure on North Korea next week but South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has refused to endorse the campaign. After a meeting at the White House with President George W.Bush yesterday, Mr Roh expressed "concern in Korea that the US will take further sanctions against North Korea and whether this will jeopardise the chance of a successful six-party process".
Despite Mr Roh's objections, Japan is poised to impose financial sanctions next week aimed at hurting the high echelons of Kim Jong-il's regime. Japan will follow Washington in freezing assets and bank accounts of 12 North Korean or Pyongyang-aligned business groups and an unnamed individual. Officials said other interested governments, including South Korea's and Australia's, would be consulted. It was unclear yesterday whether Tokyo, which has already severely restricted travel and commerce, would extend sanctions to other businesses operated in Japan by pro-Pyongyang Korean residents.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
withdraw our troops
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 0:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And cancel any trade agreements. Stop sending any high tech knowledge (since they will only give it to the north after 'reunification'...)
#6
..I spent a year in Korea, and fell in love with it, but this is way too much. Tell the SoKors that unless they publicly endorse the sanctions, we're done.
Oh, and there will be a 50% tariff on ALL SoKor autos and electronics brought into this country, not to mention any products they make for others...like Nike...Reebok...that sorta thing.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/16/2006 8:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It's a protection racket, and the SKors don't have a lot of good bargaining chips. In a conflict, there is little question but their society will be utterly destroyed.
#9
I think we are pretty carefull not to give SKOR anything of value to the Norks. We have known for a long time that it was the same as handing it directly to Kimmie. As for troops, I don't know why we have any there at all.
#10
I think that the US should phase out of SKor. If Mr. Roh wants to go the appeasement route, then the public will see a steady decline in the US presence and implications of that will be seen. The public will then have a chance to throw out Roh and get some sense. If they do not do anything, then they are with Roh and will suffer the consequences. There must be serious consequences for appeasement with the enemy, like the whole economy. But if the appeasement route is their route, then toodle-loo.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/16/2006 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#11
As for troops, I don't know why we have any there at all.
Same reason as the original presence -- to help contain China.
#12
It's gotten to the point where I need to be reminded again why we need to worry about the 70 million Koreans on top of the 1.2 billion the Chinese already have. And as for the dagger pointed at Japan, get real. China can't invade Taiwan let alone what is arguably the third greatest military power on Earth. And if the Japanese and Koreans are really that concerned, perhaps they should let the Japanese come over and start to pick up a share of the load. Heh.
No, I think the main reason we're stuck with those ingrates is that we can't afford to be seen by the rest of Asia as retreating. But I'd rather let the rich Chinese clean up Kimmie's mess. They created it. I'd love to leave the Koreans to the Chinese. They deserve eachother.
#16
lotp and Nimble have it right, I think: there is an on-going need to contain China, and withdrawing from Korea would be interpreted by many in Asia as a loss of face. It would also be a loss of face for the SKors, and that alone could destablize the region further.
I think we're committed to the SKors for the forseeable future, but that doesn't mean we have to be patsies about it. The recent 'realignment' could continue, as we transition our presence from one of a division of ground forces to a mostly air/naval presence, plus an army brigade that rotates through. That would give us more freedom, send a subtle reminder to the SKors, and yet not be seen as a slap in the face elsewhere.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/16/2006 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
AUSTRALIA'S Islamic clerics have been told they must draw on the teachings of Islam to condemn terrorism, and preach in English. The federal Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Andrew Robb today called on more than 100 Australian imams and Muslim leaders attending a government-sponsored conference to denounce extremist misrepresentations of Islam.
We live in a world of global terrorism where vile acts are regularly being perpetrated in the name of your faith, Mr Robb told the two-day conference which started today. Because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.
You cannot wish it away or ignore it just because it has been caused by others.
The taxpayer-funded conference, which was intended for earlier this year, was initially the brainchild of the now divided Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. But organisation of the event was handed to the Muslim Community Reference Group members by Mr Robb after the AFIC failed to get it going.
A number of hardcore Islamists accepted invitations to attend.
Names and photos of each, I hope.
Mr Robb urged delegates to do more to ensure young Australian Muslims knew the real meaning of the Koran. I say to you speak up and condemn terrorism, he said. I know many in your community are doing this ... but too many are silent or simply protest that they are being branded unfairly.
But conference keynote speaker Sheik Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain said Muslim leaders and the Government had a shared responsibility to denounce terrorism. We as imams and Muslim leaders have to shout out loud as loudly as we can that terrorism has no room in Islam, it is the exact opposite of what Islam stands for, Sheik Mogra said. At the same time the politicians should hear our voice.
I have been very, very disappointed ... when the acknowledgment is not there that we are condemning the violence. It's as if we are not being heard.
You'll need to keep it up, louder and longer.
Sheik Mogra told delegates they must encourage good government initiatives. I called on them to proactively engage the Government, not to be cynical all the time but to pat the Government's back when they get it right and to help them when they get it wrong, he said.
With 50 per cent of the 360,000 Muslims in Australia under 25 years of age, and most born in Australia with English as their first language, Mr Robb said it was essential for imams to have effective English language skills. For imams to present Islam in a truly Australian context, especially to second and third generation young Australian Muslims, it would seem essential that imams be able to preach effectively in English.
The fact that I needed to have my address translated into several languages very clearly highlights my concern.
(Young people's) view of Islam should come from the Mosque, not from the internet.
These are the last four paragraphs of the Pope's speech at Regensburg. They are well worth reading as is the entire speech at the link.
What is ironic is that his comments are much more of an attack on the secular West than on Islam. His quotation is from a civil dialogue between a Christian and a Muslim. It is hard to see such a dialogue taking place between either and a secularist.
Coupled with the comment I posted yesterday regarding the historic context of Manuel II's comments, they reveal a Pope who sees himself located in a westward drifting position between a rock and a dessicating hard place with little affection for either.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the worlds profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.
Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology.
For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss.
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
#5
The previous Pope was also a philosopher and great thinker.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/16/2006 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Not in quite the same way, I think. The previous pope was indeed a charismatic thinker and quite bright. Benedict is an intellectual with a reputation for highly rigorous reasoning.
He ran a salon for many years in which he probed and challenged the thinking of many people. For better or worse, I see the same mode happening here. "Islam means peace." is the claim. He probes: "conversion by sword is a horrid evil".
Seething, violence or angry silence -- his point is made clearly. And since "Islam is peace" he is ""genuinely upset"" at the angry response.
I don't think that's a falsehood, by the way. I think he really IS upset by it, for the response makes clear the coming clash. I'm not so sure he was surprised by it, though.
#8
At first gloss I will certainly say that the above reveals a man who cannot possibly be accused of blind faith. How refreshing.
As far as I can tell, that's quite common among popes, excepting the ones who were purely political appointees.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/16/2006 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur
My comments have more to do with how the Pope said things rather than what exactly he said. But what he said seems to come into play, too!
Whew! That's a difficult read! But I picked this out as central, or close enough to it. Yes, the West seems to be stuck on logical thinking and doesn't consider the irrational "human" side as much. But at least for the West the "human" side falls under the very important category of "live and let live", which I think is a good place for it until it sorts itself out in the grand scheme of things. But for those extremist boneheads, they don't even have a category for it other than "Death to the infidels!". Maybe it seems like he is chastizing the West, but I think the Pope is chastising muslims by example, knowing the West is mature enough to take it in stride. And he's hoping muslim world can learn the lesson without feeling threatened into acting like animals. To me, if this is true, this is extremely important and indicitive of his thinking that he is taking this tack rather than addressing the muslim world head-on. I suspect he was trying to avoid casualties, but it doesn't seem to be working.
#10
The media are the ones spinning this up as some sort of an apology. Benedict regrets that the Muslims have found cause to take offense but nowhere retracts or mentions that he's sorry for what he has said.
Basically, he has made a polite but sidelong reference to how easily offended Muslim sensitivies are. I can only hope that the Pope does not alter his stance one bit.
#11
As a Catholic, I ain't feeling my usual guilt on this and neither is the Pope LOL
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Last Tuesday, he uses a quote which decries Islam's use of violence and, 5 days later, the Muzzies respond with violent protests.
Not only is this clearly another manufactured bit of outrage theater, it's also just no fun when your opponent is too stupid to understand when they've been nailed.
#13
"The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God,"
This is a complex statement. It implies that western science and reason are fully healthy in God's sight .
And encourtages one to observe the "grandeur" of the natural universe and marvel at god's fingerprints in the beauty of it all.
It also makes a stand for rationality ( or what we consider reason) being opposed by the irrationality and retrovision of Islam.
These statements are a philosophy. And a challenge.
GERMAN Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the Pope today against allegations that he had attacked Islam as worldwide Muslim fury continued over a speech he made earlier this week. Ms Merkel told the mass-circulation Bild newspaper in an interview that the German-born Pontiff had been calling for dialogue with other religions.
In a speech on Tuesday during a visit to Germany, the Pope appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that the early Muslims spread their religion by violence. But Merkel said his comments had been misinterpreted. Whoever criticises the Pope misunderstood the aim of his speech, Ms Merkel was quoted as saying. It was an invitation to dialogue between religions and the Pope expressedly spoke in favour of this dialogue ... What Benedict XVI emphasised was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion.
Muslims around the world have deplored the Catholic leader's remarks and many say he should apologise in person to dispel the impression that he had joined a campaign against their religion. Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi yesterday defended the Pope's comments and said he did not mean to offend Muslims.
He should apologise to Muslims, the President of the German Council of Muslims, Ayyub Axel Koehler, told the Neue Presse newspaper today. That would be a contribution towards unwinding the tension and creating clarity.
Muslim figures elsewhere also continued to assail the Pope's comments, with one Turkish politician quoted as comparing him to the World War II dictators of Germany and Italy, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. How can (the Pope) imply that Muslims are the creators of terrorism in the world while it is the followers of Christianity who have aggressed against every country of the Islamic world? prominent Saudi cleric Salman al-Odeh said. Who attacked Afghanistan and who invaded Iraq? ... The Pope's statements are an attempt to put a religious cover on injustice and political aggression practised by the American administration against Muslims.
Turkey's nationalist paper Vatan quoted Salih Kapusuz, head of the ruling Justice and Development Party's parliamentary group as saying Benedict's comments stemmed from a deplorable ignorance that show he does not know the facts about Islam. The mentality of the Crusades has returned. (Benedict) will go down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini.
Criticism of the Pope was not confined to Muslims. The New York Times said in an editorial today that he must issue a deep and persuasive apology for quotes used in his speech. The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly, the Times said. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
The Pope on Tuesday repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said everything Mohammad brought was evil such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The Pope, who used the terms jihad and holy war in his lecture, added violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
#2
Too bad the pope immediately backed down, undercutting the poor Chancellor.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/16/2006 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Thank you Chancellor. You took a step to delay the elimination of free speech. No need to worry about Bush taking away our free speech with Muslims around.
#7
The more I hear from Ms. Merkel, the better I like her. A definite improvement, just like Mr. Harper in Canada. Almost like going from night into daylight.
(2006-09-16) The Senate Armed Services committee this week will consider a bill designed to break the impasse with the Bush administration over the interrogation of terrorist detainees.
The new approach, dubbed Dont Ask-Dont Tell by supporters, would sidestep thorny questions about compliance with Geneva Convention Common Article III, and get the Central Intelligence Agency out of the intrusive business of prying into peoples personal lives, according to the text of the proposed measure.
Four Republican senators on the panel, who have worked to block the presidents request for greater authority to extract intelligence data from terror suspects, are said to be open to considering the new protocol which would also prevent the CIA or the military from violating the separation of church and state.
A terrorist detainees role in Islams jihad against the west is an inherently religious topic, said one unnamed senate aide, I believe its one of the five pillars of Islam. Questions about another humans religious beliefs are what the Geneva Conventions call outrages upon human dignity.
Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham and Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner have indicated they might support such a compromise measure, the source said, especially if it would improve Americas image among the people who have committed their own lives to our destruction.
It would put the burden of moral responsibility on the enemy, he said. Ultimately, we believe it will win the hearts and minds of violent Muslim extremists so they will abandon their suicidal obsession with destroying the Great Satan and his minions.
IT is mountainous country so remote and inhospitable that it has given Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants refuge, despite the unceasing efforts of the world's most potent and best-equipped intelligence services, using the most sophisticated methods, to track them down. This is the tribal territory of Waziristan, on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, nominally part of Islamabad's Northwest Frontier Province, but in reality an area where even Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's soldiers now fear to tread. For this, by all accounts, is the effective heart of the global war on terror. This is from where bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, together with the one-eyed Mullah Omar, notorious leader of the Taliban, are waging their offensive in Afghanistan.
Increasingly, Pakistan is "terrorism central", and as coalition forces in Afghanistan do battle in the southern provinces where the Taliban pose the greatest challenge, what is clear is that Islamabad is now central to the rapidly intensifying conflict there, just as it is to the war on terror being waged across the world.
And when in Havana, Cuba, yesterday General Musharraf sat down for a much-anticipated meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, of India, what was clear was that the Pakistani military ruler is at the centre of a growing firestorm of controversy over just what role the country is playing in the fight against extremism.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm shocked! Shocked! Perv better get a grip on the ISI/MMA or their Islamic Paradise won't exist in the near future - I give it 5 years - assuming Perv turns over power on time.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 0:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Pervert has very little time left in his status quo ante. Either he declares Pakiland a terrorist state or he drives the terrs into the waiting arms of the Coalition.
