Home > Community Lounge > Politics > Pope pisses off Muslims

Pope pisses off Muslims

  1. http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...14330092_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-POPE-ISLAM.xml

    Sometimes stating the obvious is, well, dangerous. Watch out for the cartoons coming out of the Vatican!

    "He repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who is recorded as saying that everything Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"."
  2. OMG, pissed off Muslims, now what?
  3. What I find odd is that they all want an apology to this supposed offense......yet you NEVER see the leaders of Islam coming the for front and demanding and END to the use of terror in their name....why is that?
  4. Let's see...

    1. Someone's going to get killed.
    2. Something's going to get destroyed.


    Nothing at all because rather than honouring the right to have an opinion, there will be a "cave in" to muslim demands.

    I'm all for sensitivity to religion(s). But a fact is a fact.
  5. If you think it's bad now, wait until they are 25-30% of the population in major european countries. It amazes me that people think so little of their culture that they will just let immigrants destroy it. Of course, we are guilty of the same thing, but we have an excuse. "They do the jobs Americans refuse to do."
  6. Oh stop that...Those tolerant new age Europeans will do what they always do when there are too many intolerable people in their society......ETHNIC CLEANSING!
  7. I fully expect the pope to begin grovelling and apologizing to Islam, esp. after the european govts and their populations, and perhaps even the UN, put pressure on him and threaten him with charges of hate spreech and a trip to the Hague.

  8. It's no different in Euro-land, AAA. Pierre and Hans are no more into shoveling shit than their liberal-arts educated brethren here in the States. Why learn a trade when you can be a mortgage broker?

    At least our immigrants are Roman Catholic. If instead, we had millions of Muslims pouring into this country I'd be on the border myself sniping at 'em......
  9. The pope and Vatican proved to be Zionists and that they are far from Christianity, which does not differ from Islam. Both religions call for forgiveness, love and brotherhood," Shiite cleric Sheik Abdul-Kareem al-Ghazi said during a sermon in Iraq's second-largest city, Basra.

    Uhmmmm...Sheik Kareem Abdul Jabbar needs to work on the love , and forgiveness part almost as much as his sky hook.....they are blowing each other up across Iraq in case he didn't;t notice.
  10. The Pope has no business judging another religion any more than a Mullah has judging Catholicism.

    Seems to me that the Pope has enough on his hands with his own flock, that there really is no need to focus on someone else's.
  11. "He repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who is recorded as saying that everything Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

    Is he judging or is he reading? and is he right????????
  12. Lots of modern, and obviously historical Christians have spent loads of time avoiding the log in their own eyes, and spending time in judging others.

    Maybe they don't really believe that God will actually be the judge of right and wrong...

  13. No. Perhaps people like the Pope and other Christians are rendering upon Caesar what is Caesar's. You see Z, the atrocities in Africa being perpetuated by Islamic expansionists are not merely in the domain of God. Rather these heinous crimes against humanity are illegal intrusions that must be halted by the living. You and your fellow ilk of Islamic apologists can only wish that Allah had the final say so. The REAL judge and jury will be the European, American and Australian forces who will ultimately nuke somebody in an attempt to halt the madness of modern Islam. The Pope's not judging. He's just speaking the plain unvarnished truth.
  14. Fallacious thinking, and more outright lies, as usual from Putzie.

    The Pope can speak to the actions of people irregardless of their religious belief systems, the actions are to be condemned if illegal, but we have seen brutality by Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. He is right to condemn violence, I support that, but to condemn an entire religion, when that religion is practiced peacefully by over 90% of the followers just illustrates the Pope's flawed logic.

    His attack on another religion is baseless, especially when his own house is filled with pedophile priests and child molesters.

    Our country, that is founded on the principles of freedom of religion and freedom of thought and speech tolerates speech and thinking like yours...but clearly your POV is not really representative of American ideals....
    you just continue to display your real colors.

    You colors are that of a damn neo Nazi, Hitler admirer...

    ZZZzzzzzzz (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:06 PM)
    i have to get that on record Pabst
    ZZZzzzzzzz (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:16 PM)
    you think FDR worse than Hitler
    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:21 PM)
    as bad
    ZZZzzzzzzz (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:22 PM)
    you admire Hitler, hate FDR
    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:22 PM)

  15. "ZZZzzzzzzz (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:06 PM)
    i have to get that on record Pabst
    ZZZzzzzzzz (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:16 PM)
    you think FDR worse than Hitler
    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:21 PM)
    as bad
    ZZZzzzzzzz (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:22 PM)
    you admire Hitler, hate FDR
    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:22 PM)


    WTF Pabst? Admire Hitler???
    Please tell me the troll just made this up.

    Say it ain't so, Pabst.
  16. Check the chat log from today...

  17. I get a blank white page.
  18. I just checked the chat log. Hard to believe, even for me.
  19. I'm absolutely stunned.
  20. 'ol news.

    i still would like pabster to clarify what exactly he liked about hitler. and if he 'appreciated' the fact he murdered millions of jews.
  21. I think one of the brainwashed brigade kills the pope and sets off a religious war.
  22. let's see now........if u wish to be enlightened about muhammed go to your search engine......place ur little cursor on the blank space......type in muhammed wives........go thru the massive files and see the 6 yr old.......see t he one who was very rich who was his "sugar mama".....while he preached poverty for others....this pervert is the only source and basis for islamic religion......all came from and thru him.....practiced by very ignorant masses like catholicism...........he had all the women he wanted while limiting others to 4 at a time.......while saying they were for sex and abusive treatment........the original pedophile and when he wanted anything to go his way he simply he got a revelation from God......as far as Catholicism being the Christian leader is ridiculously off base......they worship the Pope and Mary Jesus is a distant third.......Note the name Christian.....Jesus is the head of the christian church not the Pope..Mary is hardly mentioned in the new testament........and they pray to her???? give me a break....the bible is specific about prayer.........read the New Testament bible and you might have to say "wow". The Pope does not speak for Christians as he is placing himself as head of the Church of Jesus....which is sacrilege.........
  23. Just to clarify RM. My point to LoZZZer and to EVERYONE who looks upon the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a "criminal" act. IMO the U.S. being in Iraq is not at all different than the U.S. declaring war on Germany in 1941. Hitler was the elected chancellor of a sovereign republic. Germany never attempted an overtly aggressive act toward the U.S. nor to our territories. In other words Hitler was just a guy doing bad things to "his people" much like what Saddam was doing to the Kurds and dissenting Shiites. The question I posed to LoZZEr was "is the degree of tyranny the arbiter of entering an unprovoked war?

    There's interesting parallels between the two men. While Saddam feared a Shia majority would ultimately lead secular Iraq down the road to an Iranian style theocracy, Hitler felt that a small number of Jews (Germany was 1% Jewish) would endorse a Soviet inspired proletariat revolution in Germany. History of course ignores the viable communist threat perpetuated during the German economic crisis of the 1920's into the early 30's.

    The treaty at Versailles caused Germany horrific hardship. The allies forced a particularly unjust settlement upon Germany especially considering that they did not start WWl but were merely responding to obligations contained by treaty. Nazism was a response to nationalistic Germans who wanted their land back.

    IMO, Roosevelt was a war monger who sought out conflict with the two nations who were on the front line against communism. Germany and Japan. 500,000 American men (when we only had a population of 150m) lost their lives fighting a war that had no American interest. People will say, "well what if Hitler hadn't been stopped?" Well I'd answer to those, "do you think FDR's blowjob to Stalin at Yalta created a BETTER life for those in partitioned East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, etal than the alternative of Nazism. All we did was beat Hitler so that we could prop up the U.S.S.R and spend trillions the next 45 years fighting communist aggression via the Cold war. We also lost another 100,000 boys in Korea and Viet Nam against communist forces funded by Red China. It was however the FDR administration who went apeshit over every "act" of "aggression" by Japan in China.

    In the defeat of Germany the Brit's and U.S. bombed Dresden causing the deaths of possibly 200,000 people. Dresden was a nice town and held ZERO strategic importance. It's bombing was a war crime.

    So yes, RM, I think FDR was not only as bad as Hitler I think he was worse. Hitler had an axe to grind. He was trying to do what he thought was best for Germany, as misguided as a genocidal war may be. FDR's motivation? Like Bush he wanted to be BMOC. He was a mamma's boy in a wheel chair who hadn't fucked his wife in 15 years. He was a commie admirer who handed Eastern Europe over to Russia. He fought a war not to help the world but to build an arms making industrial giant impervious to the nagging depression that he was unable to end. Little known fact but U.S. unemployment was as great in 1939 as it was at the "height" of the depression. As everyone should know, about 70% of American's were OPPOSED to the U.S. fighting on the side of Britain prior to Pearl Harbor. By egging the Jap's on, FDR got permission to fight the war he had been seeking for so long.

  24. Spin...

    True colors, yesterday we saw...

  25. Look at the TIME log, asshole! Do you think I was "simultaneously" answering your question at 1:04:22 about "admire" with a yes. I was still completing my answer to the "as bad" question you lying, disingenuous piece of dothead manure. I hardly "admire" Adolph Hitler. Although compared to you Hitler is a saint.........

    Why don't you repost the ENTIRE exchange, dothead?
  26. I posted a link to it, and people who read it can decide for themselves.

    Those who were there in the chat room, they also made comments about your admiration of Hitler...

    I especially like this quote from you, displaying your full admiration for Hitler:

    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 12:50:28 PM)
    compared to FDR
    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 12:50:35 PM)
    Hitler was Socrates


    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 1:03:43 PM)
    u showed your stripes
    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 1:03:51 PM)
    if u think Hitler wrong
    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 1:03:53 PM)
    ZZZzzzzzzz (Sep 14, 2006 1:03:53 PM)
    Pabst (Sep 14, 2006 1:03:57 PM)
    FDR right
    ZZZzzzzzzz (Sep 14, 2006 1:04:01 PM)
    oy vey

  27. I'm hardly the first person to describe Hitler's decade long rise rise from penniless coffee house agitator to German chancellor as a product of genius. FDR was a liar on par with LBJ.

    In the 1940 presidential election campaign Roosevelt promised to keep America out of the war. He stated, "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Nevertheless, FDR wanted to support Britain and believed the United States should serve as a "great arsenal of democracy." Churchill pleaded "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job." In January 1941, following up on his campaign pledge and the prime minister's appeal for arms, Roosevelt proposed to Congress a new military aid bill.

    I suggest those inclined read this lengthy article about the political impetous toward World War.

  28. So you view Hitler as a genius.

    Yep, admiration....

  29. Thanks for the proofread, my error has been corrected.

  30. just keeping you honest, that's all.

  31. I appreciate proof readers, as I do make typos.

    Don't know that it has anything to do with honesty though...clerical errors are generally not considered dishonesty if unintentional.

  32. agree.

    even though you must agree with me, that sometimes the subconscious mind has a way of showing a person's true colors..

    wouldn't you agree?

  33. Sometimes, sure there are Freudian slips. However, I was quoting Pabst, not myself, so the context should have made the typo obvious.

    That's usually why someone asks for clarification to find out, as I am assuming you did, and which you got with the correction I made....thanks to your proofreading.

    Were Pabst's comments yesterday from the subconscious?

    I don't think so, not at all...I think they are right on the surface of his puddled little mind.

    Pabst had plenty of chances to condemn Hitler, and only spoke of his "genius" and admiration for Hitler yesterday...and even today he didn't alter his position...

  34. LOL, the world really needs Pabst to condemn Hitler. Maybe if I was the "deciding" vote......

    I'll repeat. FDR's reasons for entering Europe were no "better" than Bush's reasons for going to Iraq. No AMERICAN interest is/was served. However if anything the threat to the U.S. from Islam is MUCH greater to our security than anything an artist from Vienna brought to the table.

    If you think losing 500,000 men in WWll was noble and right then you're entitled to an opinion.

    If you think the wholesale bombing of civilians in Tokyo and Dresden was kosher then let's get it on in Baghdad.

    Germans and Japanese are a hell of a lot more "civilized" than your Islamic buddies.

    If you think ordering Japanese-Americans to sell their business's, flee their homes and then being forced into internment camps was fine, then you're as usual short sighted. I can't wait to see your reaction someday when your admiration of FDR comes back and bites you as your Muslim ass is ALSO interned. And believe me, if this country has one or two acts of terror committed by American Muslims, the will of the People here will be a replication of FDR's policies towards Japanese-Americans in California. History repeats dude. You're the shallowest person on this board.
  35. It's interesting that Hitler is the one enemy of America that liberals are allowed to detest. OK, I suppose the Confederacy too, but that is mainly because they've always hated southerners.

    All the rest of America's historic or current enemies are basically held up as figures of esteem, respect or outright admiration. Stalin and his successors, Mao and his murderous successors, HoChi Ming (know affectionately to liberals as "Uncle Ho"), Castro and his thugs (who can forget their infatuation with "Che"), right down to the islamofacists of today, who are simply misunderstood and oppressed minorities rightfully pissed off by Bush's theocratic oppression.
  36. Typical lies and spin from the republikan, AAA. Standing by his klannish pal, Putzie the neo Nazi.

