# And what happens if the Pope gets shot in Turkey ...



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

You all know I rarely post over here as I don't like the backtalk about "moderators and the Interchange". But this subject was floating around my shirt studio today so I thought I would share it.

What effect do you think the Pope being shot in Turkey - as is widely agreed to be a strong possibility - would have on the atmosphere in the Middle East and the World climate as a whole?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> You all know I rarely post over here as I don't like the backtalk about "moderators and the Interchange". But this subject was floating around my shirt studio today so I thought I would share it.
> 
> What effect do you think the Pope being shot in Turkey - as is widely agreed to be a strong possibility - would have on the atmosphere in the Middle East and the World climate as a whole?


If that were to happen, I think the rest of the world would see it as the official start of the pan-Islamic war on the world. Some would argue it was 9/11 but probably most world scholars would deem it as the assasination of Benedict, an eerie echo of the start of WWI. Let us hope it does not happen.


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

It would not be good, that's for sure.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I think it would cement in the minds of many that there is something fundamentally wrong in the way Islam is taught, preached and practiced. I think he is very brave for doing so however so I will pray for him.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Presidents, Princes, and Prime Ministers would run out to mosques and make public statements about how Islam is a religion of peace. 

TV news channels would quit reporting it after a few days as to not disturb anyone or hurt anyone's feelings, like they quit showing images of the World Trade Centers.

Israel would say "we've been trying to tell you about these guys for years". 

We would get a new Pope. 

The Turkish military, which sees itself as the protector of secularism, would probably do some things that aren't PC and that Kofi Annon would not approve of. 

Since few country singers are Catholic, there wouldn't be many songs on the radio lamenting it. 

Within a year many people would mostly forget about it. Most don't remember that the last Pope survived an assassination attempt by an Islamic Turk. 

If the Munich Olympics, Iran hostage situation, a Papal assassination attempt, 9/11, London tube bombings, riots over cartoons, and anarchy in Parisian suburbs aren't enough to make the West (particularly Europe) take off the kidskin gloves and realize that there are religious forces trying to destroy it, liberal democracy, and everything the West has done, what will a Papal assassination do?

Could Benedict be setting himself up to be a martyr? Is it all a Bilderburger-Trilateral-Free Mason-Knights Templar conspiracy to set about another wave of Crusades? What would Dan Brown do?

On the other hand, Germany and Italy might go crazy and invade Turkey...


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

crazyquik said:


> What would Dan Brown do?


I think you've found the essence of it.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> On the other hand, Germany and Italy might go crazy and invade Turkey...


Uh-uh. The French don't like the Turks (large Armenian population).

And vice versa.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Part of the discussion today in the shirt studio revolved around this concept. 

Today there are many "World leaders". However, the are only two "Leaders of the World"; in other words, two people whose leadership is broader than that of a nation-state. Two people whose loyal following encompasses at least a significant portion of the peoples of many nation-states. Of those two people, one is a rather soft-spoken, impeccably-dressed, generally thought to have at least more than a passing acquaintance with corruption Secretary-General of what is often termed an ineffectual organization.

The other is the Pope. His would not be the same as the assassination of a head-of-state. It would be the assassination of a head-of-many-peoples-of-many-states.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> If that were to happen, I think the rest of the world would see it as the official start of the pan-Islamic war on the world.


Well, a Turk nearly killed Pope John Paul II in 1981, and while there is some dispute over the motives, the consensus seems to be that it had little to do with Islam or even Turkey, for that matter. Last year files from the old East German secret police seemed to confirm reports from years earlier (60 Minutes, for one) that the KGB had been behind the Turk's attempt on the pope's life:

So if it happens, and it happens in Turkey, and it's done by a Turk, I would hope that thinking people would not leap to the easiest conclusion and let investigators to their jobs before doing anything rash. But I know I expect too much.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Well, a Turk nearly killed Pope John Paul II in 1981, and while there is some dispute over the motives, the consensus seems to be that it had little to do with Islam or even Turkey, for that matter. Last year files from the old East German secret police seemed to confirm reports from years earlier (60 Minutes, for one) that the KGB had been behind the Turk's attempt on the pope's life:


1981 is not 2006, the context is totally different, not all Turks are Muslim or even religious, and lastly, Alex did not ask "what if a Turk shot..." he asked what if the Pope were "shot in Turkey". A non-Turk could certainly shoot someone in Turkey, no? Also, I think the concept Alex has put forth is, "What if a Muslim extremist in Turkey shoots and kills the Pope in the name of Islam?".



crs said:


> I would hope that thinking people ...


I would hope that thinking people would not blind themselves to reality. I know this is too much to expect.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Also, I think the concept Alex has put forth is, "What if a Muslim extremist in Turkey shoots and kills the Pope in the name of Islam?"


Yes, well, the 1981 nut originally said he was a member of a Palestinian organization when he shot the pope, but that organization disavowed him and, as it turned out, Palestine was his cover story but apparently had nothing to do with it. So what a shooter claims might not necessarily be the true picture.

It's fine if you want to jump to the most facile conclusion, Wayfarer. I just hope the people who have the power to authorize action take a more measured approach. You'd have been a real terror in Arizona in the 1800s -- "We don't need a trial, just string up that horse thief right now!"


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Also, I think the concept Alex has put forth is, "What if a Muslim extremist in Turkey shoots and kills the Pope in the name of Islam?".


I think that is the straw that breaks the camels back.

A lot of Muslims will regret it for decades if not centuries. Which means they had better get their act together with the extremist, or they are going to be shoved out of a lot of the world. The Europeans are already becomeing less tolerant of Isam. Look at Irap, a few rotten apples have already rotten most that is in the barrel.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Also, I think the concept Alex has put forth is, "What if a Muslim extremist in Turkey shoots and kills the Pope in the name of Islam?".


 Yes. That is what I meant.



crs said:


> I just hope the people who have the power to authorize action take a more measured approach.


 I agree with this in principle. In this case, however, I don't think this norm will apply. I tend to believe that resolution may not be left in the hands of 'those who have the power to authorize action' but will instead revert to 'the power of the people'. I do not mean to imply a mob of angry Turkish Catholics - though they may well be the ignition point - but rather a worldwide 'angry Christian' groundswell. That is what I was trying to convey when I described him as a multi-national leader.

Personally, I think WA may have it absolutely right, politically incorrect as referencing a broken camel's back may be in this particular circumstance.

In sum, it would certainly be an unimaginably fearsome occurrance ... and almost as certainly a watershed moment for the entire World.

Assuming the Pope knows all of that, don't you wonder *why *he is sticking his head in the lion's mouth?


----------



## Mujib (Jan 8, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Assuming the Pope knows all of that, don't you wonder *why *he is sticking his head in the lion's mouth?


What do you think of it, sir?

While on the subject, some responses to the Pope's speech:


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> "What if a Muslim extremist in Turkey shoots and kills the Pope in the name of Islam?".


*Currently*, I do not believe that this is an issue. There are more contentious topics on hand than the Pope.

A workable policy for Turkey to be a full member of the EU should be top priority. The longer this lingers, Western Europe risks losing a valuable member of a predominantly Islamic country.

Again, having an Islamic member in the EU can work both ways for Western Europe, as with any political issue, one must thread carefully.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I would say that if the Pope were killed in Turkey then Turkey's hope for EU admission would be forever dashed. But in reality I don't think Turkey will or should gain EU admission. The cosmopolitan charms of Istanbul bear little reseblance to the rest of Turkey (with a few exceptions, namely Ankara and Izmir) which is backward, corrupt, terribly poor and where honor killings are not infrequent.

Crs in reference to your posts about the attempt on JP2, it is widely believed that the Bulgarians at the behest of the KGB financed and organized things. I was in Bulgaria in 2002 when JP2 visited Sofia and it was a very important and emotional visit for the Orthodox Bulgarians bc for many of them, they felt the visit was an act of forgiveness and pardon by the Pope.

Karl


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

@crazyquik:

Exactly what I thought - one of those typical P.C. nightmares as we witness it every other three months. Couldn't agree more.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I listened to an NPR segment last night concerning the Pope's visit to Turkey. Part of the reason given was not to visit the Turkish government, but to have a dialouge with the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church to perhaps resolve some of the differences that have existed since 1055. This Pope has been especially involved in reconciliation with Protestant branches of Christianity. He is also supposed to discuss with the Turkish government their policies which have largely eradicated Christianity throughout Turkey. For those who have brought up Turkish admission to the Eu, this is another stumbling block for Turkey. Religions other than Islam (especially Christianity) have faced constant pressure to leave the country. Christians have not been allowed to train new priests in Turkey for decades, and immigrant priests are strongly discouraged. Given the current political climate in Turkey I do believe that this visit is a bold one, but it is probably futile.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> A workable policy for Turkey to be a full member of the EU should be top priority. The longer this lingers, Western Europe risks losing a valuable member of a predominantly Islamic country.
> 
> Again, having an Islamic member in the EU can work both ways for Western Europe, as with any political issue, one must thread carefully.


