Muslims rage against the Pope!

[jujuman13]

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

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

Seems you are dammed if you don't.


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

And damned if you do.

I have no feelings for Islam, it is merely another religion, to be respected or not, as one wishes.

What I most deeply object to are the savages that profess to live their lives by the teachings but in actual fact do anything but live by it's teachings.

If any religion is not strong enough to have quotes, remarks, observations made about it without this ridiculous turmoil, then it must be fundamentally flawed.

I have no desire to become an adherent of a faith that evidently says I must rail against any unbeliever, that says they must believe as I believe that says they must live as I live.

To me that is a most unwholesome way of living.

 

[akyron]

He writes his own speeches they say. This one was an attempt to bring down the level of violence going on in the muslim world. (I dislike that term but they seem to love it. It implies they need an entire world away from the rest of humanity or scour the rest of us from the current earth)




The pope was questioning the entire concept of holy war. Of course they flipped because holy war is a premier part of the muslim manual.


Ishaq:472 “Muhammad’s Companions are the best in war.”


He should hire some speech writers.

 

[jujuman13]

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


Then Pope John Paul 11 spent 25 years attempting to promote a lie.

 

[jujuman13]

A few statistics to prove the value of Jews versus Moslem's.

Check out these Interesting statistics!

Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, or 20% of
the world population...

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz.

Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat

Physics:
1990 - Elias James Corey
1999 - Ahmed Zewail

Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad



Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000, or about 00.02%
of the world population...

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charle s Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abra ham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Art hur Ko rnberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen (& Rita Levi-Montalcini)
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis


The Jews are not demonstrating with their dead on the streets, yelling
and chanting and asking for revenge.

The Jews are not promoting brain washing their children in military
training camps.

The Jews are not teaching their children how to blow themselves up and
cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims.

The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics.

The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and
death to all the Infidels.

The Jews don't have the economic strength of petroleum, nor the
possibilities to force the world's media to see "their side" of the
question.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard
education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.


Author Unknown

 

[Binary_Digit]

Muslims are offended? Cry me a ****ing river. Maybe instead of protesting against someone who speaks the truth (the pope, that Danish cartoon, etc.) they should organize and rally against the extremists in their company who make it the truth.

 

[akyron]

they should organize and rally against the extremists in their company who make it the truth.

Technically that isnt being a "good" muslim.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binary_Digit
they should organize and rally against the extremists in their company who make it the truth.



Technically that isn't being a "good" Muslim.

Why not?

Are they going to continue to permit the extremists to take over their religion?

If what you say is true, then the best we in the west can do is expel all Muslims and forbid them ever enterring our Christian countries.

 

[erasamus snoggle]

I have simply had it with Muslims threatening any who disagree with them or who don't walk on eggs when discussing them.

Muslims have a habit of threatening people they dislike with death and destruction. I don't think I am alone in becoming more and more fed up with their behavior. If you threaten me once I will probably overlook it as an over-reaction but an anomaly. If you do it twice I will be annoyed but still overlook it. When it becomes standard behavior to act in this way, to threaten, to riot, even to kill, I finally say, f*** you.

I am sick and tired of being threatened by Muslims every time they don't like something. I am sick and tired of Muslims feeling free to insult the West, to threaten Jews and Christians and then to riot when someone says something negative about them.

I am arriving at a point where I say, if there is going to be war between Muslims and the rest of the world let them bring it on, but if they do let us no longer restrain ourselves. If they hit us with a rock we should hit them with a boulder. If they hit us with a stick we should hit them back with a log. So long as the world allows Muslims to act the way they do they will continue. It is time to start letting them know that their actions have consequences.

I didn't feel this way even after 9/11 but I have finally had enough. It is time Muslims are punished, economically and if that doesn't work, physically. We tried the, 'most Muslims are good guys' approach and that hasn't worked. It is now getting closer to the time to call in the bad cop.

 

[jujuman13]

erasamus snoggle

That post is an excellent response.

My thoughts exactly.

Thanks you.

 

[akyron]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binary_Digit
they should organize and rally against the extremists in their company who make it the truth.



Technically that isn't being a "good" Muslim.

Why not?

Are they going to continue to permit the extremists to take over their religion?

If what you say is true, then the best we in the west can do is expel all Muslims and forbid them ever enterring our Christian countries.

No we like the bad muslims. They mostly want a job and to feed their kids.

They arent very good at being muslims.

 

[akyron]

You could have just left the topic at Muslims rage against__________.

So many things fill in the blank correctly.

 

[python416]

Muslims are offended? Cry me a ****ing river. Maybe instead of protesting against someone who speaks the truth (the pope, that Danish cartoon, etc.) they should organize and rally against the extremists in their company who make it the truth.