    Misolovich, Stalin is not looked upon as a "good guy" by most liberals, Mussolini, Tojo, etc, etc, etc...

    I don't recall many liberals saying good things about Saddam actually, the focus is on Bush.

    Weren't too enamored with puppet the Shah of Iran...

    Liberals aren't too keen on the Saud dictators either...

    But your republiklan buddy Bush is:

    <img src=http://www.meateatingleftist.com/mt/archives/bush_saudi.jpg>

  37. southerners have ruled country for decades except for reagan and h e was an d still is a southern hero.....and a southener......if clinton can be a black president reagan can be a southern president.......hitler is anti-christ as all religions are that deny Jesus are.........including the orthodox jew........
  39. If you notice AAA, all those you mention as esteemed and admired from the left are Communists. Hitler was the anti communist. Not a good PR move.

    Also, until you have several million Kurds or Sudanese rising through the ranks as western social commentators through a position of notoriety in the arts, media and business, you'll never sense the same outrage over genocidal acts happening presently as you will over horrors more than a half century old. I give the Jews credit. Not only will they never forget, they never let anyone else forget either. Sadly though the screaming voices of millions of others are silent in America. Let's face it. As much as the Left like's to proclaim otherwise, they think some lives are worth more than others.
  40. Several million? Is that how many Jews you believe wield power as part of the Worldwide Zionist Banking Conspiracy to Rule the World?

    Actually Pabst, there are only several million Jews in total. This is something you anti-Semites tend to either forget or conveniently fail to mention.

    It is pleasant to see you thrashing and splashing about in this thread, after your unfortunate slip-up in the Chat room. Funny that your soulmate hasn't stepped in to throw you a line.

    Btw... Hitler a genius? It is clear that you have a complete misunderstanding of the true nature, of the banality, of evil, and of the mindset of the average voter in Germany circa 1933. Genius was not what was required to do the job Hitler did. I do think, however, that he had a couple of very bright guys working for him.

    How many votes did you get when you ran for mayor of Chicago or Detroit or wherever it was? I'm starting to get the picture now... you ran for mayor as one of those weird whack-job candidates who run on some weirdo whack-job platform and get 37 votes. Isn't THAT right, Mr. 'Hitler-was-a-genius'?

    Have a great day, Pa-Hitler-bst

    EDIT: given what you've said about dark-skinned people on these boards, your sudden concern over the lack of attention paid to genocide committed upon them is... well... Pabst-like in its hypocrisy.
  41. =================
    Sounds 100% right what you wrote;also they tend to ignore old testament,yet Jesus spent much time in it.

    And as TM said was Pope judging, reading or right:cool: ;
    [on anger causing remarks] of Pope
  43. I am sure here you are refering to American Indians, right? :)
  44. He wasn't judging, he stated a historical fact...

    Also, last time I checked he was infallible... :p
  45. OK, thread is officially closed by Godwin's law. Not to mention getting way offtopic....

    P.S.: The moral is that nowadays even the Pope has to watch what he says even if it is true...
  46. Evidently you know a lot about it

    Ardent? I like that, man. That is just what I expect from you. Ardent.

    Yeah, I guess Bergen-Belsen was an indication that his feelings were 'ardent'. Or maybe Auschwitz. That was pretty ardent too.

    I'll say it again - evil isn't genius, it's banal.

    By the way, please don't PM me. It gives me the creeps.

  47. Mr. Groid,
    Do you wish to elaborate on your observation?

  48. That you are a complete idiot is now beyond any doubt.

    The man was a genius. The way he resurrected a moribund Germany and led her up to about 1942 was leadership par excellence. Yes, he was evil. But that just makes him an evil genius. To admit any of this is not to admire them man - I detest the SOB. But facts are facts.
  49. Where the hell has Pabst ever called for the genocide of blacks, you dolt? He's simply stated disapproval of their culture and admits that he prefers not to live in their neighborhoods.

    But your attitude is the standard dogma among liberals today, isn't it? We mustn' state any sort of disapproval of anybody or anything (apart from things white, Christian and male) because, before you know it, we'll be marching them off to death camps.
  50. Yes, only a Nazi like Pabst (or me) would dare to know a lot about Hitler's Germany. Pious liberals only need to parrot rehearsed lines about "evil" and "holocaust", no further study required.

    What happend at Bergen, Nikkie? Do you even know?

    Just like everything liberals think they know about race, gender, economics, immigration, gun control is some combination pious rhetoric, slogan and sheer fantasy, so it is with the history of WW2.

  51. Populist politics is like that.
  52. Hi Dan

    You've apparently masturbated to those images quite a few times, huh? It's okay... since you spend so much time propounding your hate philosophy on an anonymous message board, I doubt you have what the Chancellor had in him - the ability to act on your convictions. I'm not so sure about Pabst - that's why it creeps me out a bit when he starts PM'ing me.

    It was so interesting for me to find out that you're still a teenager. It puts a lot of your rantings here in perspective. But really, you should be out bird-dogging chicks instead of searching out Holocaust images and hanging around doing the talky-talk with old farts like Pabst :)
  53. "Muslims piss off pope"
  54. By the way, Dan... in another thread, one in which you were parroting your tired old line 'Immigration to white countries is the reason for all social ills' (yes I know, which thread? There are so many of them here), I asked you if you were not also an immigrant. You failed to respond.

    Now we have this sentence, above.
    Hmm... let's look at the sentence construction here. Actually, let's not, because it's pretty bad. In fact this is a grammatical dog's breakfast of a sentence.

    Now... is this something that would come out of the mouth of a native English speaker?

    I sort of doubt it.

    What's the real story, Dan?
  55. Apperently, he's australian-but an immigrant, as well? From where-south africa? That would make sense, in an ironic kind of way. As for bad grammar, well it happens.
    There was nothing pious, or liberally correct about the nazis, nor stalinism for that matter.
    A lot of people knew what was going on, but you cant fight against total ignorance or effective propaganda, OR overwhelming force-that's been proven time and again throughout history.
    The first two, invariably equal the third.
  56. I think prime Mike Tyson was a boxing genius. That doesn't mean I think he is a nice person.

    Equally, one can say that Hitler was a genius at seizing power, building up one of history's most potent armies, manipulating millions of people, outsmarting the world's leading politicians for many years etc. That doesn't mean you have to think he was a nice guy.

    Talent and skill has little or nothing to do with morality.
  57. As a leader of a country, Hitler did not display genius in my opinion.

    Appealing to the lower instincts of his countrymen to inspire them?

    That is genius?

    Our founding fathers geniuses, Hitler....not!

    Tyson a genius boxer?


    Tyson was a brute, a thug, and a bully.

    That is hardly genius. You might make a case for Clay/Ali having genius, but certainly not Tyson.

    You must be confusing talent and skill for genius...

    Genius rises above, not sinks below to achieve greatness...

    I think this thread has gone a long way to expose the inner values some people have, what traits they admire...

  58. I am not at all surprised that a white supremacist like yourself would admire Hitler...


  59. Is it just me, or every time somebody says something that disagrees with you, they are called a Nazi, facist or White supremacist, or they are compared to the KKK????
  60. You are correct in your assessment.

  61. You forgot to add moonbat to that list. Was it intentional or just a slip?
  62. LOL ...what is a moonbat anyway???
  63. In response to tradequicker.

    Catholics do not worship the pope. Just a total bunch of uneducated crap from people who have not taken the time to learn about the doctrines of the largest chruch which can support virtually every one of doctrines with biblical proof.

    While I realize there are some excellent challenges made on some protestant issues (which are also supported by the bible) both sides are well lawyered up.

    And you should know that this Pope about 20 years ago reconciled the Catholic doctrine of Justification with the doctrine of Justification supported by many Protestant churches.

    If you really wish to rip Catholics you should at least see how well they practices are supported by the bible.

    As someone who attend Catholic Church becasue I am following the words of Jesus when it comes to communion (John 6:53 and on) -- I think too much is made of Mary as the mother of Jesus, and I agree many uneducated Catholics do mistakenly pray directly to her as if she is the proper object for worship.

    However the church says that people can ask Saints to appeal to jesus (acting in intercesion.)
  64. I guess you never seen pics of them, when the pope was visiting or celebrating a mass...

    On a related note, Ali Agca said the pope shouldn't visit Turkey in November. I think he is the one to know.... :)
  65. As far as the Pope caving in on the Muslim thing.

    I think not. This is an old man of principle.
    Well aware of the dangers of facism.

    He had the priniciples to go against politics in the Catholic Church and align (in my opinon) the Churches teaching on justification with the Protestant church.

    This is man who understands what he says. He knows why he said what he said and it part of a coming campaign to straighten out Muslims on behalf of freedom in he west. (in my opinion.)
  66. Have you actually read what spec8tor has written in the past regarding race?


  67. When the shoe fits, the republiklans and klanish types wear it most proudly...

  68. I'm not a catholic, but if those towel wrapping bastard son of a bitches touch one hair on his head I will personally off the first goat humper I see celebrating it. We need someone like Hitler to straighten this shit out. God Bless our President. I'm liking him more and more.

    Rennick out

    US Navy Retired

    ps. FATWAH this motherfuckers (_)x(_)

  69. case and point.....its like your only answer when somebody defeats you intellectually.
  70. Thanks.

    edit: I have used that shoe to kick some serious democrat ass the last six years.....:)

  71. (Sorry Jem)---The pope caved.

    Otherwise---In regards to the thread title---What doesn't piss off the Muslims???
  72. whoa stand down and at ease there solider. Mission (already) accomplished.

    Unfortunately our President fucked up your idea when he got rid if the sad-man-insane guy, who was the Hitler in that region, but never-no-mind.
    We now got Islam and those mooslims fighting the west in the name of God and Allah while Popes and America fight under God in the name of Christianity and "democracy". Dark ages here we come. Hoo-raah
  73. That was one damned good post. Totally agree about Uncle Saddam. Bush screwed up there. But he was just reacting to a little thing called 9-11. This whole thing was enevitable, I'm still glad Bush is our prez.
  74. No one here has defeated my intellectually.

    That's why you see folks like RM want to fight me in an octagon or hire people to injure me physically....because they can't "win" intellectually.

    I guess you are among the dense who think that people actually win or lose intellectually here...

    What a delusion...enjoy your imaginary victories and imaginary defeats...

  75. Yes, the klannish have been in power, and we call all see how much they have forked it up...

    Oh well, all great empires went down in flames at the hands of klannish types...

  76. Wonder what would happen if we dropped a couple of Daisy Cutters on Mecca during the Hajj. Now, that would be interesting, given the pattern of the explosion and circular movement of the worshippers.
  77. how did the pope cave.

    He made and intriguing statement - to the effect -- I am sorry if you are bothered by what i said but I am not taking back what I said.
  78. I never claimed i defeated you in this thread...Im observing you get defeated by others because you don't have a valid argument unless you resort to calling others KKK, Racist, Fascist...the list goes on...Imagine a debate where one candidate says "we need to build this country from within and improve our schools so we can lead the world in technology".......and the other candidate says..."fuck you , you fucking Fascist pig".......that takes a lot of thought and intellect.
  79. ...you mean, not taking back what he READ.....Just wondering , the leader of Iran called for the elimination of Jews and there has been no apology....hmmmmmm
  80. for those who act like this is crazy mooslims fighting for God against the Pope.

    Please review what John Paul II did fighting communism.

    He almost bankrupted the Catholic Church funding the freedom movements in Poland and other communist countries.

    That was not a crazy man carrying the banner of Christianity. That was a man fighting for human rights.

    Now do I think John Paul II to be a great Pope or a Great Catholic no. But please do not equate the leader of the Catholic church with some crazy muslims killing for God and 70 Virgins.
  81. I nominate this for the best damned post of the year!!!

    EDIT: It would be perfect for a M.O.A.B., the Mother of All Bombs
  82. Doesn't seem like anyone is going to alter your delusions of winners and losers...does it?

    Imagine a debate, where there were active moderators, who would step in the moment someone used a logical fallacy...eh?

    Just imagine, as it is not going to happen here...

    Chit chat is an intellectual wasteland where there are no rules of debate, decorum, or much of anything beyond if enough people complain, the moderators might do something about it....and if you think otherwise, then once again, enjoy your delusions...

  83. I think you may be one of the main reasons it has become an intellectual wasteland because every time you can't respond to a valid point.....you call them a Fascist, KKK,Neo Nazi...whatever....I actually thought you were better then this but your right, i must have been delusional to think that.
  84. Too funny.

    I am so powerful, I control what happens here, and I am the main reason for what goes on here. People are powerless over what I do, I make them do what they do.


    Seek professional help for your delusions...

    p.s. You might want to take your "intellectual honesty" and do something about the constant use of the term "moonbat" to describe anyone who is a liberal or disagrees with the klannish party line...


  85. I hope His Holiness' security detail has been expanded beyond dudes in circus pantaloons carrying spears:

  86. lol

    Looks like ZZZ defending the doors to chit chat....

  87. The missing Muslim outcry

    By Jeff Jacoby

    Thursday, September 21, 2006

    As she lay dying in a Mogadishu hospital, Sister Leonella forgave her killers. She had lived in Africa for almost four decades and could speak fluent Somali, but her last words were murmured in Italian, her mother tongue. "Perdono, perdono," she whispered. I forgive, I forgive.