He's catchin it from all sides and the heat will only intensify are more deaths pile up in Afganistan, India, Europe, and beyond.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/16/2006 0:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
... labelling the country "terrorism central".
It is a charge that will infuriate Islamabad and enrage the normally good-humoured Musharraf.
It's a fairly common theme these days of how Muslims are enraged by the truth.
The list of indictments is phenomenal:
Take, as an example cited by the Express, the July 7, 2005, bombs on London's transport system in which 56 people were killed: three of the bombers had visited or trained in Pakistan. Similarly, when British police uncovered the bomb plot against multiple aircraft last month, it emerged that all the main suspects had links to Pakistan, including ringleader Rashid Rauf, who was arrested there.
In New Delhi in December 2001, five terrorists attacked the Indian parliament, killing 14 people. In October last year, there were multiple bomb blasts in Delhi markets that killed 61. And in Mumbai last July there was a series of blasts on trains that killed at least 187. The Pakistani link? All the attacks, the Express recalls, were sheeted home to jihadi groups based in Pakistan - Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba among them.
The list goes on. Way back in November 2002, three suicide bombers attacked the Paradise Hotel on the Kenyan coast at Mombasa, killing 15 and wounding 40. Al-Qa'ida claimed responsibility and six Pakistanis were arrested.
Indeed, of the 14 top terrorists held by the US at Guantanamo Bay, seven have links to Pakistan: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of 9/11, was captured near Islamabad; Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, who also assisted in 9/11, was captured in Karachi; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali was a principal lieutenant to Khalid in Pakistan; Abu Zubaydah was a key aid to bin Laden before he was captured in Pakistan; Tanzanian Ahmed Khalfan Ghailini, who helped bomb the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, was later arrested in Pakistan; Majid Khan, who was being groomed for a major terrorist role by Khalid, is a Pakistani; and Abu Faraj al-Libi, a Libyan who was regarded as the successor to Khalid, was also arrested in Pakistan.
Add to this Khan's nuclear proliferation and the endless meddling by ISI and MMA in Kashmir and it becomes clear that Pakistan is the hub of terrorist operations every bit as much as Saudi Arabia is the banker and seminary school for them.
Musharraf has very little time to turn this around before he is shunted aside in favor of direct military intervention.
Ghulam Mustafa: "He was once close to Osama bin Laden, has intimate knowledge of al-Qaeda's logistics and financing and its nexus with the military in Pakistan."
Maulana Sufi Mohammad: "Maulana Sufi Mohammad was Faqir Mohammed's first jihadi mentor who introduced him to militancy in Afghanistan in 1993. Sufi Mohammad was one of the active leaders of Jamat-e-Islami (JI) in the 1980s. He was the principal of the JI madrassa in Tamaergra, a town in the northwestern part of NWFP. He was an instinctive hardliner and in due course developed differences with JI and left them in 1992 to form Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammed [TNSM]." Sufi Mohammad organized Pakistanis to fight jihad in Afghanistan and along with the TNSM fought in Kunduz November of 2001.
Mohammad Khaled: A brigade leader who led the Taliban in against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. ""It is a difficult time for Islam and Muslims. We are in a test. Everybody should be ready to pass the test - and to sacrifice our lives," said Mohammad Khaled.
Fazl-e-Raziq: A senior aide to Osama bin Laden, and "an ethnic Pakhtoon resident of Swabi district of the North West Frontier Province."
Khairullah Kherkhawa: The former Taliban governor of Herat.
Khalid Khawaja: "Khalid Khawaja is a retired squadron leader of the Pakistan Air Force who was an official in Pakistanâs intelligence agency, the ISI, in the mid 1980s. After he wrote a critical letter to General Zia ul-Haq, who ruled Pakistan from 1977 till 1988, in which he labeled Zia as hypocrite, he was removed from the ISI and forced to retire from the airforce. He then went straight to Afghanistan in 1987 and fought against the Soviets along side with Osama Bin Laden, developing a relationship of firm friendship and trust. Khalid Khawajaâs name resurfaced when US reporter Daniel Pearl was abducted and subsequently killed. Pearl had come to Pakistan and met Khalid Khawaja in order to investigate the jihadi network of revered sufi, Syed Mubarak Ali Gailani."
Mansour Hasnain: A member of the group that kidnapped and murdered Danny Pearl. He also was "a militant of the Harkat-al-Mujahedin group, is one of those who hijacked an Indian Airlines jet in December 1999 and forced New Delhi to release three militants -- including Omar and Azhar."
Mohammad Hashim Qadeer: "Suspected of being one of [Daniel] Pearlâs actual killers, was arrested in August 2005 and has notable al-Qaida links" and "ties with the banned extremist groups Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen and Jaish-e-Muhammad."
Mohammad Bashir: Another Pakistani complicit in the murder of Daniel Pearl.
Aamni Ahmad, Hala Ahmad and Nooran Abdu: Facilitators/couriers, and wives of al-Qaeda members. "Pakistani authorities arrested 23 Arabs, including two children, suspected of links to Osama bin Laden, officials said Wednesday. All of them sneaked into the country from Afghanistan in recent weeks. The suspects include three women, identified as Aamni Ahmad, Hala Ahmad and Nooran Abdu, who are believed to be relatives of bin Laden. An interior ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the arrests were made in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan province, which borders Afghanistan."
Gul Ahmed Shami & Hamid Noor: Al-Qaeda foot soldiers who fought in Afghanistan. "I want to be the next Osama bin Laden," said Shami in 2001. "Allah is with us. The Americans have technology but they don't have the courage to face death, which we do. I will be there until my death if need be. I know I probably won't come back," said Hamid.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 1:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Some of the fine young Talibunnies released by Perv.
Damn.. even a killer of Daniel Pearl.
I think Perv has lost his fear of the US.
The military equipment supplied to Pakistan was tailored to neutralize any advantage held by India. This was supposed to give Pak enough confidence to crack down on the Talibs, knowing that they were safe from an Indian assault.
Well, they certainly have confidence...
the thousands of TOW missiles and dozens of helicopter gunships, the P3-C anti-sub aircraft, the harpoon and sidewinder missiles, the counter battery radar, the new subs and strike aircraft have ensured that any Indian attack will be a costly affair. With the need to defend against China, there will be no local superiority in theatre operations. It will be many years before India has built up enough firepower to overwhelm the Pak defences.
Pak is safe to continue its jihad, sending terrorists across the border knowing that the nukes and the conventional forces will deter any response. The terror camps are safe.
Now Perv is so confident, he can give the middle finger to the US.
Posted by: john ||
09/16/2006 7:44 Comments ||
Top||
#7
And I thought only India was exporting stuff to the developed world.
#8
And I thought only India was exporting stuff to the developed world.
Both India and Pakistan are leading IT exporters.
Except that in India - IT = Information Technology
and in Pakistan IT = International Terrorism.
Posted by: john ||
09/16/2006 11:34 Comments ||
Top||
#9
If there was ever a country that deserves a nuke this is the one!!!!!!!!.
At least the majority of under 25 population of Iran are against the mad regime.Remove the regime and that country would prosper.
In pakistan the government pretend to fight on our side and the locals are intolerant anti west bigots.I say remove both in this country and the parking lot can be used by India/Afghanistan.
Key Nato countries have decided not to issue a diplomatic ultimatum to Pakistan which demanded that it ends its support for the Taliban and arrests leaders living in Pakistan.
Nato is placing all its hopes on a critical three-way meeting at the White House on Sept 27 when President Bush is due to meet Pakistani President Pervaiz Musharraf and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
That should be a fun meeting.
Two months ago senior diplomats from four Nato countries (Britain, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands), whose troops are fighting an estimated 8,000 Taliban in southern Afghanistan, urged their governments collectively to issue a démarche to Pakistan's military regime. They want it to arrest those Taliban commanders openly operating out of Quetta, capital of Baluchistan province, which adjoins Afghanistan.
However, after a fierce debate on the issue the démarche was cancelled, with Nato members divided on whether or not to pressurise Pakistan.
Britain cited co-operation with Pakistani intelligence in uncovering the recent terrorist plot to attack planes departing London airports. But a Western ambassador in Islamabad said there was a consensus among Nato, US and Rantburg UK intelligence officers in Afghanistan that Quetta is "the command and control centre for Taliban planning, logistics, and recruitment in Afghanistan".
Pakistan denies that it is sponsoring the Taliban. But for the first time since 2001 President Musharraf admitted this week in Brussels that the Taliban are using Pakistani soil to carry out attacks in Afghanistan. The recent intense fighting in southern Afghanistan is partly a Taliban attempt to carve out a safe haven where its leaders can reside during the winter months when fighting winds down.
What, no dreaded Taliban winter offensive?
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hope it's a frank discussion, pun intended. "Perv? Do you want to have a dead country?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm a thinking... Pakiwakiland may need to come before Iran.
#4
Mushy recognized Taliban until about a week after 9-11, as part of his dictatorship's "Pakistan in depth" policy. Perhaps, when he took US aid in exchange for an occasional arrest of a foreign Arab, it was only tactical.
#5
The defense in depth policy is crazy. If India and the Paks every go and it tooth and nail for all the marbles it'll be nuclear. Removing forces to Afghanistan would be useless.
Like TW said - Pakistan is what the enhanced radiation weapon was designed for. I expect India has experimented with them.
#8
Get India to invade with the support of the west is their only hope for salvaging that shithole.
Why would India want them?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/16/2006 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Musharraf's got all the cards, and he knows it. That's the problem with strategic moves -- you sometimes have to do stuff that makes you worse off in the short run to make sure that the NEXT guy behaves. Alternatively, we can make the Taliban think that they're winning, feed false information, let them attack, and make sure that they endure the closest thing to hell on earth as possible. What is that, I wonder? Maybe Pork Week at Barbecue University.
#10
Time for the US to get over its "vietnam phobias" and use napalm to clean out the NWFP. Sorry, it's going to kill mommies and kiddies and baby ducks, but it'll prevent the next generation from being a problem, and the secondaries will be spectacular. There is no good reason to allow this cesspool to continue to pollute the world.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/16/2006 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Time for the US to get over its "vietnam phobias" and use napalm to clean out the NWFP.
I understand we have extensive stockpiles of VX gas we're looking to dispose of. I cannot think of a better place to do that than Pakistan, Iran, The Magic Kingdom and a few other hellholes.
After allowing sufficient time for the agent to degrade and the corpses to rot, the territory could be recolonized without concern for radiation. All in all, a win/win.
LAHORE: Qazi Hussain Ahmed, ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami, criticised Pope Benedict's remarks on the concept of 'Jihad' in Islam, saying that it was against the teachings of Christ. Delivering a Friday sermon at Jamia Mansoorah, he said that the US was patronising colonial powers all over the world, adding that Islam was based on logic and rationale, which was attracting a large number of Christians in the West. He appealed to the Pope to urge Washington not to support Israel's military occupation of Palastine and military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and rest of the world. Islam was a religion of peace and the concept of Jihad was to help the oppressed, he concluded.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He should up with one eye,Bin laden and Zawhiri as FBI terrorist most wanted!!!!
NEW DELHI: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Friday called Pope Benedict's remarks against Islam "a precursor to a greater war between Islam and Christianity". VHP chief Ashok Singhal said Islam was rapidly expanding in the West, thereby "threatening the existence of Christianity". "It is a battle of survival for them," he told a press conference. Singhal said though Hindus would not draw into this global battle, but cautioned that neither India nor Hindus would remain unaffected by it. The Ultra-Hindu nationalist party chief accused the pope and Christian missionaries of spending billions of rupees on religious conversions in secular societies. He accused the pope of running secret organisation Opus Dei to spread Christianity in secular societies.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There's a difference between people who choose, of their own free will, to become christians and those who are forced, at the point of a sword, to become Muslims.
#5
That'll be a selfish, prejudiced localized VHP speaking about the Opus Dei canard from his narrow worldview. I'm not Catholic, not even monotheist but this party is simply myopia and miffed over competition. Little wrong with Hinduism in the wider perspective except that this group is so narrowly partisan.
#7
Ooops, Sherry, very quick jot with typo errors etc...
Meant to say 1. VHP is an ultra Hindu party. 2. It is stronly resentful of Christian missionary work there. 3. Opus Dei is not as sinister as VHP says. VHP hates the Pope virtually as much as islam. Not that much of an ally with non Hindus outside India.
#8
This topic was so important to me that I had to start another thread. I invite all of you to please contribute. This is waaaaay too close to the end-times for comfort. If there is a "false world religion", it is Islam.
#9
the only problem is the vatican has already come out with conciliatory statements saying: the pope was naive, didn't expect to be taken out of context yadda yadda.
Why will there be a holy war?
Islamonuts will go on rampages killing christians sure but the christians won't organise and hit back.
Christianity has become a largely pacifist religion and is raddled with multi culti doctrine.
They'll apologise first, wish they wouldn't but they probably will.
I will point out that other pacifist faiths have been supplanted and overrun by aggressive Islam:
Pakistan was once Buddhist. So was Indonesia. So was India (now hindu but large numbers of muzzies) and bangladesh. Malaysia and Afghanistan too.
Now look at them. THe buddhists didn't fight back.
Now they've only got Thailand left, maybe a couple other places.
