Read this. Enough said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51942

WND Exclusive FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Syria blames U.S.
for embassy attack
Claims Washington orchestrated it
to get concessions from Damascus
Posted: September 12, 2006
12:47 p.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – The attack today against the United States embassy in Damascus was orchestrated by American intelligence to embarrass the Syrian regime and extract political concessions, a senior member of Syrian President Bashar Assad's Baath Party claimed to WND.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 18, 2006 2:00 PM

Why is that man still free to roam the United Kingdom?

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 18, 2006 2:02 PM

Its time this scumbag was kicked out of Britain full stop. We don't want scum like that here and manipulating our laws to suit his purposes. But unfortunately, being a lawyer, he knows he can say these things and get away with it.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at September 18, 2006 2:06 PM

The muslims say
"Pope go to hell". Why would His Holyness would want to go where Mohammed and all the other muslims are?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 18, 2006 2:07 PM

It is Islam and its hordes of killer-Zombies that must die. That is the reality the world will be forced to realize and act upon.

How much more of this can the world take? Why should the world tolerate ANY more of this?

Posted by: pythagoras at September 18, 2006 2:08 PM

Hello all,

There is no truth without discernment and taking this situation out of context will never solve this world's problems. The straw that breaks the camel's back always follows the results of earlier deeds.

The Pope's choice of words were brain dead, in my humble opinion, if he was seeking to spread peace. He could have appealed for cooler heads and humility from all sides using any other words, but instead he chose to quote Crusade era hypocrisy that was guaranteed to inflame Muslims. Now we see the backtracking and spinning that always follows the gaffes of those afraid of simply telling the truth.

More proof that religion is the opposite of truth, wisdom, and justice

The "infallible" Grand Inquisitor (the pot) sought to lecture Islam (the kettle) about spreading religion through dark deeds by quoting a Dark Ages text while the USA and Europe are in the midst of the Neo-Crusades. The irony and absurdity in this situation is amazing, to say the least. It evidences both the fallacy and fallibility of those who vainly and arrogantly pretend to serve the Creator.

Dear Pope, ever heard of Karma or the golden rule? Ever stop to remember how the Vatican and western nations became so rich and powerful over the centuries? Ever consider giving up your blood drenched wealth and earthly power to end the blatant hypocrisy of your vane, materialistic, and duplicitous empire? Ever think of forgoing your peacock's robes to walk the walk instead of simply talking the talk? Remember the "eye of the needle" and "log and mote in the eye" parables? Is this a demonstration of your infallibility, wisdom, or utter blindness? As another wise one once said; What goes around comes around!

The West has killed far more Muslims (and other dark skins) than they have killed westerners, yet our press and leaders can only see Muslim and "third world" desperation in the face of western military and economic dominance and oppression, (in the name of God and country, by the way), as sources of evil in this world.

Guess what guys and girls, war, violence, and injustice are evil, no matter what the excuse or cause or who is doing it to whom. Anyone who thinks the Creator would judge religion, war, or any other profiteering at the expense of others as wise or acceptable activities has a very big surprise in store.

Here is Wisdom!!
...and here too...

Posted by: Seven Star Hand at September 18, 2006 2:11 PM

I am sure the Metropolitan Police have a very thick file code-named "Gobby Racist Bigot" AKA Anjem Choudary. His days are numbered. All this stuff that is making everyone’s blood boil is just more evidence for the time when he forfeits his freedom. Leave it to the police as to when they sweep the gob-shite and his goons off the streets of London.

Meanwhile UK government, make it illegal to wear headscarves at demonstrations.

Posted by: Turbinehead at September 18, 2006 2:12 PM

Goes to show that there is no talking to these people.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 18, 2006 2:12 PM

As the average Westerner watches the news, the picture that the faithful of Islam are completely intolerant of any criticism seems to become ever more clear.

The TV shows us in the West violent reactions to percieved criticism of the "religion of peace:" a Dutch director is stabbed to death when he makes a film critical of the treatment of women in the Islamic world, a Danish magazine prints some cartoons, and worldwide riots occur, and this latests incident of the Pope quoting a medieval script, and saying that violence is the wrong path, leading to yet more murders, church-burning, and death threats.

My biggest fear is what will happen when the West finally overcomes its own knee-jerk political correctenss, and says to itself, "my God! The only way we will be safe in our beds at night is if all of those Muslims are gone."

What then?

Posted by: savethewave at September 18, 2006 2:15 PM

UK laws need to be changed so scum like this can be deported back to their muslim bughole's they so adore..This is clear incitement to murder, and terrorism, and religious hatred against the Christian faith!!!...

Bl'iar needs to go and so to the shower-of-shit labour party...National Front are the ones to take over from these treacherous land and people traitors!!!!

http://eunationalist.org

Posted by: EU_Nationalist at September 18, 2006 2:21 PM

People on this board just a thought:-
Make an e-mail circulation list of
All head/local politicians
National newspaper/ local papers/columnists
Radio
TV stations
Keep sending these info snippets from other world Medias & highlight your concerns,
Eventually they may broadcast some or at least look at the bigger picture.
Also post to as many blogs as you can include hobby blogs.
heres the important bit;-
join politcal parties & get involved with decision, policy making that is the biggest way forward ,join your local politcal party or start a new one we are all waiting for the new churchill.who will it be? you?

god bless the pope.

Posted by: alwaysinfidel at September 18, 2006 2:21 PM

Seven Star Hand, thou must have sat upon one of those stars. Please remove it from thy rear quarters.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at September 18, 2006 2:28 PM

Have any of you people considered that this website may not be what it seems? Every day, several articles describing Muslim outrages are posted here. Instead of doing anything constructive, readers then post comment after comment bewailing the depravity of Islam.

What do any of you accomplish? It matters not whether the comments are the bloviations of the insufferable windbag Hugh Fitzgerald, or the semiliterate rants of the many drooling lunatics who populate this site. The net result is that nothing is done! One must wonder whether that is not the point. That is, the purpose of this site may be to divert the people from taking any actions in defense of their civilization, and, of course, to monitor those who dare to speak up, perhaps marking them for future action.

Is it not obvious that the elites who control the United States and Europe have long since decided that the triumph of Islam is inevitable? Western civilization has been sold down the river and there is nothing you can do to rescind the sale.

Don't worry, be happy!

Vive El Presidente Jorge bin Jorge al-Bush!

Islam is a religion of peace!

Allahu akbar!

Posted by: Norseman at September 18, 2006 2:31 PM

Seven Star Hand: What you been smokin, dude?