Cry me a river? The pope is a leader of a religon and should be using his words more carefully. There is plenty of violence in Christianity's history. Proper Islam respects all the Abrahamic religions.

 

[akyron]

Cry me a river? The pope is a leader of a religon and should be using his words more carefully. There is plenty of violence in Christianity's history. Proper Islam respects all the Abrahamic religions.

Yeah. Calling for a cessation of violence? How awful.

 

[python416]

Cry me a river? The pope is a leader of a religon and should be using his words more carefully. There is plenty of violence in Christianity's history. Proper Islam respects all the Abrahamic religions.

Yeah. Calling for a cessation of violence? How awful.

Not sure what you are saying here, but if it was that the Pope's words shouldn't have been received poorly because in the end he was just calling for a cessation of violence from the religion that he basically suggested was inheritly violent, then I guess it depends on what standard you want to hold the leader of a church too. Especially a church that has a history of violence like Christianity.

Islam respects Jesus and his followers, and the leader of Jesus's religion should respect Islam.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Cry me a river? The pope is a leader of a religon and should be using his words more carefully.

While I agree the pope has a heavy responsibility to be careful with what he says publically, I don't agree that he should refrain from speaking the truth for fear of offending those who make it true.

There is plenty of violence in Christianity's history.

There's plenty of violence in the history of every major religion, so what? Do you see Christians rioting in the streets whenever someone brings that up? No. It's overwhelmingly ironic to me that when Muslims are accused of being violent, they respond with.....violence!

Proper Islam respects all the Abrahamic religions.

Well those who practice "proper Islam" are not who the pope was talking about. They aren't the ones validating his point right now.

 

[PrimBabUB]

I have simply had it with Muslims threatening any who disagree with them or who don't walk on eggs when discussing them.

Muslims have a habit of threatening people they dislike with death and destruction. I don't think I am alone in becoming more and more fed up with their behavior. If you threaten me once I will probably overlook it as an over-reaction but an anomaly. If you do it twice I will be annoyed but still overlook it. When it becomes standard behavior to act in this way, to threaten, to riot, even to kill, I finally say, f*** you.

I am sick and tired of being threatened by Muslims every time they don't like something. I am sick and tired of Muslims feeling free to insult the West, to threaten Jews and Christians and then to riot when someone says something negative about them.

I am arriving at a point where I say, if there is going to be war between Muslims and the rest of the world let them bring it on, but if they do let us no longer restrain ourselves. If they hit us with a rock we should hit them with a boulder. If they hit us with a stick we should hit them back with a log. So long as the world allows Muslims to act the way they do they will continue. It is time to start letting them know that their actions have consequences.

I didn't feel this way even after 9/11 but I have finally had enough. It is time Muslims are punished, economically and if that doesn't work, physically. We tried the, 'most Muslims are good guys' approach and that hasn't worked. It is now getting closer to the time to call in the bad cop.

I couldn't agree more. Excellent post. You may find this site interesting:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

At the bottom is a list of terrorist attacks for the past five months.

 

[python416]

While I agree the pope has a heavy responsibility to be careful with what he says publically, I don't agree that he should refrain from speaking the truth for fear of offending those who make it true.


There's plenty of violence in the history of every major religion, so what? Do you see Christians rioting in the streets whenever someone brings that up? No. It's overwhelmingly ironic to me that when Muslims are accused of being violent, they respond with.....violence!

I think the irony is just as profound when anti-Muslims call people violent while their government bombs innocent people by the thousands and calls it collatral damage. Then you get the old "at least we try not to kill civilians" agrument, which I personally don't accept when you see that we don't do a very good job of it. Western retaliatory strikes always out-kill the original attacks by a long shot.

You can argue yourself into circles with Muslim vs. Western right vs. wrong - but at some point the pathway to peace is only going to be found by thinking about how to make the world a safer place for everyone regardless of if they ive in New York, Beruit, or Jeruselam.

The Pope's message doesn't help us towards that goal, and it should. The Bush administration's policies certainly don't, but the Pope has a higher responsibility as a spritual leader.

Well those who practice "proper Islam" are not who the pope was talking about. They aren't the ones validating his point right now.

Maybe he should have choosen his words more carefully then - so the distinction is clear. Just like Bush should have choosen his words more carefully when he grouped Iraq in Al Qaeda together in 2002/2003. But when someone forgets to be specific, it is usually to set a connotation they are trying to get across. Either that or it is a mistake - which if it is, he should have just said he made a mistake and be done with it.

 

[akyron]

I don't agree that he should refrain from speaking the truth for fear of offending those who make it true..

Well they are burning him in effigy.

Maybe he cool it with calling a spade a spade for now and just say mass and go play his XBOX for a couple of weeks.

At least before they kill him for calling for a toning down of violence.

Geez...