That is what will happen to us unless we fight but the question is: can we get enough unity to do it? Or has the multi culti dogma so weakened us we won't have the will to fight?
The indoctrination starts in primary school. Just look at AFP Mick Keelty's recent comments: "Muslims aren't the enemy...they aren't terrrorists yadda yadda".
#10
The pope's remarks were a quote from some guy back in the 14th century who was "debating" with some Muzzy "cleric", IIUC. Not his own words. So, from a rational perspective, the real issue is the context in which he chose that quote, what message was he trying to convey. Regards his intent we must ask was the quote indicative of what he thought, or was it just a data point along the way to something else, something better illuminated by using the quote, but not limited to or endorsing the quote.
Or, if you're a Muzzy Mutt, who cares? Dirka Dirka Mohammed Jihad we must kill everyone.
#12
The Ultra-Hindu nationalist party chief accused the pope and Christian missionaries of spending billions of rupees on religious conversions in secular societies.
It's, uh, what we do. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/16/2006 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The VHP resents Hindus converting to another religion but many Hindus do that just to escape from the Hindu Caste System. This is the weakspot of Hinduism which exposes its own inherent vulnerability.
#15
It's high time we had a war between the religion of fear, hate and death, and the religion of love, peace and life. The civilized world hangs in the balance. I don't think I'm overstating this. To the pit of Hell with Islam, and it's teachings.
#16
As a teacher in a Catholic elementary/middle school; I ocassionally hear someone defend the Islamic "faith" as something to be considered. However, when I quote them the New Testament Gospel(S) and ask them to find ANYTHING remotely similar in the Koran, all conversations about "comparitive religions" comes to a screeching halt. Also, one small caveat, please excuse any mispelled words...my spell check doesn't seem to function in this mode.
State Information and Broadcasting Minister Tariq Azim Khan told the Voice of America in an interview this week that the United States had apologised to Pakistan for the January 13 attack on Damadola village in Waziristan, which resulted in the death of many women and children.
While this is the first time that a Government of Pakistan official has claimed that the US apologised for the attack, no such apology has been made here publicly for the incident. In fact, the US has not even expressed regret for the loss of civilian lives. Tariq Azim also said that the government had permitted no outside power to carry out military activities in the country. He called criticism of the recent deal between the government and the tribal leaders in Waziristan as being based on a lack of knowledge. He said foreigners living in the tribal areas would not be allowed under any circumstances to involve themselves in terrorist activities.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
ISLAMABAD: The Foreign Ministry on Friday summoned the Vatican ambassador over the remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence. "Apostolic Nuncio (Ambassador of the Holy See) was called to the Foreign Office," the ministry said in a statement. "He was conveyed that the regrettable remarks attributed to Pope Benedict XV1 . . . were deeply disturbing for Muslims all over the world, and had caused great hurt and anguish," it said. "It was underlined that at a time when there was an acute need for promoting inter-faith harmony such remarks, regardless of the context, were very unfortunate."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
The parliament on Friday unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI and passed resolutions demanding him withdraw his remarks against Prophet Muhammad (PTUI PBUH) and the concept of jihad.
I demand he decree a new Crusade...
Pope Benedict sparked an outcry with comments in a theological lecture in Germany on Tuesday which many in the Muslim world have regarded as an implicit denunciation of connections between Islam and violence.
... the two being two side of the same coin and all...
Both houses of parliament - the Senate and National Assembly - passed resolutions urging the Pope to withdraw his remarks to promote peace and brotherhood among the world communities. The resolutions said that the Popes remarks could inflame inter-religion conflicts in the already volatile world after 9/11 and at a time when many people believed in the clash of civilizations theory. The resolution passed by the National Assembly reads: This house condemns Pope Benedict XVIs remarks, which hurt the sentiments of millions of Muslims across the world. The Popes remarks are also against the United Nations Charter that urges respect for all religions. It adds, The house also asks the Pope to withdraw his remarks . . . and help save the world from further conflicts.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
In response, the Vatican sold advanced weaponry, Christian Outrage, to Islam's Pakistan's enemies.
Be careful what you ask for, assholes
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 0:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I demand he decree a new Crusade...
I really hope you don't mean that Fred. Things are ugly enough as it is, and yes, we have to do what we need to do. I don't want to see it go on a fullscale culture war though. I think that's what the fanatics of theirs want. What was Osama's mission again?....
This could escalate into something uglier than anyone imagined, I'm really hoping it doesn't.
#4
Thoth - these mental midgets haven't thought further than where the next madrassah boy-bait's coming from. The ultimate consequence of playing with the tiger's tale will come true, and like Nasrallah, they'll stand dumbfounded, and say "we didn't think you'd react this way...." as the gamma rays smoke their DNA. What would Mucky say? "Ima thinkrn they were high"?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 1:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
FOAD with your demand Pakiland. Always trying to be holelier than holely.
#6
I'm hoping it doesn't come down to that Frank. Yes, there are many animals in the Middle East that deserve to die, but there are a lot of human beings too that don't want and don't deserve any part of this madness.
#7
True - you don't see them clamoring to get out before it hits, or to overturn the MMA/ISI regimes in Pak, to name just one target. They are the schools of fish among which the evil ones swim. They may not get an overt choice, but it remains there the same. Expose and condemn/deny this evil, or perish along with it. Sorry, there is no alternative
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 1:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Sorry, there is no alternative
I think you're calling that option early. America is not going to be taken over by Islamic assholes tomorrow. I think they also know if they want to play those kinds of end games they are going to lose, and lose badly. I also know this is the kind of crap Osama was beating himself off to, and hoping to achieve. I'm not going to oblige him, unless we are seriously threatened. I'm also not ignorant. I do know the threats exist, but I think you are being way too early in calling for glass parking lot solutions.
Do you think it will just be Muslims that die in all this? There would be many deaths on all sides in a culture war of that scale. Sorry, but we should always be looking for solutions before drawing the sword. Just the way I see it. I won't appease them, but I still do think it's not too late to find a solution.
Iran on the other hand, is really starting to push the limits...
#9
If a man say, 'I love God., and hates his brother, he is a liar: For he that does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God Whom he has not seen? And He has given us this command: 'That he who loves God love his brother.'1John 4:20-21.
#10
Thoth, commenter's here at RB change their names often, so plz permit me to assume that you're new.. and to note that you've not analyzed the enemy very well or assessed it's strengths and weaknesses..
You sound like a patient whose just discovered irritating lump not recognizing that it is a cancer, and it further and unknown to you has metastasized and spread...
..in arc from the South Pacific, South East Asia, East Asia, SW Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe, The Caucasus, South America, Central America, North America and Canada.
#12
2 sides of the same coin RD. I've been here at Rantburg a few years, and so I'm not new on the subject. I think too many are jumping torwards the glass parking lot solution here, too quickly.
You see that fool holding the stupid sign declaring Muslim victimhood? I disagree with him sharply, and hate his message. Guess what? He's still my brother. He's still my fellow human being. I will not declare for his death unless it is absolutely necessary to protect my family, and those of my fellow countrymen. If he is just shouting to oblivian and has no power to do that, why should I wish that I or We kill him for expressing his foolish opinion?
Immagine that you that patient but who's probably a more patient and charitable person than I.
And then Mr. patient you should hope that we'll see that your lump is not a matastizing lump but just a big noxious bump and then you can sue me for mal-practice or impersonating a doctor....meh!!!
#17
Thoth - its getting late in the day. Education of the ulama in tolerence seems a complete failure. Reason and debate are not in their lexicon.
Midnight is closer than we think. Times of decision are upon us.
#18
3dc, I can't argue your points about education of the ulema, reason and tolerance.
However, the entire idea of turning the entire Muslim world into a glass parking lot is wrong. And I'm basing that on my lifelong affiliation with the Catholic church. My pope is telling them the truth, which obviously touched a nerve, but he is not saying that we need to go in and slaughter the pathetic bastards.
Look, I'm not interested in trying to get them to grow up and leave the medieval world behind. They apparently like living with a backwards, repressive and hateful ideology, no matter how many chances they get to have something approaching a civilized government. They have proved it time and again. So be it.
Quarantining them and letting them live in their Islamic Paradises without benefit of Western technology? Sure. Why not? They only want to use our tech against us. For example, they'll never be able to build an advanced form of transportation. All they can seem to do is use their expensive Western educations (Osama is trained as an engineer, don't forget) to figure out ways to destroy them, not build on them.
But "killing 'em all and letting God sort 'em out"? Uh, no. That takes us to their primitive, psychotic level, and I'm not ready to go there quite yet.
We didn't do that right after 11 September. We stayed civilized in spite of their ardent desire to set off our wrath and trigger the Apocalypse. The last thing I want to do is give those twisted farks their wish, and that is, a huge conflagration of the type they envision.
I want them to have to wait in the arid dust, having to dodge piles of steaming camel dung, and smelling like the goats wandering the streets. I want them to see on their satellite TV just how much fun the rest of the world is having (Lookee here, Achmed, we gots women running around half-nekkid!! You think Fatima next door might look like that under her chador?? Heh heh heh!!) while they are stuck in the 12th century. And I want there to be no escape from that hell (no emigration, no travel to Disney World, nothing), until they learn to play nice with the "infidels" and stop blowing shit up. Kind of like what Palestine under Hamas is experiencing from the rest of the world, but to the extreme. They aren't going to get any jihadi perks for that....no virgins as a reward for martyrdom, no taking a few infidels with them, nothing except scratching at their fleas and ticks after they molest the neighbor's livestock out of sexual frustration.
Yup, a giant "rage in the cage" is what they really need right now. Let 'em fight it out amongst themselves instead of giving them the safety valve of escape to the West (which they repay by pissing all over our rights and freedoms).
And pass the popcorn, please. I bet it would be a bloody good show....
#19
That takes us to their primitive, psychotic level, and I'm not ready to go there quite yet.
I'm about in 80% agreement with Thoth and Swamps. It's not time.
Conventional assault on Iran? Likely and necessary. A nuclear assault on the Uummah? Why? 'Moose did quite a long essay yesterday and compared the situation to a mosquito attacking an elephant, I think there's some truth in that.
The west doesn't need to use nukes, it needs a will.
I think you're calling that option early. America is not going to be taken over by Islamic assholes tomorrow
I gave no timeline. I merely said that continuing on their existing path will ineveitably lead to their destruction. Prolly in an exchange with India
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#21
The West no longer practices the primitive. The massive rallies the unrelenting broadcasts and prints demonizing the enemy are not found in its behavior patter. Quite the contrary, it is those who seek to achieve fundamentally similar goals with the enemy, the destruction of a vibrant western culture, that take to the streets, and demonstrate with an emotional display. The Islamic world identifies with that and buys into the misrepresentation presented by the Wests own MSM, that such displays mean matching power and influence. Therefore, the Islamic take heart not recalculation of their behavior. If the West practiced the primitive, the usual play of positioning and posturing would be seen in our dealings with them. However, it is no longer practical, if not possible, for the West to play the game in this manner.
That is leading to miscalculations. Which in a world with city killing devices and most of the world living upon the surplus of the West to stay one level away from devastating plagues and famine, it means lots of even more innocent people are going to pay the price for every day of delay from doing what is necessary, no matter how ugly it may seem.
Imagine those concerned about the vast numbers of Islam did the same thing in North American to inhibit the movement of the early English settlers from beyond their small coastal enclaves. It certainly would have been better for millions of natives who outnumbered the settlers then and millions of natives yet to be born. It would have been more humane . However, deep in my gut, I suspect that the world today would have turned out much darker and far less advanced than we enjoy today as the human and natural resources, the base of industry and technology from North America would not have been around to stymie the vast powers of authoritarianism and totalitarianism that took root in the 19th Century and unleashed in the 20th. Basically , the world would be screwed. Yes, the whole world. From the eradication of smallpox to the green revolution of the worlds food supply, it wouldnt have happened.
So, dont count me in this - Lets be sporting about this. Lets wait till we take x number of civilian casualties in some horrific way before we do what we really know what has to be done, but it will make us feel oh so unhappy with ourselves.
You dont have to kill them all. You dont have to clear the planet of their religion. However, because they only understand the primitive youre going to have to thump them mighty big before they pay serious attention. The longer the delay, the bigger the price.
#23
6r I don't see where Frank or I called for glassing over one billion people.
So for the sake of the thread lets eliminate the frivilous "Turn the other cheek vs. Duke Nukem"
~~~~~
6.... We don't need to be "sporting". Much more liberal ROEs would do wonders for the muzzie mindset and negate the need for more drastic measures
ROE Return On Equity
RoE Races of Eberron (roleplaying games, Dungeons & Dragons)
ROE Rapid Oxidation Event
ROE Rate of Exchange
ROE Rate of Expenditure
ROE Record of Earnings (Canadian pension plan)
ROE Record of Employment
ROE Reflector Orbital Experiment
ROE Regional Office for Europe (UNEP)
ROE Regional Office of Education
ROE Relacao de Ondas Estacionarias
ROE Remote Operating Equipment
ROE Report of Excess (GSA)
ROE Reportable Order Event (NASD)
ROE Ressurection of Evil (gaming, Doom3 Expansion Pack)
RoE Rest of Europe
ROE Return on Expectation
ROE Right of Entry
ROE Root of Evil
ROE Roster Of Exception
ROE Rotating-frame Overhauser Enhancement (NMR spectroscopy)
ROE Round One End
ROE Route of Egress
ROE Royal Observatory, Edinburgh (Scotland,UK)
RoE Rubies of Eventide (game) ROE Rules Of Engagement
#27
Against the UN Charter? Is the part about Jews being the cousins of apes and monkeys consistent with the UN Charter? Inquiring minds want to know ... .