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at September 18, 2006 2:33 PM

I am sure the Metropolitan Police have a very thick file code-named "Gobby Racist Bigot" AKA Anjem Choudary. His days are numbered.

When do we get to day Zero...? to-day woud be my first choice.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 18, 2006 2:33 PM

It is obvious that Seven Star Hand lives in a fantasy world. This person is living under the illusion that:

- the emperor who made the statement was a Crusader hypocrite. Wrong. The emperor was living in a city under seige from Muslims.

- claims that the West has killed more Muslims than the other way around. Wrong again. Perhaps he or she has the appropriate statistics to prove the point. That kind of sweeping statement just does not cut it these days.

- claims that the Crusaders were the hypocrites. Wrong again. The Jihadis were running amok and the Crusaders were called into action in an effort to prevent Europe being enslaved to thugs and bullies.

Posted by: Maggie4Life at September 18, 2006 2:34 PM

From Neal Boortz to all.

Pope Benedict moves into the area of his speech that has sparked the controversy with this paragraph:

"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian."

Pope Benedict then goes on to quote one particular. This is something the Byzantine emperor said to the Persian on the subject of Islam and jihad, or holy war.

"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."

Now remember ... these were not the words of the Pope. These were the words of some emperor over 600 years ago. The emperor evidently thought that Islam was a violent religion, and that it was the commands of Mohammed that made it so.

So ... how do Muslims react to the Pope's revelation that a Byzantine emperor 600 years ago thought that Islam was a violent religion? Why, with violence, of course? Muslims murder a nun in Somalia. They burn churches in Gaza, and they go on their grand marches and demonstrations reminiscent of the violence they spread after that Danish cartoon mess.

And so what is the inescapable conclusion that we're left with? Islam is a violent religion. Don't take Empereor Paleologus' word for it ... just watch Muslims!

Is it just me, or does it make sense to you that if Muslims didn't want the rest of the world to consider Islam a violent religion, they wouldn't get so violent every time someone say's they're violent? Come on, folks! How hard is all this?

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 18, 2006 2:38 PM

ummmm....

It gets more insane by the HOUR. I've read the Pope's entire speach. A.) it's not offensive and B.) even if it were, ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED in this world. One CERTAINLY has no right to threaten anyone's life. WTF?

I read on the LGF site that one of the clerics addressed the Pope "dog of Rome" and followed that with "...we will burn you on your thrones, break your crosses in your homes...". Who knew this cleric was a rap artist? My husband is going to add some more "lyrics" (one sign in London read "Pope, you will pay. Mujahadeen are coming your way") and call it "RoP Rap". Stay tuned.

Please allow us to show you the RoP in action by killing a nun....the irony is completely lost on them.

Posted by: citycat at September 18, 2006 2:39 PM

Posted by: Seven Star Hand

Posted by: thomas ato at September 18, 2006 2:40 PM

Plague...I agree with you mate! However, I can only trust they are giving him and his gang enough rope.

A bunch were picked up the other week under the new anti-terrorism rules, the first ones. Picked up in in a Chinese restaurant. I wonder if it was Hal-al?

Anyway, I'm off out to the pub now. No Islamist kill-joys there!

Posted by: Turbinehead at September 18, 2006 2:42 PM

This Muslim rhetoric is only an Oliver Stone's throw away from the rhetoric seeping out of the sewer of left wing megaphones like The Guardian in the UK. The day after the pope's comments, they came out with a prominent front page editorial entitled (now archived)

"After a quiet first year as pontiff, God's Rottweiler shows his teeth"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1873926,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

Charming.

The pope issues a provocative intellectual challeng to BOTH radical secularists in the West and their fanatical Muslim counterparts, and the respond of the secular zealots and the Muslim zealots is vicious contempt in the case of the former, and downright calls for murder and mayhem in the case of the latter, calls which are being enacted as I write by the shocktroops of Jihad.

Posted by: jsla at September 18, 2006 2:46 PM

Exsgtbrown,

Exactly.

Important question about the Iraq War:

I feel certain that Iraq is the key to changing the Middle East and the beating terrorism. I support the President 100% on this. I am certain that the US can train Iraq to defend itself and help set up a working democracy and kick out the Arab foreign fighters (who are responsible for all the death right now) within the next 5-10 years. I believe democracy is the key. Kuwait has been democratizing, so has Bahrain and Lebanon (not including the terrorist state within a state, a.k.a Hezbullshit). How many terrorists have come from there? None. Democracy is the answer, IMO.

Anyway, it seems that because the war was not over and democracy was not established in a microwave minute, Americans have turned against the war. If we leave, we give creedance to Osama Bin Laden's statement that "America will not stand and fight. She can be beaten." And if we leave when the going gets tough, it may be true.

So... How many of you here support staying in the War? How many of you think the next president will pull us out?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: citycat at September 18, 2006 2:49 PM

Picked up in in a Chinese restaurant. I wonder if it was Hal-al?
Posted by: Turbinehead

How do you make Chinese food hal-al. All I ever get in the Chinese restaurants is PORK!!! OK, Sometimes chicken too, but mainly PORK. SOunds like those "good muslims" were indulging in the forbidden (should I say it) "fruit".

Posted by: CelticCoyote at September 18, 2006 2:49 PM

Picked up in in a Chinese restaurant. I wonder if it was Hal-al?
Posted by: Turbinehead

How do you make Chinese food hal-al. All I ever get in the Chinese restaurants is Pork. OK, Sometimes chicken too, but mainly Pork. Sounds like those "good muslims" were indulging in the forbidden (should I say it) "fruit".

Posted by: CelticCoyote at September 18, 2006 2:50 PM

Well I think I found the silver lining in america illegal immigration. I just hope they havn't been in america too long to get brain washed by the liberal media.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at September 18, 2006 2:53 PM

Turbinehead - have some bangers & mash for me sometime. I enjoyed them while I was at several of the pubs in my short stay. I would also suggest arming oneself with a pound of bacon, to have a serious weapon at the ready in case some Muslim decides to express his spirituality. I know private citizens can't carry weapons in the U.K. but that is limited to firearms, is it not?

Use pork products instead! I am seriously thinking about packing a pound of pig power as I travel. It won't get me into as much trouble and passes through metal detectors. Still, it would be lethal the to afterworld aspirations of Muslim True Believers.

and Norseman - I'm doing things away from this site in defense of my lifestyle... if it all works out a pound of pig power per putrid palestinian, paki, persian will be provided.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 18, 2006 2:53 PM

Hey Celtic....LOL!!!