    She was 65 and had devoted her life to the care of sick mothers and children. She was on her way to meet three other nuns for lunch on Sunday when two gunmen shot her several times in the back. "Her slaying was not a random attack," the Associated Press reported. It "raised concerns" that she was the latest victim of "growing Islamic radicalism in the country."

    Raised concerns? Sister Leonella was gunned down less than two days after a prominent Somali cleric had called on Muslims to kill Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks about Islam in a scholarly lecture last week.

    "We urge you, Muslims, wherever you are to hunt down the pope for his barbaric statements," Sheik Abubukar Hassan Malin had exhorted worshippers during evening prayers at a Mogadishu mosque. "Whoever offends our prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim.” Sister Leonella was not the pope, but she was presumably close enough for purposes of the local jihadis.

    If it weren't so sickening, it would be farcical: A line in the pope's speech suggests that Islam has a dark history of violence, and offended Muslims vent their displeasure by howling for his death, firebombing churches, and attacking innocent Christians. One of the points Benedict made in his speech at the University of Regensburg was that religious faith untethered by reason can lead to savagery. The mobs denouncing him could hardly have done a better job of proving him right.

    In his lecture, Benedict quoted the late Byzantine emperor Manuel II, who had condemned Islam's militancy with 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."

    In the ensuing uproar, British Muslims demonstrated outside Westminster Cathedral with signs reading "Pope go to Hell" and "Islam will conquer Rome," while the head of the Society of Muslim Lawyers declared that the pope must be "subject to capital punishment." In Iraq, the radical Mujahideen's Army vowed to "smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome" and the Mujahideen Shura Council swore to "continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks." Arsonists in the West Bank set churches on fire, and a group calling itself "The Sword of Islam" opened fire on a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza and issued a warning: "If the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza's churches."

    In fact, the pope did apologize, more than once. He emphasized that the words he had quoted "do not in any way express my personal thought" and said he was "deeply sorry" that Muslims had taken offense. Whether the studied frenzy will now subside remains to be seen. But it is only a matter of time until the next one erupts.

    This time it was a 14th-century quote from a Byzantine ruler that set off -- or rather, was exploited by Islamist firebrands to ignite -- the international demonstrations, death threats, and violence. Earlier this year it was cartoons about Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Last year it was a Newsweek report, later retracted, that a Koran had been desecrated by a US interrogator in Guantanamo. Before that it was Jerry Falwell's comment on "60 Minutes" that Mohammed was a "terrorist." Back in 1989 it was the publication of Salman Rushdie's satirical novel, The Satanic Verses.

    In every case, the pretext for the Muslim rage was the claim that Islam had been insulted. Freedom of speech was irrelevant: While the rioters and those inciting them routinely insult Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, they demand that no one be allowed to denigrate Islam or its prophet. It is a staggering double standard, and too many in the West seem willing to go along with it. Witness the editorials in US newspapers this week scolding the pope for his speech. Recall the State Department's condemnation of the Danish cartoons last winter.

    Of course nobody's faith should be gratuitously affronted. But the real insult to Islam is not a line from a papal speech or a cartoon about Mohammed. It is the violence, terror, and bloodshed that Islamist fanatics unleash in the name of their religion -- and the unwillingness of most of the world's Muslims to say or do anything to stop them.
  88. [​IMG]
  89. FYI....I never used the word moonbat...In fact, last week I finally asked somebody what it means....regarding your control...dude, If you combine all your past user id's and your current Id....you have about 50K posts......that's around 25-30 a day...and your calling me delusional? LOL...You need to seek help for this obsession.
  90. Did I say you used the word moonbat?


    Dude, your obvious partisanship renders you intellectually dishonest....

    By the way, the ad hominem shit about number of posts don't work with me...or hadn't you noticed?

    Loozer...you are. I expected so much more.


  91. Partisanship? There's a step up for you...at least you didn't say Im the Klan, KKK, Hitler or a white supremist.....

    Zzzzzz.....I like you. I do. despite all your ranting and weird ways, I think your probably an ok guy.....but im gonna give you a little advice....You need to get a girlfriend. Seriously, Women have a calming effect on men....you need to leave the computer and find a woman. When was the last time you kissed a girl?? You can't find a good woman if your spending your day and night tapping away on the blogs.....Go to Myspace or e-harmony and find a soulmate....Come on buddy, if not for yourself, do it for the ET community. I wish you well in your pursuit of a woman.:)
  92. Non sequitur...

  93. I thought ZZZzz was asexual.
  94. It is, nevertheless it is still a good advice... :)

  95. don't be angry...be happy

    :p :p :p

    seriously, you got get out more. Your always so angry. I get worried sometimes that you stitching together a 'buffalo bob' suit in some basement somewhere.
  96. 2X Non sequitur...

  97. You're kidding, right?

    Women have a calming effect on me during sex. That's it. After I'm done, they drive me nuts -- until I get horny again.

  98. You are 100% correct...Now, think about what would happen if you had no women, no sex and your busy tapping away padding your post total?? its a deadly combination!!!...you get angry delusional and start using words like " 2x non sequitar"...:D
  99. Careful, your obsession with me is showing...


  100. Ya see???? This is what im talking about...Im a man. why would you want to even think that? You don't go to Star Trek Conventions do you? Im going to help you. we gotta get yo a woman...Does Cathy of BobandCathy still hang around ET?
  101. Your obsession is showing...or can you move along?

    I am doubting it...

  102. "He repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who is recorded as saying that everything Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

    Is he judging or is he reading? and is he right????????
  103. He is passing along a 14th century judgment.

    Seems to me some 14th century judgments included burning at stake of non believers, sun revolving around earth, evil spirits, infallibility and Divine Right of the Papacy, etc.

    I see no benefit at all to what the Pope did, who claims to be a man of peace and God, but focuses on other religions and their problems.

    Fix your own house first Mr. Pope....

  104. READ AGAIN....your passing judgement without reading

    He repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who is recorded as saying that everything Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

    That wasn't the vatican but an Emperor....so the pope cannot even read old history books? Funny, but the last Pope had to apologize for the Catholic Church not being more outspoken against the anti-semitism in Europe 60 years earlier.....so we can only look back in history when???
  105. LMFAO. Here's an ET member who averages 16 posts per day, the vast majority of which are inane "judgements" about Bush, Israel, Christian values, "regressives" or any other topical issue that can be used as a catalyst for his anti-American, anti-family and anti-right agenda. He's engaged in ad hominem attacks with literally dozens of members on this site. Yet it's the truthful words spoken by the Pope that brings on outrage from muZZZlim.

    Is your own house in order?

    Is the Democrats house (or lack of) in order as they criticize the President?

    Is institutional perfection now a prerequisite for the right to express commentary?

    The Pope is hardly "casting the first stone." He's not remarking that Islam is a death-cult masquerading as "religion". He's merely pointing out the truth. The Koran encourages death to non-believers and those words were fuel in 1306 and 2006 as justification for murder and forced conversion. The truth hurts but it will set you free.
  106. ....or we'll burn it down and kill you and your nuns, priests, and followers.

    No wait, we intend to do that anyway.....unless you convert of course.

    Allah O Akbar!!
  107. Yes. It's not as if these same people judged it to be the right thing to do to string a teenage kid up by her neck and hang her until she was dead, for the crime of flirting with a young man. I mean, it's not as if that happened this year, in 2006. I mean, if they did something as barbaric and brutal as that, then maybe these anit-Islamofascists would have a point when they suggest that modern Islam is a religion rooted in violence. I mean, hanging a young person by the neck until dead because she flirted with a young man and burning her at the stake would be crimes today and modern Muslims don't do anything of the sort.

    I mean, it's not as if a young man in Iran had his hands surgically broken because he was using the Ud to play Beatles tunes. That would just be unthinkably brutal and criminal. I mean, that would be something that one would expect in the 14th century, but not today.

    BTW, TM_D... in dealing with the troll, you must never forget this
  108. Modern Islam is rooted in the mind of men and women who practice Islam, just as Christianity is rooted in the mind of Christians, etc.

    Those who rationalize illegal actions in the name of their religion, is nothing new...it is modern, and it is ancient.

    I do not support violation of our laws, but it really is not my business, or the Pope and his business to sit in judgment of other religions and what they do in their own country.

    Very few, very few here at ET gave a rats azzz what these people did within the confines of their own country, and would not to this day would they really care...except for those few Muslims who have taken their ideas to the extremes of violence against America and the current American interest.

    The pure intellectual dishonesty of the ET members who focus on what is going on in these countries, when pre-911 the typical ET member would just say "let them kill each other, let them do whatever they want to each other" demonstrates that they really do not actually care about anyone but themselves.

    And, that is a fact...

    Wanna guess how many ET members were donating money to Amnesty International and other human rights groups pre-911?

    Wanna guess how many have since 911 donated money to Amnesty International and other human rights groups post-911?

  109. I think 9-11 changed a lot of minds around here.

    Why would anyone condemn this change of attitude is beyond believe.

  110. Please post the statictics of violence against the Catholic Church and their clergy in America by Muslims living in America.

    Think it comes anywhere near the burning of black Churches in the south by US extremists?

  111. 911 changed a lot of minds, and the closed minded self centered ET members, the norm here, don't give a flying fork about the Muslims and what they do to each other...as long as they don't attack America, and as long as they sell us their oil cheaply.

    911 changed minds to become bigots againt Islam, if they were not Muslim haters to begin with.

    Puuuuuulllleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz spare us the "I care about human rights for the Muslims."

    Total BullShit!

  112. Is that the fake Catholic and "social Christian" coming out to levy an ad hominem attack against me?

    Putzie, the neo Nazi...

    I take issue with world leaders...and Putzie has only the response to attack me.

    What a perennial loozer you are Putzie...

  113. Secular states are the only solution.

    Politics and government stay out of the Church's business, and Churches stay out of the politics and the government's business.

    The Pope is playing politics, something that Popes have done for generations, which is why we need to tax the Churches who use their pulpit to practice politics.

    Now, tell me how separate and distinct the Vatican and the Emperor were in 14th century Rome...

    Tell us who had the most power...

    Who kissed whose ring?

  114. Ok ZZZzz, what or who pissed you off today ?

  115. I don't need a special day to respond to the endless bs of the ET klannish wingers..

  116. My post said nothing about Muslims living in America. It referred to the violence that has followed since including the murder of a nun in Somalia, the attacks on churches internationally, and the calls by Muslims to murder the Pope himself.

    As usual, your apoplectic spasms are far off the mark.

    Allah O Akbar!
  117. Help Islamic extremism, shut up

    By Diana West

    Friday, September 22, 2006

    Shut up.

    When all is said and done -- when protestors junk their placards, when burning churches cool, when a murdered nun's grave grows grass -- "shut up" is the underlying message of Pope Rage, the latest fulmination to come from Islam, this time over Pope Benedict's recent lecture on faith and reason. When the pope argued, quoting a Byzantine source on Muhammad, that the practice of forced conversion -- key to Islamic expansion over the centuries -- is inimical to both faith and reason, the reaction of anger and violence was instantaneous. Just shut up, the umma exclaimed.

    Or, to put it more elegantly, as did Daniel Pipes: "The Muslim uproar has a goal -- to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order." The question is, will we retain our free speech about Islam? Speaking at the United Nations this week, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf asked the international community to ban the "defamation of Islam" -- a rendition of "shut up" that's a constant refrain at the United Nations -- but it looks like mum's already the word. Just read through George W. Bush's address to the world body. "Islamic fascists" are out. "Extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear" are in.

    We probably have presidential pal and roving ambassador Karen Hughes to thank for Bush's discreet-to-the-point-of-incomprehensible talk. "Diplomats say that Muslims hear (the phrase 'Islamic fascists') as an attack on their religion, thereby validating the extremists' false charge that the United States is at war with Islam," writes Morton Kondracke, explaining Hughes' semantic sentiments, which he says have put the kibosh on administration straight talk. But maybe there's more (less) to it. Earlier this month, Hughes wrote: "As I have traveled the world, I have met those who try to justify the violence based on policy differences, long-held grievances or a perceived threat from the West."

    Differences, grievances, threat: Isn't she missing some little old jihad thing? Not that she's alone. Take Hughes mentor Edward Djerejian. Veteran diplomat to assorted Middle Eastern countries -- warm to Arabs, cool to Israel (just like his close associate James Baker, who now co-chairs the vaunted Iraq Study Group) -- Djerejian is another happy warrior of ambiguity. The "seminal challenge" of our age, as Djerejian describes it, is "the struggle for ideas between the forces of moderation and extremism, whether it be secular extremism or religious extremism of no matter what religion, no matter what culture."

    This is a challenge, all right -- a challenge to know what he's talking about. But such obfuscation is more than just the antithesis of reasoned critique. It also happens to comply with what Pipes calls "Shariah norms" in the West.