#28
Swamp Blonde
Look at the trends. We have been at it now for 5 years and trillions of dollars and still don't have too much to show for it. Bush talks about the long war but thats resources, money and lives spent in methods and biz that don't improve the pocketbook or advance our lives, non-war science or culture. The end trend still looks like we have to end up making parking lots, so why not save a lot of time, money and our lives by just making the parking lots now? If it troubles your faith and morals I am sorry. I am just looking at the bottom line.
#30
I'm hoping it doesn't come down to that Frank. Yes, there are many animals in the Middle East that deserve to die, but there are a lot of human beings too that don't want and don't deserve any part of this madness.
Then they had better speak up quickly and loudly. Their window of opportunity is closing rapidly and, most likely, permanently.
True - you don't see them clamoring to get out before it hits, or to overturn the MMA/ISI regimes in Pak, to name just one target.
... Expose and condemn/deny this evil, or perish along with it. Sorry, there is no alternative
Word, Frank. To date, zero exposure and only negligible condemnation, which is usually of an almost unanimously equivocal nature anyway. Sorry, Achmed, day late and a dollar short.
I think you're calling that option early. America is not going to be taken over by Islamic assholes tomorrow.
Toth, the advent of nuclear weapons has changed all of this. That tomorrow is rapidly arriving. Think, Iran.
If he is just shouting to oblivian and has no power to do that, why should I wish that I or We kill him for expressing his foolish opinion?
These genocidal psychopaths are not just shouting to oblivion. They are consistently advocating nuclear attacks on the West and inculcating each successive generation with increasingly malevolent programming. The luxury of not taking these violent fanatics seriously is gone forever, never to return.
I'm seeing your analogy, and asking if you would go to chemo to remove a pimple?
Understating the threat of fascist Islam by calling it a pimple is like calling a great white shark a goldfish with a severe overbite problem.
Look, I'm not interested in trying to get them to grow up and leave the medieval world behind. They apparently like living with a backwards, repressive and hateful ideology, no matter how many chances they get to have something approaching a civilized government. They have proved it time and again. So be it.
Sorry, Blondie, no such luxury exists anymore. The proliferation of atomic weapons has forever changed the equation. These Neanderthals must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century or be faced with extermination. They lust after a nuclear attack upon the West. This is the great Islamic wet dream and they will either forsake it or face annihilation.
I gave no timeline. I merely said that continuing on their existing path will ineveitably lead to their destruction. Prolly in an exchange with India
With respect to Pakistan, I tend to agree with you, Frank.
That is leading to miscalculations. Which in a world with city killing devices and most of the world living upon the surplus of the West to stay one level away from devastating plagues and famine, it means lots of even more innocent people are going to pay the price for every day of delay from doing what is necessary, no matter how ugly it may seem.
Which goes back to what I've been saying about how terrorism diverts such vast financial and manpower resources from other more deserving enterprises, like fighting disease, illiteracy, institutionalized abuse of women, famine and tyranny, nearly all of which are the hallmarks of Islamic rule. Any delay in subduing Islam only increases the likelihood of even more horrendous measures being required later. Europe's constant appeasement of Muslims almost guarantees that their continent will, once again, become yet another charnel house. It is critical to remember that this impending disaster is the fault of Islam and not to be blamed upon any inaction by the West.
You dont have to kill them all. You dont have to clear the planet of their religion. However, because they only understand the primitive youre going to have to thump them mighty big before they pay serious attention. The longer the delay, the bigger the price.
I sure as hell hope that youre right, Glith Shatch1916. Im willing to go in and thump Islam conventionally a few times before any application of glass and Windex. In fact, we possess sufficient firepower to cripple Islam permanently using conventional weapons alone. Iran is an ideal and immediate starting point for testing this notion. However, after everything that Ive seen from Islam of late, I no longer delude myself about the distinct possibility of having to excise or even cauterize this moral cancer.
What about freedom of religion?! Freedom to choose and freedom to leave, ie. By this token all 56 muslim countries should be ineligible to be in the UN(as useless an outfit as it may be).
#!%$#@ hypocrites!
#33
Note: while I was whanging away at my keyboard, youse guys have moved way on down the tracks, lol. Sorry if I'm out of sync...
Lotsa folks coming at this from every angle - all well-meaning, all rational and reasoned from the commenter's POV, all worthy of consideration... Here's mine, FWIW. Apologies for restating the obvious here 'n there - it's my Joycean (Joycian?) thought processes which are to blame.
I'm with Zen. I believe we have few choices, but must survive. What remains to us to decide is how we do it. No matter how we conduct ourselves in this war, as a society, some will disagree. I won't apologize to anyone who thinks me bloody-minded. Tis our freedoms which allow each his or her say - and those are what I seek to defend, even if, as did Abraham Lincoln, we have to suspend some rights to achieve survival. I stand with everyone here who is willing to do whatever it takes - and I mean whatever it takes. You can get all nasty and shit with me / us later, if we survive this generation-long test of will. I vigorously recommend the story Dan Simmons' The Traveler (Thanks, lotp!) for a more readable version of the ramifications. My comment here is pathetic, in comparison. Okay, enough of the preambling...
We're at war. Whether accepted, or not, adequately described in words we can all agree upon, or not, meeting with our personal comfort factors, or not, conforming to our personal notions of fair play, or not, breaching the threshold of provocation into the realm of decisive action, or not -- we are at war.
It only takes one side to wage war. The aggressor, Asshat Islam, isn't complaining - their targeted foe, the entire Western World, mostly sits on its hands and blathers on about the deeper meanings, what constitutes war and how can we acceptably respond if it is so, and questions if it is actually so, or merely appears to be so. Multiple Pearl Harbors have already occurred, some were decades ago, yet still most of us dither. Why is Islam so blatantly aggressive today when the West could obliterate them? Simple: we didn't do fuck-all about their earlier attacks (e.g. Oil Embargo, US Embassy takeover, blowing up the Marine Barracks in Beirut, etc). We gave them solid reasons to believe we'd sit here, fat, dumb, and complacent, while they did their Lilliputian best to kill us. And, were it not for Bush, they'd be perfectly right. Blather, dither, wringeth hands. Rinse. Repeat. Pfeh. Thank you Dubya for getting some of us off the dime.
I have a theory: All this hair-splitting and equivocating is just the conscious mind trying to figure out how the hell to justify in comfortable terms what the subconscious knows to be fact.
Complicating matters is the remarkably successful campaign, remarkable for its outrageous cognitive dissonance, IMHO, to demonize America. Many who would LOVE to come here, have chosen to hate us. Boggle. The rest are so bereft of dignity and gumption that they are either triangulating for short-term gain or just need a bogeyman. There is an entire school of thought which believes that every society needs a convenient demon to demonize, an adversary to pit itself against, and the more powerful it is, the more laudable and brave the society is that roars its mousy little head off in opposition. The Last Remaining Superpower, lol. We're a very soft and convenient and accommodating target -- until we're not. Go ahead kiddies, wail away - we won't do diddley-squat cuz you're too small to swat and we're in Full Moral Equivalency Dither. Except for Bush. Yeah, he's still trying to find the words that frame our dilemma, but have no doubts or illusions, he is trying to defend us within the realm of reality. And he'll get there, though it will cost him his comfort zone, too, just as it costs us. We are all moving along, kicking and screaming every step of the way - even him.
Lessons B Hard. History is replete with examples, it's hard to locate an exception in fact, of societies which were dragged into war by the most vocal and acrimonious among them - I think of them as the "activated" Muzzies. Shorthand it to Asshats for convenience and clarity. Those not overtly "activated" among them I think of as the "resource pool" for they are either complicit in their support or irrelevant in their silence. Even the most innocent among them, let's call them the LMOOIs (Leave Me Out Of It), will be going to war, sooner or later... dragged there by the majority who fill the other categories. It has always been thus, and always will be so. Tough shit - for all of us.
There is a Perfect Storm in progress. We have more than one enemy and they have made common cause, an alliance of convenience attacking us on multiple fronts, in many forms. It is aggression meant to bring us down, including physical attacks, informational propaganda, political subversion, economic ruin, and erosion of morale and identity. Some are internal, some are external, but they are obviously in collusion. I doubt that even the Civil War (CW-I) posed as dangerous a threat to the survival of the truly unique experiment called America and the revolutionary principles upon which we were founded.
The communications revolution has brought us an avalanche of data. Much of it, like cable TV, is half-baked trash, but we must sort through it, nonetheless, applying our own filters, to arrive at the bits that we can call fact and then assimilate into our understanding. Since many of us are lazy intellectually Weak Willies, we've lost a fair-sized segment to the easy answers, the Stalinists such as ISM and Code Pink and the rest - the Giant Puppet crowd - who work tirelessly to peddle their lies and distortions. I think a few are just ronery idjits trying to get laid like Dad did during the "anti-war" 60's, but that's just my opinion. Information parsing is like mining diamonds: maybe a ton of rock mined per carat gleaned.
To my mind, the disinformationists are even more deadly and more deserving of death than suicide bombers - they seek to erode and destroy the will to fight, removing all of our intellectual and technological advantages. They seek to drag us down to the level of the barbarians. Irony lives here... To defeat them we will eventually have to adopt barbaric measures. This will be, by far, the ugliest, nastiest, most divisive and contentious, and the most important campaign in the WoT. The internal enemies are why we face CW-II. This is not an "if" campaign, it is a "when" campaign. "When" it comes, I will show no quarter.
Iranian nukes. Talebunnies. PakiWakis. Proxy Wars. Saudi ticks. UN farce. CAIR. ISM. ANSWER. Dhimmidonk Senate and Pubbie RINOs. MSM. Immigration. Bolton. And yep, China.
So, choose: Domestic Cleanup, Foreign Whack-a-Mole, or the Sidelines. If the latter, take this to the bank: stay the fuck out of the way. Now I'll say the unthinkable... Snipe away if you truly believe you must, but don't be surprised if you're mistaken for a Stalinist or one of their tools, since that is precisely what you'll be. If you escape justice in CW-II, then by all means, wring your hands when it's all over and your freedom to do so has been preserved. Just one last thing: it is perfectly safe in a free society to be a coward and an ankle-biting fuckwit a generation after the dust has settled... but it's just bad luck that you don't have that luxury today. It is every American's lot to choose and live with that choice. Nothing new there, in fact, several generations have found themselves bearing the burden. Sure, it sucks, but You Can't Wait For Good Timing - not only is that choice unavailable, it's an oxymoron, lol.
#34
Gawd. I wish you'd get off the dime and take a damn position, PD.
;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Word, .com. Especially:
Why is Islam so blatantly aggressive today when the West could obliterate them? Simple: we didn't do fuck-all about their earlier attacks
Lessons B Hard. ... There is a Perfect Storm in progress. We have more than one enemy and they have made common cause, an alliance of convenience attacking us on multiple fronts, in many forms. It is aggression meant to bring us down, including physical attacks, informational propaganda, political subversion, economic ruin, and erosion of morale and identity. Some are internal, some are external, but they are obviously in collusion.
#36
Thoth I would agree I would not like a holy war, but the muzzies want it one way or another and they are going to do something so horrendous that we will drop to their primitive state and destroy them.
#39
Lessons B Hard. History is replete with examples, it's hard to locate an exception in fact, of societies which were dragged into war by the most vocal and acrimonious among them - I think of them as the "activated" Muzzies. Shorthand it to Asshats for convenience and clarity. Those not overtly "activated" among them I think of as the "resource pool" for they are either complicit in their support or irrelevant in their silence. Even the most innocent among them, let's call them the LMOOIs (Leave Me Out Of It), will be going to war, sooner or later... dragged there by the majority who fill the other categories. It has always been thus, and always will be so. Tough shit - for all of us.
Bing-effing-go, .com. All this blasted handwringing about moderate Muslims needs to stop, NOW! Confronted with the danger of Islamic terrorism we must, for once and all, decide that whatever silent minority or majority there is, is just that, silent and therefore irrelevant.
That so much zakat continues to flow into jihadist coffers from these silent Muslims makes them into tacit accomplices and nothing else. Until they actively unmake their unstated alliance with jihadist Islam, they must be considered every bit the threat that the terrorists are.
Glad to see you weigh in on this, .com. I was thinking about you earlier today as I banged someone over the head with quoted "Deteriorata". Great post, keep up the good work.
#41
Iran on the other hand, is really starting to push the limits...
Thoth they are all heads on the same hydra.
I am with .com and Zen. The conjectures etc.
My parents did the forties. They didn't talk about it much.
It's our turn. Technically the younger guys/gals, but it's us 50somethings who will be reviled. So be it. Our children will live free.
On 9/11/01 I knew subconciously what was up.
Now that it is all too clear,
I know why the Andrews Sisters kept playing in my head.
But there'd better be a standing invitation every time Binny or Ayman pops his pointy little head up...