But you know Islamic Hypocracy is beyond reproach. I'm sure many a wayward Muslim has fell for the charms of a bacon butty or a sizzling hot-dog after being out on the ale but shussssssh don't tell anyone.

Definately off to the pub now.... :->

Posted by: Turbinehead at September 18, 2006 2:56 PM

Seven star hand shows his idiocy, must be a typical ameba of the balless collective known as EUROPE!

The pope should have stuck by his guns and kept on the offensive no matter what the cost. John Paul stood up to the Nazis and the Soviet Communists at the stake of his own life. Europe needs leadership but as so often in her history, the balless stand quiet while the bestial slowly but surely remove Europe's freedoms.

If the riots earlier in France, the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the silencing of political cartoonists does not awaken you to the fact that Hitler has returned in a towel head. You deserve to one day be subjugated by a sword swinging, head lopping, rug humping, sheep raping, camel kissing, Arabian smelling vermin, sub human animal that is the Islamic worshiper.

The maniacs are following Hitler's Mein Kamph to the letter and once again you stupid Euro-monkies are dancing along with the dictatorial organ grinder with dumb smiles on your face.

There's not a single one of you ready to prevent this repeat of the Nazi march across the Rhineland. If you idiots don't wake up soon, you're all good as dead or in chains.

Posted by: dannavy85 at September 18, 2006 2:56 PM

Seven star hand:

Your attempts to whitewash Islam won't work here. So you can forget about brainwashing anyone here with Islamic taqqiya from the mosque or Communist propaganda against the western democracies--which you are clearly attempting to propagate. There is no reason to believe ANY of the assumptions you havde made.

Your assertion that western colonialism is the root of western propserity. One thing is certain: your knowledge of economics and history is ZERO.

Now you will notice, that Islam had colonized much of the world between Indonesia and Morocco. Islam had sacked all of these lands and enforced slavery that continues to this day. Are Islamic lands economically propserous? No. Look, too, at the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets controlled the lives of over a bilion people worldwide. Yet the economy of New York City is larger than the total economy of the Soviet Union ever was. Yet, New York City has no global empire. Your "analysis" has failed just as Islamic and Communist ideology have failed too.

After the Muslims conquered much of Asia, Africa, and eastern Europe they ran out of countries to rob. All accessible civilizations had been plundered of everything they had by these people. Yet islam at that point imploded! It collapsed economically which proves one point: "subjugation" does not guarantee wealth on the part of the subjugator.

Spain, once the most powerful nation in Europe and the proud overseer of a global empire sank into abject poverty for several centuries in spoite of istelf. And where is the United States'
Global Empire? Where are its colonies? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't have any.

In fact, western Europe's properity rose spectacularly AFTER they had abandoned their "empires" after World War II. What this underscores is that your ideological underpinnings are grossly inaccurate. Should anyone wish to remain in poverty, all they need do is listen to people like yourself.

While you rail about the empires of the western democracies, and you have conveniently ignored the empires of Islam and Communuism. This is because you share these ideological beliefs. But you have blinded yourself to the reality that economic prosperity is based on PRODUCTIVITY not ideology

Why are you not concerned about the effects jihad warfare has on Islamic nations' economies. Why are you not concerned that kim Jong Il permitted 2 million North Koreans starve to death while he built the bomb? Where is your concern for the millions being murdered in Sudan?Your belief that the Undereveloped nations are being subjugated needs revision. It's not true. The Underdeveloped nations are in tragic straits mainly because they never learned to develop any respect for human life. Islam is a harsh reminder of this.

As for your understanding of history, you let Islam off the hook which proves you are a moron. In the rwentieth century Islam murdered over 50 million Christians. Islam destroyed Greece steadily since the 1200s, taking 95 % of its land area (now called Turkey) and to no economic avail. Muslims aren't being subjugated by the west, you creep. Islam is a political ideology that subjugates in accordance with its own teachings. In 732AD, the French drove invading Islamic armies out of Europe at the Battle of Poitres. The Balkans have been fighting off Islamic armies for 900 years. The Crusades were a defenseive war against Islamic invasion of the Middle East, where the Christians were being wiped out by Islamic armies. You have no idea how many millions of people in the Balkan region have been murdered by invading Muslims. So, you are on thin ice when you claim the western colonizers have killed more Muslims than the other way around. It just ain't so.

Posted by: pythagoras at September 18, 2006 2:59 PM

Norseman -- I'm with you, let's have lunch...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at September 18, 2006 3:02 PM

Seven Star Hand,

Read a bit of your "wisdom", and think a couple of observations are necessary.

You state in your post here "religion is the opposite of truth, wisdom, and justice", and then advocate for a karma-based religion! That sure works for the untouchables in India, doesn't it?

I just love your "get rid of money, make everything free, and all the world's problems go away" bit. Give me a break - the first individual to bash another's head in was certainly not interested in money, since it hadn't been invented yet.

Disney's Fantasyland has nothing on you...

Posted by: Walker Colt at September 18, 2006 3:03 PM

!Islam is the peacefull religion - Yeah right! I say we go destroy their mosques, threated their Immams, in general wreck havock! Is it going to change anything?? no, they will still be a violent mindless people, but if someone gives them a taste of their own medicine, they might have alittle respect for what they call their advosary.
Should the Pope apoligize? NO !! He quoted a past statement - every freedom of speacher should stand up and protest!! Does the Pope believe the statement?? well it really doesn't matter, b/c thats his right. He's not a dhimmimive, last time I checked Italy was not a Islamic state.

We should all support what he stated, as weak as it was.

Posted by: Aprilyn at September 18, 2006 5:29 PM

Case and point what these freakin animals do...they certainly don't work for a living. No wonder they hate everything that is good with mankind. Publish some cartoons about their hero Michael Jackson, I mean Mohammed and they burn embassies, kill each other, which that part is good, but dang...say anything about their sick Koran and they will once again go berserk and make threats, burn churches and kill defenseless Nuns for God's sake. Time to give them what they are accostomed to and plenty of it.....violence.
Just look into their eyes.....NO SOUL whatever, just hate and contempt.

Posted by: Siciliano at September 18, 2006 5:29 PM

If all of this wasn't so scary and damnable, it would be the funniest thing any comedian could come up with.

"I am not a witch, and if you call me that one more time, I'll turn you into a frog."

"I do not have a gambling problem, and I'll give ten to one odds that you are wrong."