I think this last round of membership voting, why Turkey was not admitted had more to do with the fear of other EU nations allowing a vast cheap labour source into the Union. Undoubtedly there were other variables, but I think that one was the most telling.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I think this last round of membership voting, why Turkey was not admitted had more to do with the fear of other EU nations allowing a vast cheap labour source into the Union. Undoubtedly there were other variables, but I think that one was the most telling.


Then how do you explain the number of Polish workers in the UK in the construction industry?

p.s. while I'm typing this out at close to 11pm my time in Zurich ... I need to remind myself that I'm Swiss and getting into politics is really not 'OUR' cup of tea ... haha ... as C.J. Jung would say, 'Our conversation with the world cannot be one of politics but rather a part in commerce' ...


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

What do you really think? Is it an excuse?

Before we get into Islam-phobia here (further, let's not forget who started ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. We need to remind ourselves that: _'He who comes to equity must come with clean hands'._) ... the Turks have done far better in Switzerland than certain 'European' neighbors ... over the last decade/couple of years ... we've had our share of asylum seekers.

Needless to say, a fair share of undesirable elements as well. Our recent spat in hard drugs and criminal cases aren't from the Turks, rather from certain 'European' neighbors. I understand that the situation in Germany and Denmark is very much different from ours. But continually closing the doors on Islam isn't going to help make matters better. Do I have mixed feelings about Turkey admission to the EU? I would be lying if I say 'No'. We are talking eggshells here.

There is no right or wrong decision here.

*Full disclosure:* I'm a Christian and so is everyone else in my family.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Mujib said:


> What do you think of it, sir?
> 
> While on the subject, some responses to the Pope's speech:


I can understand the Pope Benedict XVI misunderstanding Islam and it's past, but I don't understand why the Muslim went worse than berserk? They are pointing fingers at somebody who said words. He didn't kill anybody. He didn't hurt anybody, except for some feelings. He didn't hurt peoples property. And so on. If anything, the Muslims should have been rolling on the ground laughing so hard there stomachs hurts. While the Pope may have a beam to take out of his eye, but you muslims have a lot of beams in your eye that needs to be taken out.

The West has given out of there own pockets trillions of dollars and all the thanks we get is suicide murders and Muslims killing our soldiers that are there to help. From my perspective Islam is a total diaster. We have given our lives and hard earned money to help Muslims have a better life. When are the Muslims going to do the same for us? If the Muslims lived up to the love and peace they claim, then our soldiers wouldn't be over there, nor would there be any dead or injured. If they have the right to have Mosque here, then Christians should have the right to have Churches there. While Christians today make some mistakes it certainly isn't blood ally as it is with Muslims in the Middle East today. If you think the Pope is going to say something wrong, then you should go there to get a good laugh. Killing this Pope is totally out of the question. I don't believe in Popedom anymore than I believe in Islam, but I do believe in Christianity. This Benedict is reaching out with peace, which Muslims should recognize and honor, even if they think he is doing a bad job of it. If the Muslims are better, as they say they are, then there will be no riots, killings, or anything else that is terrible when the Pope is in Turkey.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

WA said:


> I can understand the Pope Benedict XVI misunderstanding Islam and it's past, but I don't understand why the Muslim went worse than berserk? They are pointing fingers at somebody who said words. He didn't kill anybody. He didn't hurt anybody, except for some feelings. He didn't hurt peoples property. And so on. If anything, the Muslims should have been rolling on the ground laughing so hard there stomachs hurts. While the Pope may have a beam to take out of his eye, but you muslims have a lot of beams in your eye that needs to be taken out.
> 
> The West has given out of there own pockets trillions of dollars and all the thanks we get is suicide murders and Muslims killing our soldiers that are there to help. From my perspective Islam is a total diaster. We have given our lives and hard earned money to help Muslims have a better life. When are the Muslims going to do the same for us? If the Muslims lived up to the love and peace they claim, then our soldiers wouldn't be over there, nor would there be any dead or injured. If they have the right to have Mosque here, then Christians should have the right to have Churches there. While Christians today make some mistakes it certainly isn't blood ally as it is with Muslims in the Middle East today. If you think the Pope is going to say something wrong, then you should go there to get a good laugh. Killing this Pope is totally out of the question. I don't believe in Popedom anymore than I believe in Islam, but I do believe in Christianity. This Benedict is reaching out with peace, which Muslims should recognize and honor, even if they think he is doing a bad job of it. If the Muslims are better, as they say they are, then there will be no riots, killings, or anything else that is terrible when the Pope is in Turkey.


nicely and succinctly put.
these Echo my thoughts precisely


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> Then how do you explain the number of Polish workers in the UK in the construction industry?
> 
> p.s. while I'm typing this out at close to 11pm my time in Zurich ... I need to remind myself that I'm Swiss and getting into politics is really not 'OUR' cup of tea ... haha ... as C.J. Jung would say, 'Our conversation with the world cannot be one of politics but rather a part in commerce' ...


It would seem I am not alone in this thought.



> The principal economic objections to Turkish membership center on the relative underdevelopment of Turkey's economy compared to the economies of EC/EU members and *Turkey's high rate of population growth. The latter issue is perceived as a potentially serious problem because of free labor movement among EU members* and the fact that Turkey's already large population is expected to surpass that of Germany--the most populous EU member--by 2010. Closely related to the concern about there being too many Turkish workers for too few jobs is the social problem of integrating those workers into European culture.


At:

or from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union



> Turkey's large size and poverty. Turkey would upon accession represent an expansion almost equal in population to that of the 2004 Enlargement while the Turkish economy has been known for very unstable growth and sharp recessions despite some recent improvement. Many question whether the EU can support and "absorb" such a large and poor state, and many member states are wary of a potentially huge wave of poor Turkish immigration.


Those are just two citations from the first page of a very fast Google. One can argue for or against, but I do not think this is a bogus argument.

Cheers


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

WA said:


> I can understand the Pope Benedict XVI misunderstanding Islam and it's past, but I don't understand why the Muslim went worse than berserk? They are pointing fingers at somebody who said words. He didn't kill anybody. He didn't hurt anybody, except for some feelings. He didn't hurt peoples property. And so on. If anything, the Muslims should have been rolling on the ground laughing so hard there stomachs hurts. While the Pope may have a beam to take out of his eye, but you muslims have a lot of beams in your eye that needs to be taken out.
> 
> The West has given out of there own pockets trillions of dollars and all the thanks we get is suicide murders and Muslims killing our soldiers that are there to help. From my perspective Islam is a total diaster. We have given our lives and hard earned money to help Muslims have a better life. When are the Muslims going to do the same for us? If the Muslims lived up to the love and peace they claim, then our soldiers wouldn't be over there, nor would there be any dead or injured. If they have the right to have Mosque here, then Christians should have the right to have Churches there. While Christians today make some mistakes it certainly isn't blood ally as it is with Muslims in the Middle East today. If you think the Pope is going to say something wrong, then you should go there to get a good laugh. Killing this Pope is totally out of the question. I don't believe in Popedom anymore than I believe in Islam, but I do believe in Christianity. This Benedict is reaching out with peace, which Muslims should recognize and honor, even if they think he is doing a bad job of it. If the Muslims are better, as they say they are, then there will be no riots, killings, or anything else that is terrible when the Pope is in Turkey.


I must say, WA ... sometimes you have a way of cutting right through the B.S. and P.C. Well said. Well said.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

WA said:


> I can understand the Pope Benedict XVI misunderstanding Islam and it's past, but I don't understand why the Muslim went worse than berserk? They are pointing fingers at somebody who said words.


Seemed to me his words were a bit jaded. He could have said that *both* religions had violent pasts, but instead he did single out Islam and pretty much threaten that they had no role to play in the Western world...Makes me think of a Mel Brooks scene 

Doesn't justify burning buildings and killing people, but you're talking about many who are full of rage and humiliation to begin with.



> From my perspective Islam is a total diaster.


From many Muslims perspective Islam is a near disaster.