US President George Bush said on Friday that Pakistan is a "sovereign" country and US troops cannot enter Pakistan in the hunt for Osama bin Laden unless they are invited to do so. At a news conference at the White House, Bush said that if the US wants to send its troops into Pakistan in pursuit of bin Laden, it will have to be invited by the government of Pakistan to do so. Bush added, "There is a kind of urban myth in Washington about how this administration hasn't stayed focused on bin Laden. We've been on the hunt till we bring him to justice. We're doing it in a smart fashion. We are." The president said, "And I look forward to talking to President Musharraf. He doesn't like Al Qaeda. They tried to kill him. And he has a good record of bringing people to justice inside of Pakistan because the Paks are in the lead. They know the stakes about dealing with a violent form of ideological extremism."
And pay no mind to those rather tall, well muscled fellows back at the edge of the crowd. The ones who speak a couple languages and are ... skilled.
Where? Where? I saw nuttin' ...
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I saw no mention of airspace.....
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 0:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Since Nato is being stingy with troops, how about President Bush calling up Manmohan Singh and asking for some Indian soldiers, with actual counterinsurgency experience? India could easily spare a couple of divisions of troops.
The prospect of forty thousand Indian soldiers on his western border, along with their armor and artillery, should be enough incentive for Perv to realize the need for cooperation.
Posted by: john ||
09/16/2006 7:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's never gonna happen John, but as an exercise, is there a way 2 divisions (or even 2 brigades for that matter) of Indian light infantry could be supplied without using Pak airspace or roads?
#4
India is upgrading the Iranian port of Chabbar so that Indian goods can flow into central asia via Iran. It is building roads into Afganistan from this port.
It is also upgrading the Tajikistan airbase at Farkor so it can fly troops into there.
It has enough air and sealift capability to ferry troops around pakistani territory and into Afghanistan.
Posted by: john ||
09/16/2006 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
US President George Bush said on Friday that Pakistan is a "sovereign" country and US troops cannot enter Pakistan in the hunt for Osama bin Laden unless they are invited to do so.
Someone send a copy of Rio Grande to the boy to remind him that while dramatized, the Americans did send troops into Mexico, a sovereign nation, to chase the Apache without invitation.
On the other hand, I'm personally for firing up the 'blood feud' between those on each side of the border. Some serious raids going south ought to make life interesting for the boys in Pakland.
Muslim nations in the Middle East should arm themselves with nuclear weapons to deter Western enemies from attacking them, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Friday. They should have tanks, warplanes, warships, guns and missiles, Mahathir said. Yes, they need to have nuclear weapons too, because only with the possession of such would their enemies be deterred from attacking them.
The fact that men in white coats have not yet dragged off Mahathir says much about what's wrong with the world today...
Mahathir, 81, who retired as prime minister in 2003, remains highly respected and influential throughout the Muslim world. He is currently on a lecture tour of Central and South Asia, and was addressing a conference on religious tolerance in Pakistans capital, Islamabad. When asked whether Muslim nations in the Middle East should acquire nuclear weapons, Mahathir replied, Well, if you allow Israel to have them, why should the others not have them too?
Because that particular area of the world is noted for its production of megalomaniacs, psychopaths and sadists?
Israel which has neither confirmed nor denied reports that it possesses nuclear arms is generally believed to have the worlds sixth-largest stockpile of such weapons, including hundreds of warheads. Mahathir, a frequent critic of the Jewish state and its nuclear arsenal, stressed that he believed in a world free of nuclear weapons. All nations should (give up) nuclear weapons, in particular the very belligerent United States, said Mahathir. He said that the US-led war against terrorism had turned into a war against Islam and Muslims, because only countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria were currently being targeted.
Don't worry. NKor and Venezuela are on the list.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This famous moonbat hypocrite forgot about AQ Khan's Pakiland - and hope you are ignorant of that. This is his modus operandi of speaking down to his (often dumb) audience. Fudge, spin and blather self-righteously - endlessly
#3
Maybe if the Muzzies had one and used it we would finally be united enough in resolve (not just us rantburgers but the moonbats too) to end this running problem.
Because if they do I predict iran, indonesia, saudi and Pakistan will glow.
#7
The fact that men in white coats have not yet dragged off Mahathir says much about what's wrong with the world today...
Only if those white-coated men are coroner's assistants. Dead this turd, right away. He and Bashir are two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, only one of them is locked up.
#4
I believed and I continue to believe that I will be a defense minister of peace and at the same time I will strengthen the social issues. To my great regret, I found myself in the midst of a war, he said.
so he's saying that he really didn't want to be a defense minister, but that he thought he could take the job and just do social issues - however to his great surprise and regret he discovered that he had to be a defense minister.
Head of the northern faction of the Islamic Movement Sheikh Raed Salah said Friday that soon Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Muslim caliphate, and the caliphs seat will be there. Salah addressed an audience of 50,000 attending the Islamic Movements 11th annual rally in Umm al-Fahm. Caliph refers to a leader of the Muslim nation and in Arabic means the heir or substitute of the prophet Muhammad.
Salah noted that history tells of many occasions in which the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was occupied by foreign conquerors, but the occupiers left after a short time, and thus will also be the fate of the Israeli occupation. The Israeli occupation will leave Jerusalem soon. It will happen sooner than is thought, Salah said at the rally, which was held under the slogan Al-Aqsa endangered.
The sheikh added that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Moshe Katsav were punished by Allah after they plotted to bring harm to the mosque. Sharon was punished because he planned to break into the mosque, and Katsavs punishment came in the shape of the sexual harassment charges plaguing him after he supported the notion of dividing the mosque area between Jews and Muslims. The site is also holy to Jews as the site of the Temple Mount. Former United States President Bill Clinton suffered a similar fate to Katsavs, and after backing the idea of dividing the site he became embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would sooner see Islam exterminated than to give these scum control over the world's most Holy city. After what has happened to the Church of the Nativity (toilet) and the Wailing Wall (urinal), Muslims can go piss up a rope. The Arab led archaeological vandalism going on at the Dome of the Rock is proof enough of what awaits any Muslim stewardship of Jerusalem.
PS: Great graphic of a horse's ass, by the way. And the animal is beautiful, too.
#4
Islamic hyperbole could be substantially improved by the addition of a few North Korean speech writers. Most imams are pretty lame. If George Bush and America were fighting a war to eliminate Islam, they would all be dead by now, Mecca green glass, the troops would be home, and the Israelis would be raising funds for the third temple.
#10
Duh!, the reason that Christians and Jews don't seethe and demonstrate in the street is that they don't consider muslims to be part of the modern world. The muslim reaction to everything is that of demented, depraved, and retarded children. They are so patently ridiculous in aspect that no one can take them seriously. They just don't seem to be part of the modern world. More like rabid rats that can be ignored or, if you are unfortunate enough to come in contact with them, exterminated.
#11
They are so patently ridiculous in aspect that no one can take them seriously.
"[P]atently ridiculous"? Without question. We no longer have the luxury of not taking these genocidal psychos seriously.
They just don't seem to be part of the modern world. More like rabid rats that can be ignored or, if you are unfortunate enough to come in contact with them, exterminated.
HAMAS has become practised at linguistic somersaults since it took over the Palestinian government in March, but has never needed to nuance its words as carefully as over a promised unity government. The struggle for phrasing highlights the dilemma for Hamas, caught between wanting to satisfy international demands for change in order to ease sanctions while telling its power base that it stands firm on its position.
The question is whether the Islamist militant group, whose charter advocates the destruction of the Jewish state, really has changed in agreeing to a unity government with President Mahmoud Abbas, who seeks a state alongside Israel. I think they did change but they dont want to acknowledge that, said Palestinian political analyst Ali Jarbawi. The fact that they want a national unity government means that they are incorporating themselves into the system. The message that Hamas lets slip to Abbas and Western countries is that it has become more flexible - cautiously accepting interim agreements between the Palestinians and Israel and thereby implying some recognition.
But the message for Hamas followers is that it will not bow to Western pressure, particularly the demands to clearly recognise Israel and renounce violence in exchange for an end to an embargo that has crippled the Palestinian Authority. Key for Hamas is the get-out clause that it put in the deal with Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen. It says that Hamas only accepts past agreements in accordance to the interest of the Palestinian people - so it can argue that it does not accept any part of any agreement that implies recognition of Israel.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
F*ck their word games. No aid. No recognition, and no pressure on Israel
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 0:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The question is whether the Islamist militant group, whose charter advocates the destruction of the Jewish state, really has changed in agreeing to a unity government with President Mahmoud Abbas, who seeks a state alongside Israel. I think they did change but they dont want to acknowledge that, said Palestinian political analyst Ali Jarbawi.
Nice try, Ali, but your journalistic credentials are less than persuasive.
Three words: Recognition. Of. Israel.
No can do? Fine, then piss off and starve some more while Israel slowly takes you apart at the seams. I promise to laugh and point.
GAZA: A letter written by abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was given to his family by Gaza militants in a potential breakthrough after nearly three months in captivity, a source involved in the talks said on Friday.
The letter written in Shalit's handwriting is the first tangible sign of life since militants from the governing Hamas group and two other factions seized him in a cross-border raid on June 25, prompting an Israeli offensive. "The abducted soldier wrote the letter by his own handwriting to his parents telling them he is fine and well," the source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The source said the letter was handed to Egyptian mediators in Gaza, who then handed it over to Shalit's family. The letter appears to have been written earlier this week, the source said. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, declined to comment. The letter could be a sign of progress in efforts to free Shalit.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If Shalit's letter does not mention any developments from the last several weeks, assume he is dead. However much I want him returned alive, I still cannot believe he is. Palestinians would just as soon use a fairy godmother promising independence for target practice than ever keep a captive Jew alive for more than five minutes.
The father of an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas-linked militants nearly three months ago said Friday he has received no sign of life from his son.
Noam Shalit declined to respond directly to reports in the Palestinian newspaper Al Ayyam that the militants holding his son, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, had passed a letter written by the soldier to Egyptian mediators, who then delivered it to the family.
However, Noam Shalit told The Associated Press on Friday that he had not received any sign of life from his son since the soldier was captured June 25.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/16/2006 0:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sadly, I expect that Shalit's father may have good reason to feel this way. The two of them may have established a code or some other means of communicating the timeliness of any such contact.
Should Shalit have been killed by his captors, may another 1,000 Palestinaians know the foolhardiness of such extortion.
#4
Isreal negotiating with terrorists is undermining them. They needed to go ballistic and take the Hamas so-called legislators and take them out one-by-one, then their offices, and systematically destroy them. Then they would get Shalit back, or they would not have to worry about this kidnapping nonsense any more. Now they are trying to make deals, just like their enemies have done in the desert for many centuries.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/16/2006 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
Hizbullah and Lebanon's top Sunni Muslim religious authority denounced on Saturday Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks on Islam and holy war, with the militant Shiite Muslim group warning of a global religious schism.
Hizbullah called on the Vatican to review the pope's "declared attitude which can lead to world divisions and from which the enemies of humanity - the neo-conservatives led by (US President George W.) Bush and the neo-racists and Nazis, the Zionists(Tm) who attack civilians and the land - can benefit."(AP)
#4
I'm always amused when Islamofascists use "Nazi" as an insult, when most of the time they declare open admiration for Hitler and his hellish achievements. So which is it? Nazi=good, or Nazi=bad? Muslims just can't seem to make up their minds.
#5
Hizb'Allah is the world authority on religious dogma, ya say? Dogpile on the Pope, ya say? Muzzies only? Global religious schism, ya say? Ima shokrd.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/16/2006 22:40 Comments ||
Top||
2,000 Palestinians protest pope's comments
About 2,000 Palestinians angrily protested Friday night against Pope Benedict XVI, accusing him of leading a new Crusade against the Muslim world. Earlier, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, of the Islamic Hamas group, said the pope had offended Muslims everywhere. "In the name of the Palestinian people who live on holy Palestinian land, we express our rejection of the comments made by the holy pope about Islam as a faith, its religious law, history and way of life," Haniyeh said Friday. "These comments hide the truth and hurt its blessed essence. We call on the holy pope to reconsider his statement and to stop offending the Islamic religion that has a billion and a half followers," he said.
Muslims say Popes remarks hurt religious harmony JAKARTA: Pope Benedicts comments about Islam could hurt global religious harmony, government and religious leaders in the worlds most populous Muslim countries said on Friday. A growing chorus of Muslim leaders have called on the Pope to apologise for the remarks he made in a speech in Germany on Tuesday when he used the terms jihad and holy war. Islamic scholars say the Pope comments show how little he understands Islam and some have said Islamic countries should threaten to break off relations with the Vatican.
It is obvious from the statements that the Pope doesnt have a correct understanding of Islam, said Din Syamsuddin, chairman of Muhammadiyah, the second largest Islamic organisation in Indonesia. Fauzan Al-Anshori, spokesman for the radical Indonesian Mujahideen Council, said the Pope misunderstood Islam and jihad and challenged him to a dialogue.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he was worried the Popes statements might upset efforts to bring about a rapprochement between West and East. In New Delhi, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric of the historic Jamia Masjid, Indias largest mosque, extolled Muslims to respond to the Popes comments. Muslims must respond in a manner which forces the Pope to apologise, he said after Friday prayers.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Islam it's way or the highway. I say it's time for the highway with large parking lots where most of the muslims live now. They certainly look for every instance to be offeneded and have no intention of peaceful coexistance. Lets get it over with.
#5
those comments wouldn't 'harm interfaith dialogue' if the muslims wouldn't overreact
let's put this in context
Imams routinely teach that Islam is superior to all other religions, and call for the killing of infidels.