"Islam teaches peace and tolerance, if you insult my religion one more time I'll saw your head off with a paring knife."

Posted by: Pelayo at September 18, 2006 5:31 PM

Norseman et al,

I know for a fact that this web site is read, on a daily basis, by people extremely close to the White House.

It's also read daily by people in Ft George G. Meade, Maryland.

Posted by: Art Cove at September 18, 2006 5:32 PM

Why did they shoot the nun in the back? Force of "habit"? Haha

Posted by: cookiemonster at September 18, 2006 5:33 PM

Before anyone says anything. I didn't mean to be insensitive, just to lighten things up...

Posted by: cookiemonster at September 18, 2006 5:35 PM

Many readers here were interested in the Islamic Empire 2006 map

Here is a new Blackdog Brigade map of Indigenous African cultures destroyed by Islam

Sorry if this is considered spam. We are only trying to educate the western public on the danger of Islam. We do not make a nickel on the Blackdog Brigade blog. We don't sell advertising space, books, etc... We do not even keep a tip jar. Our only goal is to counter the Islamic propaganda saturating the globe

Posted by: blackdogbrigade at September 18, 2006 5:36 PM

Autumn, Unfortunatly they will never give you the chance to tell them what you think of Muhammad. Everyone who's out there stock piling guns to protect your house should stop now. I have a feeling that the next attack will be so huge and devastating that you'll never have a chance to pick up your weapon. They are not going to knock on our doors and demand we convert. All I can do is pray it will be quick...

Posted by: cookiemonster at September 18, 2006 5:39 PM

Pythagoras
That was one fine piece! I am going to keep it if that's ok with you.

As for the whole Pope thing:

I do not want to abide by the law of "this offends muslims shit". I do not live in a muslim country. I didn't vote for them. I live in a democracy.

Why should we in non-muslim countries be subjected to them? They have no right to tell anyone what to say or think.
I don't care if the Pope may have said what he did to be provocative. He can do that if he wishes. He is not subject to islamic law.
He said something that needed saying and as always the rabble goes into a huff.

What he said it total was quite an academic piece and it beats me how these uneducated morons think they know what he said. No doubt their idiot mullahs made up more bulls*** as they always do. The logic of the muslim mind is truly baffling.

"If you say we are violent we will kill you!"
Keep it up! You are waking up a sleeping giant!

Posted by: Gramfan at September 18, 2006 5:40 PM

Kind of OT:

Could be some Armageddon types knew exactly what the Pope was going to say on the 12th of September.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7uBxCEujIM

Warning those easily spooked by endtime prophecy should probably not watch. ;-0

Posted by: km at September 18, 2006 5:42 PM

An article by Dacid Warren on the BBC.

Apologize for what?

The BBC appears to have been quickest off the mark, to send around the world in many languages, including Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Urdu, and Malay, word that the Pope had insulted the Prophet of Islam, during an address in Bavaria.

...

This was not a crude anti-Islamic polemic; nor was it so at the end of the 14th century. It was a quest for peace and amity, then as now.

By turning the story back-to-front, so that what’s promised in the lead -- a crude attack on Islam -- is quietly withdrawn much later in the text, the BBC journalists were having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world. Either the writers were so jaw-droppingly ignorant, they did not realize this is what they were abetting (always a possibility with the postmodern journalist), or the malice was intended. There is no third possibility.

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/

Posted by: DP111 at September 18, 2006 5:43 PM

I've had Seven Star Hand leave a comment on my blog. He/She's a New Ager, Aquarian gnostic reminiscent of the Branch Davidians. They walk the walk of pacifism in the West, but they don't bother to talk the talk of pacifism where it's really needed--in the Islamic countries.

Until G-d blows the final whistle of the endgame, the only result of beating one's swords to plowshares will be using them to plow the fields of those who haven't done that.

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at September 18, 2006 5:44 PM

Norseman, what are you doing? How about a suggestion?

And ... from the Wisdom of KillHankKill:

Come to JihadWatch everyday and post how much we think islam sucks?

Or do we start sending certified letters to our elected officials warning them of the impending doom our current immigration policy offers?

Do we monitor local islamic activity to make sure they don't get noise ordinances over-written with their obnoxious "prayer calls"?

Do we send our friends and families the links to the list of "jihadi attacks" as posted at thereligionofpeace.com?

Do you head to the gun store and load up on the AR-15's, Glock 40's and shotguns.

What the hell do you think we are doing?????

Posted by: Pelayo at September 18, 2006 5:46 PM

Here's what His Holiness said...
The Best of Greek Thought Is “An Integral Part of Christian Faith”
The complete text of the lecture given by the pope on the afternoon of Tuesday, September 12, 2006, in the main hall of the University of Regensburg

by Benedict XVI

FAITH, REASON AND THE UNIVERSITY.
MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, it is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a “dies academicus,” when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas: the reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason – this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the “universitas scientiarum”, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation-controversy, edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threaten. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without decending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 'logos'". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with “logos.” “Logos” means both reason and word – a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the “logos,” and the “logos” is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) – this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, is already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with 'logos'" is contrary to God’s nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God’s “voluntas ordinata.” Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV). God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as “logos” and, as “logos,” has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is “logos.” Consequently, Christian worship is “spiritual” worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history – it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity – a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of “sola Scriptura,” on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

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 world’s 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 programme 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.

NOTE – The Holy Father intends to supply a subsequent version of this text, complete with footnotes. The present text must therefore be considered provisional.

__________

Joseph Ratzinger held the chair in dogmatic theology and in the history of dogma from 1969 to 1971 at the University of Regensburg, where he was also the vice-rector.

Posted by: Elendur at September 18, 2006 5:52 PM

Keep the Pope and do to the muslims what they want to do to the Pope...

Posted by: Constantine at September 18, 2006 5:58 PM

After seeing online all the threats made against my church's pope it is getting to the point that I am getting fed up with those who call themselves Muslims. The sad truth is that they are becoming the objects of what they protest. If I see any more pictures of the pope being hung in effegy, I will SCREAM.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 18, 2006 5:58 PM

Sten Star Hand,

Pretty easy to bash western society and faith huh? Well you should do someing that takes some guts, oh like use similar words in regard to Islam, and put your name and contact information on it. This would take real bravery that liberals like you do not have. The fact that you would not do this should speak volumes, but is probably lost on a guy such as yourself. Time to wizen up child. Face it the Pope has more sack than you do.

Posted by: ethoman at September 18, 2006 6:06 PM

"deeply sorry," humbling words . . .

whenever has any Moslem cleric ever expressed regret over a "crusader" insult or the horrific verbal defamation and threats against Jews?

