It's daffy, all right, but in reality Gaddafi is reflecting the conventional wisdom here. What's the difference between an Islamic state and a Christian state? Why, maybe the cut of one's beard or the style of one's hat. That's it. Stonings? Amputations? Denial of free speech? Denial of legal equality? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?
"Gaddafi defends Taliban," from Agence France-Presse, September 24 (thanks to Maxwell):
LIBYAN President Muammar Gaddafi launched a spirited defence of Afghanistan's hardline Taliban overnight in a rambling address to the UN General Assembly.
"Why are we against the Taliban? Why are we against Afghanistan?" he asked leaders of more than 120 nations attending the annual General Assembly debate.
"If the Taliban wants to make a religious state, okay, like the Vatican. Does the Vatican constitute a danger against us? No," said the Libyan leader, addressing the 192-member body for the first time in his 40 years in power.
"If the Taliban wants to create an Islamic emirate, who said they are the enemy?" he said....
If the Taliban re-create the hell on earth that they turned Afghanistan into from 1994 to 2001, the world will be back where it was before 9/11. The Vatican by contrast has never created a hell on earth.
I couldn't listen to him...he made my brain hurt.
I did take note though, that he's still wearing that disco DJ outfit he got in the 70's.
"If the Taliban wants to create an Islamic emirate, who said they are the enemy?"
Um, that's what they had in 2001, resulting in ........
Daffy would be the smarter of the two. Just sayin'.
I visited the Vatican 5 years ago. Can't seem to recall any terrorist training camps.
No, Qaddafi, the Taliban are not a threat to you or the Ummah. They however did declare themselves to be the enemies of the rest of us.
Nice two-step, clown.
Let's play with this 'Gaddafithink' one step further:
ok, like Israel?
When was the last time the Vatican encouraged people to kill in the name of Christ?
When was the last time anyone acted on behalf of the Vatican in a violent manner?
When was the last time the Vatican issued a death threat against Dan Brown?
When was the last time a Catholic said a Hail Mary and detonated themselves?
Is anyone asking these relevant questions? Does anyone even care?
Yeah, I visited the Vatican three years ago. There weren't any terrorist training camps, but there were plenty of anti-terror security measures, thanks to the efforts of Gaddafi's pals: airport-style scanners at the entrances to both the Vatican museum and to St. Peter's. And the price of admission to the museum was 12 euros -- about 16 dollars(!) -- also thanks to Gaddafi's pals. It wasn't that long ago that admission to a major Italian museum was about 25 cents.
It's amazing that Gaddhafi is still kicking around, all that hair dye is rotting his brain.
Oriana Fallaci thought that compared to Arafat, listening to Gaddafi was like listening to Winston Churchill. Arafat was the most transparently low-life criminal dirty-minded lying ignorant gangster she had ever met. It made her physically ill to be in his presence. So now, whenever I see Gaddafi (gag, barf) I immediately think of how truly hideous Arafat must have been!
The inmates are truly running the asylum.
That this clown actually got air time is unbelievable.
ebonystone - I visited the Vatican and San Pietro before 9/11. There were none of the "anti-terror security measures" you spoke of in your comment, and of course no one feared any "terror" anyway. Look what the primitive savages have done to our world.
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the comparsion made between Islam and Christianity.
I'm telling you, it does not matter how many times or in how much detail I get to show that they are NOT the same. People completely dismiss every word I say and continue with their false comparison.
It's maddening! I just don't know how to get through to these people anymore.
I suspect most rational people will recognize Qaddafi Duck for the looney tune that he is. But that excludes most of the Middle East folks who were busy with their goats during the Age of Reason.
Actually, the Jihadi madman inadvertently makes an interesting point. Islamic totalitarianism is obvious in it's naked brutality. The Vatican is far more subtle than that, pursuing it's agenda of planting the cross by stealth and sophistication. Therefore, it achieves great success in acquiring dominion of countries - more than the mad mullahs can hope for with their terrorism.
There are fewer takers for the false notion of Islam as a "religion of peace" than the numbers conned by the equally false notion of Christianity as a "religion of love".
While Christianity takes its mission from the directive given by Jesus himself to "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel", this hardly constitutes "domination of countries". And a devout Christian also takes serious another directive from Jesus to "love your neighbor as yourself". So I'm not sure where how you come to the false conclusion that Christianity is not a religion of love. Sounds like you have some kind of personal beef with Christianity.
Don't be fooled the Vatican is a suppressionist regime as well, only not to the extent Islam is. For example: The Vatican tried to jail comedian Sabina Guzzanti for her freedom of speech directed against pope Benedict XVI. Here is what she said: "Within 20 years the Pope will be where he ought to be in hell, tormented by great big poofter devils, and very active ones, not passive ones." Her own producers even placed a gag-like order on her as well.