How dare they be offended by someone criticising *Their* sacred cow Mohammad.
We value our freedom to criticise religion and religious figures. We tolerate those that criticise Christianity and we should fight to protect the rights of those who criticise Islam just as much.
#15
And the moderates? Why aren't they coming to the Pope's defense? Why aren't they calling for tolerance of speech and for the abjuration of violence?
Oh. That's right. Because they don't believe in tolerance, and do believe in violence.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/16/2006 9:45 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Islam is a religion of Peace -- and I will kill anyone who says otherwise!
#19
It definitely unites them in a peaceful manner. No anger.
Posted by: Art ||
09/16/2006 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"He quoted from a little-known medieval text recording debates between a Byzantine emperor and an educated Persian. The Pope recalled that the emperor had told his adversary: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Benedict acknowledged the "startling brusqueness" of the remark, but went on to endorse fully the view that "spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable".
And the Muzzies go on to prove the point (see pics).
#22
It is obvious from the statements that the Pope doesnt have a correct understanding of Islam, (said Din Syamsuddin, chairman of Muhammadiyah, the second largest Islamic organisation in Indonesia.)
Love that "island-style Islam"--compared to the rest of it, that is. "The pope doesn't have a correct understanding of Islam . . ." and has been challenge to a dialouge. But of course, Din S. stands alone. Too bad.
#23
"I am sorry that I offended you by my romarks, but the statement still stands."
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/16/2006 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#24
And the moderates? Why aren't they coming to the Pope's defense? Why aren't they calling for tolerance of speech and for the abjuration of violence?
Oh. That's right. Because they don't believe in tolerance, and do believe in violence.
Word, RC.
Animals act like animals. Followers of the pedophile false prophet are primitive,ignorant pigs. Their behavior is no suprise to me.
Which goes a long way towards explaining why pigs are haram. Muslims have no use for swine, they cornered the market on that sort of behavior a long time ago.
Iran drew strong backing from the world's developing countries yesterday in the tense standoff with the West over its nuclear program. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's success at the Cuban summit came as the US pushed for sanctions against Tehran, which has ignored an August 31 UN deadline to stop enriching uranium.
As Iran's delegation lobbied for further support from the 118 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement, Mr Ahmadinejad met several of his counterparts on the sidelines of the conference in Havana.
He was backed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during a summit of 18 developing countries (G-15) held in parallel to the non-aligned gathering. "I don't want to leave here until there is decisive support for Iran," Mr Chavez said. Earlier in the day, Mr Chavez visited his convalescing ally and mentor Fidel Castro, 80, who has not been seen in public since he underwent surgery and temporarily ceded power to his brother Raul in July. "Fidel is more alive than ever," Mr Chavez said after the visit.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Better to attack sooner than later.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/16/2006 0:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And this rag-tag bunch of pissant third world backwaters convey exactly what sort of moral authority with this pronouncement?
Turkey accuses Pope of reviving the Crusades This crap begs for inline commentary. I'll cheerfully leave it to any moderator who sees fit. My comments will follow in the first post. (If some other outraged Rantburger doesn't beat me to it.)
MUSLIMS around the world expressed outrage yesterday over Pope Benedict XVIs perceived insult to Islam, with Turkeys ruling party accusing him of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades and scores taking to the streets in protest. Pakistans parliament unanimously condemned the pope, and the foreign ministry summoned the Vaticans ambassador to express regret over the remarks.
The Vatican said the pope did not intend the remarks made in Germany on Tuesday during an address at a university to be offensive. Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar 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 did not explicitly agree with the statement nor repudiate it.
The comments raised tensions ahead of his planned visit to Turkey in November his first pilgrimage to a Muslim country. Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogans party, said Benedicts remarks were either the result of pitiful ignorance about Islam and its prophet, or a deliberate distortion. He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world, Mr Kapusuz told the state-owned Anatolia news agency. It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades.
Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words, he said. He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini. Turkeys staunchly secular opposition party also demanded that Benedict apologise before his visit. Lebanons most senior Shiite Muslim cleric denounced the remarks and demanded the Pope personally apologise. We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him (Benedict) to offer a personal apology not through his officials to Muslims for this false reading (of Islam), grand ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah told worshippers.
After Benedict returned to Italy on Thursday, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said, It certainly wasnt 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. Turkeys top Islamic cleric, Ali Bardakoglu, said Mr Lombardis comments were not enough. The Pope himself should stand at the dais and say I take it all back, I was misunderstood and apologise in order to contribute to world peace, he said.
Elsewhere, Syrias top Sunni Muslim religious authority, Sheik Ahmad Badereddine Hassoun, sent a letter to the Pope that he feared the comments would worsen interfaith relations. Later, he delivered a scathing sermon in which he denounced the remarks. We have heard about your hate for Arabs and Muslims. Now that you have dropped the mask from your face we see its ugliness, he said.
My comments will follow in the first post. Please let me know what you think of their admittedly lengthy content.
#1
Please bear with me, this is extremely important to me and quite long.
However much I may dislike certain aspects of the Catholic Church, it is absolutely impossible for me not to admire Pope Benedicts recent actions. Were I unable to concede the critical importance of his current stand against Islam's lack of religious freedom plus its policy of forcible conversion and capital punishment of apostasy, it would invalidate much of my personal position regarding the war on Islamic terrorism.
Pope Benedict has made himself a magnet for the slings and arrows of Islamic furor. Regardless of how incumbent it is upon him to decry any threat to his global flock, the courage he displays in adopting this high profile stance against such a volatile and readily angered foe as Islam can only be a favorable reflection of how devoted he is to his savior, Jesus Christ.
It is impossible to imagine that Pope Benedict is unaware of how dangerous his projected sojourn to Turkey might prove. Suffice to say that Pope John Paul IIs would-be assassin was Turkish. None of this can have possibly escaped Benedicts notice. Still, I do not find it likely, nor do I expect, any cancellation of his scheduled trip there next November. Even now there have been protests regarding his words, both in Turkey and elsewhere.
As I give this issue deeper consideration, it goes to the very bedrock of my personal scientific agnosticism. I refuse to believe in a malevolent God. No such thing could exist in this incredibly fecund and intensely beautiful universe. While I personally question that Jesus was the direct progeny of God or another manifestation of Same, Christs existence as a human being is entirely without question. Nor is the ultimate wisdom of much that he preached.
If Pope Benedict is the chief shepherd of Christs flock on earth, he is equally bound to be the focal point of any accompanying religious dispute. This he has done and it can only lend credit to his religious vision. Most of you here are already well aware of my opinion regarding Islam. Therefore, it should be quite clear that I view Christianity and its reformation away from any governmental role, as having given it proper place as a benevolent spiritual guidepost. That Islam does not eschew such theocracy and, indeed, blatantly refuses to do so and instead glorifies religious autocracy, most definitely differentiates it from Christian theistic doctrine in general. This is entirely without respect to any mutual Abrahamic origin or regard.
As so many of you here have observed, there has been a personal shift, on my part, over to disbelief in moderate Islam. I hope it is increasingly clear that my regard for more benevolent faiths has proportionally expanded. My respect for Christianity has done such and especially so in this most dire hour. If there is a vision of God, it must be one of a loving deity, be it cosmic muffin but most definitely not hairy thunderer. God cannot possibly be of such a fragile ego as to take umbrage against those who might doubt His existence or refuse to fight His wars. As Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti said, What use have I got for a God that needs me to fight His battles?.
Please know that, in my own personal view, Pope Benedict goes forth as the primal sacrificial lamb. I think that he knowingly does so. I wish no harm upon him as he does this. What I do anticipate is that the relentlessly murderous nature of Islam will literally guarantee that the Pope might likely be harmed or killed.
If or when this occurs, there may well be an actual Holy war. If so, Islam will have sought it out and nearly begged for it in the process. Should such an event come to pass, it will be Islams fault entirely and Christianity must have no compunctions about what sort of threat confronts it.
I give these meager words of encouragement to you who kneel before the cross. Please know that my own agnostic questions will not and cannot interfere with how I view the validity of your cause. Pope Benedict has, almost beforehand, seemingly given himself up to martyrdom in its most pure definition. If such an undeserving fate awaits him, please know that I shall mourn with all of you in his passing.
We are on the brink of Holy war, all at the behest of Islam. May Islam rot in everlasting hell.
#5
If the criticism of evil (conversion by sword) offends evil people, then I am not sorry for one minute they are offended.
He must not apologise.
If I criticise pedophilia as inhumane disgusting behaviour that is evil, and 10,000 pedophiles protest, riot and burn down embassies, should I apologise? Should we make pedophilia legal?
What the hell do we stand for these days that if someone is offended we must apologise automatically?!!!
#6
Scooter, thank you so much for this quick and ready encouragement. For it is most definitely encouragement that I need right now.
I am on the verge of tears as I type this. It is nearly impossible for me to foresee anything but violence forthcoming from Islam with respect to Pope Benedict's brave and incisive observations.
Right now Islam, more than anything, perfectly embodies the Anti-Christ. Regardless of Islam's putative respect for "people of the book", it epitomizes the alluring but ultimately misleading "One-World-Religion" foretold by the Book of Revelations.
Again, I ask of you to please remember how little credence I place in Biblical prophesy.
Yet, the profound and intensely evil nature of Islam places it first and foremost as the penultimate candidate for such labeling.
If there is to be any sort of "Holy War", Islam will most certainly bring it about. Not just by dint of its eternal predictions of how necessary such violent methods are for the spread of its own doctrine, but more importantly, because of how it shall surely (and don't call me Shirley), cause every sort of apocalyptic and antagonistic conflict that every other religion has ever predicted in all of history.
#9
I reckon you're right, Zen, that he is a target now for assassination.
After all they tried to kill Pope John Paul II and now some Islamic commentators are praising him by comparison and saying Pope Benedict has now 'put us back to square one' in Muslim relations.
But that doesn't mean there will be holy war.
If the Islamists kill the Pope, why do you think the Christians will hit back?
#10
Thank you, Thoth. It's not so much that this is blowing my mind (and it is, at least to some extent), but that the dimension of what awaits this conflict is every bit as lethal as nuclear war. Yes, this may well be the launch of the new Crusades.
Can Islam claim, for the umpteenth time, any sort of victimhood?
Not if its adherents murder the Pope. No longer will Islam have the putative or ostensible refuge as any "Religion of Peace".
Certainly, I do not think so. We shall see. If Muslims can take Pope Benedict's words in stride, it will be much to their credit.
If another flurry of death fatwahs and horrendous cartoonifadas ensue, all bets are off.
#11
But Zen, you are basing your prediction (if I am reading you correctly) on the idea that the true face of Islam will then be unmasked as not "the religion of peace".
But that assumes that Christians worldwide are galvanised to take action if once that becomes obvious and palpable.
So far with all the declarations of Islamic supremacy, the desire for a world caliphate, the bombings riots and murders... it is already apparent I think to most people that Islam is not a religion of peace.
It is only bureaucrats and multi culti apparatchiks and mainstream media that must pay lip service to this lie (to avoid the courts).
So unmasking the lie might simply show up our own weakness: I predict the Christians will not hit back. I wish they would; there needs to be a holy war to sort the situation, it cannot be negotiated as the Islamists won't give ground.
I fear we will sit back and just take it if he is assasinated. What do you think about that scenario?
#12
I fear we will sit back and just take it if he is assasinated. What do you think about that scenario?
anon 1, forgive me for resorting to a less than precise interpretation of Christian doctrine that I encountered, right here at Rantburg.
To paraphrase: (You who posted this please step forward.)
Turning the other cheek implies receiving a reciprocal backhand or forehand slap (please help me here), that can only be construed as being worthy of family or slaves (In which ever order. I apologize that I cant be more precise and hope the responsible party will step forward.)
All said and done, Christianity cannot possibly sit idly by and allow Islam (any kind of slap), free rein as to the curtailment of competitive religious practice.
But that assumes that Christians worldwide are galvanised to take action if once that becomes obvious and palpable.
Whether they are or not, and that is no small matter, it will still devolve upon world opinion to assess the wrongdoing of a purportedly peaceful religion that assassinates another major religious leader. Any inability to act will only serve to condemn those who cannot retaliate. I doubt the Western world will prove itself incapable.
#13
Crap, that's so lame I can only hope the person who quoted this information will step forward. Otherwise, tomorrow I'll take the bit between my teeth and redefine this psychobabble.
#15
anon1, you are way too generous. I still hope that whichever person here at Rantburg who corrected me about the Christian interpretation of "turning the other cheek", will step forward.
The rest of what I have posted I will stand by to my death.
This world is rapidly approaching a moral gate whose passage will winnow those who are not worthy of future existence. I dread to think of how many will perish in the passage thereof.
#17
I hope that the Pope doesn't pay personally for stating the truth. May God keep him and protect him.
However, if he should, I wish I could be as optimistic as Zenster that the rest of the world would finally wake up. The intelligentsia/elites have been stubborn in their devotion to a "multi-culti" cause, even if they personally would suffer under Shariah more than most (yes, I'm talking about gays, women's groups, and anyone who wouldn't be considered a "Person of the Book" by those swine). Not a single one of them has spoken up on the Pope's behalf, but if something should happen to him, I guarantee they will come forward to say he brought it on himself. Mark my words.