Only rhetorical question, no need to answer me. We all know the answer.

And . . . where are the "moderate Moslems" in all this bruhaha?

If they reject the violent admonitions in the Koran, then they should speak out now, tell their brethren that the Manuel II quote was taken out of context . . . point to the entire discussion of the Byzantine emperor and the Persian.

Or is the moderate Moslem as elusive as the legendary unicorn?

Hmmm . . . that brings up another sore point with me. . . .

WHETHER THE "MODERATE MOSLEM" AS MUCH OF A LEGEND AS THE UNICORN . . .

. . . is an ongoing debate. BUT what I am worried about is that I could be mistaken for that creature and done in by non-moderate Moslems. Look at the signature at the bottom of this comment, see, it's me name.

Therefore, I declare publicly "I am not THAT unicorn that everyone is desperately seeking.

Western defenders of (or apologists for) Islam seek him everywhere. Is he in paradise or never born, that demmned elusive unicorn [i.e. the moderate moslem])

[sorry Hugh, I know you've used something like this before, but I believe it's in the public domain]

So, people, your quest is not over. I am not THAT unicorn. I am unicornS, see? There are six (6) of me--white, galloping, a thunderous mini-herd with our narwhale horns sprinkled with fairy dust, glittering . . . but I get carried away, sorry--we six, we happy six . . . ah--we are not really as gentle as legend make us out to be. Although . . .

. . . although I have renounced unprovoked violence--wait, that sounds too koranic. It leaves slippery-slidery room for debating what is "unprovoked." Ok, so, I will not attack--no, that won't work either--what is meant by "attack?" I mean if you're in what I consider to be my space, sort of threatening--oh, let it go . . .

. . . but, I AM NOT THAT UNICORN ("I have never had sex with that woman"), not the unicorn of jihadwatch legend.

Seriously, though, folks, (I mean, all joking aside), please people, look elsewhere for the unicorn that is the moderate moslem.

I thank you in advance.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 18, 2006 6:10 PM

Completely OT,

Time for a Muslim montage,

http://ws.giyus.org/points/point?id=188

I really like the co-ordinated marching shaped as a missile smashing into the star of David. The Floyd track is good as well.

Posted by: km at September 18, 2006 6:13 PM

Fedup-

I didn't say we should "give them democracy". I'm saying they want it and they have it now but they're not strong enough to kick out the foreign fighters yet. Incidentally, Bahrain and Kuwait are devoid of these violent protests too. It's just too much bother to burn effigies when you've got other things to do.

Why did I change the subject? I didn't mean to. I was hoping people would answer my question in ADDITION to the Pope thing.

With regard to the Pope: I think that even if the quote were not that of a Byzantine emporer but his very own, He should STILL NOT apologize. People have the right to think and say what they want without suffering threat of bodily harm. Full stop. In addition, had the tables been reversed and it were a Muslim cleric giving a speach comparing Catholicism to Islam, the Pope would have pointed out where the cleric was wrong and offered an alternative opinion with citation. That's how normal people do things. If Catholics protested, they would march from point "A" to point "B" holding up signs asking for an apology . Nothing would be burned and nobody's life would be threatened. We have the reaction to the Da Vinci Code as evidence of that. Was that on point enough for ya'?

Posted by: citycat at September 18, 2006 6:15 PM

"I am sorry but I think this has gone far enough."

It would have been enough if we had committed thermo-nuclear weapons to totally destroy one single arab country as a sign that we had enough of these arab monkies and their Jihadist fascism.

The next attack on America will result in our streets being littered with dead arab vermin, screw the cowardly US Government. If they refuse to defend the people, the people will take rightous vengence on the heads of rug humpers.

Posted by: kisassdemos at September 18, 2006 6:30 PM

Whoops wrong link.

Here it is, Floyd track and all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeODaVIrKpk

Posted by: km at September 18, 2006 6:33 PM

Well put, Fred.

Posted by: citycat at September 18, 2006 6:47 PM

Art Cove...

"I know for a fact that this website is read daily by people extremely close to the White House".

So...the homeless baglady in Lafayette Park enjoys Wi-Fi for her Internet access...?

You're right, guy... Is This A Great Country, Or What!?!

Posted by: SCV at September 18, 2006 6:55 PM

Art Cove...

"I know for a fact that this website is read daily by people extremely close to the White House".

If this is true:
Stop referring to islam as a noble religion! They are out to kill us all and take our country over with Sharia law! DUH

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 18, 2006 7:09 PM

the peaceful religion of hate, continues to show its vileness and violence toward all that say anything about the vile violent islam.

if allah is god, then you cowardly muslims carry through with your threats and murder the Pope and we will see what happens.

The Texican.
God, Family, America and Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at September 18, 2006 7:10 PM

Seven Star Hand,

I needed to post this posting to you because you do need to be corrected. The truth is that Pope Benedict XVI was simply was speaking about the need for contructed communications between Christians and Muslims. Also Pope Benedict XVI is right true faith is not spread by the sword. All he was doing was citing the historic record. That cannot be denied. Do the internet searching, including public library websites as well as college history departments. Even a very moderate Muslim by the name of Irshad Manji agreed with the statements of B16. This pope like his predecessor has writien a number of books and has also advised John Paul II as well. "The infallible Grand Inquisitor " as you would call him is more in the mode of a college professor then an inquisitor.

All he was offering was to have diolog or talks, when the Muslims simply took this in the wrong way. The truth is that the more the Muslims act badly, the less respect they will get, the more truthful the papel statements are going to look. Also the statements reflect rightly a just growing angry backlash that is starting to come from the non-Muslim community that is increasingly is losing its patience in the view of Muslim related violence.

You would do well if you read the commetary and realize that it is a call for communications.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 18, 2006 7:29 PM

More proof that religion is the opposite of truth, wisdom, and justice

Anyone who thinks the Creator would judge religion, war, or any other profiteering at the expense of others as wise or acceptable activities has a very big surprise in store.

Posted by: Seven Star Hand at September 18, 2006 02:11 PM
++++++++++++++++

America is a Christian nation and will remain that way until the world ends. SSH if you do not like America, then you can get the hell out and move to the middle east.

I will stand in front of my God when my time is done on earth after the war and vile islam is eradicated. I will account to God for all of my actions on this earth in defense of my God, Family, America and Freedom even onto the sacrifice of my precious life.

