Should the Pope apologize??

[Kendra17]

I know we're at war. And, it will get uglier NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. I see that offending their sensibilities-- their belief in Islam and the significance of the Kabah-- is just too difficult to handle. We don't want to dare offend these murderers.

I think, offending sensibilities and causing a fall of an political system and ideology that is in the dark ages is a reasonable option. I don't care if I offend them. I already do offend them. And, believe it or not-- even though you defend them-- you offend them, too.

I think an option such as breaking 2 pillars of Islam could possibly have the effect of bringing a reformation or a renaissance to the religion.

I am pretty amazed that you find this seemingly MORE offensive than increasing our military might. And, if you find this LESS offensive than increasing military might yet cannot handle the idea of INCREASING our targets, what options are you left with? You are left with doing nothing-- appeasement.

If political Islam fell, if we could cause a separation of the political system ideology from the religious theology/ideology, it would be a benefit for all. If they DON'T somehow begin to separate the two, the attacks will WORSEN in damage and increase in frequency.

 

[Charade]

The kettle and pot have never been more black.

And from left field, another zinger.

 

[TheDoctor]

His idea (and there is a big meeting here planned in January) is that we get rid of the Kabah. He believes that once this happens, there is no more Hajj. And, once there is no more Haj, no more pilgrimage, it breaks one of the pillars of Islam without going to war on an entire group of people. He thinks that Islam needs to 'fall'. And, he believes that by breaking one of the Pillars of Islam, it can fall. They are not permitted to pray to a desecrated altar, so if the Kabah is gone. . .

He believes that the Prayer pillar will be gone, too, although I don't understand this one quite as much, since they can still pray. But, they won't be facing Mecca anymore, since the Kabah would be gone.

The Romans thought that they could get rid of the Jewish faith by destroying the Second Temple. It did not work. Destroying a faith's holy sites is not the way to go. Your plan would cause the religion to change and perhaps not in the way you anticipate. At best there would be world wide outrage and anger that makes what happened on the comic book and the pope's statements look like a picnic. I find your plan to be scary and ill concieved at best.

 

[Charade]

I just can't believe some of the stuff I am reading on this thread. I really can't.

I'm with ya. Who woulda thought some people would would kill a nun, attack curches and call for the killing of the Pope just because they didn't like that said Pope referred to an old world quote which said Muhammed is evil. I'm really shocked.

 

[dcentity2000]

I'm with ya. Who woulda thought some people would would kill a nun, attack curches and call for the killing of the Pope just because they didn't like that said Pope referred to an old world quote which said Muhammed is evil. I'm really shocked.

You know my side in all this, but I also happen to agree with you here. My upset as to how "we" are acting does not excuse the way "they" are acting (vague terms indeed).



Rich::

 

[Charade]

Fighting the IRA just made the IRA bigger, so we made peace with them.

Now, no bombs.

Just a nugget of knowledge



Rich::

So the IRA got what they wanted? Or most of it? How do you do that with the Islamic nutjubs that from the get go would just like to see you dead? What compromise could you make? Don't kill all of us?

 

[dcentity2000]

So the IRA got what they wanted? Or most of it? How do you do that with the Islamic nutjubs that from the get go would just like to see you dead? What compromise could you make? Don't kill all of us?

Well, I'm not actually sure what the IRA gained from it. They have a political voice I guess, but they're so wrapped up (along with the rest of us) in blankets of bureaucracy that nothing much happens

There is a splinter group though who refuse to lay down arms - they're the "Real IRA"; so far, pretty much diddly-squat from then.

I doubt that the fundamentalist leaders of terrorist groups would be so easily duped ( ) because their aim is more, well, fundamental. I offer up the example of the IRA simply just to illustrate how the issue is not just black and white.



Rich::

 

[eclectics]

I'm with ya. Who woulda thought some people would would kill a nun, attack curches and call for the killing of the Pope just because they didn't like that said Pope referred to an old world quote which said Muhammed is evil. I'm really shocked.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that violence and calls for violence isn't wrong. I believe crcormier was referring to Kendra's plan. By not saying you are against it, should we assume you are for it?

 

[LuvDuke]

This reminds me of Dr. Strangelove...



Rich::

The general Buck-something-or-other in Dr. Strangelove, played by George C. Scott, was based on Curtis LeMay. Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[LuvDuke]

Fighting the IRA just made the IRA bigger, so we made peace with them.

Now, no bombs.

Just a nugget of knowledge



Rich::

There's one great difference: The IRA hadn't been taken over by a suicide culture. How many of the IRA, other than accidently, died during the bombings?

 

[eclectics]

There's one great difference: The IRA hadn't been taken over by a suicide culture. How many of the IRA, other than accidently, died during the bombings?

Didn't the IRA sometimes even call the police and give a warning to evacuate the area?

 

[dcentity2000]

You're both absolutely right on both counts.

Osama and co. will be harder to deal with.



Rich::

 

[Teejay32]

Maybe it's time to sit down and hammer out a new NATO-style treaty only this one deals with international terrorism instead of military threats? I'm sure there are thousand of ideas out there, but unfortunately, none of them will happen during the Bush administration.

LOL. He's been fighting terrorism for years already, while his detractors were insisting (among other things) that you can't fight terrorism. Maybe next week you can tackle Social Security reform?

plus we're beyond just terrorism now; there's sectarian violence, interreligious violence, honor killings, hate speech, sudden jihad syndrome and all sorts of violent things that people don't want taking root in their neighborhoods. We can't possibly fix all that, we're not obliged to, and shouldn't even try.