    Islam prohibits "blasphemy," which includes criticism of its prophet Muhammad. The sharia penalty is death. But if it is "extremists" who carry the penalty out -- as in the ritual murders of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam (2004) and Mohammed Taha in Sudan (2006) -- what Pope Rage reveals is how shockingly little separates "moderates" from "extremists" when it comes to the blasphemy-taboo in the first place.

    "Even the most moderate and Westernized Muslims will not tolerate insults to the Prophet Muhammad," writes Tulin Daloglu, commenting on Pope Rage from the moderate side of Islam, in The Washington Times. "Each offense unites Muslims against Western prejudices and rejection -- and the extremists gain more credibility."

    So shut up.

    Blogging online, columnist Mona Charen reported on another moderate, George Washington University's Seyyed Hossein Nasr. In an interview with NPR host Diane Rehm, Nasr contested that Pope Rage violence against Christians was not unprovoked. As Charen wrote, "Diane Rehm equably restated his position (I paraphrase): 'So you think words are violence.' He confirmed." So shut up.

    Meanwhile, listen to the voice of bona fide "extremism," Great Britain's own Anjem Choudary, as reported in the Evening Standard: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet."

    He continued: "Whoever insults the message of Muhammad is going to be subject to capital punishment."

    "Shut up," say the moderates, "or else," say the extremists. Frankly, this sounds an awful lot as if the "moderates" are as non-reasonable as the "extremists." This may be shocking -- but it's nothing to be left speechless over.
  118. So your previous comments were directed toward only that small percentage of Muslims who interpret Islam incorrectly, not Islam nor all Muslims as a whole.

  119. If Muslims had blamed Catholicism as a whole, citing some stuff in the Old Testament as the reason for Catholics in the IRA killing people in Ireland, then that would be okay, right?

  120. It referred to the violence that has followed since including the murder of a nun in Somalia, the attacks on churches internationally, and the calls by Muslims to murder the Pope himself.
  121. Was the Pope blaming Islam "as a whole" or quoting old text?

    In any case, Muslims are entitled to their opinion.

    Imagine if you can if mobs of Catholics burned down mosques, killed Muslims, and called for the murder of Muslim leaders simply because, as you stated, a mullah "blamed Catholicism as a whole and cited some stuff in the Old Testament as the reason for Catholics in the IRA killing people in Ireland." What do you think would happen? I'll wager that Catholic leaders, including of course Benedict himself, would quickly condemn those actions, and that the vast majority of Catholics would agree and do their utmost to right the wrong.

    Where are the so-called "moderate" Muslim voices condemning these actions - the murder of the nun in Somalia, the burning of churches, the mobs mutilating effigys of the Pope and calling for his murder?
  122. This is exactly what has been missing since 9/11 - an widespread, organized, unequivocal and ongoing condemnation of Islamic terrorism by this supposed majority of peaceful Muslims. I was waiting for it after 9/11... and it never came. Then when some teenage Muslims who were born here in Canada got busted for downloading a bunch of bomb-making instructions from the 'net and then trying to procure 3 tons of ammonium nitrate, the Canadian Islamic Congress or whatever the hell they're called (there are two competing groups up here) piped up and said... yep, you guessed it... this was racial profiling and ... wait for it because you're gonna love it

    the fact that this was front page news showed why 'disenfranchised' young Canadian Muslims would be attracted to these kinds of groups, and that these young Muslim terrorists in training were the victims because they were being tried in the press.

    The world's 1.3 billion Muslims remained silent after 9/11 because....because?
  123. Not that I'm a fan of any religion, as I think they're for idiots (except Eastern religions -- far superior), but I think people that endlessly rant about how Muslim leaders don't speak out are being disingenuous and get a rise out of their own carte blanche to be ignorant. Take 3 seconds and look.


    I see scholars denouncing violence and terrorism after every major attack in online news, but of course they don't get much time in the light because no one knows who they are. A standard bonehead doesn't seem to realize that there is no equivalent to the pope in Islam. There is no one voice that commands attention. Islam is decentralized and dispersed, divided between two main interpretations of the religion that are vastly different. The violent and backward sects producing terrorists all happen to exist in the same key parts of the world, with the same dire GDP, corrupt evil governments, and unemployment.

    You never see bombings or riots by the HUGE number of Muslims in Xinjiang China, for instance. Muslims in the U.S. earn more than the mean of white Americans. They are better educated than the average American. Within one generation, their children are assimilated. Why is it ghettoized immigrants in France blow shit up, but no one blows anything up here?

    I have absolutely no love for Islam itself. But I have much less love for my countrymen who insist on being boneheads and dumbing down discourse. Boneheads attempt to blame Islam itself while ignoring demographics and factors based on political economy. It's easy to be a bonehead, but it is not good to be a bonehead. See?
  124. As I just mentioned, the kids up here in Canada who are in jail right now were all born here - think baggy jeans and Nikes and 'yo-yo, what's up dawg?'. 3 tons of ammonium nitrate and bomb making plans... right?

    I too hesitated to blame Islam, preferring instead to lay the blame for brutal terrorism at the feet of bad individuals. That link you provided didn't do your argument much good, because if you look carefully at the hits on the first few pages, many of them have nothing to do with Islamists condemning violence. The problem is that the search returns pages with any combination of these three words.

    (As an aside, you may want to do these searches using closed quotes. The search for "Islamists condemn violence" returns these results. There are 22 hits. I am not sure what this means).

    At any rate, you talked about Muslim clerics speaking out (you describe them as 'scholars'; I don't think there's much of a distinction, in most cases; all clerics are scholars, but the opposite may not be true). Of course there will be clerics who say 'we condemn these attacks'. I was waiting for an organized and unequivocal reaction from ordinary citizens. There has been nothing of the kind.
  125. Your hesitation to blame Islam, at first, is very noble. A hard struggle in us all to not blame entire religons when someone does something stupid.

    An organized and unequivocal reaction from ordinary citizens? Gotcha. Like, say, the organized reaction from ordinary U.S. citizens when soldiers massacred civilians in Haditha, shooting children and old men in the head? Or Abu Ghraib? How about an organized unequivocal reaction from ordinary Catholics for the sexual abuse of children?

    Let's be honest. You know these things don't exist and you would never see it if it did. Be honest even further: in the West, if an evangelical Christian demands the murder of homosexuals, we do not expect the entire community to denounce that person. But the moment a Muslim from North Africa burns a car in Paris, boneheads expect entire Muslim communities in Canada to beg for forgiveness. And not in their communities alone, but to contact journalists for every English speaking newspaper and perhaps knock on your door. This is because in the Western mind, there is a slight temptation to think all Muslims are either secretly plotting our deaths or frothing at the mouth with an AK-47, burning a flag. And we <i>like</i> thinking this and being able to express those thoughts, a little, don't we?

    Bonehead talk on forums like this makes it seem easier for people to ACTUALLY think that's true, and not know the obvious truth that the majority of Muslims are people with families and jobs who just want to live in peace.

    I encourage you to do a search for yourself on Muslims who condemn terrorism and the violence of 9/11. In fact, read more about Muslims in general. It is everyone's responsibility to learn to not be a bonehead by reading things outside of our normal scope.


    She's a decent start. Quite anti-war, but if you read about her experiences, you get a better picture of why.
  126. Also, you should know your 22 results MIGHT have something to do with the definition of Islamist.
  127. Your point is taken, but I feel it misses some essential points.

    Yes, Islam is fragmented and has no centralized voice, unlike Catholicism does with the Pope.

    So what?

    You say you read about Muslim "scholars" condemning Muslim violence, but why haven't the head Muslim clerics in each Middle Eastern country - Sunni or Shi'a - condemned these threats on the Pope, the killing of the nun in Somalia, the burning of churches? And how about the heads of state?

    Are you telling me it wouldn't be big news if, for example, Sistani in Iraq condemned it, or the Ayatollah in Iran?

    You also fail to point out that leading clerics and Muslim political leaders are demanding the Pope's apology and calling his remarks, among other things, ignorant and an assault on Islam.

    Furthermore, those links you posted - not one in the first three pages of links mentions Muslims in the Middle East condemning the action of other Muslims about violence related to the Pope's statement. Not one!

    Also, many of the ones I took the time to click on are organizations in the West, not the Middle East, and even among them there is dissention about apologizing. What was interesting in the ones mentioning Muslim authorities in the Middle East, many were about the Danish cartoons, not about the Pope issue. Furthermore, those very same articles pointed out that, although some Muslim clerics had condemned the violence in the wake of the Danish cartoons, their governments had acted in the opposite manner and did things such as recall their ambassadors from Denmark in protest.

    Do another google search using these keywords: Islam Pope Condemn Violence - and see what you come up with. You should find it interesting.

    The bottom line is that although, as you have pointed out, that Islam is fragmented, the heads of these fragments have not come out and condemned these actions against the Pope. If the situation were reversed, I am positive condemnation by Catholics worldwide - religious leaders, common citizens, politicians - not just "scholars," would be much louder and swifter than what we have heard from the Middle East Muslims on this issue.

    You also say, "The violent and backward sects producing terrorists all happen to exist in the same key parts of the world, with the same dire GDP, corrupt evil governments, and unemployment." Well, why is it, then, that the major terrorists, i.e. bin Laden, many of the 9/11 hijackers, the guy whose supposed to lead the next attack on the US, "Jaffar the Pilot," come from backgrounds that were far from "dire" and in fact middle or upper class?

    So do your research before you accuse those of us who point out the flaccid nature of Islamic response to the Pope issue as being "disingenuous" and "ignorant."

    Don't be a bonehead.
  128. Quote from hapaboy:

    You say you read about Muslim "scholars" condemning Muslim violence, but why haven't the head Muslim clerics in each Middle Eastern country - Sunni or Shi'a - condemned these threats on the Pope, the killing of the nun in Somalia, the burning of churches? And how about the heads of state?

    Who are these "head Muslim clerics" and what did they say about these events? You have to know who they are to make this claim, so I'm curious. I don't even know, and I doubt you do either. What did they say about 9/11 for that matter?

    What did Tony Blair say about Haditha? What did Pat Robertson say when Anne Coulter said we should invade every Muslim country and convert them all to Christianity? ... Are these smart questions or bonehead questions?

    <b>Are you telling me it wouldn't be big news if, for example, Sistani in Iraq condemned it, or the Ayatollah in Iran?</b>

    It would be big news. But that's because it's Sistani and the Ayatollah of Iran. These are people put in power by people who represent the theocratic, reactionary groups who have a specific hatred of the U.S. and Israel (and, might I add, Operation Ajax by the CIA was a direct cause of these people's prominence in the first place). Yes, these reactionaries form a large part of many ME countries, and their political leaders pander to them to maintain power. But we are not asking whether radicals exist, but talking about Islam, and Muslims -- since boneheads are claiming that Islam and Muslims are, by nature, radical.

    <b> You also fail to point out that leading clerics and Muslim political leaders are demanding the Pope's apology and calling his remarks, among other things, ignorant and an assault on Islam.</b>

    Again, who are "leading" clerics and who do they represent? And ... why is it an issue if they're calling for an apology and calling it an assault on Islam...?

    <b>Furthermore, those links you posted - not one in the first three pages of links mentions Muslims in the Middle East condemning the action of other Muslims about violence related to the Pope's statement. Not one!</b>

    so .......?

    <b>Also, many of the ones I took the time to click on are organizations in the West, not the Middle East</b>


    <b>What was interesting in the ones mentioning Muslim authorities in the Middle East, many were about the Danish cartoons, not about the Pope issue.</b>


    <b>the heads of these fragments have not come out and condemned these actions against the Pope. If the situation were reversed, I am positive condemnation by Catholics worldwide - religious leaders, common citizens, politicians - not just "scholars," would be much louder and swifter than what we have heard from the Middle East Muslims on this issue.</b>

    Find out for me how long it took Bush to comment on Haditha.

    It seems as if every time there is any controversy you expect all Muslims across the world to immediately inform the English speaking press that they disagree with what some extremists somewhere say. If they don't, or if they say something to their community only, or if they say something to the press and you don't hear about, then ... what? All Muslims are sympathetic with extremists? You have carte blanche to assume they hate you and want to rape your wife?

    <b> Well, why is it, then, that the major terrorists, i.e. bin Laden, many of the 9/11 hijackers, the guy whose supposed to lead the next attack on the US, "Jaffar the Pilot," come from backgrounds that were far from "dire" and in fact middle or upper class?</b>

    This is supreme bonehead think. Never did I say that ALL terrorists come from poverty. I never will. But it's an extremely OBVIOUS fact that extremism finds ripe breeding ground in areas where there is high unemployment, low development, and where the middle class has little access to the political process. It's a waste of time for me to get in convesations with people that don't understand this very basic observation that people have been saying for centuries. Pick up the "Eurabia" issue of the Economist if you think this opinion is hairbrained. Look closely at this map:


    This should make my point a bit more clear. And before you get an enormous erection and think all those red dots are huge, massive zones of bloodshed, zoom in and look at each country.
  129. Well... I can't really match up the image of a rogue soldier murdering a bunch of people with the 767 hitting Tower 2, you know. Something about that that I just can't match up...

    In the case of Abu Ghraib, considering the play the story got here, it's not like we had nothing to say about it.