God told the Israelis to wipe out whole cities leaving no one alive because of the vileness of people. the vileness of the mos exceeds that of all prior peoples and the time is coming when it will be fight and defend our way of life or submit to slavery or death. I for one will not go silently into the night.

So, if you did not understand the second line,
you can get the hell out of America if you do not like it here................

The Texican.
God, Family, America and Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at September 18, 2006 7:41 PM

"So you are on thin ice when you claim that western colonizers have killed more muslims then the other way around. It just ain't so."

pythagoras-
fine post, and you didn't even have to mention the couple of hundred million hindu casualites of the ROP.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at September 18, 2006 7:44 PM

Norseman, with regard to your point that we could be doing more to combat the jihad than just posting on this blog, point well taken. But with regard to your complaint about "bloviations of an insufferable windbag", with all due respect, you are full of crap. I've learned a great deal about the threats to my childrens' future from many posters on this site, but none more than from the particular poster you refer to. If you don't like the style, fine, but pay attention to the substance. I'm not defending someone who certainly doesn't need or want my defense, but just saying....

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 18, 2006 7:50 PM

Seven Star Hand:

"The West has killed far more Muslims (and other dark skins) than they have killed westerners"

I challenge you to prove that, notwithstanding your bad syntax.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at September 18, 2006 7:53 PM

If one were to parade around London say at speaker's corner or outside the regent's park mosque with a sign reading "Anjem Choudary must die for insulting jesus" what would happen?

Posted by: chevalier de st george at September 18, 2006 7:59 PM

Norseman:

It is too bad you've missed the main point of this site: education. This site educates thousands of visitors every day. I've learned a tremendous amount from the "bloviations of... Hugh Fitzgerald [and] the semiliterate rants of the many drooling lunatics." Most of these "bloviat[ors]" and "drooling lunatics" are very thoughtful and provide links to many other excellent resources.

"The net result is" the veil of ignorance about Islam is slowly being lifted. People cannot make informed decisions about Islam if they aren't armed with the facts about Islam.

"Western civilization has been sold down the river and there is nothing you can do to rescind the sale." Norseman, you are too pessimistic. Western civilization is not dead yet, although the longer the it takes for people to become aware of the magnitude of the threat that confronts them, the more difficult saving Western civilization will be. Fortunately, candid remarks from people like Anjem Choudary make many more people aware of the threat that confronts the West (and secular countries in other parts of the world).

Posted by: Bad_Attitude_Infidel at September 18, 2006 7:59 PM

blackdogbrigade:

Superb work. Keep it up.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at September 18, 2006 8:09 PM

The main letters section in the (London) Times today was headed "We are angry about Muslim anger". (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2362591.html) Is the worm turning at last? The more outrageous the behaviour of the Muslim world, the better, in waking people up to the problem we face.

Posted by: JFGR at September 18, 2006 8:20 PM

Fred - the incidents you write about are terrible. But I'm unclear how arguments by instigators like "Norseman" have anything to do with you or or the situations you describe, or the purpose of this site. Norseman seems incapable of understanding the nature of JihadWatch -- it's purpose is to educate about the nature of Islam, spread the word about the activities of Muslims without the infuriating spins and lies in the media. JihadWatch does an excellent job of this. The site isn't called "come here and vent about Muslims" or "Jihad 9-1-1", although such things are probably great moneymaking ventures.

All kidding aside, I think your questions are excellent. Specifically: What do you do when Muslims attack, or when Western mechanisms fail in the face of Muslim attacks?

Above all, you're doing something by telling other about these incidents. With KillHankKill's post I''m mainly critical of his endorsement for Norseman's incitement coupled with his comments about loading his glock. Even though I'm critical of that linkage, KillHankKill makes some excellent suggestions, though I think he's being facetious:

I hope you (and everyone reading JihadWatch) spend time writing letters... Write to editors. Write to politicians. Speak plainly, and without anger. Be respectful. Ask for answers to clear, direct questions you pose: "Why did you choose to tell the story with the bias you did?" "Why have you become silent in the aftermath of Muslim threats" "Why were you silent about this or that story?"

Further, I hope you spend your time writing to and calling local and national TV editors and calmly, intelligently, and without anger, explaining how they've misrepresented something - how you'd like to see more coverage of Muslim crimes -- more discussions about the damage you see by Muslim hooligans - I hope you call your TV and newspaper editors and tell them about your personal stories -- maybe they'll expose or cover these events -- who knows? I certainly hope you call the police when assault is involved... I hope you vote. I also hope you're writing to your politicians whenever you see them doing something stupid, or with which you disagree. Explain why you think Muslims pose a threat. Explain what you've learned. Persuade people to go to the sites where you've learned what you've learned, wherever that might be.

These are all important things. Bit by bit they will make a difference. As citizens in the West, we are obligated to do these things and more.

But taking Norseman's typical attempts to incite people to violence through humiliation strikes me as completely counterproductive.

Who isn't driven nearly insane by the fact our social engineers and our politicians somehow thought letting millions upon millions of Muslims into our dominions would be a good idea -- I'm furious that they are still coming here in hordes, and nobody seems willing to take note.

Who isn't driven nearly insane by the fact that our journalists are all asleep at the switch missing the biggest story perhaps of all time while they march in lock step with their group think thoughts, while some of them are clearly in league with the Islamic enemy and lay their heads down at night hating the same people the Muslims hate, hoping for the same fate for those people as the Muslims hope. It's crazy making. But if we go crazy, the Muslims and their assistants win. Their kingdom is chaos, diffuse hatred, and subterfuge. Why become their tool and in so doing further their agenda?

So -- Noresman's incitements and humiliation, joined with KillHankKill's endorsement where he concludes with loading his glock, joined to your own post asking what to do if a 7 year old Muslim kicks your wife -- well -- you can see where all that is going. At the very least, it lends some fodder to the liars and the detractors and the Muslim dissemblers who attack this site and hate what it has to say. Just like the way the Muslims blame anything for their outbursts, the detractors of this site always focus in on isolated unmoderated posts, they never take on the substance of the argument. There's no clearer indication that the Muslims have no counter arguments for the ideas put forth at this site, and its mission must continue.

Do you really find anything useful in Norseman's deliberately humiliating posts? If he gives vent to something frustrated in yourself, don't then surrender to the same helplessness and impotency of his expressions. There lies disaster, mostly for you.

Posted by: jsla at September 18, 2006 8:37 PM

ovidius naso: Thanks we will.

