Should the Pope apologize??

[LiLIrishChick63]

But no, I don't think the Pope should have to apologize. Does anyone thinking he should also think Rosie should?

i don't understand. what did Rosie say that was so bad? all she was basically saying was that ANY religious group could be radical.

 

[eclectics]

No, we don't want to go it alone, but we will if we have to. We are the United States-- that is what we do, that is why we are a light unto the world. That's why we're not Britain or France or Germany.

We would prefer the help of our allies. When I use the term vigorous, what I meant is this: We need to deal with our current in the same way that we dealt with our last existential enemy-- Imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany. They must be utterly defeated and learn that ANY attack on our citizens, military, or soil will result in such a devastating response against them on our part, that no repetition of an attack against us, by them, can be conceivable.

Your arguments and the arguments of your Leftist friends are essentially about non-response in the face of aggression against us. Lack of response on our part or a small inconsequential response is seen by our enemies as weakness and emboldens them.

You've said (or those on the left have said) that there are too many to fight and that we can't afford to 'go it alone'. Guess what? We have NO OPTION. We MUST fight. This is an existential conflict. Your contrary opinion is really of no moment and does nothing to change the minds of those that want to kill all of us.

The UN cannot rescue anyone. Our allies have been almost worthless with one exception, Israel-- and to a lesser extent, Britain. After Blair leaves, Britain will likely be in the camp of the enemy for all their lack of assistance to us and themselves.

If we must do it alone, we will. There are no other options.

That sounds great but isn't realistic without the funding and manpower to back it up.


We are not fighting a "Country". We are fighting needles in haystacks that move constantly.



Yes there is an option. How about we concentrate on keeping ourselves safe and not try to liberate the world anymore. This is not the same planet it was 40 years ago. It's too costly, in money and in manpower, it creates more enemies than it makes friends, and in some cases it is not appreciated in the least. I say put all our money and manpower into strengthening our defenses right here at home. We are sorely lacking in many areas. We can only spread our resources so thin before they evaporate completely.

 

[Kendra17]

That sounds great but isn't realistic without the funding and manpower to back it up.


We are not fighting a "Country". We are fighting needles in haystacks that move constantly.



Yes there is an option. How about we concentrate on keeping ourselves safe and not try to liberate the world anymore. This is not the same planet it was 40 years ago. It's too costly, in money and in manpower, it creates more enemies than it makes friends, and in some cases it is not appreciated in the least. I say put all our money and manpower into strengthening our defenses right here at home. We are sorely lacking in many areas.

Your response is essentially a negation of our capabilities and will.
This is defeatism.
I agree with you on one point only, and that is that we must strengthen our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The failure to do this is grounds for legal action against the President and other leaders in our government.
You are suggesting isolationism similar to the thinking popular in this country on the eve of ww2. Pearl Harbor eradicated almost all of the isolation sentiment in this country. The fact that 911 has seemed to increase isolationist sentiment is extremely troubling.

We must be concerned for our allies, and for our friends around the world.
As it has been shown in historical sources, after Hitler conquered all of Europe, Germany would then turn its attentions to the US. So, as it is today. The situation is similar.
But because this is a global supranational movement so many cannot wrap their brains around the concepts and the present dangers.

This is an existential fight we are in. The terrorists, while they have but few states, including Iran and Syria, that we can hit, (Afghanistan being the best example) - they do have states that give them safe harbor, funding, and protection. It is these states that we will target and deal with, as well as dealing with the stateless killers directly wherever they happen to be.

It's really nowhere as complex as you make it out to be.

You really believe that the US cannot build or create the wealth and treasure necessary to defend itself and our allies? You clearly do not read or understand history.

You really believe that our military "is spread too thin"? This is the wailing absurdity of the do-nothing-i-hate-bush-and-let's-impeach-him ignorant Leftist elite in this country and in Europe. It is not a real "position". It is simply an ANTI position with nothing of moment to add to the discussion but obstructing the government in doing its job and fulfilling its mandate to protect the Constitution and the country.

How anyone can support any Democratic politician in this country is simply beyond my comprehension. The Democratic party is not a loyal opposition party. Their leadership would have been arrested by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War for sedition and treason. The patience of George Bush is stunning and will certainly be applauded by historians for generations while the bleating of the liberal left will end up in the trash heap of history where it belongs with the Soviet Union.

How does one look at one's children and grandchildren without fear for their futures because of this current conflict? It is our responsibility to do our best for them and not leave it for them to deal with, or worse, leave them without a free country and a free world in which to live. We are obligated to take vigorous action against a vicious enemy whose only goal is our destruction. Why you cannot see this or understand it is simply incomprehensible.