    With regard to the Catholic priest problem, that's a better analogy, but have you heard about a Catholic group coming out in defense of the latest pedophile with the argument that he is 'disenfranchised' and the victim of 'clerical profiling'? Secondly, the Catholic priests have not sent video tapes in to CNN saying 'children of the flock beware, we are going to anally rape every one of you'.

    Actually, no. It was the moment that they flew those planes into those buildings, killing what, 2300 + people? It was that moment.

    And no, I don't expect them to beg forgiveness. I just expect them to refrain from saying that the problem is that Muslim youth are 'disenfranchised', and to distance themselves from their brothers and sisters who say that the Holocaust never happened and that their goal is to wipe every Jew off the face of the planet and then establish a worldwide Islamic state in which unbelievers are beheadable according to Islamic law, and where Sharia is the order of the day.

    To be honest, I think the problem is fear of reprisals. Most families here have relatives in the ME, and there is no doubt in my mind that if a Westernized family started speaking up in an organized manner, there would be hell to pay for the relatives back home. As RM has pointed out, honour is everything in Muslim culture, and when someone does something 'wrong', the entire family is shamed.

    By the way, I just read a transcript of a recent interview with Ahmedinejad. I can guarantee you that there aren't any pedophile Catholic priests or rogue soldiers or military jail commanders who are also leaders of nations.
  130. If you took the time to Google the search as I explained to do so, you would find out who they are and what they said (or haven't said).

    See above, or do another Google search.

    I don't know. I'd imagine he's waiting, as we all are, for the trial to take place and for there to be an outcome. And what does that have to do with Muslim reaction to the Pope quoting centuries-old text?

    What are you saying in response to my response? Are you being smart or are you a bonehead?

    They are not only political leaders, but supposedly RELIGIOUS leaders, and the religion in this case is Islam.

    What boneheads are saying these things? I don't know who you're referring to, and I doubt you do either.

    See above + it is not an assault on Islam.

    Hey, you were the genius who posted the links, which obviously did nothing to validate your point, which is fast becoming lost.

    No thanks. Seems you're fixated on Haditha, and wish that the President had condemned the Marines prior to the matter being adjudicated in a court of law, i.e. Mad Murtha.

    No, I expect their religious leaders to not implore their followers to kill Catholics, murder the Pope, and burn churches. And secondly, if one of their leaders does so, for the other leaders to condemn it. How many Muslim leaders have condemned the actions of the cleric in Somalia who implored his followers to murder the Pope? Why don't you research that?

    Of course not.

    Well, it's also an OBVIOUS fact that "the areas where there is high unemployment, low development, and where the middle class has little access to the political process" describes most of the world, yet, for some reason, it is in the Muslim countries with the above conditions which breed the most violent extremists.

    Sorry if your erection has been deflated. You can always get more Viagra.
  131. Quote from traderNik:

    Well... I can't really match up the image of an rogue soldier murdering a bunch of people with the 767 hitting Tower 2, you know. Something about that that I just can't match up...

    In the case of Abu Ghraib, considering the play the story got here, it's not like we had nothing to say about it.

    With regard to the Catholic priest problem, that's a better analogy, but have you heard about a Catholic group coming out in defense of the latest pedophile with the argument that he is 'disenfranchised' and the victim of 'clerical profiling'? Secondly, the Catholic priests have not sent video tapes in to CNN saying 'children of the flock beware, we are going to anally rape every one of you'. </b>

    Well, on one hand we're talking about 9/11, and on another a nun being murdered for the Pope's comments. In both, boneheads across the West demand all Muslims apologize. That's less than 24 people killed in Haditha, and less than Abu Ghraib. I'm sure you see the hypocrisy. I further think making it a numbers game raises some serious questions about your ethics. Haditha was a heinous crime. So was Abu Ghraib. And the only way the U.S. government, and even some CITIZENS, would ever admit it is wrong if our own press beats it into our heads.

    Yes, Catholic priests have not sent tapes to Al Jazeera. They won't kill anyone either, I bet. But they raped children. This is probably as much of a heinous crime as an Indian man throwing acid on his wife's face or homosexuals being beheaded in Iran.

    <b>And I don't expect them to beg forgiveness. I just expect them to refrain from saying that the problem is that Muslim youth are 'disenfranchised',</b>

    You mentioned these orthodox 13 year olds wore baggy pants and were all "yo, yo." Since they were building bombs out of a religious duty, why were they not wearing proper dress and saying Allahu Ackbar? I would think it'd be almost against their religion to mimic sinful Western culture.

    <b>and to distance themselves from their brothers and sisters who say that the Holocaust never happened and that their goal is to wipe every Jew off the face of the planet and then establish a worldwide Islamic state in which unbelievers are beheadable according to Islamic law, and where Sharia is the order of the day</b>

    This is where the real boneheadedness shines through, like the Holy Spirit descending from Heaven and whispering loving prophecies into Pat Robertson's ear. Yes, because a Muslim somewhere in the world wants to kill all Jews, every Muslim in Canada must personally write you a letter informing you that he is a patriot and is, on top of that, madly in love with you. It is his duty, as a Muslim, to prove to you that you are not a bonehead.
    This is not too much to demand, however for you to learn about the differences between Muslims, and the origin of various political and historical conflicts between Muslims and the U.S. (like with Iran), or between Muslims and Muslims... is just inconceivable.

    <b>By the way, I just read a transcript of a recent interview with Ahmedinejad. I can guarantee you that there aren't any pedophile Catholic priests or rogue soldiers or military jail commanders who are also leaders of nations.

    ............so? You guys are coming up with some ridiculous things to say here. Explain to me the significance of this statement. Actually I'm leaving now anyway. I had been wanting to get away from ET in general, actually, since it's such a waste of time to discuss both trading and politics. Eh..
  132. Let's just clean this up with a few simple questions before this gets ridiculous. I may get back to it later, but not now. Here is your chance to tell the world in what ways all/most Muslims are very, very evil.

    1. Can we say Islamic theology is sufficient in itself as a cause of Islamic extremism?

    2. If we can, why do some places with large Islamic populations produce no statistically-significant violence? What percentage of Muslims are extremists?

    3. If we can't, what other factors would be more informative?

    4. When a heinous crime is caused by a Muslim, who do you, hapabone, want to apologize for it?

    5. When a heinous crime is caused by someone acting under the authority of the U.S., who should apologize for it?
  133. You're being assinine (again).

    Show me where I have stated that "all/most Muslims are very, very evil." If you would bother to exercise more of those vaunted research skills of yours, you would find that I have in fact defended Muslims and attacked the very kind of thinking you are accusing me of.

    As such, your questions, which are predicated on your incorrect assumption, become irrelevant.

    The real question that remains is: Why did you run out of Viagra? It has clearly made you cranky as hell and unable to think lucidly.

    And oh, you made it ridiculous a long time ago.
  134. Just to make it clear, this exchange started when you posted a bad link. We taught you how to do a proper Google search that would return results that tend to support your points. No, no, don't thank us.

    Funny, dogboy... the more I read from you, the more I suspect that you're one of the idealogues you are so vigorously defending. And you apparently don't have a clear understanding of the definition of the word 'ethics'. But that's okay. Carry on.

    Here's the lead story from the BBC this morning, just fyi.

    A violent day in Iraq leaves 35 people dead from a Baghdad bombing while nine severed heads are found in Tikrit".

    Nine severed heads...
  135. When you disagree with me that extremism is primarily rooted in socio-economics, you are implicitly saying Islam is the real cause. Bin Laden was rich. No violence exists in poor countries except where Islam is involved.

    When you say it doesn't matter that Islam is decentralized, all Muslims from Egypt to Dubai to Urumqi should denounce a nun being slain, you are implicitly saying all Muslims are the same.
  136. The link was an example of how to do a 3 second search on Google. I found this in 5 seconds:


    I am not here to teach you how to not be a bonehead. Don't be lazy. Pick up a book, read that riverbend blog.

    Now, explain to me why you provided that article on people dying in Iraq. What is the implication?
  137. The link was a mistake. You posted it as evidence that there are a lot of Muslims condemning violence. It turned out that the search returned results that did not support that contention. But it's okay.

    By the way, you seem to be pretty good at ignoring evidence that you've made an error. Please do a search here on ET for a member called ZZZzzzzzzz. He is the Queen of this technique. You can maybe sharpen your your own chops by reviewing his posts.

    We helped you to do better Google searches. You can thank us later, when you calm down.

    I won't bother posting a link to the definition of 'ethics'. You can try a search at dictionary.com.

    My last post to you in this thread. Maybe hap will give you a few more pointers.
  138. LOL. All that discussion of whether or not Islam is to blame and it's down to you saying a Google search for 'islam condem violence' doesn't return links about Muslims condemning violence.

    Couldn't explain the implication behind beheadings in Tikrit (lemme guess, it's MUSLIMS did it!! Therefore MUSLIMS are terrorists!)

    I'll miss you. Really.
  139. More bonehead assinine statements from little Doggy.

    Your "implicitly" comments are mere prattle. You have chosen to ignore what has been said and instead use a sweeping generality to assume what I (and Nik) believe on this topic.

    So, to put this in very simple terms so that it (possibly) filters to your cerebellum:

    1)I do not believe ALL Muslims are the same.

    2) Socio-economics have something to do with Islamic fanaticism. And, by the way, I know this will be a shock to you: Islam also has something to do with Islamic fanaticism. Much like the lack of Viagra has something to do with your ignorance.

    Is that "implicit" enough for you, little Doggy?

    And oh, how many Muslim clerics in the Middle East have denounced the Muslim cleric in Somalia who urged Muslims to murder the Pope? How many of them have denounced the murder of the Italian nun in Somalia?
  140. Good, now we're getting somewhere. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you may be less of a bonehead, perhaps not a bonehead at all, though I think I have a clear picture of the nature of Nik's opinions.

    I am quite aware Islam has something to do with Islamic fanaticism.

    My questions are now:

    Why did you disagree with me about the poverty-extremism link?

    Which Muslims in which countries should comment on the nun slaying and why?

    Do you feel a similar commentary should have come from Western powers regarding the Haditha massacre? If not, why?
  141. Let's follow the logic...

    1. Islam also has something to do with Islamic fanaticism.

    2. Guns also have something to do with gun violence.

    3. Islam is the cause of Islamic fanaticism.

    4. Guns are the cause of gun violence.

    This is the absurdity of the right wing position in their hatred of Islam, given their love of guns.

    They say guns don't create crime and violence, but rather criminals use guns in crime...the guns are only a tool, that if used in the right hands is safe....guns are not the cause of crime in their opinion.

    By the same reasoning, Islam doesn't cause crime and violence or terrorism, but fanatics use Islam as a tool of violence and terrorism. Islamic leaders use Islam as a tool to brainwash their followers into acts of terrorism. Islam is not the cause, no more than guns are the cause of crime, right?


    The problem is fanaticism itself, fundamentalism and totalitarian thinking...not the tools they use to act on their fanaticism.

    This is why the Pope is dead wrong in what he did, by focusing on Islam, rather than on the type of mind or person who abuses any religion to kill in the name of God.

    God is not to blame, Islam is not to blame, human beings who preach violence are to blame.

  142. I'm not Catholic but I think the Pope got it right on radical Islam. Of the 60 or so Muslim sects only a few are the radical wackos. They are the world troublemakers and need to be destroyed like a cancer. It may come down to who has the most nukes. The US currently has 10,000 ... they have none. When we are pushed to the point of no return the US may have to begin using them. Until then, the madness may keep escalating. We may not have the long-term will or treasury to keep fighting them with conventional means.
  143. Guns are to blame and Islam is to blame. If the world had neither we'd live in a better place.

    I'll toss my guns in the sea if I can throw an Iman along for the ride.....
  144. This is what you said about the poverty-extremism link:

    And this is how I replied:

    It's pretty obvious where I disagree. You have pointed out socioeconomic factors THAT ARE NOT SPECIFIC ONLY TO the Middle Eastern Muslim countries, and these other non-Muslim countries with the same socioeconomic factors have not bred terrorists who wish to destroy the US and/or convert Americans to their religion. The majority of South America, Africa, and Asia are struggling with those conditions, but I don't see any Bolivians, Cameroonians, Thais or Indians whose desire it is to end their lives by piloting a hijacked 767 into a building packed with civilians. Do you? Although their conditions may have to do with capitalism not benefitting them, do you hear any of them saying, "Death to America! Buddha commands it!" or "Death to America! Vishnu commands it!" No you do not. Compare that now to what you hear from the Muslim world.

    Why do you keep avoiding the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were middle-class and not wallowing in the socioeconomic factors you described? Why do you also keep avoiding the fact that many post 9/11 terrorists are from the same middle class or even upper class? Why do you also keep avoiding the fact that Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, was a millionaire? Don't any of these facts deter you at all from your assertion that poverty/unemployment/low development/little access to the political process are the primary causes of extremism in the Middle East? Why do you say that by making those statements, I am saying that "all Muslims are very, very evil"?

    The Muslim heads in all countries where Islam is the dominant religion should condemn the actions of the Muslim cleric in Somalia who called for the Pope's murder which resulted in the subsequent murder of the nun.