 

[akyron]

Just like Bush should have choosen his words more carefully when he grouped Iraq in Al Qaeda together in 2002/2003.

The words seemed pretty clear to me.


"we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them"


Are you saying Saddam never supported any kind of terrorism?





"there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing"

 

[python416]

The words seemed pretty clear to me.


"we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them"


Are you saying Saddam never supported any kind of terrorism?





"there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing"

Saddam wasn't connected to Al Qaeda. I thought Al Qaeda was the target? After, didn't they attack the US on 911? Saddam was contained and not part of the attack. I would want POTUS to go after the people who attacked the US, just like he said he would.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I think the irony is just as profound when anti-Muslims call people violent while their government bombs innocent people by the thousands and calls it collatral damage. Then you get the old "at least we try not to kill civilians" agrument, which I personally don't accept when you see that we don't do a very good job of it. Western retaliatory strikes always out-kill the original attacks by a long shot.

If you can invent a bomb that will kill bad guys but not civilians, the Department of Defense will pay millions for the patent. Until then, the best we can do is make sure any military action we have to take is justified, which I won't argue in this thread.

You can argue yourself into circles with Muslim vs. Western right vs. wrong - but at some point the pathway to peace is only going to be found by thinking about how to make the world a safer place for everyone regardless of if they ive in New York, Beruit, or Jeruselam.

The Pope's message doesn't help us towards that goal, and it should. The Bush administration's policies certainly don't, but the Pope has a higher responsibility as a spritual leader.

When Muslim radicals kill people simply because they aren't Muslim, how do you propose we find that pathway to peace? Denouce their actions or have everyone convert to Islam?

Maybe he should have choosen his words more carefully then - so the distinction is clear.

You're right, he shouldn't have labeled the entire religion like that.

The words seemed pretty clear to me.

"we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them"

Are you saying Saddam never supported any kind of terrorism?

No, I think he was saying Sadaam never supported al'Qaeda.

 

[python416]

If you can invent a bomb that will kill bad guys but not civilians, the Department of Defense will pay millions for the patent. Until then, the best we can do is make sure any military action we have to take is justified, which I won't argue in this thread.

Despite what Raytheon and Boeing want DoD everyone to believe, it takes more than technology to acheive security. The US already has the means to surgically strike targets: special forces. But that would create casualities. So instead, the US uses technology that saves Americans while sacraficing the foreign population. Ironically, the terrorists actually want the US to kill innocent civilians because it aids recuitment and anti-American sentament. And the Bush Administration is given them exactly what they want.

When Muslim radicals kill people simply because they aren't Muslim, how do you propose we find that pathway to peace? Denouce their actions or have everyone convert to Islam?

The problem isn't the radicals, it is the fact the anti-Americanism is so high in the population that radicals are able to operate. If everyone in the area like the US, the radicals would be forced out. The pathway to peace is to stop killing so many civilians and let America win the hearts and minds through education and aid.

Look at Indoneisa, the biggest Muslim population in the world. After the sunami, Bush 41 and Clinton helped rebuild, and now the radical forces in the area are inactive because the population's children see the good work America and the west can do. When you win the people, you win the war. America has so much potential to make things right, but I don't think you can do it with bullets.

 

[PrimBabUB]

I think the irony is just as profound when anti-Muslims call people violent while their government bombs innocent people by the thousands and calls it collatral damage. Then you get the old "at least we try not to kill civilians" agrument, which I personally don't accept when you see that we don't do a very good job of it. Western retaliatory strikes always out-kill the original attacks by a long shot.

You can argue yourself into circles with Muslim vs. Western right vs. wrong - but at some point the pathway to peace is only going to be found by thinking about how to make the world a safer place for everyone regardless of if they ive in New York, Beruit, or Jeruselam.

The Pope's message doesn't help us towards that goal, and it should. The Bush administration's policies certainly don't, but the Pope has a higher responsibility as a spritual leader.



Maybe he should have choosen his words more carefully then - so the distinction is clear. Just like Bush should have choosen his words more carefully when he grouped Iraq in Al Qaeda together in 2002/2003. But when someone forgets to be specific, it is usually to set a connotation they are trying to get across. Either that or it is a mistake - which if it is, he should have just said he made a mistake and be done with it.

I took notice of your use of 'anti-Muslim' instead of 'non-Muslim'. I find irony from a person that criticizes a country that recognizes civilians as collateral damage (and apologizes for it), while in turn has no criticisms for those that purposely target innocent civilians and celebrate their death as a victory.

I don't want to argue around in circles. So why don't you tell us, what IS the path to peace. I'm all ears, or perhaps eyes.

What I find odd, is.....people keep saying they are defending the world's freedom of speech ....but this only seems to apply as long as they don't mention anything negative toward Islam.