Just level the Middle East , Indonesia , and be done with it ... Noone will care in 100 years , as proven with Japan at the end of the war .
It would take more than 100 years to mend any relations we have (if we had any in the first place) , so i say wipe the slate clean , and let the decent folk of the world just get on with living .
Sick to death of all this seething and spittle .
Launch the 'crusade-warheads' (or whatever they wanna call it) and be done with it .
#19
Good post Zenster, I would find it sad if something happened to the Pope (and I'm not Catholic) - seems he is truely a couragous man.
Having said that it would be telling if the Muslims manage to assasinate the pope for calling Islam a religion of violence. (But I don't see the MSM pointing that out - on the contrary they will probably point out that he deserved it by insulting Islam.)
Remember - the Crusades were a defensive measure against hundreds of years of Islamic expansion by-the-sword. I'd say we need a revival of the Crusades.
#20
Lotsa folks up early on what should prove to be a fine Saturday morning where I live. Good football weather. Nice time of year before you have to spend the whole weekend raking leaves and cleaniing out the gutters. Enjoy it while it lasts.
#21
I'm planning on getting out of raking the leaves by telling the Mrs that I'm joining the Crusade. My passport's expired so I'll join the Moonbats Between the Two Shining Seas Mop-Up Brigades.
#22
Sneash, as I've said before, everything about i-slam is a one way street (a presumption they claimed by right)and Zen has said that that street can be arranged to lead to Hell. Muzzies are pushing it whenever they feel strong and or their enemies appear weak.
My interpretation, Anon1, of turning the other cheek for Christians(I'm not one though)indicates that you may take just two intentional offenses or attacks, after which you hit back hard. That's as gentlemenly as things can/should ever be tolerated in a real world. More, and you embolden evil like nowadays pacifists and peaceniks(aka cowards)do moronically.
Throw not pearls before swines, similarly....once, twice and that's enough. There's been two major 'natural' calamity in muzzielands already in '04 and '05 already and the US played a leading role in relief efforts and private donations despite being designated as infidels. Beside, Donner Fatigue's also a natural combi and sequence.
#23
Zenster, you've nailed it in #1 and #6 above. Good stuff.
"God cannot possibly be of such a fragile ego as to take umbrage against those who might doubt His existence or refuse to fight His wars."
He also cannot be such a neurotic, obsessive-compulsive control freak that He flips out when someone inadvertently faces Mecca when squatting to take a shit. Muslims don't worship a "god": they worship a petulant, spoiled 3-year-old brat. A brat who has not yet moved beyond the pre-moral consciousness of the small child.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/16/2006 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#24
It's about time that we stop buying into the Islamic bullshit about how they worship the same god as the Judeo-Christian God. They don't.
There are several differences for anyone who cares to look. I'll give you just one. The Judeo-Christian God rewards those who lay down their lives for another, and says that anyone who saves an innocent life saves the world entire (yes, I know ol' Mo ripped that line off, but the rest of the Koran doesn't really back it up at all.) Classic example -- someone rolls a hand grenade into a room, and a person throws his or herself onto it to save everyone else by absorbing the blast with his or her body. That person would be rewarded by going to heaven. I have to admit, I'm not sure what happens up there...could be floating around with wings on your back playing the harp, hanging with friends who passed on before you, I don't know. But it sure doesn't resemble the Islamic version....
The Islamic god is so freakin' pathetic that he can't get rid of unbelievers by himself. Nope, his followers have to kill them for him. The more you kill, the happier he is. If you die while doing this, THEN you get to go to heaven. If you are a male, you get to party with a bunch of virgins who won't laugh at your sexual shortcomings since they don't know any different. If you are a woman, well, you finally are worth as much as a man. Ok, maybe all you get are raisins. Even they aren't sure in many circles. But the killing is rewarded, not the saving of life.
If you needed any further clarification as to why it's a death cult, look no further than that.
#26
An excerpt from the Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church (Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5):
Legitimate defense
2263
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
#27
Zen, it's like you looked into my mind. I too am a "scientific agnostic"; I too admire Benedict's forthrightness; I too worry about a holy war. You've expressed, most eloquently, what I've only thought in a disorganized fashion.
That said, I don't think the West would react to the assassination of His Holiness in the way you think. More and more I am coming to the conclusion that the best and the brightest among us have decided that the West deserves to die. Even those who are struggling to save our civilization, like President Bush, have let things get out of hand -- as witness the deterioration of the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq -- because they are distracted by the carping of the enemies of the West. I am constantly in despair at what I see happening, and I think we are going to have to prepare ourselves for a Democratic majority in November that will retreat and apologize until our position is untenable. The West is going into twilight, and the darkness will last until the Caliphate comes or we decide that we have something worth defending.
For myself, I find it harder and harder to hold onto my agnosticism. My admiration for the Catholic church and my belief that it is the bulwark on earth of a loving God increases by the day. I think that this is part of my mental and spiritual preparation for the coming darkness.
May God help us all.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
09/16/2006 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Zen, love ya', but: "there has been a personal shift, on my part, over to disbelief in moderate Islam. (?)"
C'mon, you've NEVER believed in a moderate Islam and have been advocating for the nuking of Mecca and Medina from day one. There are some of us who remember. Again, there IS a moderate Islam, but they are scared of the terrorists, and trapped in confusion (Islam is so ambiguous, how does one behave like a "good" Moslem anyway?). The point is, I don't really care whether or not you believe or disbelieve in a "moderate Islam," but you're being a bit disingenuous to make the claim in any case, and it weakens your presentation (which is too bad).
I thought the pope was telling it like it is regarding Islam, even if only in spite of himself. It was great. I'm sure the truth hurts the Islam-icks. History is so replete with Moslem excess and evil, one does't have to look far--which is why they always are trying to rewrite history to favor themselves (like WE MOSLEMS invented math, science, etc., when what they really did was to steal it from the Byzantine Christians). They're just the same today. Taking undue credit from others, and then blaming others for their problems. You also said, "It is impossible to imagine that Pope Benedict is unaware of how dangerous his projected sojourn to Turkey might prove." It's not impossible. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholics lead sheltered lives in many respects. I think, though, if anything happens to the Pope, the extremists will have their "dreaded" Crusade, and it won't be of the defensive sort either. I'm not sure they really want that, considerint it's the modern age (with modern weaponry). We must also remember that many Islam-icks believe that if they can cause a worldwide ruckus, their "imam" will come back and save the day, so many don't care how they bring about full-scale war--to them it achieves their ends.
Another point: the pope and the vatican have specifically, and always (not just now) been a prime target of the extremists. The boomers just haven't been able to figure out how to do it, and they don't yet have the resources to pull it off.
Also, I agree with what Dave D. said about the "temperment" of the Islamic god, and again, with what Cyber Sarge said -- "the Crusades were a defensive measure against hundreds of years of Islamic expansion by-the-sword." Europe was forced to defend itself back then, even though the Islam-icks like to bitch and moan about how terrible and unfairly they were treated by those meanie Crusaders. Well, what did they expect? That the "nice guys" of Europe would come out and have tea with them, and then negotiate a truce? By claiming that the pope is "reviving the Crusades" they attempt to continue with their revisionist history bullshit and weaken the morale and resolute determination of the West to defend itself against them. It's typical lie-laden PR. If we feel bad/guilty about something in the past, they'll exploit it in the present.
About Swamp Blondie's rant pertaining to Islam having a god other than GOD: here's a link It's a bit over the top in many respects (and not a lot of bandwidth for lots of visitors all at once), but still, quite a lot of very useful (and very disturbing) information about the very ugly side of Islam.
Now about your musings of God as "cosmic muffin"? I get where you're coming from but it's hardly the case. Here's an interesting excerpt which delineates the understanding that the people of (the true) God are in a cosmic battle and will be until the end of time. The excerpt is taken from a description of the icon of St. Michael and St. Gabriel.
"The Holy Archangels, Michael and Gabriel, are the two commanders of the Bodiless Hosts They are often depicted standing side by side with the Archangel Michael dressed as a warrior. By his word Satan was cast down from Heaven when St. Michael asked him, "Who is as God?" (the word Michael is the Hebrew translation of this question) in reply to the Evil Ones attempt to make himself equal to God. This Holy Archangel has always been invoked to help overcome all evil in any form and from those who attempt to do evil in this world. He is a helper of those in need, a Heavenly protector for those who turn to him to ask God to bring succor and aid in their distress, and an inspirer for us all to do what is pleasing to God and have the moral and physical strength to do so.
The Holy Archangel Gabriel who is also one of the leaders of the Bodiless Hosts. St. Gabriels name means "Man of God" in Hebrew and he has been the herald of tidings of divine and blessed things and events since history began. This Holy Archangel always helps, informs, and guides Gods people. He is dressed in fine robes and with a staff in his hand."
This is the ancient Orthodox view (don't know if it's the same as the Roman Catholic view), but it's also interesting to remember how much the Orthodox Christans suffered under the Moslems (just like now). Defending oneself against warmongers is not against the faith.
Zen, I join you in your last-line condemnation of Islam.
#29
The Islamic god is so freakin' pathetic that he can't get rid of unbelievers by himself. Nope, his followers have to kill them for him. The more you kill, the happier he is. If you die while doing this, THEN you get to go to heaven.
It's worse than that -- the holy murderer gets to pick 70 people to let into paradise. So there's a motive to support the holy murderers.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/16/2006 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Again, there IS a moderate Islam, but they are scared of the terrorists, and trapped in confusion
And pumping cash into the pockets of the jihadis.
There are no moderates. There are just Muslims content to let OTHERS murder their way into paradise.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/16/2006 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#31
RC, as much as I want to agree, the fact is, a lot of Moslems don't give a hoot about their religion, or see their religion in a way that is not at all compatible with what the radicals are doing. We have to continue to endeavor to "welcome" those sorts into our camp and encourage the "difference." It's a tricky game, to be sure, but it behooves us to remember that not all Moslems are bad, just like not all southern white gentlemen are klansmen. Capice?
#32
Zenster---my compliments for your eloquent, honest, and insightful comments. What we have seen in the last 30 years are skirmishes in the war between light and darkness.
Pope Benedict is a courageous man. He is a true man of faith in a God of goodness and love. As a leader, he knew what was at stake and what he would face when he signed on with the outfit, so to speak. He is walking into this with his eyes fully open. We may worry about his life and safety, but he knows what he must do.
So-called Muslim outrage about his remarks are orchestrated. The Muzzies see themselves on a roll right now. They are on a roll because countries like the US and Israel are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. Most Euros feel that they do not really have a dog in the fight, so they appease or do what they can to undermine the fight against Islamofascism. Well, the tantrums seem to work, so, by simple inductive logic, the Muzzies will keep it up, along with intimidation.
However, a spark, like an assassination of a Pope, or a nuke going off could change everything. Then Wrechard's 3 conjectures kicks in. All I know is that there are enough people unwilling to lose all the good of Western civilization to a bunch of throat slitting, pedophile, women-abusing psychos masquerading as religious men.
These are the times that try men's souls. I think of Winston Churchill and his leadership during the dark days of Britain during WW2. He kept going, despite how badly things seemed to go. Despite how f*cked up things seem to be, we must never give up.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/16/2006 11:45 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Just wanted to add --the point about moderate Islam is pretty much moot. Hardly any of them will speak out against the rage (either out of fear or confusion), and our fight isn't with them anyway, so it doesn't matter. My point about moderates in Islam (can anyone say majority Iran?) is true, but largely academic in terms of what we're facing.
#34
All I know is that there are enough people unwilling to lose all the good of Western civilization to a bunch of throat slitting, pedophile, women-abusing psychos masquerading as religious men
#36
BTW, these wackos seem to be able to muster a protest for almost anything. When was the last time you saw them protest against Binny or Zarq or any other terrorist? Maybe you want to adjust your numbers in my last post?
#37
#17 Not a single one of them has spoken up on the Pope's behalf, but if something should happen to him, I guarantee they will come forward to say he brought it on himself. Mark my words.
Regardless of how cynical it may sound, I do believe you are right, Blondie. I refuse to join the ranks of such moral cowards. That is why I was compelled to step forward with this post today. There are limits and too many of them have been passed already for good people to stand idly by.
#19 I would find it sad if something happened to the Pope (and I'm not Catholic) - seems he is truely a couragous man.
CrazyFool, about all I can offer is a famous and still quite apt saying:
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
#22 Duh, regarding what I was attempting to convey in post #12; Since the person who mentioned this has not come forward, I will try to reconstruct from memory what was discussed.
This related to the Biblical saying of Turn the other cheek. The interpretation mentioned was quite intriguing.
Supposedly, you strike a slave with the back of your hand, the classic backhand as it were. If a slave was to turn the other cheek, it would mean that to deliver another timely blow, one would have to use an open hand to dispatch it on the return swing. The traditional open-handed slap supposedly is something reserved for familiars and the slave effectively demands that he be treated as family by turning the other cheek.
I seem to recall this as being the gist of what was posted. If the person who originally made note of this would step in, Id appreciate it.
That's as gentlemenly as things can/should ever be tolerated in a real world. More, and you embolden evil like nowadays pacifists and peaceniks(aka cowards)do moronically.
Ill certainly agree with your interpretation as well, Duh!
#23 Zenster, you've nailed it in #1 and #6 above.
Thank you, David D. The available options from your well-thought-out list seem to be shrinking on a daily basis.