    Good grief, man, I've already said this a couple of times: wait for the trial! Don't be like Mad Murtha and convict these troops in the court of public opinion before they have been tried in a court of law.
  145. Putzkie, the neo-Nazi...

    And I suppose your parents are to blame for your racist ignorant bigotry...

  146. <b>Are you sure you really want to know?

    Percentage of people expressing "a lot of confidence" or "some confidence" in bin Laden:

    In the Palestinian territories: 71%
    Morocco: 49%
    Saudi Arabia: 'Almost half'</b>



    EDIT: More recent data, from last year (Includes the 2003 data, <i>in italics</i>, for comparison purposes):

    <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=792757>

    Regarding the above Pew survey data:
    Muslim Arabs compose the bulk of the world's terrorists, yet Pew
    purposely picked the most Liberal & moderate of Muslim countries- and only one (Jordan) has an overwhelming Muslim Arab majority. The survey results from Lebanon are worthless, as the Lebanese population is divided about 70/30 between Muslims and Christians- and these groups live mostly segregated from each other. From the poll results, I think you can guess in which area of Lebanon this poll was conducted.

    No survey results from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Syria- The places where the most Muslim Arabs (and Islamic terrorism supporters) can be found.

    <b>Only 18% of Jordanians surveyed had absolutely no confidence in Al-Qaida. Both the Democrats & Republicans WISH they had as much support from the American people, as Bin Laden's terrorism has support from the Jordanian people!</b>
  147. In case anyone has somehow missed my point;

    <b>Terrorist Osama Bin Laden has higher approval ratings among his people (Muslim Arabs), than President Bush has among <i>his</i> people (Americans)!</b>

    I challenge anyone to find a single opinion poll which disputes this claim.
  148. The scariest figures on that chart comes from Indonesia. A non ME nation that's often labled as a model of Islamic moderation by the media. Instead just another powder keg. The fact that an Islamic nation thousands of miles away from the ME can hold BinLaden in regard should trumpet to all the fallacy behind the red herring explanation of Israel and America being responsible for the simmering Muslim Street.
  149. That has got to be the worst possible analogy you could have come up with. Islam is a religion practiced and preached by people with the objective of influencing a person thoughts and actions. This is no different than any other religion. The difference comes when radicals in Islam (or any other religion) preach violence and death to those who are not a member of said religion. Islam seems to have the lead in this area.

    A gun on the other hand is a tool to be used by a person to carry out actions. A gun does nothing more than allow a person to carry out their ideology and thoughts much the same way a fork allows a person to carry out the action of eating when they are hungry. A gun does not and cannot "brainwash its followers". Religion on the other hand can and throughout history often has.

    You are absolutely incorrect when you say, "God is not to blame, Islam is not to blame, human beings who preach violence are to blame. Radical Islam and Allah are the reasons human being (Muslims in this case) are preaching violence
  150. You are very confused, and in your blind hatred are not seeing this situation clearly.

    Islam is being used as a tool by those preaching, to brainwash and incite their followers to violence and hatred.

    Just like a criminal uses a gun to practice violence. The gun doesn't commit the crime (we don't send guns to jail, and we don't send the Koran to jail...in fact we allow the detainees in Gitmo to read the Koran, one of the truly humane practices there), and in the same way, Islam itself doesn't commit acts of terrorism.

    No difference really.

    Certain extremist Mullahs are arming their followers with the weapons of extremist totalitarian thinking.

    No difference than someone giving guns to kids then inspiring them to use them against authority or a life of crime.

    All of this happens in mind, not in Islam.

    All of gun crime happens in the mind first, then is carried out with the use of a gun.

    It is essentially a political movement that has perverted the true spiritual nature of a religion, and this is nothing new. We have seen it in nearly all religions, when charismatic zealots gain followership, and focus on a demon to destroy in the name of their movement.

    The enemy is not Islam, or any other religion.

    The enemy is extremism, totalitarian thinking, violent political movements, etc.

    In our own country, the Nation of Islam is essentially a peaceful movement, denouncing violence in its members.

    Therefore, it is not Islam that is the enemy, but rather the nature of totalitarian extremist thinking, in the name of religion, that perverts the mind of those who followers.

    While you see Islam itself as the problem, you are clearly wrong. As the solution is not the abolishment of any particular religion, including Islam.

    The solution is for new Muslim spiritual leaders to rise up and show the genuine spiritual value of Islam to the followers of Islam.

    We have seen reformation in religions before, and we will see it again.

  151. ZZzzz, the clear minded telling everyone who doesn't agree with him that they are confused.

    Classic ZZzzism...

    Watching ZZzz throw his tantrums calling everyone who doesn't agree with his world view "confused."

    Too too too funny....

  152. stu, the adult who got his bottom spanked in another thread, works out his resentments here....an entirely different thread, entirely different topic.

    Nice job stu! How very, very adult of you.


  153. Sadly there is an element of Islam that you ignore. Spend some time reading the words of the prophet and you will find that he provides the justification of religious violence and advocates it as one of the primary tools for achieving an Islamic world. Terrorism comes out of disputes about land and power over that land (that feel futile to the terrorists, their supporters and their leaders) but Islam provides a fertile garden for that weed to grow.

    I do agree that the best solution is a reformation but its hard to see how it will come in quasi-medieval societies. The other solutions seem to be keeping a lid on the worst expressions of Islam as being practiced by national security organizations around the world and various forms of wall between difficult muslims and the populations they threaten.
  154. That's the first time I've seen something like that in numbers, and it is quite a shock and very troubling.

    Keep in mind I mentioned extremists though, implying willingness to strap on a belt and blow up something or take up arms to kill an infidel. That data may (at best) reveal that there is fertile ground for activating terrorists if there is enough of a trigger, or it may mean half the people in these hot countries hate Israel-loving America and are glad to see someone going to bat for them. In either case it's not good of course, but that doesn't mean that half of Saudi Arabia or Morocco is made up of terrorists.

    I raised the question in the first place to point out that there is a very large divide in Islam, and that people in Morocco follow the same religion as those in Turkey, Kuwait or Australia. The actions of one group end up speaking for the rest in the Western mind.

    I think Islam is structured to be more absolutist and dogmatic than other religions, that its history has encouraged that culture, and that helps totalitarian powers use the religion to dominate and resist modernization. But the only way it can be softened over time is if it is changed from the inside, by moderates, scholars, academics, artists, businessmen, etc.

    No interpretation of any religion is ever correct, because no religion is stagnant or monolithic. They all change over time depending on the underlying class and political structure, and historical factors like war and revolution.
  155. I agree entirely.

    Those who seek to enfuriate the entire Muslim populace by blaming the religion, or those who push for more invasions and bombings in the region, will basically radicalize those who haven't entered the fight. And that is exactly what bin Laden said he was trying to make happen. It's telling that he knew that using the Sean Hannitys of the world would better serve his purpose than building a well-armed military for open combat.
  156. The problem with that approach is that the list of things that infuriate them is apparently endless. If we try to placate them, we end up enganging in self-censorship, which has already happened to a large extent. The mainstream media is very reluctant to publish anything that is even mildly critical of islam.

    To the extent we fall all over ourselves to grovel for whatever has set them off this week, we only encourage more such responses. We have our principles, they have theirs. We might as well stand up for our principles now, because eventually we will reach the point where we have to. It's just a question of how much we are prepared to surrender.
  157. Tell me that the words you read are in their original language, meaning exactly what the words mean today, and were written down by Mohammed.

    Every religion, apart from Hinduism which is in original text, Sanskrit, has gone through untold revisions and changes from the prophets who spoke them.

    Then, to assume the words are meant to be taken literally and fundamentally, not from a spiritual or allegorical foundation.....with no ability to talk to Mohammed to see if that is the right way to read the words for this day and age...

    See, you are just as much as a fundamentalist when you talk about the words and what they mean to YOU when you read them.

    I read the same words, and see something entirely different.

    This is where reform will come in...eventually.

    It has happened in every other religion, it will happen in Islam, and we should support such reforms.

    The words themselves provide no justification for violence, only the mind of men who put their own meaning to the words make such rationalizations...
  158. On a related note:

    One in 10 Muslims 'ignore terror'

    Press Association

    Sunday September 24, 2006 3:08 AM

    Almost one in 10 British Muslims would not inform police if they suspected that someone of the same faith was involved in a terror attack, a poll suggested.

    The ICM poll for the News of the World found 9% of the 502 questioned would not tell police if they had such suspicions about a fellow Muslim.

    With a Muslim population aged over 16 in Britain of around one million, that would translate to 90,000 "turning a blind eye", the newspaper said.

    However, almost nine out of every 10 (86%) would contact police, according to the survey.

    Among young Muslims, the figures for keeping quiet were higher with 15% of 16 to 24-year-olds saying they would not tell police and 81% saying they would.

    The poll also found that one in 20 Muslims thought attacks like the July 7 bombings were justified. And more than half (56%) said they did not believe a police warning that there are thousands of extremist British Muslims willing to carry out attacks here.

    Just over a third (34%) of those questioned believed the warning and 10% said they "did not know".

    The research also asked Muslims what factors were responsible for continued terror attacks in Britain. Tony Blair, "Islamophobia" and the Islamic community's "failure" to root out extremists were among the favoured reasons.

    More than eight in 10 (86%) said the Prime Minister should shoulder some of the blame and 72% blamed non-Muslims for racist and "Islamophobic" behaviour.

    However, two thirds (66%) said the Muslim community's failure to root out extremists was a factor. Meanwhile, 83% accepted that the terrorists themselves were to blame although one in 10 said they were not.


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    Iustus ignarus troll
  159. How arrogant.
    Guess you haven't read the Qu'uran lately.

    "2.90 – 2.91: Evil is that for which they have sold their souls -- that
    they should deny what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah
    should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He
    pleases; so they have made themselves deserving of wrath upon wrath, and there is a disgraceful punishment for the unbelievers".

    ""9.5" : So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them"

    "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle
    and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be
    murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off"

    Too bad all your brothers are so into taking this stuff literally.

    Maybe you want to translate that into Tongan in order to make it fit your argument?

    Oh yeah, what am I talking about - you'll just pretend you never said it and launch into some other bit of disinformation and evasion.

    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    Iustus ignarus troll
  160. I never said "fall all over ourselves to grovel." I said those who <i>blame</i> the religion, and those who foolishly think military action is some solution (beyond a very limited point) will play right into the hands of the radical tacticians. Not doing those two things does not equal groveling or appeasement.

    Like it or not, no military can stop the power of a galvanized populace. Especially when the military itself is causing that galvanization by atrocities like Haditha and Abu Ghraib. And let's not forget that the whole reason the mullahs of Iran are so popular today is because the U.S. tried to overthrow their <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax>democratically elected government</a> half a century ago. Given the last 50 years of U.S. foreign policy in the M.E. and in Latin America, there is a lot of mistrust brewing that will undermine any military effort.

    I agree with the spirit of what you said to the extent that "they" applies to radical Muslims, who do not, and should never, have any hold over our liberties. But there is no one Muslim world. There are lines of common sense to not cross when dealing with other M.E. populations -- of sovereignty and respect -- that should be carefully observed out of pragmatism.
  161. ZZzz, the confused child

    ...so very grown up as to play the flaming Troll.

    Extremely funny...

    ZZzz, the confused child demonstrates his "reasoning process" below:

    <img src=http://w3.ouhsc.edu/phar5442/Images/Images%20Mental%20Health/Tantrum.gif>
  162. Beaten and bruised in another thread, lacking any creativity beyond copycat level, stu, the adult copies and pastes in a non related thread.

    Classic stuism...

  163. ZZzz trolling you are quoting and copying your own words.
  164. Sheesh.

    By the way stu, you know Z has completely run out of arguments when he starts responding using images and cutting and pasting your post and using it as a reply. This is his way of saying 'I've run out of evasions, I'm not having fun any more and I want to change the subject'.


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    iustus ignarus troll
  165. stu trolling you are copying and quoting someone else's words.

  167. lmao... see? I swear to you, that was not planned!!!

    I am quoting this just in case he tries to delete it.

    Also, how interesting... Z, you always simply click 'quote' and then reply to posts with the entire text of the post you are responding to given underneath your response. I have asked you in the past to edit when you are quoting a long post, in situations when the entire text of the post is unnecessary. You responded with an image of a pink bunny, I believe.

    But here... guess what!! In the post directly above this one, you left the word 'Sheesh' in but then you cut out the rest of it. Now why on earth is that? This is something you never do.

    Hit a little too close to home, did it?



    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    iustus ignarus troll
  168. Dogballoon, please answer the questions I asked as I had the decency to answer yours.