She was barred from speaking about or from even lampooning Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
Lastly, the Vatican's pratice of contraception is indirectly killing alot of religious people in Africa.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Screw the Vatican and anyone else who trys or even thinks of/about suppressing freedoms. The Vatican is in need of one last reform.
Yeah right, karyakarta, keep drinking the green kool-aid.
Have you read the NT? All Jesus did was preach love. Of course, he could and did get angry - such as at the Money Lenders in the Temple. Indeed, He smashed their tables and drove them out and rightfully so. Mohamet, however, would have beheaded them.
So, Christianity as a "religion of love" is definitely NOT a "false notion." Read the NT, why don't you?
Gadaffi-duck had no place to pitch his tent and he got a very restless sleep, poor fellow.
He certainly filled the UN Assembly with a lot of "hot air".
With the combinations of Gadaffi's speech and the Muslim farts I heard they had to use the tent pegs and tie-downs from Gadaffi's tent to keep the UN from floating away into space.
I wonder where he is going to pitch his tent? Oh yes, Obama was so impressed with his commentaries that he has offered the back lawn at the White House.
And speaking of "Daffy"...Did you know that there is a protest to have "Looney Toons" removed from the airwaves at Nickelodeon? That's right! The protest demands that any inflamatory cartoons that depict Muslims or Arabs should be removed. Here is the link: http://www.cafearabica.com/action/actonnickelodeon4.html
He left his email so you can write him.
"Please cc your letters to
Ghada Khouri
Email: gkhouri@adc.org"
He also has the emails and phone numbers for the President of Nickelodeon. How "Daffy" is that?
I am so "sick and tired of being "sick and tired".
This constant whining makes me sick to my stomach.
What, me drinking "green kook aid"? That's funny! I agree with you on everything except your contention that Christianity is a "religion of love". It is not. Period.
Karyakarta
you state categorically that 'Christianity' is NOT a religion of love.
Why, precisely?
First, by 'Christianity' what do you mean? ALL the Christians in the world (a great many of whom are NOT Roman Catholics and have never been - the Eastern Orthodox - NOT 'ruled from the Vatican' in any sense of the word), and all who have ever existed, and every Christian theologian, and every one of the saints, and the entirety of the canonical Christian scriptures?
How are you going to reinterpret 1 Corinthians 13?
"These three abide, faith, hope, and charity [Greek agape - usually translated in modern English as 'love']; but the greatest of these is charity".
How do you interpret John 3: 16, 'For God so loved the world, that He sent his only Son'? Even if you believe that sentence to be total fiction, you have to acknowledge that every Christian who learns it by heart, has a picture in their head of a deity capable of love; a deity who loves people.
How will you interpret 1 John 4: 16 - "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him". (The Greek word here translated 'love' is agape, expressing a general, generous and welcoming love that is not confined to familial or erotic ties).
The fact remains that Christians believe that the supreme deity, the creator of the universe, IS love, and loves people, and requires His people to love one another - and their neighbours - and even their enemies - as a sign of their relationship to him. Benedict XVI is known for a treatise entitled 'Deus Caritas': 'God [is] Love'.
'Love one another as I have loved you; by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" - Gospel of John, chapter 13: 34-35.
In the parable of the sheep and the goats Jesus blesses those who gave food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, welcome to the stranger, and visited the sick and those in prison. Why? - because he identifies himself with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the sick and the prisoner. To offer love and charity to such people is to offer it to the Imago Dei present in them.
Early Roman pagans, who despised the Christians, nevertheless observed that ordinary Christians did make an effort to behave lovingly and charitably (in the sense of practical charity - caring for the poor, sick, etc.) to one another...AND to outsiders.
'Ubi caritas et amor/ Deus ibi est' - 'Where there is charity and love/ God is there': a line from an ancient Latin hymn.
I am really very curious as to *what* you think Christianity is *really* 'about', if you state so aggressively and contemptuously that it is NOT about love and has never been about love and has never had anything to do with love.
It seems to me that to be able to say that, you would have to be one of two things: either a certain type of fanatical Hindu who is convinced that because of the Christian doctrine that Jesus is the unique Son of God, a believing Christian is qua Christian 'hateful' and a hater and a wicked, evil person, irrespective of how much selfless charity many ordinary Christians may be seen practising day after day within his or her community or to outsiders; or else a western follower of Nietzsche, who is so dogmatically convinced that EVERYTHING is about power and resentment, that no matter what Christians actually say they believe, and no matter what loving acts they keep on trying to do (however much they falter and fail at it) you will still insist that it's all a sham and that the Christians *must* be *really* into power like everybody else.
Small correction to my posting above (the only thing I miss about IntenseDebate is the capacity to edit postings): for "irrespective of how much selfless charity many ordinary Christians may be seen practising day after day within his or her community or to outsiders" read "irrespective of how much selfless charity many ordinary Christians may be seen practising day after day within their own community or toward outsiders".