Posted by: blackdogbrigade at September 18, 2006 8:43 PM

Perhaps, soon, in parishes world-wide, a special collection for Peter's Pence will be taken up, to provide for armaments and logistical support for a newly organized Holy See Papal Defense Forces Cadre.

History:

"By the end of the eighth century the Anglo-Saxons felt so closely linked to the Bishop of Rome that they decided to send a regular annual contribution to the Holy Father. It was thus that the Denarius Sancti Petri (Alms of Saint Peter) originated and spread throughout Europe."

I'm sure all the major western armaments manufacturers would be more than willing to re-arm the Holy See...

Posted by: notadhimmi at September 18, 2006 8:57 PM

To all us infidels, now that Islam, I E Muslims have now started jihad on Christianity. Are you going to fallow the bunny huger politicians, that say we have to change the Geneva Convention. So only us infidels can be tortured, it is alright to behead us, but don't even talk harsh to the Muslims.
To all of you out in la-la-land, wake the frack up. Time too step into the light, wake up, pull your head out of your ass.
If we must have another Crusade, I say we have a dammed good candidate.

Posted by: ironkitten at September 18, 2006 9:27 PM

I work in a state with the largest Catholic population in the US and I tell you the barbaric reaction to the Pope's comments have never evoked so much interest and disdain for Jiahdists. One of my carpet installer friends who spends much time in the pub and spent 12 years in Catholic school was amazed when I showed him what was contained in 9:29 Koran. Hopefully, he will share the news with some of his buddies tonight over some beer and football. My wife tonite has joined her cousin in prayer meeting (she has never been to a prayer meeting): the central point of prayer, the Pope's message and the barbaric reaction against Christians by advocates for the Religion of Peace. This, Norseman, is what must be done first. Education of fellow humans who will be eventual targets of Jiahdists. Then we must calm their fears and help them realize we are in a battle that just didn't happen yesterday and to realize what side we are on:

Take the defintion of MARTYR:

ISLAMIST: strap on a suicide belt and blow up a bunch of innocent people in a resteraunt.

CHRISTIAN: gets shot in the back by two thugs while helping nurse infants of poor mothers in a hospital like she's been doing most of her life. The thugs are carrying out an order by a religious cleric who call for the death of the Pope.

Do not fear these cowards. The basis of their beliefs are dust in the wind. That is the reason they refuse to take criticism. They really have nothing to stand on and that will eventually do them in. I guarantee you, my carpet installing buddy and his friends will know what to do if an Islamist gets in their face and says "the Pope must die".

Posted by: Briars at September 18, 2006 9:39 PM

Briars
Thanks for the good words, it is comforting to know all of us are not standing in the dark.

Posted by: ironkitten at September 18, 2006 9:48 PM

JFGR,
Your link to Times online concerning anger at Muslim protests against the pope no longer seems to work. Your optimism may well be mis placed, I'm afraid. While looking for the page you mentioned i found another from the Sunday Times, dated the 12thFeb this year. It gave the results of a survey showing that 86% of the UK population regarded the Muslim reponse to Mohammed cartoons as a 'gross over-reaction' and that 56% thought it was right tht the cartoons should be published elsewhere as well as in denmark.

see:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036533,00.html

It seems that as far as the government, media and other members of the UK elite are concerned, holders of such opinions can go to hell.

Posted by: wallyUK at September 18, 2006 11:43 PM

Pythagoras, excellent post!

Posted by: gravenimage at September 19, 2006 12:49 AM

"If one were to parade around London say at speaker's corner or outside the regent's park mosque with a sign reading "Anjem Choudary must die for insulting jesus" what would happen?"

Posted by: chevalier de st george at September 18, 2006 07:59 PM

try it but make sure you take some media with you.or a friend to take pictures/film it then spread it around.although advocating death you may be arrested!!
what about "anjem choudary must denounce islam?
& apologise to the pope."

Posted by: alwaysinfidel at September 19, 2006 2:27 AM

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this on JW. Or did I miss it?

Al-Qaida warns Muslims: Time to get out of U.S.
Afghan terror commander hints at big attack on N.Y., Washington
________________________________________
Posted: September 17, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The new al-Qaida field commander in Afghanistan is calling for Muslims to leave the U.S. – particularly Washington and New York – in anticipation of a major terror attack to rival Sept. 11, according to an interview by a Pakistani journalist.
Abu Dawood told Hamid Mir, a reporter who has covered al-Qaida and met with Osama bin Laden, the attack is being coordinated by Adnan el-Shukrijumah and suggests it may involve some form of weapon of mass destruction smuggled across the Mexican border.
"Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again," he is quoted as saying. "There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time."
As WND has previously reported, el-Shukrijumah is a trained nuclear technician and accomplished pilot who has been singled out by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to serve as the field commander for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
The terrorist was last seen in Mexico, where, on Nov. 1, 2004, he allegedly hijacked a Piper PA Pawnee crop-duster from Ejido Queretaro near Mexicali to transport a nuclear weapon and nuclear equipment into the U.S., according to Paul Williams, a former FBI consultant and author of "The Dunces of Doomsday."
"He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago," said Dawood. "We call him 'Jaffer al Tayyar' (Jafer the Pilot); he is very brave and intelligent. (President) Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn’t want to panic his people. Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel."
Dawood said he was currently conducting operations in Afghanistan under the leadership of the Taliban. He warned of a series of upcoming suicide bombings there directed against government and coalition forces during Ramadan.
He is also quoted as saying the next attack in America will not be conducted by people like Atta.
"We have a different plan for the next attack," he told Mir. "You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter."
He said there will be another audio message from bin Laden aired within the next two weeks.
Mir reportedly interviewed Dawood Sept. 12 at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al-Qaida leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters. The al-Qaida commander had contacted Mir by cell phone to arrange the meeting.
"You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians," said Dawood. "9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the U.S.-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by U.S.-made cluster bombs. Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and (Afghani President Hamid) Karzai are their collaborators. We will teach a lesson to all of them."
El-Shukrijumah was born in Guyana Aug. 4, 1975 – the firstborn of Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, a 44-year-old radical Muslim cleric, and his 16-year-old wife. In 1985, Gulshair migrated to the United States, where he assumed duties as the imam of the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn.
The mosque, located at 554 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, has served as a hive for terrorist activities. It has raised millions for the jihad and has served as a recruiting station for al-Qaida. Many of the planners of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, including blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, were prominent members of this notorious "house of worship."
In 1995, the Shukrijumah family relocated to Miramar, Fla., where Gulshair became the spiritual leader of the radical Masjid al-Hijah Mosque, and where Adnan became friends with Jose Padilla, who planned to detonate a radiological bomb in midtown Manhattan; Mandhai Jokhan, who was convicted of attempting to blow up nuclear power plants in southern Florida; and a group of other home-grown terrorists.
Adnan Shukrijumah attended flight schools in Florida and Norman, Oklahoma, along with Mohammad Atta and the other 9/11 operatives, and he became a highly skilled commercial jet pilot, although he, like Atta and the other terrorists, never applied for a license with the Federal Aviation Commission.
In April 2001, Shukrijumah spent 10 days in Panama, where he reportedly met with al-Qaida officials to assist in the planning of 9/11. He also travelled to Trinidad and Guyana, where virulent al-Qaida cells have been established. The following month, he obtained an associate's degree in computer engineering from Broward Community College.
During this time, he managed to get passports from Guyana, Trinidad, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the United States, according to Williams. He also began to adopt a number of aliases, including Abu Arifi, Jafar al-Tayyar, Jaafar At Yayyar, Ja'far al-Tayar, and Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan (the name that appeared on his official FBI file). He traveled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where he met with Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other members of the al-Qaida high command. He also spent considerable time within al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, where he received training in explosives and special operations.
Following 9/11, el-Shukrijumah was reportedly singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America. One plan was for a nuclear attack that would take place simultaneously in seven U.S. cities, leaving millions dead and the richest and most powerful nation on earth in ashes.
"Muslims should leave America," said Dawood. "We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington."
Mir, the journalist, has reported previously that al-Qaida has smuggled nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S.
"I am saying that Muslims must leave America, but we can attack America anytime," he said. "Our cycle of warnings has been completed, now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy, this is our defending of Jihad; the enemy has entered in our homes and we have the right to enter in their homes, they are killing us, we will kill them."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52018