    Thank you,


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    Iustus ignarus troll

  169. 1. I have already said I am aware there are interpretations of Islamic theology/jurisprudence that are powerful factors in creating extremists. In certain areas, Islam can be very useful to theocrats and radical tacticians in maintaining power and motivating people to kill themselves for a higher cause. I've also said there is a large divide in Islam based on interpretation; I think that is the real litmus test of the future. You are not understanding my larger point so I'll expand. Harping about Islam, while ignoring eveything else, is ignorant for several reasons:

    - A: If Islam was sufficient, in itself, to cause terrorism there would be a regular distribution of extremists across the world, regardless of the historical, cultural, political, and socio-economic make-up of the countries in which they live. As I said before, Xinjiang is not Nigeria. Ghettoes in France are not suburban Iranian communities in Southern California. I never said underdevelopment alone is SUFFICIENT to cause terrorism, but only a bonehead would think it plays no role whatsoever.

    - B: No religion is monolithic. Christianity today is absolutely nothing like it was a millenium ago. It took bloody wars, the collapse of colonial empires, and the rise of enlightenment thinkers to transform Western societies into what they are today. The religion had no choice but to adapt if it wanted to remain relevant. This is how progress happens.

    - C: Blaming Islam only is pointless -- it just stokes the coals of smug, self-righteous fury in Western boneheads. Some people get off on reducing complex social phenomena into "good vs. bad" conflicts, so that they can feel like the good guy. These types get a rush out of frothing at the mouth about how Islam is the enemy when another suicide bombing takes place in Iraq or Israel. I think this kind of mentality is embarrassing. It's also politically counterproductive for the reasons I've stated to kiwi_trader.

    2. Your repeated mention of the wealth of bin Laden and others is not a counterargument to what I've been saying, any more than me bringing up one 17 year old, fatherless, poor Palestinian suicide bomber is proof of my argument. Not even highschool kids would think like that. I'm looking at things systematically, and I'm not making a controversial argument. If you can't understand this, then I'm not going to try to explain myself further. You'll just end up ignoring what I say and repeating yourself later.

    Usually it takes a few posts to get a sense of the kind of person on the other end. When you said something about getting through to my "cerebellum," I realized that there's probably not much more fruitful conversation here. Furthermore, while you demanded every Middle Eastern country apologize for the slaying of a nun, you called for impartiality and a trial of the soldiers in Haditha. The nature of both incidents seem straightforward to me (the latter has pretty much been verified by the Pentagon and the press). I think this is enough for me to intuit what kind of person you are, and I can probably predict a whole range of political positions you have based on that alone. I'll let you have the last word.
  170. Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
    More gobbledygook speak...

    You got him to do it again! :D
    (Watch the hypocrite hurl ugly racial epithets today, and then 'speak out against racism' tomorrow.)
  171. That was very funny.

  172. I am not "ignoring everything else." To say that I am is, well, ignorant.

    I have given your underdevelopment rationale credit for playing a role. Saying I have not is, well, boneheaded.

    Furthermore, if you bothered to read my posts, I have been talking primarily about the Middle Eastern extremists. Note the word "extremists," which indicates an acknowledgement on my part that they are not the mainstream, although, as RM has pointed out, the mainstream appears to tacitly support and/or sympathize with these extremists. And given what happened in London, one must also consider the role of Islam in what caused those British born and raised Muslim youths to do what they did. And BTW, one of them was born in Jamaica and converted to Islam prior to blowing himself and many others up on that day.

    So what? Islam has had quite a long time to progress. Unfortunately, in the here and now it has "progressed" to the point where we are faced with extremists who may soon acquire nuclear weapons. You may be comfortable with giving them more time to "progress," and make a huge leap of faith that they will progress in the manner you envision. But there is no guarantee of that happening. How do you know that the apex of Muslim "progress" was not marked by where it stood 30 years ago, or 100?

    You keep on with this mantra that I am "blaming only Islam," when in fact I am not. To keep on doing so is, well, boneheaded.

    The reason I keep on mentioning it is that you keep on ignoring it. And I believe you do so because you are disingenuous. Because by acknowledging that the worst act of terrorism against this country was masterminded by a multimillionaire and executed by mostly middle-class Muslims, it crumbles the facade of the argument you have constructed.

    Clearly the reference I was making to balance, which the cerebellum has an important controlling relation to, went over your head. No surprise.

    First of all, I said that:

    "THE MUSLIM HEADS OF ALL COUNTRIES WHERE ISLAM IS THE MOST DOMINANT RELIGION SHOULD CONDEMN THE ACTIONS OF THE MUSLIM CLERIC IN SOMALIA WHO CALLED FOR THE POPE'S MURDER which resulted in the subsequent murder of the nun." Can you understand the difference between what I wrote and what you claim I wrote? Obviously not...Interesting too that you do not believe in due process for our soldiers and are happy to convict them without trial. And, I suppose to satisfy your clear moral relativist bent, we should have to put the Muslim cleric on trial for what he said, wouldn't we?

    It's clear you have reading comprehension problems and are incapable of objectivity. In your zeal to whitewash the role Islam plays in what is, by the way, ISLAMIC fundamentalism, you can only repeat the litany of assumptions you've made since this exchange began and continue to ignore the cogent facts.

    In any case, I'm glad you've left me with the last word, as you clearly would continue with your obfuscation. You see, I have a pretty good idea of the type of person you are, too.

    Have a great day.


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    Iustus ignarus troll
  173. re: the above, well said, hap


    Z's racism has been pretty well documented. The fact that he calls me a gook shouldn't come as a surprise.

    So... you claimed that there is nothing in the Qu'uran that specifically promotes violence. I responded with three examples. You responded... by cutting and pasting a post 9 times in a row.

    Hmmm... not very mature, was it? Kind of like throwing a little tantrum, right?

    I remember a few weeks back when you were cornered, getting hammered for your evasions and lies here. You started posting a bunch of references to anal penetration. I guess you aren't quite there yet...


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    iustus ignarus troll
  174. Quote where I called you a "gook."

    Your posts are full of gobbledygook speak...true, but so are a lot of post by the klannish folks around here....

    For a self proclaimed "proof reader" who is so clearly IQ challenged, you really are useless...

  175. PLUHHHHZEEEEE.......

    Tradernik is correct. Everytime you find yourself against a wall of common sense or just simple "reason", you will find your way out of it in less than illustrious ways.

    Well documented fact.

  176. So you can't pull up a quote where I called him a "gook."

    Thought so, more bs from the klannish ET members....

    You guys stick together like a bloody bowel movement....

  177. Exactly. Thank you for corroborating my statement.

  178. I see you suffer from the same delusion as many of the klannish ET members...

  179. That’s not true. History demonstrates how the use of military force can crush a galvanized populace.

    Populations are galvanized when they have a newfound sense of hope and confidence that gins up their ethnic/religious/national pride. Look at the economies of the Middle East and Latin America. Economic boom times, for sure. Propaganda that makes people feel they are better than other people is usually backed up with periods of unprecedented economic advancement. That’s what happened in Germany and Japan prior to WWII and many countries prior to WWI.

    People don’t become galvanized because they believe America sucks and America is screwing them over with its military, policies, and superpower arrogance. That's a Leftist mirage. And there were always America-haters. But they didn’t rise up until recently because they now feel stronger and sense America is no longer a dominate influence. And like both world wars, people begin to fight when their power and influence are relatively matched and equal.

    The Mullahs in Iran are popular because Iran is enjoying a rise in economic power and political influence, not what the U.S. did a half century ago.
  180. Quote from Sam123:

    Populations are galvanized when they have a newfound sense of hope and confidence that gins up their ethnic/religious/national pride. </b>

    I agree with this also. I am not making an either/or argument.

    <b>The Mullahs in Iran are popular because Iran is enjoying a rise in economic power and political influence, not what the U.S. did a half century ago.

    I'm not talking about popularity. Operation Ajax directly led to the 1979 Islamic revolution. Can't get anymore linear than that. Do you agree or disagree with this fact of history?

    <b>People don’t become galvanized because they believe America sucks and America is screwing them over with its military, policies, and superpower arrogance. </b>

    Now look at the leftist revival coming out of Evo Morales and Chavez. Notice how they referrence both the failed neo-liberal economic policies of the West and things like Allende's assassination, El Salvador, etc. The people of Latin America know more about U.S. involvement in the region, support of brutal paramilitaries, etc. than U.S. citizens.

    It's Americans that forget what their country did 50 years ago.
  181. Operation Ajax was a success. You can’t pin the screw-ups in the 70’s on that operation. What directly led to the revolution was a weak regime, a dying Shaw, and an American president too impotent to do anything about it. But the Shaw managed to run the joint for 25+ years after Operation Ajax and before the Revolution. Yes, the Shaw was viewed as a Westernized transplant and when Iran’s economy was doing well in the late 70’s, people latched onto their ethnic/national/Islamic pride, and gravitated toward an Islamist populist.

    People of Latin America don’t know anything more about U.S. involvement than what their Leftist teachers shove down their throats. Every year, U.S. colleges get a bunch of arrogant Latin students boasting their ethnic superiority on the subject as if it’s their birth right, and Americans “can’t possibly understand,” and so forth. But they are simply taking the Leftist point of view, and the Americans who “never seem to understand” are those who support America’s interests, including operations designed to slow the spread of communism as well as efforts to interfere with dictators who try to nationalize their oil fields, which causes the price of oil to rise.

    Yes, we supported forces that killed people. But what do you think the Communists would have done? They would kill people too, especially those who support capitalism, free markets, and American interests, would they not? It all depends on which side people are on.

    Perhaps what Americans don’t realize is how America lost its gall to protect its interests today. And look what is happening as a result. The price of oil shoots up and we can’t go anywhere anymore without smelling Chavez’s farts. What do you think Eisenhower would be doing about all this today?
  182. Wow, you have some colorful opinions. I can tell this won't go too far, but I just want to focus on this one issue.

    In your opinion the 1979 overthrow of the "Shaw" was not a popular nationalist reaction against a brutal dictator. Grassroots support for the movement had no basis in a reaction to U.S. meddling. None at all. People don't overthrow dictators installed by foreign countries for that reason.

    You're saying the revolution was because the dictator <b>was not powerful enough</b>, people were feeling good because of the money the "Shaw" was bringing in, and Carter was not willing to install a better dictator (or invade?). In other words -- none of what ended up happening was the responsibility of the U.S. and the U.K. Am I reading you right?

    Your ethical principles are clearly Stalinist realpolitik only, so let me ask you something: if a country nationalizes something another country wants cheap like its oil wells or its copper mines, any country has the duty to either invade that country or install an oppressive dictator without hope of democratic reform to keep the price low. This is both a pragmatic and ethical course of action.Yes?

    Just curious, but where did you go to college? And what work did you do before trading?

  183. Hey Doggie, will you admit that Islam might have had something to do with the, as you yourself called it, ISLAMIC revolution, or is it all about poverty and being disenfranchised?


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    Iustus ignarus troll
  184. Listen, you're a pest and I have no interest in feeding your impoverished ego by giving you attention. Please use your "cerebellum" elsewhere.
  185. There's one major problem with this - after 9/11, Bush was even more popular in American than Bin Laden was in the Muslim world.

    If you have any other explanation other than "people are f*cking stupid", I would be interested to hear it.
  186. lol...

    Ok, so, back to the topic at hand. You claimed that there is nothing in the Qu'uran that specifically promotes violence. I responded with three examples. You responded... by cutting and pasting a post of mine 9 times in a row.

    Were you throwing a tantrum or was that meant to be a response? If it was a response, I didn't understand it, I don't have the key to the code.

    Also, you keep saying my IQ is low, so I challenged you to match audited Wechsler or Stanford-Binet results, with the loser agreeing to stop posting on ET forever. You have yet to respond. Can I take it that this means you decline the challenge?

    I've never had a reason to challenge anyone to an IQ throwdown but you're such a pathetic fucking loser and troll, and I have had such success owning you in the past, I thought this would be another nice trophy for my mantle.

    Just another fight that you started but then didn't have the balls to finish...


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    iustus ignarus troll
  187. What I am saying is that any scripture is up to the reader to interpret when the author is not available.

    So a violent man sees a call to violence and acts on it, and a peaceful man may or may not see the same thing but doesn't act in a violent manner. A truly spiritual man sees the message as completely spiritual in nature, not of this world.

    With nearly all religions, the followers look to the current leaders for "right" interpretation of the scriptures they follow.

    So, in essence, they are following the mind of the leaders of the religion, not the religious text, or necessarily the real and intended meaning of the text, and may in fact be 100% wrong in their interpretation.

    For example, for those with a brain (I know this leaves out many ET members) it is logically possible that Mohammed was speaking only to his tribe---not future generations.

    It is also possible that Mohammed was speaking completely in a spiritual sense, that the infidel is not external, but the inner nature of mankind, and man's need to develop his inner spirituality by killing the inner infidel that keeps him from God.

    Who can say I am wrong? Who can "channel" Mohammed to prove that I am wrong in my read of the Koran? Who is to say the Koran is exactly what Mohammed said? Who is to say that what we read hasn't been changed and altered many times through translation?

    The bottom line is that it all gets filtered though the mind of man, and man has free will to believe whatever he likes.

    So I always blame the man for violence, and blame the leaders who incite such violence, I never blame God or His Prophets.

    p.s. You could have the highest IQ ever, and would still be a dumbass, and your "challenge" is proof of that fact....man, do you think you have a lot to prove...which means you must truly have a lot to prove...