#27 Zen, it's like you looked into my mind. I too am a "scientific agnostic"; I too admire Benedict's forthrightness; I too worry about a holy war.
... That said, I don't think the West would react to the assassination of His Holiness in the way you think. More and more I am coming to the conclusion that the best and the brightest among us have decided that the West deserves to die.
Jonathan, while those you make note may seem to be the best and brightest, truly they can only be neither. They are slavering wolves in the fold. These pseudo-intellectuals are the most contemptuous and worst sort of thankless vipers that seek to ravage the very bosom that nurtures them. That our nation can somehow permit their existence is enduring testimony to American freedom. Whether our nation can survive them is another matter entirely and one that eventually must be addressed by all who seek to defend liberty and free thought.
#28 C'mon, you've NEVER believed in a moderate Islam and have been advocating for the nuking of Mecca and Medina from day one.
ex-lib, as is so too often the case, you are so far out in left field that youre playing behind home plate.
If you ever bothered to read my posts, then you would know that I, along with Fred Pruitt, originally defended the existence of moderate Muslims. Additionally, any mention I ever made about using atomic weapons against Mecca was in the context of retaliation-in-kind to a terrorist nuclear attack on American soil. Something you have handily omitted any mention of to serve your own slanderous ends.
Furthermore, all of the foregoing was in based in a discussion of how to evolve a credible deterrent to terrorism. Again, something you neglect to bring forth in your lust to paint me up as a bloodthirsty hawk.
The point is, I don't really care whether or not you believe or disbelieve in a "moderate Islam," but you're being a bit disingenuous to make the claim in any case, and it weakens your presentation (which is too bad).
Ummm... no. The actual point is that you are out to lunch before breakfast even hits the table.
Now about your musings of God as "cosmic muffin"? I get where you're coming from but it's hardly the case.
I doubt you even have the faintest idea of what I am alluding to by mention of that. Fortunately, we have more erudite people here at Rantburg, in the form of .com, who actually have a genuine sense of humor blended with their sagacity.
Zen, I join you in your last-line condemnation of Islam.
I suppose Ill have to settle for that, then.
# 30 There are no moderates. There are just Muslims content to let OTHERS murder their way into paradise.
While your cynicism meter seems to be pegged at 11 of late, RC, mine has been maxing out in general as well. Your above statement certainly finds no challenge from my quarter. The oft noted and continued thundering silence of this worlds Muslims even on the 9-11 atrocitys fifth anniversary has snapped whatever hope I ever had for moderate Islam. With Indonesias Mahathirs own proclamation that, There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim , I now abandon all such hope and take him at his word.
Finally, thank you all for wading through my cumbersome posts. The time has come for people to unite against the dawning of another yet fascist and genocidal regime. I am given hope by all of you here at Rantburg, no small gift in these perilous times. May Pope Benedict be sheltered beneath his God's wing.
As I have said before, this one is for all the marbles.
#38
These are the times that try men's souls. I think of Winston Churchill and his leadership during the dark days of Britain during WW2. He kept going, despite how badly things seemed to go. Despite how f*cked up things seem to be, we must never give up.
Word, Alaska Paul.
Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
Winston Churchill
This world is sorely in need of another Churchill. Sadly, when he was born they broke the mold.
When was the last time you saw them protest against Binny or Zarq or any other terrorist?
Bing-effing-go, Intrinsicpilot. This is the Thundering Silence I continue to decry and it is a searing indictment of all Islam. Publish some relatively benign cartoons and watch the threats fly and the blood flow. Fly loaded passenger jet airliners into some of the worlds largest occupied skyscrapers and barely a peep is heard. To hell with Islam.
#39
RC, as much as I want to agree, the fact is, a lot of Moslems don't give a hoot about their religion, or see their religion in a way that is not at all compatible with what the radicals are doing.
According to Mohammed, silence is consent. There's no group more silent in re Islamic terrorism than the supposed moderate Muslims. Fer crissake, I've watched a self-proclaimed moderate -- born, raised, educated in Australia -- refuse to condemn bin Laden for terrorist attacks he admitted to.
I'm only holding them to the standards they believe. If that's unfair... *shrug*.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/16/2006 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#40
While your cynicism meter seems to be pegged at 11 of late, RC, mine has been maxing out in general as well.
Look at the way the Islamic world acts. Sure, the vast majority just get on with their lives. But they do nothing about the murderers among them who are intent on killing people who want to get on with their lives, just not in an Islamic way.
Indonesia -- faked flyers advertising a "come to Jesus" revival targeting Muslims. Now the Christians in the province are in fear for their lives; some have had to flee the area.
Thailand. Sudan. France. Britain. Germany. Denmark.
All have Muslim groups intent on imposing their will on the non-Muslim population, while a supposedly moderate Muslim population does nothing. Worse than nothing, often -- the moderates seem to chime in with "don't blame Islam for this, you'll just cause violence".
Over and over and over and over, what we hear from the moderates isn't condemnation, but a combination of excuse-making, threats, and mulish refusal to even accept the reality of what's happening.
I gave up on the idea of the moderate Muslim long ago. Now I'm understanding why there aren't any of them; jihad is an obligation, and funding jihad counts nearly as much as slaughtering toddlers headed to Disneyland in the name of Allah.
So the "moderates" are playing their role in jihad: funding the jihadis and raising holy hell whenever the kaffir start to notice what's going on.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/16/2006 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#41
You bomb every country in the entire world, call us Crusaders, and then want the Pope to apologize about reading a conversation from the past? How history repeats itself. Now YOU listen, knock it off.
#43
Well, when they complain about what's ahead, the only response can be allan's willed it. Allan has willed you to die in the tens/hundreds of millions or lost to the mist of time.
#44
Zen, great post. I think this Pope gets it on several levels and yes he clearly understands the risk he is taking.
I doubt whether his assasination, should it happen, will affect much in the immediate aftermath. Swamp is right in saying that the western intelligentsia will blame the victim. And it will likely be undertaken by an individual whom they can label as "troubled", bi-polar or affected by am SRI-based psychiatric drug. But it WILL serve to move the masses to a better understanding of who and what islam is. It will open more eyes, just as today's seething and church burnings are doing. Islam is what it is. It cannot hide its nature, especially when it feels as emboldened as it does today.
The muzzies will overstep. This too is their nature. It is my hope that this will cause Europe to throw off the marxist/socialist cloak that blinds it to faith in God so they can truly join us in repulsing this Satanic religion.
#45
Indonesias Mahathir
That's Malaysia. Minor dif.
"As I have said before, this one is for all the marbles."
Marbles are definitely at stake .
I really like reading all your postrs. This is turning into a major issue.
God Bless the Pope. (I'm Jewish) And God Love the last pope ( A hard act to follow)
This man has taken a step for all of us. He knows what he us doing big time, and I applaud, LAUD him for it.
Thank you, J.D. Lux, my mistake. More fitting really, that such a quote should originate with the people who gave sentence reductions to those who committed the Bali bombing atrocity.
I'm really glad to hear that you, especially as a Jewish person, are concerned about the Pope and supportive of his actions. The more inter-faith support that can be generated, the more this might provide at least some sort of shield for Benedict.
#48
Is it overstepping if they don't get pushback?
I think we can safely define flying loaded passenger jet airliners into two of the world's largest occupied skyscrapers as "overstepping".
I truly have to wonder if, right now, America might be better served by an atheist president. Such an individual might have fewer reservations about instituting punitive measures against what is, ostensibly, one of the world's major religions.
From all outward appearance, Bush has fairly consistently allowed his own religious leanings to color our nation's reponse to these Islamic atrocities. I sense an unwillingness on his part to denounce Islamic fundamentalism and think it could be in fear of how he might open the door to any criticism of his own Christian fundamentalism.
Whatever the case may be, Bush's apparent reluctance to more aggressively prosecute the Islamofascists is doing no one any favors. Even the average Muslim is ill-served by this as they see less of a down side to their silence than there really should be.
#49
There is something to be said about restraint in destroying infrastructure. That's why we have neutron bombs. A series of bright white flashes and there are no more muslims to worry about. Everything of value in the Muslim world is still intact. We bring in workers from elsewhere to pump the oil and the world is a much better place.
Posted by: Random Thoughts ||
09/16/2006 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#50
You make it sound so easy......
Do we really ?
#52
We still have high yield radiation weapons, we just don't call them "neutron bombs" anymore. All nuclear weapons release massive quantities of neutrons. It's just a matter of maximizing the neutron yield from a minimal detonation in order to minimize damage to the surrounding infrastructure.
Even if they were not in our inventory, I'm certain we could convert over some of our lower yield devices in record time to suit any special occasion.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
DAKAR: Senegal has arrested more than 100 Pakistanis trying to sail to the Spanish Canary Islands, the authorities said on Friday. They were the first non-Africans to be seized during Spains struggle to cope with a vast tide of clandestine migrants. 
IT is mountainous country so remote and inhospitable that it has given Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants refuge, despite the unceasing efforts of the world's most potent and best-equipped intelligence services, using the most sophisticated methods, to track them down. This is the tribal territory of Waziristan, on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, nominally part of Islamabad's Northwest Frontier Province, but in reality an area where even Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's soldiers now fear to tread. For this, by all accounts, is the effective heart of the global war on terror. This is from where bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, together with the one-eyed Mullah Omar, notorious leader of the Taliban, are waging their offensive in Afghanistan. 
Key Nato countries have decided not to issue a diplomatic ultimatum to Pakistan which demanded that it ends its support for the Taliban and arrests leaders living in Pakistan.
LAHORE: Qazi Hussain Ahmed, ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami, criticised Pope Benedict's remarks on the concept of 'Jihad' in Islam, saying that it was against the teachings of Christ. Delivering a Friday sermon at Jamia Mansoorah, he said that the US was patronising colonial powers all over the world, adding that Islam was based on logic and rationale, which was attracting a large number of Christians in the West. He appealed to the Pope to urge Washington not to support Israel's military occupation of Palastine and military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and rest of the world. Islam was a religion of peace and the concept of Jihad was to help the oppressed, he concluded.
NEW DELHI: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Friday called Pope Benedict's remarks against Islam "a precursor to a greater war between Islam and Christianity". VHP chief Ashok Singhal said Islam was rapidly expanding in the West, thereby "threatening the existence of Christianity". "It is a battle of survival for them," he told a press conference. Singhal said though Hindus would not draw into this global battle, but cautioned that neither India nor Hindus would remain unaffected by it. The Ultra-Hindu nationalist party chief accused the pope and Christian missionaries of spending billions of rupees on religious conversions in secular societies. He accused the pope of running secret organisation Opus Dei to spread Christianity in secular societies.
State Information and Broadcasting Minister Tariq Azim Khan told the Voice of America in an interview this week that the United States had apologised to Pakistan for the January 13 attack on Damadola village in Waziristan, which resulted in the death of many women and children.
ISLAMABAD: The Foreign Ministry on Friday summoned the Vatican ambassador over the remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence. "Apostolic Nuncio (Ambassador of the Holy See) was called to the Foreign Office," the ministry said in a statement. "He was conveyed that the regrettable remarks attributed to Pope Benedict XV1 . . . were deeply disturbing for Muslims all over the world, and had caused great hurt and anguish," it said. "It was underlined that at a time when there was an acute need for promoting inter-faith harmony such remarks, regardless of the context, were very unfortunate."
The parliament on Friday unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI and passed resolutions demanding him withdraw his remarks against Prophet Muhammad (
US President George Bush said on Friday that Pakistan is a "sovereign" country and US troops cannot enter Pakistan in the hunt for Osama bin Laden unless they are invited to do so. At a news conference at the White House, Bush said that if the US wants to send its troops into Pakistan in pursuit of bin Laden, it will have to be invited by the government of Pakistan to do so. Bush added, "There is a kind of urban myth in Washington about how this administration hasn't stayed focused on bin Laden. We've been on the hunt till we bring him to justice. We're doing it in a smart fashion. We are." The president said, "And I look forward to talking to President Musharraf. He doesn't like Al Qaeda. They tried to kill him. And he has a good record of bringing people to justice inside of Pakistan because the Paks are in the lead. They know the stakes about dealing with a violent form of ideological extremism." 
Muslim nations in the Middle East should arm themselves with nuclear weapons to deter Western enemies from attacking them, former Malaysian Prime Minister 
Head of the northern faction of the Islamic Movement Sheikh Raed Salah said Friday that soon Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Muslim caliphate, and the caliphs seat will be there. Salah addressed an audience of 50,000 attending the Islamic Movements 11th annual rally in Umm al-Fahm. Caliph refers to a leader of the Muslim nation and in Arabic means the heir or substitute of the prophet Muhammad. 
HAMAS has become practised at linguistic somersaults since it took over the Palestinian government in March, but has never needed to nuance its words as carefully as over a promised unity government. The struggle for phrasing highlights the dilemma for Hamas, caught between wanting to satisfy international demands for change in order to ease sanctions while telling its power base that it stands firm on its position. 
JAKARTA: Pope Benedicts comments about Islam could hurt global religious harmony, government and religious leaders in the worlds most populous Muslim countries said on Friday. A growing chorus of Muslim leaders have called on the Pope to apologise for the remarks he made in a speech in Germany on Tuesday when he used the terms jihad and holy war. Islamic scholars say the Pope comments show how little he understands Islam and some have said Islamic countries should threaten to break off relations with the Vatican. 