Regards
Sandi M

Posted by: SandiM at September 19, 2006 2:29 AM

WallyUK,

Sorry -- the web page is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2362591.html

I take your point about the failure of the left-liberal establishment to reflect the views of ordinary people on this issue, but plain speaking on the letters page of The Times is maybe a start.

Posted by: JFGR at September 19, 2006 5:42 AM

It seem allot of people posting are for the jihad. They think that Muslims have the right idea. You can bet you bottom dollar that the same people are for gun control. Look at the countries that have gun control, the Muslims take to the streets and burn and kill. The sane people cannot protect them self's. Don't let their double talk fool you, Muslims have no plan of peace. They have said it them self's, convert or they will destroy the world. One could only hope their is a true American ready to kill Iran's mad pig man, when he is in the U.S. They have infiltrated the government, with their deceptions and lie's.
We have video games witch teach our kids to kill, steel. They hold us hostage with oil, and when we try to go to alternative energy, they threaten us with high prices. They have the misinform fighting the war for them.
We need to forget political correctness, teach the young that Muslims are like pigs. You can raise them, but don't go in the pen or you could be eaten.
This is my message to you Muslims, we have allot of pig farms. We will use them if we have too, they are like you, will bite the hand hat feed you.
Wait till everyone finds that the U.N. had a direct hand in 9 11, Then spared lies that the U.S. government did it, after all they have the worst enemy of the U.S. on American soil, protected by them.
Their is allot of deceptions that has to be stopped, and you people that call yourselves American, thet want to kiss the Muslims ass. Go to their country and do it, leave American kids alone.
We must learn to speak out, even if it makes Muslims mad. They are not my handler.

Posted by: ironkitten at September 19, 2006 8:52 AM

"Influential Qatari Muslim scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, called for a day of anger on Friday." (BBC News). So business as usual, then?

Posted by: JFGR at September 19, 2006 9:30 AM

pythagoras

Your post was a gem!

An excellent direct counter argument to the doublespeak touted by the leftists of today.
Apologies and appeasement are their stock and trade.
They bear the burden of colonial guilt and are in my experience glass half empty types who refuse to see the good things of post enlightenment civilisation.

Western science and technology will eventually free us from the yoke of middle east oil and then hopefully the region can be annexed until they experience some form of enlightenment period of their own.

still,
great post and I shall be sending it to the dhimmis I once called friends.

Posted by: ovinesongs at September 19, 2006 11:45 AM

Sandi M....
Sign up for this site also. I had that email yesterday. http://americancongressfortruth.com/
She has an awesome automatic email that sends out this info also.

Posted by: Siciliano at September 19, 2006 2:31 PM

Seven Star Hand, it is true what you say about the Catholics past, but we will never solve today's problems if we keep saying it is ok for muslims to slaughter tens of thousands of people every year as they are doing now and have done since their beginnings, just because a few hundred years ago the Catholics did wrong things.

It is also true that religion has a lot to answer to, so does greed, pride, and so on, however IF you read the writings of all other religions unlike Islam they talk of peace, love thy neighbour, tolerance, acceptance, and do to others what you want them to do with you, it is just that only in the last 200 years that people have been taught to read and it is because of our education that people are no longer manipulated easily by greedy leaders... Most of the crusaders could not read and were used for the cause of what ever, but it is also true if you read some historians writings on the crusaders that the crusaders started out to stop the ever continuous onslaught of Muslims as they marched across the lands of the infidels torturing and slaughtering as they went, (even Muslim books skite of how they took the infidel lands, raping and slaughtering all those who would not submit.

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common) The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics...the crusades were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East. That is what gave birth to the Crusades...

Are not these people allowed to protect themselves and as in war the worst of men come out and atrocities happen...

Posted by: Gaye at September 20, 2006 8:53 AM

citycat you wrote, I feel certain that Iraq is the key to changing the Middle East and beating terrorism.
Iraq is not the key to changing terrorism and the middle east, the only thing that can change this area is the total burning of EVERY Quran and Muslim books in the whole world, which of course is impossible. It is what is contained in these books which is the cause of the problems with the middle east. Yes in the beginning there were a few wonderful verses but once Mohammad had converted enough people to become a force Allah changed his mind and they were told to slaughter everyone who would not submit, in the whole world,,, THE WHOLE WORLD....They are violent, cruel, dangerous, and not even loving to their own, they send their children out to die for the cause, not adults but young children who haven't yet been able to calculate what is really going on, children who are easily influenced. Notice that their men who are over 30 nor any sons of clerics or leaders go and suicide themselves, neither do the clerics or leaders,, they have to many brains eh...we must remember that what we call suicide bombers are freedom fighters to them

Posted by: Gaye at September 20, 2006 9:18 AM