Think about it, ok?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Killing of innocent people-- purposefully targeting civilians for political and/or religious purposes is the very definition of uncivilized behavior. This is barbarism and anti-civilized behavior on the part of the enemy. I'm not suggesting that we target their innocents-- I am suggesting we need to deal with them vigorously to make them stop targeting ours. It is civilized to care and involve ourselves. It is patently uncivilized to detach.

 

[simpilotswife]

Sounds like apoligizing for past actions to me.

And it sounds like "I'm sorry people are upset with my speech" to me.

Just remember sinners is a relative term. I think someone who perpetuates discrimination against homosexuality, doesn't allow women to protect themselves against disease and aided pedophiles while they continued to molest children for decades is a sinner, yet that was pretty standard operating procedure in the church while under the leadership of JPII.

 

[Mugg Mann]

If multiple posters inferred the same thing it is no doubt because they have their own preformed opinions about my opinions.

Wrong. Multiple posters inferred the same thing about your initial post because it's exactly what you wrote. No more or no less than that. Period.

It's compounded now by your ongoing demonstrated inability in many of your political threads to admit when you are wrong about something.

Again, I don't know how I can be more clear;

Consider this a learning opportunity. A good start would be by posting what you actually meant the first time around instead of having to backtrack when called on the over-generalizations in your posts by attentive readers.

Unless you really did mean that first post literally, in which case your argument takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[Charade]

I don't give a crap if it's the truth or not. That's not the point. The point is not to throw gasoline on a fire. And when you're that high up on the food chain, you think twice and understand what you say has consequences.

Hmm.. do you hold the leaders of your party just as accountable when they open their mouths and say inflammatory things? Examples abound. No need for me to list any.

I sure hope you're not saying the "consequences" are justified.

 

[Charade]

Refreshing:

Indeed!!

 

[Charade]

i don't understand. what did Rosie say that was so bad? all she was basically saying was that ANY religious group could be radical.

She didn't say "could be", she said "just as". Big difference.

 

[Charade]

And it sounds like "I'm sorry people are upset with my speech" to me.

Which is a frequently used "apology" that many politicians (both sides) offer.

 

[PixieDust32]

Yup! He apoligized for the reactions, but not for what he said.

 

[DawnCt1]

Wrong. Multiple posters inferred the same thing about your initial post because it's exactly what you wrote. No more or no less than that. Period.

It's compounded now by your ongoing demonstrated inability in many of your political threads to admit when you are wrong about something.



Consider this a learning opportunity. A good start would be by posting what you actually meant the first time around instead of having to backtrack when called on the over-generalizations in your posts by attentive readers.

Unless you really did mean that first post literally, in which case your argument takes on a whole new meaning.

In retrospect Mugg Man, my original post was pretty clear.
"While Churches are burning across the globe should the pope apologize to the savages". Did you think the Catholic Church was burning there own churches". I stand by my opinion that the barbarians killing nuns, screaming and burning churches are savages, and I am being nice.

 

[lyeag]

Vatican tries to calm Pope row as militants vow war


Sep 18, 7:32 AM (ET)


By Stephen Brown and Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Al Qaeda militants in Iraq vowed war on "worshippers of the cross" and protesters burned a papal effigy on Monday over Pope Benedict's comments on Islam, while Western churchmen and statesmen tried to calm passions.

The statement by an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda came after the Pontiff said on Sunday he was deeply sorry Muslims had been offended by his use of a medieval quotation on Islam and holy war.

"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said a Web statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council.

"We shall break the cross and spill the wine ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement, posted on Sunday on an Internet site often used by al Qaeda and other militant groups.


I think anyone who openly says they wish to slit the throats of someone else fits the description of savages to me.

 

[LuvDuke]

Hmm.. do you hold the leaders of your party just as accountable when they open their mouths and say inflammatory things? Examples abound. No need for me to list any.

I sure hope you're not saying the "consequences" are justified.

Cut the crap, John and get a new playbook. Don't bother listing any examples because I won't bother responding.

Btw, this thread is about what Pope Benedict said and whether or not he should apologize. Things a little too quiet over on "your" thread so you've got to look elsewhere for playmates?

 

[mrsltg]

No, I don't think he should apologize. It was an academic speech. What's the problem? Further, I think "savage" is a fairly nice term given what these animals are doing to prove they're not violent.

 

[Charade]

It's amazing to me that some just don't see the irony of the comments of the Pope and the actions of the Muslim protesters.

"Muhammad is evil and teaches violence..."

"No he's not!!! Islam is a religion of peace!!"

"Now cut that infidel's throat..."