 

[LuvDuke]

I know we're at war. And, it will get uglier NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. I see that offending their sensibilities-- their belief in Islam and the significance of the Kabah-- is just too difficult to handle. We don't want to dare offend these murderers.

Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? Just who is talking about tiptoeing around and not offending sensibilities. You're the only one. You can keep rolling your eyes until they slide out your back passage. It still doesn't make your "plan" anything more than an intellectual joke, nor does it base your argument on facts and not your delusions.

I think, offending sensibilities and causing a fall of an political system and ideology that is in the dark ages is a reasonable option. I don't care if I offend them. I already do offend them. And, believe it or not-- even though you defend them-- you offend them, too.

Get your head out of the sand. No one is defending anyone. I don't give a damn if they're offended or not. That fantasy is only in your head. I want success not just offense. For your plan to be a reasonable option, it has a reasonable chance of success. Which it doesn't. On what are you basing your success predictions? How are you coming to your conclusions? Why the hell would it even work?

I think an option such as breaking 2 pillars of Islam could possibly have the effect of bringing a reformation or a renaissance to the religion.

Why? Other than in your head, what makes you think your "plan" would succeed?

I am pretty amazed that you find this seemingly MORE offensive than increasing our military might.

Well, whattayanno, I'm amazed too as I never said anything of the kind.

And, if you find this LESS offensive than increasing military might yet cannot handle the idea of INCREASING our targets, what options are you left with? You are left with doing nothing-- appeasement.

If you want to be taken seriously, cut out the BS. Here you with the appeasement crap again. That's only in your own mind and I'm starting to wonder the condition of that too.

If political Islam fell, if we could cause a separation of the political system ideology from the religious theology/ideology, it would be a benefit for all. If they DON'T somehow begin to separate the two, the attacks will WORSEN in damage and increase in frequency.

If, if, if ......... if the queen had cajones, she'd be king. Your plan is based on nothing than your own delusions.

Do you actually believe destroying a sacred part of Islam is going to result in 1.5 billion Muslims sitting on their hands, saying "thanks we needed that", and then they'll go off in search of reform. A cartoon causes a major blowup, but destroying a sacred part of Islam is going to yield nothing but good.

In the words of Louis Black, what the hell are you on?

Frankly, I don't think you want an intellectual discussion at all. You want to use people as props to show off your "intellectual prowess", "deductive reasoning", and "critical thinking". Pardon me .............. Keep up the good work, you're doing a fine job.

And if you did want an intellectual discussion, you just couldn't help yourself and you blew it again.

 

[ford family]

There's one great difference: The IRA hadn't been taken over by a suicide culture. How many of the IRA, other than accidently, died during the bombings?

What is interesting, and relevant to this thread, is that no matter what atrocities they committed, the Sinn Fein IRA has had the support and encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church who have never condemned them.

ford family

 

[TheDoctor]

The poor conservatives are going to have to use new codewords and catchphrases now. http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/local_story_261100901.html?start:int=0

In a controversial move within the administration, Hughes and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seem to have persuaded Bush — temporarily, at least — to drop the label “Islamic fascism” from his speeches; diplomats say that Muslims hear it as an attack on their religion, thereby validating the extremists’ false charge that the United States is at war with Islam.

The conservatives now have to use another phrase to insult Islam.

 

[LuvDuke]

LOL. He's been fighting terrorism for years already, while his detractors were insisting (among other things) that you can't fight terrorism. Maybe next week you can tackle Social Security reform?

plus we're beyond just terrorism now; there's sectarian violence, interreligious violence, honor killings, hate speech, sudden jihad syndrome and all sorts of violent things that people don't want taking root in their neighborhoods. We can't possibly fix all that, we're not obliged to, and shouldn't even try.

There was a right way to fight the war on terror and there was the stupid way to fight the war on terror. Bush took the stupid route. He destabilized the Middle East, strengthened Iran's position, weakend Jordan's position, cost this country 2700 lives, 20,000 broken bodies, busted the military, cost the American taxpayer $400,000,000,000, and bogged down America's mobile military in one area and who are now right smack in the middle of a civil war.

You may consider that success, but intelligent people know a disaster when they see it.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

What is interesting, and relevant to this thread, is that no matter what atrocities they committed, the Sinn Fein IRA has had the support and encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church who have never condemned them.

ford family

http://www.bicom.org.uk/publications/palestinian_affairs/?content_id=1520

The argument that the IRA and Hamas are similarly motivated by religious considerations is gravely flawed. While the IRA claimed to represent the Catholics of Northern Ireland, the group did not seek the establishment of a fundamentalist Catholic state. Neither did the IRA seek or receive theological support from the Catholic Church. On the contrary, throughout the IRA’s campaign, Catholic leaders were unwavering in their denunciation of violence as a political strategy. On his visit to Ireland in 1979, the late Pope John Paul II spoke to a crowd of three hundred thousand near the border with Northern Ireland, pleading, “On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and return to the ways of peace."

 

[eclectics]

What is interesting, and relevant to this thread, is that no matter what atrocities they committed, the Sinn Fein IRA has had the support and encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church who have never condemned them.

ford family

No Pope has ever condemned the IRA? I did not know that. That's fascinating to me.

 

[eclectics]

http://www.bicom.org.uk/publications/palestinian_affairs/?content_id=1520

On the contrary, throughout the IRA’s campaign, Catholic leaders were unwavering in their denunciation of violence as a political strategy. On his visit to Ireland in 1979, the late Pope John Paul II spoke to a crowd of three hundred thousand near the border with Northern Ireland, pleading, “On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and return to the ways of peace."

That sounds more plausible to me.