That's the entire point of the intellectuals who inspired Bin Laden and his crew. The West doesn't provide for the welfare of Muslims, it supports those who oppress Muslims (in Palestine, Chechnya etc...) and it corrupts the Islamic leadership who also don't provide...all to keep the Western economy afloat.



> We have given our lives and hard earned money to help Muslims have a better life. When are the Muslims going to do the same for us?


Given that even in the USA a majority believes we were led into Iraq on false premises...why should they believe this? Our Iraq policy has gone down pretty much exactly as Bin Laden said it would to the Muslim community. There is near zero trust...


> If the Muslims lived up to the love and peace they claim, then our soldiers wouldn't be over there, nor would there be any dead or injured.


You could say the same about Christianity and yet they still fight wars that kill so many innocents...

Remember that a key component of Islam is the duty to defend the faith.

One thing Bin Laden has done very well is to tap into political angst that's real within the mainstream Islamic community and position himself as an Islamic hero ala the classical figures in Islamic history.

Don't take this to mean I support their position, but just a little perspective...

-spence


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I understand your perspectives. But I got the idea that Bush has some other ideas, such as liberation from the corruptness that you mentioned. What Bush told the Iraq's is different than what he told the American public, because he spent time talking to Iraq's that wanted Democracy.

Pope Benedict XVI, I believe held up a mirror to the Muslims and they did not like what they saw, but they are still unwilling to think outside their box. The Muslims are traped by the beliefs of today, whereas, in the past, what did they believe.

Still the fact that Pope Benedict XVI held up an olive branch gives them no right to do what they did (I believe their own belief says that). Pope Benedict XVI never threaten them. 

People who can't take criticism are dangerous.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

WA said:


> What Bush told the Iraq's is different than what he told the American public, because he spent time talking to Iraq's that wanted Democracy.


Yea, he spoke with a small handfull...who were not speaking for the people. We know where this has led...



> Pope Benedict XVI, I believe held up a mirror to the Muslims and they did not like what they saw, but they are still unwilling to think outside their box. The Muslims are traped by the beliefs of today, whereas, in the past, what did they believe.


In the past Islam was more tolerant to other viewpoints, and yet they had a central voice...I think this is a big part of the problem today. There really is no "Pope" to guide the people. Any person of merrit can make a statement and get a cult following.

Of course Bin Laden has a solution to this...with "his" Caliphate.



> People who can't take criticism are dangerous.


I agree. But it does seem to indicate our policy should seek to divide the fringe from the mainstream, rather than reinforce the mainstream...which is what we appear to be doing.

-spence


----------



## Mujib (Jan 8, 2006)

WA, good sir, your assessment is unbalanced. And you are applauded by the readers. The one contributor who questioned it will probably hear words from them. Where else, on various levels, is the scenario the same? And we wonder what have the Muslims to be upset about?

With "misunderstanding" you vindicate the Pope's attack on Islam and Muslims, while you condemn and silence the genuine protest of the Muslims by citing the crimes of certain protestors, who were minorities amongst the larger groups. All of this you do in reply to my post, in which is posted the responses of scholars qualified to address the issue. Not only do they have nothing to do with the "worse than berserk" you highlight, they condemn it.

The Pope is not a comedian for whom we should roll on the floor. He is nothing less than the leader of the Catholic world (see <https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm> for an understanding of the Pope's rank and status). He attacked and called "evil" the way of life of the world's one billion plus Muslims. More importantly, he is flat out wrong and his words flat out false. And there is no excuse for that. He either knows the truth and lied, or he is misinformed. A Pope misinformed about one of the world's great religions, a religion his Church has centuries of history with, is as dangerous as a lying Pope.

[He didn't kill anybody.]

He killed the very dialogue he claims to be calling for. A Pope should know that attacking an entire religion is not helpful, to say the least, for dialogue.

[He didn't hurt anybody, except for some feelings.]

Are you being serious? "Some feelings" is all it is? This is belittling, sir.

[If anything, the Muslims should have been rolling on the ground laughing so hard there stomachs hurts.]

Certainly. It's better to have some stomachs hurts than to have some feelings hurts, right? But then again, they are only some Muslims' feelings; no one really got hurt.

I challenge you to advise this laughter technique the next time you hear or read a complaint of anti-Semitism.

[When are the Muslims going to do the same for us?]

There is no short answer to these misplaced complaints, sir. Some perspective: The Muslims is not a far away land across the waters, nor is The West the opposite.

[and all the thanks we get is suicide murders and Muslims killing our soldiers that are there to help.]

With all due respect, this is farfetched, sir. A long politics debate is really unnecessary. I will say this, however: An individual soldier's sincere intention to help Iraqis does not mean the US Army is in Iraq to help Iraqis. Nor were the sartorial dreams of Afghan women the concern. They still choose to wear burqas, except now behind the veil they weep for family killed by cluster bombs.

[While Christians today make some mistakes it certainly isn't blood ally as it is with Muslims in the Middle East today.]

The situation is not as simple, sir. The picture stretches beyond the television screen. Its breadth will escape us unless we read, research, study, and ask. If we've taken Fox News and the like as our teachers of Islam, we can never hope for better understanding and coexistence.

Thank you.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

*Strap on your seat belts, this is going to be one roller coaster ride.*


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Wayfarer:

I don't disagree with you, in fact you echoed the very worry and sentiments I have about the entire issue ... however, I firmly believe that EU needs to continue with this issue ... or am I living dangerously here? Keeping the so called 'unknown element' close at hand ...



Wayfarer said:


> It would seem I am not alone in this thought.
> 
> At:
> 
> ...


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Mujib said:


> WA, good sir, your assessment is unbalanced. And you are applauded by the readers. The one contributor who questioned it will probably hear words from them. Where else, on various levels, is the scenario the same? And we wonder what have the Muslims to be upset about?


Assuming all other readers agree with WA with the exception of 1 reader is a complete fallacy of thought process here.



Mujib said:


> With "misunderstanding" you vindicate the Pope's attack on Islam and Muslims, while you condemn and silence the genuine protest of the Muslims by citing the crimes of certain protestors, who were minorities amongst the larger groups. All of this you do in reply to my post, in which is posted the responses of scholars qualified to address the issue. Not only do they have nothing to do with the "worse than berserk" you highlight, they condemn it.
> 
> The Pope is not a comedian for whom we should roll on the floor. He is nothing less than the leader of the Catholic world (see <https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm> for an understanding of the Pope's rank and status). He attacked and called "evil" the way of life of the world's one billion plus Muslims. More importantly, he is flat out wrong and his words flat out false. And there is no excuse for that. He either knows the truth and lied, or he is misinformed. A Pope misinformed about one of the world's great religions, a religion his Church has centuries of history with, is as dangerous as a lying Pope.


How qualified the scholars are, is incredibly subjective here. I'm sorry to say that this is the kind of rhetorical speech that I'm so used to hearing. While you accused WA of his jaded views, this paragraph is a reflection of your jaded views as well.



Mujib said:


> He killed the very dialogue he claims to be calling for.


So did YOU.



Mujib said:


> Are you being serious? "Some feelings" is all it is? This is belittling, sir.
> [If anything, the Muslims should have been rolling on the ground laughing so hard there stomachs hurts.]
> Certainly. It's better to have some stomachs hurts than to have some feelings hurts, right? But then again, they are only some Muslims' feelings; no one really got hurt.
> I challenge you to advise this laughter technique the next time you hear or read a complaint of anti-Semitism.


Childish



Mujib said:


> [and all the thanks we get is suicide murders and Muslims killing our soldiers that are there to help.]
> With all due respect, this is farfetched, sir. A long politics debate is really unnecessary. I will say this, however: An individual soldier's sincere intention to help Iraqis does not mean the US Army is in Iraq to help Iraqis. Nor were the sartorial dreams of Afghan women the concern. They still choose to wear burqas, except now behind the veil they weep for family killed by cluster bombs.


How is this farfetched? The ability to end one's life in such a manner is beyond comprehension. Which makes Sept 11 anything but farfetched ...



Mujib said:


> [While Christians today make some mistakes it certainly isn't blood ally as it is with Muslims in the Middle East today.]
> The situation is not as simple, sir. The picture stretches beyond the television screen. Its breadth will escape us unless we read, research, study, and ask. If we've taken Fox News and the like as our teachers of Islam, we can never hope for better understanding and coexistence.


You read what you want to read, you believe what you want to believe, you see what you want to see.

After reading WA and your posts, I disqualify both views as jaded and bias. While I don't discount that there is an element of truth in both views, the majority of it is an attack against each other. Before you talk about your 'scholars', your Islamic televised news which I'm sure all of us has an opinion on. Remember: *TWO WRONGS DOESN'T MAKE A RIGHT.*


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Mujib said:


> WA, good sir, your assessment is unbalanced. And you are applauded by the readers. The one contributor who questioned it will probably hear words from them. Where else, on various levels, is the scenario the same? And we wonder what have the Muslims to be upset about?


Assuming all other readers agree with WA with the exception of 1 reader is a complete fallacy of thought process here.



Mujib said:


> With "misunderstanding" you vindicate the Pope's attack on Islam and Muslims, while you condemn and silence the genuine protest of the Muslims by citing the crimes of certain protestors, who were minorities amongst the larger groups. All of this you do in reply to my post, in which is posted the responses of scholars qualified to address the issue. Not only do they have nothing to do with the "worse than berserk" you highlight, they condemn it.
> 
> The Pope is not a comedian for whom we should roll on the floor. He is nothing less than the leader of the Catholic world (see <https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm> for an understanding of the Pope's rank and status). He attacked and called "evil" the way of life of the world's one billion plus Muslims. More importantly, he is flat out wrong and his words flat out false. And there is no excuse for that. He either knows the truth and lied, or he is misinformed. A Pope misinformed about one of the world's great religions, a religion his Church has centuries of history with, is as dangerous as a lying Pope.


How qualified the scholars are, is incredibly subjective here. I'm sorry to say that this is the kind of rhetorical speech that I'm so used to hearing. While you accused WA of his jaded views, this paragraph is a reflection of your jaded views as well.



Mujib said:


> He killed the very dialogue he claims to be calling for.


So did YOU.



Mujib said:


> Are you being serious? "Some feelings" is all it is? This is belittling, sir.
> [If anything, the Muslims should have been rolling on the ground laughing so hard there stomachs hurts.]
> Certainly. It's better to have some stomachs hurts than to have some feelings hurts, right? But then again, they are only some Muslims' feelings; no one really got hurt.
> I challenge you to advise this laughter technique the next time you hear or read a complaint of anti-Semitism.


Childish



Mujib said:


> [and all the thanks we get is suicide murders and Muslims killing our soldiers that are there to help.]
> With all due respect, this is farfetched, sir. A long politics debate is really unnecessary. I will say this, however: An individual soldier's sincere intention to help Iraqis does not mean the US Army is in Iraq to help Iraqis. Nor were the sartorial dreams of Afghan women the concern. They still choose to wear burqas, except now behind the veil they weep for family killed by cluster bombs.


How is this farfetched? Sept 11 is anything by farfetched ...



Mujib said:


> [While Christians today make some mistakes it certainly isn't blood ally as it is with Muslims in the Middle East today.]
> The situation is not as simple, sir. The picture stretches beyond the television screen. Its breadth will escape us unless we read, research, study, and ask. If we've taken Fox News and the like as our teachers of Islam, we can never hope for better understanding and coexistence.


You read what you want to read, you believe what you want to believe, you see what you want to see.

After reading WA and your posts, I disqualify both views as jaded and bias. While I don't discount that there is an element in truth in both views, the majority of it is an attack against each other. Before you talk about your 'scholars', your Islamic televised news which I'm sure all of us has an opinion on. Remember: *TWO WRONGS DOESN'T MAKE A RIGHT.*

EDIT: this is a double post, please feel free to delete it.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Apologize for the double posting ... Moderators, please feel free to remove 1 of them.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Mujib said:


> If we've taken Fox News and the like as our teachers of Islam, we can never hope for better understanding and coexistence.


I think this is actually a pretty important statment.

What ever happened to the days of real debate where you would be prepared to argue *either* side of an issue?

It's almost like any attempt to understand an alternate perspective and you're branded as supporting it!

The fish rots from the head down and you really do have to blame the Bush rhetoric for a lot of this. The "they hate us for our freedoms" mantra has been so beaten into the American people that there's little thought put to what really might be influencing global religous politics and events.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Mujib said:


> If we've taken Fox News and the like as our teachers of Islam, we can never hope for better understanding and coexistence.
> 
> Thank you.


What does Fox news and the like have to do with anything. If we're blaming media for the situation lets take a look at state controlled Arab media that depicts Jews and blood thirsty, monkeys and generally sub-human. Its a propoganda machine to rival the worst dictators of the past century.

The West has consistently made overtures to the Islamic world. There are no restrictions on religious practices in the West. No restrictions on clergy preaching and proselytizing. No restriction on the building of mosques other than local ordinances that apply to everyone. No, I'm afraid the problem lies with Islam. Unfortunately when Islamic radicals decided to export their dysfunction to our shores they involved us and hence what we have now.


----------



## Pgolden (May 13, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Presidents, Princes, and Prime Ministers would run out to mosques and make public statements about how Islam is a religion of peace.
> 
> TV news channels would quit reporting it after a few days as to not disturb anyone or hurt anyone's feelings, like they quit showing images of the World Trade Centers.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> What does Fox news and the like have to do with anything.


I think it's the one sided approach to most domestic coverage. There certainly are legitimate political Islamic gripes, but these receive very little attention even in the mainstream media. I'd argue the US is quite different in this regard than in say even the UK or Canada.

Perhaps if people better understood how the world really ticks they might better understand how Bin Laden is able to tap into this angst without scaring moderates.

He seems to understand both sides much better than we do...Instead we're told that root causes don't matter because we're the root cause.

Yes, much of the Islamic media appears manipulative...but again, it's feeding off of real issues in the world. People are very skeptical of the West and easily believe conspiracy theories because they've not seen anything that would indicate otherwise. From their perspective we just walk and talk like a duck.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> If the Munich Olympics, Iran hostage situation, a Papal assassination attempt, 9/11, London tube bombings, riots over cartoons, and anarchy in Parisian suburbs aren't enough to make the West (particularly Europe) take off the kidskin gloves and realize that there are religious forces trying to destroy it, liberal democracy, and everything the West has done, what will a Papal assassination do?


You're stringing these events together like they are all proactive actions against the West from a single root cause. This just isn't reality.

-spence


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

Spence said:


> You're stringing these events together like they are all proactive actions against the West from a single root cause. This just isn't reality.
> 
> -spence


with the exception of the attempted papal assasination of John PaulII.of which some doubt remains as to wether there was KGB involvement
there does appear to be a common denominator that the actions were carried out by muslims/ followers of Islam.

the procrastinators should come and experience life in Britain to see the way things are going in a society that is accepting, tolerant, and benevelent.
I think a rapid reappraisal of viewpoints would be the likely occurence.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> I think it's the one sided approach to most domestic coverage. There certainly are legitimate political Islamic gripes, but these receive very little attention even in the mainstream media. I'd argue the US is quite different in this regard than in say even the UK or Canada.


I'm afraid I can't agree with that assessment. We measure legitimacy based on public opinion as expressed freely. Most Muslims in the middle east are not free to express their opinions so I can't see how one can claim that they have legitimate political gripes. Their is certainly no shortage of muslims adopting western standards of technology and education. As for those that can afford it they travel to Europe and America to vacation.

As for the way the media treats them I'm afraid I just don't see how the coverage is unfair. If anything too often the media apologizes for Islamic radicalism. When given an opportunity to voice concerns groups like CAIR come one and only feed the notion that the Muslim community is dysfunctional in its understanding of just how dysfunctional they have become.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As to the thought that the only input people in the US have on forming opinions regarding Muslims is Fox News....let me put one thing forward: are you saying no Muslim lives in the US or if some do, they do not interact with other people? While a silly question to ask, that is what is being purported here.

No, I form most of my solid opinions based on real life experience. I spent nearly a decade in and around Dearborn Michigan, one of the world's biggest concentrations of Muslims from the Middle East. Let me tell you, some people born to Muslim parents want the American dream. Work hard, do not bother your neighbor, pay your taxes. 

There is also a sizeable group that want to turn the US into a Muslim nation. Go to the Muslim "reading room" at Tireman and Schaffer or the one at Chase and Warren and see how they feel about the US there. I'll never forget the time I went to a community lecture series at Henry Ford CC next door to U of Mich/Dearborn only to see the speaker shut down by fundie Muslim protestors as his topic was evolution. Or last summer when I went back to the area, dying for some hummus and lamb shawarma from La Shish eatery, only to find it closed as the owner was found with about $1 million USD in cash headed for the Middle East.

No, real life experience forms the views many of us have. Certainly many Muslims are good people, but just as certainly, Islam is breeding many bad people.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Spence said:


> IIt's almost like any attempt to understand an alternate perspective and you're branded as supporting it!
> 
> The fish rots from the head down and you really do have to blame the Bush rhetoric for a lot of this. The "they hate us for our freedoms" mantra has been so beaten into the American people that there's little thought put to what really might be influencing global religous politics and events.
> 
> -spence


Yes, it is Bush's rhetoric that has informed the American peoples' opinions - it has nothing whatsoever to do with, for example:

June 5, 1968: Senator Robert Kennedy is assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian who was upset over the fact that the U.S. had agreed to sell fighter jets to Israel.

September 5, 1972: At the Olympic Games in Munich, Germany, 11 Israeli athletes are killed by Palestinian terrorists.

November 4, 1979: The U.S. Embassy in Teheran is taken over by supporters of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Fifty-three U.S. diplomats are held hostage until their release on January 20, 1981.

April 8, 1983: Islamic Jihad bombs the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63, including the CIA's Middle East director.

October 23, 1983: Suicide truck bombers sent by Hezbollah kill 242 Marines while blowing up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

December 4, 1984: Kuwait Airlines flight 221 is hijacked and diverted to Tehran. Hijackers kill two Americans from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

June 14, 1985: TWA flight 847 is hijacked en route from Athens to Rome and forced to Beirut. U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem is shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac.

October 7, 1985: The Palestine Liberation Front hijacks the cruise ship Achille Lauro and tosses 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer overboard in his wheelchair.

April 5, 1986: Two American soldiers are killed in the bombing of a disco in West Berlin. Seventy-nine American servicemen are injured.

September 5, 1987: Abu Nidal hijacks Pan Am flight 73 in Pakistan. Twenty are killed, including several Americans.

February 17, 1988: U.S. Marine Lt. Colonel William Higgins, chief of the U.N. Peace Force, is kidnapped and killed by Hezbollah.

December 21,1988: Libyan terrorists allegedly blow up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 aboard, including 200 Americans.

November 5, 1990: Jewish Defense League leader Rabbi Meir Kahane is assassinated in New York City by a group including Ramzi Yousef, who would be involved the first WTC bombing on February 26, 1993.

February 26, 1993 first WTC Bombing

March 1, 1994: Sixteen-year-old Ari Halberstam is killed when Brooklyn livery cab driver Rashid Baz opens fire on a van transporting yeshiva students on the Brooklyn Bridge.

June 25, 1996: Khobar Towers near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, is truck-bombed, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and wounding 240 more U.S. personnel.

February 23, 1997: Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, a Palestinian, opens fire from the observation deck of the Empire State Building, killing a Danish national and wounding several more before killing himself.

August 7, 1998: The U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are simultaneously car-bombed, killing 291 and wounding 5,000 more.

October 12, 2000: The USS Cole is bombed while in port in Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

It is one thing to use violence toward some strategic purpose. However it seems that radical Islam is in love with the idea of violence for the sake of violence. What have they wrought other than abject misery for themselves. Its hard to imagine that many of these countries at the end of WWII had a GDP and overall quality of life equal to some European countries. 

The middle east has no vision of its future and no idea of its role in the world. They seem content the play the part of victims, meanwhile subjecting us to their childish tantrums.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Spence, the desire to offer an alternative dialog is compelling, however, in your previous posts, you have failed to elaborate on the points that you write about briefly. 

IMHO, Bin Laden has successfully roused up followers on the premise of defending the Islamic religion. Have we fallen into the trap by feeding the Islamic trolls, fueling more distrust between the West and the Middle East? Bin Laden and followers should rightfully be viewed as terrorists making use of Islam to further their cause, thereby making many other innocent Muslims the subject of many controversies, disenabling them to live how and where they want. When the divide gets even deeper such as now, moderate Muslims continue to turn away from the West (because we force them away) and perhaps may even begin to believe the lies that Bin Laden can and will feed them.

There are a fair number of Muslim Turks living here and they are frustrated by the turn of events that is happening around them, they feel misunderstood and stigmatized just because they are Muslims. Frankly, all they really want is to give their children a better life and betterment for themselves as well. My exposure to Muslims really isn’t much to speak of, however, the ones that I am exposed to do offer me a different perspective. 

An understanding into their culture, the Koran and the Islamic law is perhaps a better grasp on the Muslims. Most haven’t had the privilege of a real democratic government; most Middle Eastern women are subjugated on a daily basis. The reason why the Afghan women haven’t gotten out of their burqas is because they don’t know anything else or have seen anything different or more importantly told ‘It’s ok to not wear a burqa’. Afghan women aren’t worried about clothes right now; food on the table is their top priority. Most of their leaders are warlords; the one with the biggest ammunition, the physical fight for power and territory is what defines a leader in most Middle Eastern countries, NOT wordplay or knowledge! Big rewards to the tune of millions are offered for information on terrorists from the West. We still don’t get it; one can hire an assassin for $50 there! 

I believe we are barking up the wrong tree here, while we continue to slam Islam, are we falling into the trap that Bin Laden set for the West?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> I believe we are barking up the wrong tree here, while we continue to slam Islam, are we falling into the trap that Bin Laden set for the West?


Bin Laden and other radicals remind me of the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail. They keep getting hacked at and never advance yet claim victory. Its hard to convince someone that you have the west on the run when you're saying it from a cave with audio tapes that are smuggled out by a sophisticated courier system because you're afraid of being tracked.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> The middle east has no vision of its future and no idea of its role in the world. They seem content the play the part of victims, meanwhile subjecting us to their childish tantrums.


You are quite right on this &#8230; why should the wealthy care &#8230; the divide between the rich and the poor is simply too astounding to put into words in the Middle East. They have zero interest to educate the poor, fathers selling their sons to ride as jockeys in camel races, their daughters as slaves to wealthy homes or sometimes unwittingly to prostitution &#8230; life is good for the rich, they have no desire to change their status quo. The rich aren't even embarrassed by the divide.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Bin Laden and other radicals remind me of the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail. They keep getting hacked at and never advance yet claim victory. Its hard to convince someone that you have the west on the run when you're saying it from a cave with audio tapes that are smuggled out by a sophisticated courier system because you're afraid of being tracked.


Don't you think that when he set up all moderate Muslims against the West, he would have succeeded to some extent albeit from a cave?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> Don't you think that when he set up all moderate Muslims against the West, he would have succeeded to some extent albeit from a cave?


How do you figure he has set up moderate muslims against the west. Do you really see the "Arab street" exploding across the middle east into riots and burning symbols of America (McDonald's, etc.). They still drink coca-cola, listen to ipods, watch american movies and dress in western attire. They still come here to be educated. Perhaps in the EU muslims are a bit more restless but here in America they go on with their lives, running their businesses and raising their families thankful that they don't have to put up with the nonsense there.

People have made Al Qaeda out to be something akin to SPECTRE from James Bond. They're really quite stupid. Look at what they have accomplished; nothing! They have not brought good fortune to the Middle East. They have failed to make anyone's life better. What they have succeeded in doing is strengthening the American presence right in their backyard.

In warfare space and time are a premium. The U.S. has an abundance of both and Bin Laden has little to none.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

I’m not sure, PT. When moderate Muslims feel that they might not be given the opportunity to advance, as they would like due to stereotype or stigmatization, turning to Bin Laden would be all too easy. The dissent is what will turn them to Bin Laden, such as the case of the Sept 11. The very fact that we don’t see dissent on the surface is the most worrying factor. Just as no one would believe that the US would be attacked in the manner of WTC. 

Do you really believe that the goal of Bin Laden is to better the lives of the Middle East population, I don’t think so.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> How do you figure he has set up moderate muslims against the west.


Read the book "Imperial Hubris".

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Yes, it is Bush's rhetoric that has informed the American peoples' opinions - it has nothing whatsoever to do with, for example:


Ahhh, the old cut 'n paste from one of a dozen chain letters 

I suppose the root cause is that Muslims are just insane so all rules are off the table?

-spence


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

Spence said:


> Ahhh, the old cut 'n paste from one of a dozen chain letters
> 
> I suppose the root cause is that Muslims are just insane so all rules are off the table?
> 
> -spence


The fact that it`s a cut and paste job doesn`t detract from the facts.

in respect of the insanity, you`ve got to wonder.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> Do you really believe that the goal of Bin Laden is to better the lives of the Middle East population, I don't think so.


I'm sure its not his goal but its what he is selling and it seems that very few (relatively) are buying it. Again I think we should all look at what is happening rather than what people are saying. Of course when a camera is put on a group of muslim men and women in the middle east they chant "death to america", there is nothing new with that. What we don't see is wholesale revolution in the streets ala Tehran 1979. The simple fact is that many in the Arab/Muslim world are beginning to reject Bin Laden and his tactics. Here is but one example:

It seems to me the irony of 9/11 is that what Bin Laden thought would be the transformative event turning the tide in his favor has actually sewn the seeds for the demise of radicalism and terrorism as effective political tools.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Tom Bell-Drier said:


> The fact that it`s a cut and paste job doesn`t detract from the facts.


The events themselves may be facts, but what they represent together is highly subjective.

Too many of these floating around, assembled to influence by their daunting size rather than substance, most don't bother to assess what's really in context.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> The events themselves may be facts, but what they represent together is highly subjective.
> 
> Too many of these floating around, assembled to influence by their daunting size rather than substance, most don't bother to assess what's really in context.
> 
> -spence


Yes I agree. When recounting murders committed by terrorists we need to be terse so as not to daunt the reader with extra words yet add words to place the murders in context. I mean clearly, once put in context, and recounted in precis form, 9/11 makes sense, right?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Yes I agree. When recounting murders committed by terrorists we need to be terse so as not to daunt the reader with extra words yet add words to place the murders in context. I mean clearly, once put in context, and recounted in precis form, 9/11 makes sense, right?


This is exactly my point...complete inability to dig a little deeper. They were all terrorist acts...fin.

No further thought process.

There are other terrorists besides Islamic you know, and the motivation for many of these events is quite varied.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> Do you really believe that the goal of Bin Laden is to better the lives of the Middle East population, I don't think so.


In a perverted way I think that is his goal. Remember his thinking is rooted in political Islamic intellectuals who are looking around the world at a number of (in their view) failed systems.

As Tom Freidman writes in "The World is Flat"...something to the effect of, they are much like Trotskyites in this regard.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> This is exactly my point...complete inability to dig a little deeper. They were all terrorist acts...fin.
> 
> No further thought process.
> 
> ...


Yes, there are other terrorists besides Islamic and yes motivations vary. Please tell me how this knowledge would make you feel better if you had to watch your wife have her head sawed off her body, as she sat there consciously having this happen to her, from Muslim terrorists? You might be quite different from me, however I can not see how your little _tu quoque_ argument would console you at that point.

This is one of the demarcations I find in people. There are those that can see an abhorrent act and say, "I want to stop this so no other victim suffers like this" and then there are those that want to "understand" the culprit, "dig a little deeper", find out their "motivations". It is almost like the victim(s) are the secondary topic in the conversation, mere props.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Mujib said:


> WA, good sir, your assessment is unbalanced. And you are applauded by the readers. The one contributor who questioned it will probably hear words from them. Where else, on various levels, is the scenario the same? And we wonder what have the Muslims to be upset about?


Is anybodies assessment balanced? From my perspective I think I'm right. But, if adding your perspective, your right, until other perspectives are added in, so from that perspective were both wrong. Or, perhaps were both right. Or both somewhat right. So, we need to try to understand each other.



> With "misunderstanding" you vindicate the Pope's attack on Islam and Muslims, while you condemn and silence the genuine protest of the Muslims by citing the crimes of certain protestors, who were minorities amongst the larger groups. All of this you do in reply to my post, in which is posted the responses of scholars qualified to address the issue. Not only do they have nothing to do with the "worse than berserk" you highlight, they condemn it.
> 
> The Pope is not a comedian for whom we should roll on the floor. He is nothing less than the leader of the Catholic world (see <https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm> for an understanding of the Pope's rank and status). He attacked and called "evil" the way of life of the world's one billion plus Muslims. More importantly, he is flat out wrong and his words flat out false. And there is no excuse for that. He either knows the truth and lied, or he is misinformed. A Pope misinformed about one of the world's great religions, a religion his Church has centuries of history with, is as dangerous as a lying Pope.
> 
> ...


Well wrote. But, are you sure the Pope wasn't protesting the blood shed by muslims?

Were these protestors who did certain crimes ever delt with? It is impossible to get them all, but a real effort done?

Humor has won some serious wars before. It is an excellent war tactic. Would you prefer that your house and family and business be bombed to nothing? When it comes to war I prefer humor, because who loses? And you can gain some friends. Destruction of people and their property is a sorry way to fight a war.



> [When are the Muslims going to do the same for us?]
> 
> There is no short answer to these misplaced complaints, sir. Some perspective: The Muslims is not a far away land across the waters, nor is The West the opposite.
> 
> ...


Did people not vote in Iraq? Is there government the US's government? There are many Muslims around the world that have a different view than you do.

You think women don't have the right to choose not to wear a burqas?

The people the cluster bombs are aimed for- some Muslims dearly want them dead. I don't know why you are protecting Muslim bullies against other Muslims.

A question about Isalm. How can Islam justify growing and selling opium for non-medical reasons? Can't be a Christian doing that (something about being 'brothers keeper'). So are all those opium farmers that say they are Muslims - Are they Muslims?



> [While Christians today make some mistakes it certainly isn't blood ally as it is with Muslims in the Middle East today.]
> 
> The situation is not as simple, sir. The picture stretches beyond the television screen. Its breadth will escape us unless we read, research, study, and ask. If we've taken Fox News and the like as our teachers of Islam, we can never hope for better understanding and coexistence.


I don't watch Fox News. Perhaps we should send no more money or other chairties (trillions of Dollars) to Middle East Muslims. My complaint is the money and charities has ended up in the wrong hands over and over again, and I never hear a thankyou (I guess the news companies aren't interested). I truely wonder what ever happens to those charities. Hopefully, most go where they should go.



> Thank you.


Well sir, for now I think the Middle East Muslims are hopeless. The ones that can avoid the troubles are lucky. Perhaps it is like Europe before WWI- endless wars. So many people that step into power let their greed run (hog) wild.

Like standing at the side of a mountain- my side looks different than your side, but the same mountain, and different beliefs of how to get to the top.

Been nice chatting with you.


----------



## Mujib (Jan 8, 2006)

by Dr. Abdal-Hakim Murad.

I hope to reply soon, God willing.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Mujib said:


> by Dr. Abdal-Hakim Murad.
> 
> I hope to reply soon, God willing.


I'm not going to put words in Benedict XVI mouth, but perhaps the violence that has been going on for several decades in Middle East is what Benedict is referring to and the list Rocker gives.

The Europeans seem to be feeling a bit unsafe with the Muslims amongst them, nowadays. Maybe it is a few rotten apples that are making the rest look bad, so who should deal with these rotten apples?

I read a story in the paper sometime ago. These Muslims move to the US and their daughter did something that old world Muslim culture, where ever they came from, says she is to be killed. Anyway, she is dead and the parents are in prison for life. If there was a son he may have gotten the death penality for murder. This story is a diaster. We in the West don't want another one.

When people come here to the culture of the West they need to respect our laws and fit in. There are apparently are some groups of Muslims that refuse to fit in or obey the laws, so I'm hearing. What answers do you have for that?

Do you think Muqtada al-Sadr is a psychopath? He seems to be very quick to call for peoples deaths, just as long as it's not his own. Of course, some of the people on the other side have the same reasoning. Which is why I believe in a court of law. A real court of law is on neither side, so has nothing to do with revenge or make believe justice. After all, the other side would be right some of the time, which would make Sadr guilty part of the time, so who is he to judge and call for deaths?


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Dr Murad,

My general impression of the tone of your article is one of despair. The West has so disillusioned you that you chose to seek solace in Islam (not that there is anything wrong with that). The laws in the Koran are incredibly archaic, I can’t reconcile them to the ways the general population lives now. The punishment for crimes based on Islam is, frankly, quite mind-blowing to put it mildly. Further, to expect anyone to fill John Paul II shoes is quite unrealistic. You also need to bear in mind that JP II 2 momentous events with Islam happened prior to Sept 11. 

Personally, my take on the entire debacle is not just Islam. Islam just happens to play a very small part in the equation of Bin Laden. Needless to say, he has used Islam to his best advantage. Current world events hasn’t helped me to understand Islam any better. I still treat any Muslim as I would anyone unless they proved me wrong. I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but I need to see a different Middle East, one that is not bordering on violence each time someone makes a speech. While your desire to try to convince the West that we need to change, my desire is for the Middle East to show me some changes. As a Swiss, I don’t believe in a gender-neutral society, there are roles for men as well as for women, however, both gender share equality albeit in a different sense. I don’t see this for Islamic women, polygamy is legal, and the ability to say ‘Talak’ 3 times … well, I find that unacceptable.

You clearly have written many articles about Catholicism, Western way of life, Christianity. How many have you written to the Muslim world helping them to understand our way of life? While you see yourself as a bridge to us, I see you as a bridge to them. You have never once touched on suicidal bombings, nor on certain ‘scholars’ who borders on being downright raving, ranting lunatics on how sinful and terrible the way Europeans are (Sorry, had to say it). What is right for you might not be right for me and vice versa. To reach a level of understanding, tolerance must be exercised from all parties; however, I failed to see it coming from most Muslims. A lot are quite happy to carry the message of violence and contempt for the way I live. 

Your comments about how some countries uses biblical text in their speeches is quite unreasonable, you have also effectively implied an inability for many Muslims to assimilate in a Western world. Many European countries have foundations in Christianity, it is not too much to ask for guests to assimilate into our culture especially if they choose to live in my country, please don’t tell me I can’t be proud of who I am and saying ‘Merry Christmas’ during this time of the year is the most appropriate greeting, anything else would be an insult to Christ. I’m happy to celebrate other religious holidays as well; I’ve gone to my Turkish friends’ homes after the Ramadan fast is over. They have assimilated very well to the extent of wishing me ‘Merry Christmas’; we understand and respect each other’s differences. Is that so difficult to attain for the rest of the world? 

Further, I’m tired of hearing that the West needs to change, I’ll admit that we aren’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, however, Islam based on the laws of Koran is anything but perfect either. So, rather than changing us, the outsiders, may I kindly suggest that the changes should start from within i.e. Islam. Converting to Islam might have assuage your internal emotions but that is not what all of us need.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Spence said:


> This is exactly my point...complete inability to dig a little deeper. They were all terrorist acts...fin.
> 
> No further thought process.
> 
> ...


Get off your high horse.

I listed those examples to counter the point that Bush's rhetoric was responsible for the public's perception of Islam. The list was provided to demonstrate that most people have lived through the events cited and people are probably quite capable of forming opinions on islam or muslims as a result of the things they have witnessed and seen on the news in their lifetime - you know like watching a reporter get his head cut off or watching women get shot in the back of their head in a soccer stadium.

It was not intended as a comprehensive explanation of the various motivations of the actions. So your point was irrelevant, but I suppose it enabled you to feel intellectual and provided you with that self-satisfied feeling of you have such a nuanced understanding of the roots causes of muslim problems today - as opposed to its first 13 centuries of existence.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Please tell me how this knowledge would make you feel better if you had to watch your wife have her head sawed off her body, as she sat there consciously having this happen to her, from Muslim terrorists?


What's the point of that statement? That because a small number of very evil people do very evil things we should throw reason out with the bathwater?

Look at where the "he tried to kill my daddy", "bring it on" approach to policy has got us.



> This is one of the demarcations I find in people. There are those that can see an abhorrent act and say, "I want to stop this so no other victim suffers like this" and then there are those that want to "understand" the culprit, "dig a little deeper", find out their "motivations".


It's not a demarcation, it's a belief that's not practical! This is the problem with the the humanitarian angle, it's not scalable. We can't solve all the world's problems. If it were so, we'd be in the Sudan today.

Understanding someones motivation isn't a weakness, given the situation it's the only way to an effective solution. The "they want to kill me so I need to kill them first" mentality is absurd. We're simply exacerbating the symptons without doing squat about the root causes.

Regardless of what you think, our image in the Islamic world does matter. The fringe is feeding off of the base and we're loosing the rhetorical fight.

What's ironic is that the same Adminitration who's is brilliantly adept at manipultaing domestic voters are silent when it comes to effective PR abroad!

-spence


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Mujib said:


> Benedict XVI and Islam: the first year by Dr. Abdal-Hakim Murad.
> 
> I hope to reply soon, God willing.


This author loses all credibility by taking a rhetorical cheap shot when he wrote "Ratzinger is no Nazi" - and, of course, by stating this out of the blue, he cleary means to imply just the opposite.

Yes, the bad old Vatican is oppressing poor muslims.....

How many mosques are in Italy?
How many Catholic Churches are in Saudi Arabia?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Rocker said:


> It was not intended as a comprehensive explanation of the various motivations of the actions.


My comment was that lumping all acts of terrorisim together as a united act against freedom was simply wrong.

You posted a string of events from various contexts. The motivation seems to have been implied.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> It's not a demarcation, it's a belief that's not practical! This is the problem with the the humanitarian angle, it's not scalable. We can't solve all the world's problems. If it were so, we'd be in the Sudan today.


If that's what you got out of my post, you are greatly mistaken. I can not believe I came off sounding that bleeding heart as to intimate that I wanted the US to "solve all the world's problems." When those I care about have been wronged, I simply want to stop it. I do not care if Makmuhd thinks my ancestors from 900 years ago were in a crusade against his, I just want Makmuhd dead if he hurts me or mine. Yes that is simple but I think the life and death of those that I love is a pretty simple issue: I need to guard it. That is on a personal level. On a policy level I agree, the US can not, nor should try to, solve all the world's problems. Not only is it futile, it tends to drive up my tax bill.



Spence said:


> Understanding someones motivation isn't a weakness, given the situation it's the only way to an effective solution. *The "they want to kill me so I need to kill them first" mentality is absurd. *We're simply exacerbating the symptons without doing squat about the root causes.


Now coming from you, this response is just priceless. You are the guy here telling everyone they have a "complete inability to dig a little deeper" and you just came out with some of the most binary, black/white propositions I have seen in a long time. I shall leave it to you to exercise some "further thought process" to see if you can discern the logical fallacy you just created. We are talking policy at this point, as I referenced 9/11, not the personal level.



Spence said:


> Regardless of what you think, our image in the Islamic world does matter. The fringe is feeding off of the base and we're loosing the rhetorical fight.


When did I say our image does not matter in the Islamic world? The answer of course, is I did not. You are engaging in rhetorical conversations with yourself at this point. Please scan this forum, I have said repeatedly it does matter what our image is and that our image is not a healthy one nor one we should maintain. The US and the West is seen as weak, to paraphrase Bin Laden, show us enough gore (not Al, lol) and our leaders will cut and run. Happened under Ronnie when the Marines were blown up, it is going to happen again.

Regards


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> I believe we are barking up the wrong tree here, while we continue to slam Islam, are we falling into the trap that Bin Laden set for the West?


I think you can look at it two ways, Islam is a big part of the problem...mostly because it provides an effective framework for influence...but if we're smart it could also be leveraged as a framework to divide moderates from the fringe.

From a PR perspective, the experts would say we're behaving like we don't have a clue as to what Islam is about or how Muslims prioritize their concerns. We seem to have done more to confirm Western stereotypes and conspiracy theories that we've done to build bridges.

Bin Laden has done a great job of painiting the USA as hypocrites because a lot of his words ring true with the Islamic base. I can't remember where I read it, but we are the first Country to be funding both sides of our own war!

And the biggest trap is how our media works against us. As Bin Laden has said "silence is our real propaganda".

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> When those I care about have been wronged, I simply want to stop it.


I think we all do, that's not being a bleeding heart...but how is that a useable guide for our actions?



> Now coming from you, this response is just priceless. You are the guy here telling everyone they have a "complete inability to dig a little deeper" and you just came out with some of the most binary, black/white propositions I have seen in a long time.


Guilty as charged 

-spence


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Spence said:


> It's not a demarcation, it's a belief that's not practical! This is the problem with the the humanitarian angle, it's not scalable. We can't solve all the world's problems. If it were so, we'd be in the Sudan today.
> 
> Understanding someones motivation isn't a weakness, given the situation it's the only way to an effective solution. The "they want to kill me so I need to kill them first" mentality is absurd. We're simply exacerbating the symptons without doing squat about the root causes.
> 
> -spence


You know, this is just such crap. What an appalling mixture of a-historicalism and pop psycho-babble that is so prevalent in today's "therapeutic" culture.

Yes, how did we exacerbate the symptoms of nazi Germany without doing something about the root causes?

Yes, how did we exacerbate the symptoms of imperial Japan without doing something about the root causes?

I guess if only we had understood them a little better all of WWII could have been avoided- the fault was clearly ours and in our unwillingness to get at the root causes of their aggression. That whole "they want to kill me so I need to kill them first" mentality was so unsophisticated and unnecessary. We simply failed to understand them and address the root causes and if we had, like reasonable people, we could have come to some accommodation - say, let Japan keep China but give Singapore back to the British and maybe let the nazis keep Poland, kill only 3 million Jews and only 10 million Russians.

How is that "We can't solve all the world's problems" but we're supposed to address the "root causes" of terrorism. This presumes that the problems aren't inherent in islam itself and in the nation states in which it is prevalent. It's not like Islamic nations/empires haven't been at the throat of the West since islam broke out of Arabia. That some portion of the muslim population would like to see the west destroyed and its population converted or subjugated did not arise out of the U.S.'s position on Israel - it goes back quite a few centuries
.
What, exactly, is the U.S. supposed to do about all this if the problem with terrorism is directly linked to theological issues in islam and its tolerance for oppressive nation states and the conflation of theology with government?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Spence said:


> My comment was that lumping all acts of terrorisim together as a united act against freedom was simply wrong.
> 
> You posted a string of events from various contexts. The motivation seems to have been implied.
> 
> -spence


Again, if you go back and read my post - it is quite clear that events were listed to show that people had more than adequate exposure to islamic terrorism to form their own opinions on the subject and that I doubt, as you asserted, that Bush's rhetoric was particulalry persuasive one way or the other.

Nowhere did I imply or assert that the list constituted a "united act against freedom" or anything of the kind - you're simply inventing arguments at this point.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Nowhere did I imply or assert that the list constituted a "united act against freedom" or anything of the kind - you're simply arguments at this point.


Then it was my poor assumption based on the list and what it was in response to.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Yes, how did we exacerbate the symptoms of nazi Germany without doing something about the root causes?
> 
> Yes, how did we exacerbate the symptoms of imperial Japan without doing something about the root causes?
> ...
> ...


Big difference, those were much more closed systems than we have today. For the most part you could put a box around the problem and drop the bomb to make it go away.

I'm not saying there isn't a time and a place for bloodshed, but given the complexities of the world today, and the ability of information warfare to rival military force...it seems absurd to think we're not better using our economy and diplomatic skills more effectively to influence those who make up the base.

-spence


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Spence- some of what you write is only from a small bunch of Muslims. The rest of them have their own opinions, and some are vastly different.

Some of the problem is the news we get. All you have to do is wave a Ph.D around and everything you write is better than Gospel truth- just look at the NY Times, or whatever it is, or how about Katie, Rather and so on. Bin Laden himself pulled himself out of the family ditch, or was it his daddy made 3billion $ and Bin Laden doesn't know what poor is. There is all kinds of quackery about terrorist, where they come from, such as all of them are poor and non educated. But many of them are very wealthy and highly educated, such as Ph.D's. The people who donate to these terrorist are terrorist themself just by donating and some of them donate by the millions. There is so much fraud in the news. 

You ought to read the book "Not Without My Child" and watch the movie, an eye opener.

Europe is a melting pot, so they say, and some groups don't want to melt in, which is probably fine, unless their dangerous.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

*Guys*: What annoys me most is his failure to fully participate in this discussion. Other than freaked out on WA, the other posts are links to more propaganda rhetorical rants. 
Wrt Mujib, it is all too easy to live in the UK, have a cushy job and a 'scholar throne' where he can sit on and write his articles. For all that he claims to understand Islam, how much does he really understand the people who live in Middles East with the militia running amok, no education, no medical and with no hope of a better life and future, where the gap between rich and poor is so wide that it's difficult to fathom. Each morning when they get up, I wonder what's going through their minds. Are they allowed to be happy? These so-called scholars who discusses the Koran and threaten eternal damnation and punishment if Muslims don't toe the line, their time is better spent equipping the Middle East with an education they can use, an open mind would be good as well, not more articles to incite fear and hatred. The most incredulous and ironic fact about this all is that while he chooses to live in the UK, he continues to tell us how wrong we (west) are. I'm simply going to tell him or anyone for that matter that they are most welcome to pack their bags and leave. Go back to the Middle East where life is as you like it, no one's forcing you to stay. The other issue that bothers me is his obsession to focus intensely on every word that the West has to say about Islam, while forgetting that the West too has issues with other matters, e.g. crimes of punishment etc which he absolutely refuses to discuss. Why so insecure? The very fact that he chooses conversion, it must be done with knowledge that Islam is good enough for him (hopefully). The obsessive need to defend it by writing all kinds of articles on it is incredulous.

*WA*: I personally do not view Europe as a melting pot (for most parts), it's old with so much history, and we really expect guests who wish to have a better life for them here to assimilate. It is frankly, not too much to ask that they speak our dialect and understand our way of life, other than that, they have the freedom to do whatever they want.

*PT*: I agree with you, most Muslims simply want to get on with their lives, but we also have a few nutcases where 1 or 2 can do some serious damage e.g. Sept 11. Which is why I dislike barking up that tree.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Mujib said:


> Benedict XVI and Islam: the first year by Dr. Abdal-Hakim Murad.
> 
> I hope to reply soon, God willing.


Hmmm, apparently God did not will it...........


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

*a while ago*

Now that the pope is safe and sound. I will make a comment. It couldnt have been worse than the Imperialist nation of USA imposing their might on a long suffering nations of palestine, phillipines, iraq, Nicaragua, Liberia, Chenju island(South Korea), Afghanistan, Attempts on Venezuela etc. I COULDNT BE ANY WORSE THAN THIS. USA, the most powerful nation ever on the face of the earth. Imposing democracy on the world, when USA is not even a democracy. It's a poligarchy. A republic. Never in the constitution will you find an application of democracy. John Adams himself said "
Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide. ".



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> You all know I rarely post over here as I don't like the backtalk about "moderators and the Interchange". But this subject was floating around my shirt studio today so I thought I would share it.
> 
> What effect do you think the Pope being shot in Turkey - as is widely agreed to be a strong possibility - would have on the atmosphere in the Middle East and the World climate as a whole?


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

I am not in disagreement with you. But when you guys came into our lands, you said the same thing.



Hedonist said:


> *Guys*: What annoys me most is his failure to fully participate in this discussion. Other than freaked out on WA, the other posts are links to more propaganda rhetorical rants.
> Wrt Mujib, it is all too easy to live in the UK, have a cushy job and a 'scholar throne' where he can sit on and write his articles. For all that he claims to understand Islam, how much does he really understand the people who live in Middles East with the militia running amok, no education, no medical and with no hope of a better life and future, where the gap between rich and poor is so wide that it's difficult to fathom. Each morning when they get up, I wonder what's going through their minds. Are they allowed to be happy? These so-called scholars who discusses the Koran and threaten eternal damnation and punishment if Muslims don't toe the line, their time is better spent equipping the Middle East with an education they can use, an open mind would be good as well, not more articles to incite fear and hatred. The most incredulous and ironic fact about this all is that while he chooses to live in the UK, he continues to tell us how wrong we (west) are. I'm simply going to tell him or anyone for that matter that they are most welcome to pack their bags and leave. Go back to the Middle East where life is as you like it, no one's forcing you to stay. The other issue that bothers me is his obsession to focus intensely on every word that the West has to say about Islam, while forgetting that the West too has issues with other matters, e.g. crimes of punishment etc which he absolutely refuses to discuss. Why so insecure? The very fact that he chooses conversion, it must be done with knowledge that Islam is good enough for him (hopefully). The obsessive need to defend it by writing all kinds of articles on it is incredulous.
> 
> *WA*: I personally do not view Europe as a melting pot (for most parts), it's old with so much history, and we really expect guests who wish to have a better life for them here to assimilate. It is frankly, not too much to ask that they speak our dialect and understand our way of life, other than that, they have the freedom to do whatever they want.
> ...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Bulla,

Spending too much time in the Paris Cafe are we? Are we to take you seriously or do you have a coherent argument to make? I would wager that the answer is no.

Karl

P.S. I found a website where you can do your Christmas shopping.

https://www.rokemneedlearts.com/sunshop/index.php?action=category&id=2

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was curious how this thread was still as alive as the Pope and dropped in. My My My, Bulla how you do go on. I suppose this has some connection with your name, the common form of a famous Sufi Poet's. A poet, by the way who I have read. Or, am I wrong and your name is medical, a bulla being another term for a skin blister, in your case no doubt from cronic parting wind from bad dates while on the Haj or some caravanseri and getting sand up your spincter. Why don't you crawl out from your mother's Burkha and fill us in on who, and what you are. Otherwise, your tantrum is akin to a Pak convenience store owner who just noticed he was shorted on the beer delivery. Come on out Bulla- Im'sh'allah


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> I am not in disagreement with you. But when you guys came into our lands, you said the same thing.


What lands are those?


----------