 

[yeartolate]

In retrospect Mugg Man, my original post was pretty clear.
"While Churches are burning across the globe should the pope apologize to the savages". Did you think the Catholic Church was burning there own churches". I stand by my opinion that the barbarians killing nuns, screaming and burning churches are savages, and I am being nice.

Nope,your thread was about the Pope apologizing for his quote that applied to Muslims in general. Many of us took the savage comment to mean Muslims in general --- not a stretch at all.

 

[Fitswimmer]

He didn't apologize for his words-because they weren't his words. He quoted a 15th century Emperor. Based on the reaction, it seems that the quote was quite accurate. Believe what we do or we burn your churches and kill your nuns. Sounds a lot like conversion by the sword to me.

I have read the Koran, and the sections regarding jihad and the killing of non-believers and indifdels are there and the Old Testament has a good deal to say about killing too. However, you don't see too many Christians and Jews running around burning churches and killing Muslim clerics when they call us pigs and infidels. Also, don't think that the only Muslim schools espousing this attitude are in the Middle East, they're all over the United States as well.

There has got to be some way that rational people of all faiths (or no faith) can stand up to this lunacy and say that enough is enough. Obviously, it would have a greater effect if Muslim clerics spoke out, because these terrorists are not going to listen to any "infidel".

 

[LuvDuke]

Your response is essentially a negation of our capabilities and will.
This is defeatism.
I agree with you on one point only, and that is that we must strengthen our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The failure to do this is grounds for legal action against the President and other leaders in our government.
You are suggesting isolationism similar to the thinking popular in this country on the eve of ww2. Pearl Harbor eradicated almost all of the isolation sentiment in this country. The fact that 911 has seemed to increase isolationist sentiment is extremely troubling.

We must be concerned for our allies, and for our friends around the world.
As it has been shown in historical sources, after Hitler conquered all of Europe, Germany would then turn its attentions to the US. So, as it is today. The situation is similar.
But because this is a global supranational movement so many cannot wrap their brains around the concepts and the present dangers.

This is an existential fight we are in. The terrorists, while they have but few states, including Iran and Syria, that we can hit, (Afghanistan being the best example) - they do have states that give them safe harbor, funding, and protection. It is these states that we will target and deal with, as well as dealing with the stateless killers directly wherever they happen to be.

It's really nowhere as complex as you make it out to be.

You really believe that the US cannot build or create the wealth and treasure necessary to defend itself and our allies? You clearly do not read or understand history.

You really believe that our military "is spread too thin"? This is the wailing absurdity of the do-nothing-i-hate-bush-and-let's-impeach-him ignorant Leftist elite in this country and in Europe. It is not a real "position". It is simply an ANTI position with nothing of moment to add to the discussion but obstructing the government in doing its job and fulfilling its mandate to protect the Constitution and the country.

How anyone can support any Democratic politician in this country is simply beyond my comprehension. The Democratic party is not a loyal opposition party. Their leadership would have been arrested by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War for sedition and treason. The patience of George Bush is stunning and will certainly be applauded by historians for generations while the bleating of the liberal left will end up in the trash heap of history where it belongs with the Soviet Union.

How does one look at one's children and grandchildren without fear for their futures because of this current conflict? It is our responsibility to do our best for them and not leave it for them to deal with, or worse, leave them without a free country and a free world in which to live. We are obligated to take vigorous action against a vicious enemy whose only goal is our destruction. Why you cannot see this or understand it is simply incomprehensible.

Think about it, ok?

She's baaaack. And so is Little Louie. As are "paid by the word" hysterics.

So let's see where we stand now: the thread starts off with a statement by the Pope and whether or not people are of the opinion he should apologize. Ah, but not enough for hysterics or dramatic verbiage for this poster.

So in one post, she manages to touch on Pearl Harbor, 9/11, terrorism, the condition of the military, the impeachment of George Bush, the "leftist elite", the Democratic party, Abraham Lincoln would've arrested Democrats for treason, and the verbal diarrhea goes on and on.

Really, Kendra, you shouldn't use your whole load of ammunition in one shot. Spread the joy around. There's plenty of it.

 

[Pigeon]

Just remember sinners is a relative term. I think someone who perpetuates discrimination against homosexuality, doesn't allow women to protect themselves against disease and aided pedophiles while they continued to molest children for decades is a sinner, yet that was pretty standard operating procedure in the church while under the leadership of JPII.

Amen.

Yes, he should apologize. I can think of a few other things the pope should do, but I'll leave it at that. I work with a number of Muslims. They are every bit as outraged at terrorists as I am, if not more because of people unable to separate fanatics from the mainstream.