  188. So what you're saying is, Islam MIGHT have had something to do with the ISLAMIC revolution in Iran.

    Now we're making progress...
  189. 1. I know, you've represented yourself as a man of God on here for a while now, even though you're an exemplar for a lot of ungodly things, including the use of extremely foul language and lying. Nevertheless, I will ask you this - who said anyone is blaming God? To say that Islam promotes violence isn't to blame God, I don't think. After all, God is God, isn't he? Christian God, Muslim God, Hindu God, Pagan God, it's all one God we're talking about, isn't it? Surely you know that in Hinduism there is no talk about beheading those who aren't Hindu.

    2. Of all the people on this site, I have the least to prove to you. You said I was a 'double digit IQ guy'. I just saw a way of getting rid of you forever by challenging you to have the balls to stand behind what you said and have a test to see who is actually the double digit IQ guy. I suspect you fall within the 95-105 range. Your last post is a typical Zevasion, trying to make it seem that your charge was that I am a 'dumbass'. In fact that was not the charge. Goddamn that fucking search function, huh Z? Burned by it again.

    You don't have the balls. Case closed.

    You have no balls.


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    iustus ignarus troll

  190. So god doesnt exist?
  191. ZZZzzzzzzz, you may think this is just another shot at you, but I am genuinely curious. I want to ask what may seem to you to be a question with an obvious answer. I just want to see how you answer it.

    ZZZzzzzzzz, do you believe in God?
  192. I see you are closing cases again.

    Too funny.

    I don't think I have suggested myself as a man of God at all. I am not sure what you actually mean by a "man of God" since all men are a man of God, given God is the creator of all men. I would have to guess that your intention with the comments of "man of God" are to act in a manner you deem "Godly" but who knows what you think?

    Oh, and I do think you are a double digit IQ guy, at least in measurement of practical intelligence. You could score 200 on an IQ test, but you would remain a dumbass...

  193. Thanks for proving the case of how people interpret words according to their own mind...

  194. Define what you mean by "believe in God."

  195. Thank you for proving my point... yet again.

    lol... you're getting rusty now that I'm not hammering you every day, Z.


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    iustus ignarus troll
  196. So you ask a question, which I am willing to respond to if you define your terminology, and when the request is made to define the part of the terminology, you fart up the reply below?

    You are moving down toward single digits of dumbass IQ.

  197. lol... too easy. I knew if I asked you that question, you'd post some sort of evasion/answer a question with a question/Z-ism. I realized later I should have PM'd myself with a prediction that you wouldn't have the balls to just answer the question. Then when you did exactly what I knew you'd do, I could post the PM with the date stamp, owning you even worse than I am right now.

    Like I said, you went after that bait way too quickly, Z. It's rust. I do admit that if I want to bait you like this, I should just start a new thread.

    btw... yeah, the term 'belief in God' really needs a 'definition of terminology' for you, given your roaring proclamations that you're such a man of God here on these boards. Yes, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.

    Yes, Z-sense.

    Better luck next time.


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    iustus ignarus troll
  198. If most Iranians wanted an Islamic theocracy over the Shah, then no American meddling could be successful. The fact is that plenty of Iranians choose freedom and capitalism over Islamic totalitarianism and Communism. There is no such thing as America running around installing governments most people don’t want --another Leftist mirage, by the way. We went in and “influenced” things, sure. The Shah wins and runs the place for decades. Facts are facts: plenty of Iranians liked the Shah. Without that support, we could influence nothing.

    In the 70s, however, it’s obvious the Shah lost his way enough to give Islamists the chance to anger the poor. Islamists (like the Left) are always looking for this chance, by the way. Islamists are everywhere in the Muslim World, waiting for any chance to control government, laws, and military. And when a secular government shows signs of weakness, they strike in the name of Islam. Islam is supposed to run government. It’s in the Koran.

    That’s why Islamists and the Left are best friends: they both sell humanity short by establishing a perpetual underclass of angry dependent people. Their strategies are different in terms of controlling them with their own anger by passing the blame and hatred to someone else: While the Left blames the wealthy, Islamists blame the “non-believers.”

    Therefore, in the 70s, the Shah screws up, gets corrupt and sick. Meanwhile, America has Carter, who proves to the world that America is pathetic and weak, and the Ayatollah tells Iran’s poor that everything sucks all because of the secular, CIA-meddling Superpower of Non-Believing Evildoers.

    Iran’s best and brightest flee to the West (not a bad dividend of the Revolution, by the way.) The rest, frustrated with the Shah’s fledgling regime had to hang their heads low and watch their nation succumb to Islamist oppression. Iran would have been a major economic global player today, but Noooooo. Like all Islamist and Communist countries, everyone becomes poor-but-equal surfs, with economies stuck in molasses.

    You challenge my ethical principles? What is so unethical about fighting the spread of Communism and Islamic totalitarianism? Why is it that Communists and Islamists always get the moral green light to spread their shit, and we Americans can’t? I bet you think America is the only country trying to influence foreign governments. What do you think CAIR has been trying to do to MY government?
  199. <b>"There is no such thing as America running around installing governments most people don’t want." </b>

    <b>"Facts are facts: plenty of Iranians liked the Shah. Without that support, we could influence nothing."</b>


    What, there's no such thing as an illegitimate or unpopular governemnt that seizes and maintains power through force? Every governemnt that exists, exists with the support of the people? I'm sure oppressed satellites like the Czechs and the Afghanis agreed when it came to the USSR. Hey, people liked the Soviets, otherwise they couldn't have influenced anything!

    Listen. Mossadegh was democratically elected and POPULAR, and was NOT turning toward the USSR. The Shah was not popular, was an autocrat, and used the horrible SAVAK for a lot of wonderful things. The whole reason Khomeini won popularity among the students AND conservative nationalists, as well as hardline traditional Muslims, was <b>because</b> the Shah was so close to the U.S. Iranians hated how Carter let him on U.S. soil. Hardliners gained the general support of parts of the populace because Iranians were afraid of being a pawn of Western (or Russian) control -- which they knew was a very real danger after decades years of dictatorship. Mossadegh was the most popular, most Western, most sane option there was, and he was booted for the sake of oil. To quote Albright:

    <i>"The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."</i>

    This is history, these are the facts, and you can read them anywhere. Your bizarre spin based on your need to project your psychological conflicts onto history, is not.

    Pinochet. Panama. Saddam. The Shah. Marcos. Suharto. These are all examples of unpopular regimes that were either implanted by the U.S. or supported by the U.S. in the name of realpolitik. The USSR did it too, and they were just as responsible for what came after.

    I also don't think you understand anything about how there were different Communist and Socialist ideas as they existed in certain regions in the past. For instance, you justified Pinochet's brutal dictatorship based on the idea that the "Communists" were going to go wild and kill all the capitalists. Allende was democratically elected. He was a democratic socialist. He had 6 years to be President before the opportunity for another to be elected. He had NO control over the military (that was Pinochet), and the Christian Democratic opposition party was represented in government. There was NO way he could have massacred anyone -- especially when his platform was popular among everyone but the landowners and business class. If you have no revolutionary militia and the military doesn't like you, you can't kill anyone. He was assassinated based on the flawed, narrow minded ideology of the time -- which no politician afterwards, left or right, could comfortably justify.

    The violent, evil Marxist regimes in Cuba, Cambodia, China, the USSR were different from what was happening in places like Vietnam (would have been popularly elected, hated the Chinese and Russians), or Chile, and Venezuela and Bolivia today. I am by all means no Marxist in even the slightest sense, but I recognize that during these times Marxism became a way to push out damaging Western influence and move toward self-determination. Down the road, with different alignment, they would have the opportunity to open markets if they chose, just like China has done, or bankrupt their country until a legitimate pro-liberal party got voted in. The U.S. was also protectionist, mercantillist, state-subsidized early on in its development. If it hadn't it wouldn't exist like this today, and capitalism wouldn't function today in this way.

    By all means, Communism and Islamic totalitarianism should disappear from history. Nigeria is a backwards, horrible part of the world. Cuba is still run by oppressive tyrants who once were a threat to U.S. security. But when the majority of U.S. voters are people who can't understand history outside of some cliched "left vs. right" conflict, and have no ethical principles -- who justify decades of brutal dictatorship BECAUSE OIL IS PRICEY (you did say that) -- you can anticipate progress in at-risk countries will be set back by generations. I absolutely question your ethics because I think they're either painfully uninformed or borderline sociopathic.

    The issue is learning how to step outside of one's own national interest and observe world events objectively, and to understand how cause and effect work. Because you have no ethics, I bet if you had been born in North Korea, you'd be railing -- not against leftists or some paranoid conspiracy theory about CAIR -- but against the American Imperialist dog. If China had staged a coup in the U.S. to overthrow Bush and replace him with a sympathetic proto-Communist, while organizing sanctions against us, you would be rattling your sabre and calling for blood -- not trying to spin some ridiculous notion that China has a right to meddle in any country's affairs to protect its national interests.

  200. If you don't understand your own question, if you can't define "believe in God" then you really are a moron.

    So I think to myself, could this guy really be such a moron that he asks questions that he doesn't even know the meaning of? I mean, is there really anyone that dimwitted here at ET?

    Is he really that much of a moron?

    Yes, apparently you really are that much of a moron.

  201. lol... gotcha again :)

    Every time you post these days, I have this image of a guy who has just slipped on an icy sidewalk. Arms flailing, about to go down hard, he has an expression of surprise on his face.

    Z, I swear to you, you've declined, man. You spend so much time responding to people from across the political spectrum who post to point out that you're a fool, even your posts that aren't flames sound like flames. Look up the word 'defensive' in the dictionary and there is a petri dish of you there. Of course, given the daily pounding you get here, you would be defensive; I cannot blame you.

    That's all for now. I will toy with you, like a cat toys with a mouse, some time soon, but not too soon. It has become rather boring. Now run along and fume about me with your chat-room buddy.


    Member of the Anti-Troll Brigade

    iustus ignarus troll
  202. Delusional.

  203. Nicely put.
  204. that certainly has rhetorical power, but if you look at the wealth gap in our society it's growing faster under this administration than ever before

    it's one thing for the left to try and advocate the underclass, but another entirely for the right to actually create more of that underclass

    what's the point, that it's somehow evil to advocate the lower class?
  205. The Left "advocates" for the underclass? Seems to me via their programs - economic, social, and cultural - that are based on misguided ideals of entitlement, they merely perpetuate the cycles that keep the "underclass" underclassed. But it does wonders in terms of keeping them a mainstay of their voting block.

    As for the Right, well, since Halliburton is running everything, all those bastards want is oil and nation-building contracts....verdad?
  206. So true.

  207. i'm personally not a big believer in entitlement schemes, but at some point the bottom line has to be examined. in this case, social spending is increasingly diverted to war costs paid out to our recently privatized military. (so yes, HAL, etc)

    the wealth transfer from taxpayer to corporation is rocketing at a time when price inflation and wage stagnation are dissolving the middle class at breakneck pace. i'm not advocating leftist entitlement schemes, but at the same time neoconservative policies are creating a larger eventual need for them

    so this argument of liberals being 'best friends' with islamic extremists is deeply short sighted and just another piece of meaningless rhetoric. happy to hear more than a 'nicely put' or a 'so true' from anyone who's willing to look deeper than the surface of the comment
  208. Who said liberals ?

    The analogy was/is between the Left=Chavez and Islamic extremism=Ahmadinejad

    Nobody said anything about Dems or Libs per se.

  209. ah maybe my error of interpretation, sam123 referenced carter in his next paragraph
  210. You have balls if you are trying to blame anybody else for Dems associating themselves with the extreme left.

    Carter and Glover have been idiotas. But nobody seems to want to criticize them in public by their own party.

    Big mistake.

  211. no i'm def not taking that on. :) i just wanted to point out that neoconservative policies are accelerating the future need for social programs, but increasingly looks like i misread the intent of the post
  212. peace brother. :)
  213. Oh good God, Nikky-poo. What on earth are you on about?

    Earth to Nicholas...what images? If you've found some 'images', wouldn't it be you has the free time? And what 'hate philosophy' do I propound? Can you explain it to me? I know nothing of it. All I've ever advocated is looking facts squarely in the eye. If that's hateful, then liberalism has sunk to a new anti-reality low. (A low market can always go lower, I should recall.)


    News to you. Hell, I'm gobsmacked. It's news to me! Very welcome news, too.

    Well, now that I know I'm a teen again, you can bet that's what I'll be doing.

    ps - about those images. My point had nothing whatever to do with any 'images'. What a complete and utter joke you are. God it's amusing.
  214. sir, i don't want to paraphrase dogballoon but the situation is not quite what u suggest... there are many sources of course but if you can make the time this recently published and very actual book by Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize 2003, will provide you with much better insights:

    otherwise here's a short 'informative enough' interview fyi:

    of course, she's only one voice, but fairly representative imo, even if she doesn't make as much noise as an enraged islamist crowd....
  215. scary... that goes a long way to show how these guys feel about western powers' tactics, past & new http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism#Decolonization

    if one includes iran and a few other M.E. / N.A. countries, perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to overthrow their secular democratically-elected leaders over the last 60 years mewonders :confused: