Somali cleric calls for pope's death

[ECH1969]

A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.

Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.

"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion," he said in Friday evening prayers.

"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/2006/09/16/1158334739295.html

[Redstone]

1. Asshole.

And they wonder why we are a bit ambivalent about them?

Redstone

[Henny Penny]

13. Asshole? Or just someone who has been setup and/or misquoted

in order to chuck another can of petrol on the small fire burning in the corner?

[Redstone]

18. Oh, sure.

Redstone

[susanna]

42. Do you have information that he was misquoted?

I'm all ears.

[Divine Discontent]

48. I despise the popus, but...

you know that cleric said that, in fact, I was waiting for the orders for popus to be killed asap.

again, I think the popus is a joke, but advocating his death, even when he is hateful about people who are like me, is overboard, and that cleric is an a-hole as redstone said.

but, your point that it will add fuel against muslims is correct, the right extremist love stuff like this.


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[anotherdrew]

51. papus norviticus will likely be a very short lived pope n/t

[ananda]

2. As bad as Maledict is..

.. calling a fatwa on him is really beyond the pale.

Still, that sorry excuse of a pope needs to make a real
apology, not just an expression of regret for having
caused a firestorm of upset in the ME.

[movonne]

21. Something like when pat robertson called for the death of Chevez...

[bhikkhu]

24. My thoughts exactly

While some might place Benedict's apology on one side, and the cleric's call for his death on the other, concluding that this is the difference between Islam and Christianity, it is far from being that simple. For better or worse, when very orthodox or madrassa-trained Muslims think of Christianity, they think of the Crusades - when all Europe mobilized against them, for little more reason than that they existed, and were not Christian.

I know this is a very arguable and misquotable point, but I think it is a valid perspective toward understanding the Somali cleric (without becoming his apologist - war, murder, calls for assasination, etc, have no proper place in religion).

[treestar]

26. Exactly and we have our nut-cases, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2152012

[papau]

32. Islam being spread by the sword was not a reason for the Crusades?

"Muslims think of Christianity, they think of the Crusades - when all Europe mobilized against them, for little more reason than that they existed, and were not Christian.'

WOW !

[bhikkhu]

61. The defensive nature of the crusades makes sense in the

compressed timescale of a broadly painted history, but again the expansion of Islam as a motive for empire occurred primarily between 630 and 750, more or less. After that things were much more as they are - groups of divided states, some christian, some muslim, fighting comparatively evenly matched territiorial or resource wars.

I know this is to greatly oversimplify things, and I am far from being an authority, but were any crusader wars actually fought against expansively imperial Islamic forces, threatening Europe?

[papau]

63. Yes - crusader wars were fought because of imperial Islamic threats

At least the first was.

[bhikkhu]

69. for some historical context:

The Byzantines ruled Palestine, relatively the same as previous Roman rule. The Arab Islamic expansion took it from them in the 7th century AD. For 400 years Palestine was under Muslim rule and tolerance seems to have been the norm - Christians, Jews, and Muslims living in relative peace. European pilgrims to the Holy Land were common and travelled freely. The Seljuk Turk, a group from central Asia which converted to Islam at some early point, moved in and conquered large areas of the Arab Islamic Empire, including Palestine in 1071. The imperial ambitions of the Seljuks threatened the Byzantine Empire, which had been expanding for 200 years at the expense of the Arabs. The Byzantines appealed to Western christianity for military aide. Adding to the appeal – Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were beginning to be harrassed by the new more restricive Seljuk policies.

My point – there is no simple “Islam vs Christianity” narrative to the crusades that paints a unitary Islam as agressor and Christianity as defender. The Seljuks were far more a tribal power milaristically expanding their own interests, and most of their conquests were at the expense of the declining Arab Islamic Empire. The Byzantines were primarily offended that their recent conquests might be lost, and the crusades were something of a diversionary tactic. The Seljuks themselves were soon swept aside by the Mongols, another central asian people with motives similar to their own, only they had not converted to Islam. After which things become even more complicated, and less relevant.

So I would agree with you, if the statement were changed to "the first crusade was fought because of Imperial Seljuk threats", and note that these threats chiefly were against imperial Byzantine forces.

[papau]

73. We basically agree - a little more detail below

After the "end" of the Roman Empire, the West had Slavic tribes invading the Balkans, with a new wave of Asiatic nomads being kept at the gates of the empire only by paying tribute, and with the Persians conquering Syria, Palestine and Egypt. But the emperor Heraclius who ruled from 610 to 640 conducted 3 brilliant military campaigns and destroyed the Persian empire and regained Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the Holy Cross.

Then after the Prophet’s death in 632, Arab forces in 636 conquered Syria and in 642 conquered Persia. Arab attacks on the Byzantine empire resulted in their control/subjugation of Palestine, Syria, Persia, Egypt and most of Northern Africa by the middle of the seventh century. Islam's expansion via the Umayyad's movement into Spain in 711, gaining a foothold in southern France, only ended with their defeat by Charles Martel near Tours in 732. Of course the Umayyad put their own into power, treating non-Arabic Islamic citizens as second class citizens (this lead to the Shia arising as a reaction Umayyad's "secular" pretensions of authority - the Shia believing that in every age a messiah would appear, rejecting the sunna which was the body of later tradition that was not contained in the Koran, claiming the Koran was the sole authority on the life and teachings of the prophet).

Indeed the Byzantine empire would have folded around this time under the combined threats of the Arab fleet which attacked Constantinople yearly, and the Bulgars who in 680 would settle in what today is Bulgaria, except for the fact that in 718 Leo the III adopted new "Greek" technology - called Greek Fire which was the first flame thrower - that allowed him to drive back the Arab assault on Constantinople in 718. This was followed by the conquering of the Bulgarians when had tried to expand the territory they controlled beginning in 976, and the taking back from the arabs the land that had earlier been lost in southern Italy and Sicily.

The rise of Venice as the economic power of the area, replacing Byzantine commercial control (which would lead to their eventual financing of attacks on Constantinople, with their crusaders having no trouble capturing the city), plus the external threat in the forces of the Turks who threatened Asia Minor, was the scene when in the battle of Manzikert in 1071 all of Asia Minor was lost.

But then in 1096 the first crusaders appeared on the scene, weakening Muslim power, and allowing Alexius to recover portions of Asia Minor.

When the Ottoman Turks, named after the leader Ottoman, arrived, crossing into Europe in 1356, and in 30 years overrunning Bulgaria, Serbia and indeed reaching the Danube by 1390, the fate of Constantinople was perhaps sealed. In 1453 their siege of 7 weeks with an army of 160,000 Turks easily overcame "Christianity's" 9,000 soldiers, conquering the Great Eastern Fortress of Christianity for Islam.

[JNelson6563]

77. Am I understanding this?

Are you saying that the Crusades were for the purpose of defending those who were having Islam forced upon them?

Julie

[recidivist]

36. The Crusades were defensive.

It is getting tiresome to rehash the Crusades once again, but for the nth time ...

Once Mohammed had cobbled together enough tribal chiefs to constitute a serious military force, Islam spent the next thousand years hurling armies of conquest in all directions. They were attacking Vienna as late as 1683 and continue to wage genocidal wars in Africa even today.

The Crusades were a strategic counterattack. The tragedy is that Europe was still too disorganized to make them stick -- the Crusader kingdoms were mopped up and Islam immediately resumed its relentless wars of aggression against both India and Europe.

[bhikkhu]

41. I would hate to carelessly disagree...

but the wars of Islamic conquest had essentially ended by 750 a.d., by which time they had reached a fairly stable maximum. After that the character of internal and external warfare would be better characterized as national defenses and/or aggressions. "Strategic counterattack" might apply to the long war in Spain expelling Muslim government and influence, but the crusades were much more various in motive.

To the individuals involved, particularly in the Middle East, the Crusades were essentially the appearance of a foreign power bent on conquest and slaughter upon their otherwise peaceful landscape.

[papau]

65. Conquest of vast new lands ended well before Crusades -but threats of more

conquests certainly existed. Also Jerusalem. as always a key motivator, moved between Christian and Islamic rule.

In 1009 the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah sacked the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre - thus Islamic conquest leads to destruction of religious items which leads to the first Crusade.

To be able to say that "To the individuals involved, particularly in the Middle East, the Crusades were essentially the appearance of a foreign power bent on conquest and slaughter upon their otherwise peaceful landscape" is to demonstrate the power of propaganda. Indeed the fact that this is felt perhaps led to the fact that many in the West do not believe a great deal of what is said by Mid East Muslims. On the other hand many in the West aid the Palestians in producing the con-job videos that are used to try sell the idea that Isreal is super evil (I was amazed when CNN (Anderson Cooper) did their report on the con-job videos as I thought all western media was at best silent and at worst, helping to promote those videos). It truly is a complicated subject.

In any case you are correct of course as to size of the Islamic Empire not changing much during the Crusades - indeed they expanded into Europe well after the Crusades. But that is the point, perhaps. The West responded to the threat, and stopped the expansion - at least for a while. When the Byzantine Emperors were threatened by the Seljuks, requests for Crudades were made in 1074 and in 1095, perhaps stopping the expansion of the Seljuk empire into areas beyong the Anatolia to Pakistan area it had under its control.

The target of the First Crusade was the recapture of the lands lost to the Seljuks in 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, where the Byzantine Empire had been defeated, losing all but the coastlands of Asia Minor.

And I do not think anyone would say that Saladin was not a threat to Europe. So when in 1187, Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, recaptured Jerusalem, Pope Gregory VIII called for a crusade, where they defeated the Muslims near Arsuf, but lost to a lack of food, settling for a truce with Saladin. Of course within 10 years Jerusalem falls again (it was not a very good "truce" I guess) and we have the Fourth Crusade in 1202, where the Venetians, under Doge Enrico Dandolo, betrayed the Pope after taking control of the Crudade went for greed and plunder - by attacking Christian cities like Zara, and then sacking Constantinople in 1204.

Sometimes our western rich and powerful are willing to sell us out for an extra dollar or two.

I wonder if that is happening again - under Bush?

[bhikkhu]

70. Your reference material exceeds my own...

so I have little choice but to say...you have a very good point. I made a response to a previous post of yours before reading this one. I would be interested if you find any errors in perspective there.

Thanks

[papau]

74. We basically agree - a little more detail below

After the "end" of the Roman Empire, the West had Slavic tribes invading the Balkans, with a new wave of Asiatic nomads being kept at the gates of the empire only by paying tribute, and with the Persians conquering Syria, Palestine and Egypt. But the emperor Heraclius who ruled from 610 to 640 conducted 3 brilliant military campaigns and destroyed the Persian empire and regained Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the Holy Cross.

Then after the Prophet’s death in 632, Arab forces in 636 conquered Syria and in 642 conquered Persia. Arab attacks on the Byzantine empire resulted in their control/subjugation of Palestine, Syria, Persia, Egypt and most of Northern Africa by the middle of the seventh century. Islam's expansion via the Umayyad's movement into Spain in 711, gaining a foothold in southern France, only ended with their defeat by Charles Martel near Tours in 732. Of course the Umayyad put their own into power, treating non-Arabic Islamic citizens as second class citizens (this lead to the Shia arising as a reaction Umayyad's "secular" pretensions of authority - the Shia believing that in every age a messiah would appear, rejecting the sunna which was the body of later tradition that was not contained in the Koran, claiming the Koran was the sole authority on the life and teachings of the prophet).

Indeed the Byzantine empire would have folded around this time under the combined threats of the Arab fleet which attacked Constantinople yearly, and the Bulgars who in 680 would settle in what today is Bulgaria, except for the fact that in 718 Leo the III adopted new "Greek" technology - called Greek Fire which was the first flame thrower - that allowed him to drive back the Arab assault on Constantinople in 718. This was followed by the conquering of the Bulgarians when had tried to expand the territory they controlled beginning in 976, and the taking back from the arabs the land that had earlier been lost in southern Italy and Sicily.

The rise of Venice as the economic power of the area, replacing Byzantine commercial control (which would lead to their eventual financing of attacks on Constantinople, with their crusaders having no trouble capturing the city), plus the external threat in the forces of the Turks who threatened Asia Minor, was the scene when in the battle of Manzikert in 1071 all of Asia Minor was lost.

But then in 1096 the first crusaders appeared on the scene, weakening Muslim power, and allowing Alexius to recover portions of Asia Minor.

When the Ottoman Turks, named after the leader Ottoman, arrived, crossing into Europe in 1356, and in 30 years overrunning Bulgaria, Serbia and indeed reaching the Danube by 1390, the fate of Constantinople was perhaps sealed. In 1453 their siege of 7 weeks with an army of 160,000 Turks easily overcame "Christianity's" 9,000 soldiers, conquering the Great Eastern Fortress of Christianity for Islam.

[recidivist]

67. Not to carelessly disagree, but ...

... Had the Moslem wars of conquest halted by 750 or so, Anatolia (Turkey), the Balkans, India, and Central Asia would all have been spared. Constantinople did not fall until 1453. The Battle of Vienna was in 1683.

[Taxloss]

3. This is really a public relations bonanza for atheism, isn't it? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

8. Marx was right about religion being the drug of choice of the masses

How does this compare to Anne Coulter's calls for mass murder?

[DBoon]

11. The drug isn't always opium

sometimes religion acts a lot like meth

[bhikkhu]

27. As were the Protestant vs Catholic slaughters of 16th-17th centuries

It might be noted that these European wars, upheavals, and human disasters were one of the motives for the separation of church and state in our own country. The constitution was envisaged to begin an age of peace, which, at least in the judgement of our founders, was best managed by a government independent of religious motives and prejudice

[genie_weenie]

29. Not Really! remember that time

those Atheists rioted and blew up buildings when nothing was insulted...

[smirkymonkey]

37. Hear, hear!

If only.....

[Divine Discontent]

49. you're so bad!

lol...

Cynical and cute, but still, bad! lol...

loved your comment.

peace...

[MissB]

64. But atheists are just morally vacant!

:sarcasm:

[sweetheart]

4. oh really yawn

Must we repeat the ignorant remarks of some stupid wanker in africa, then
please lets chime in with every other stupidity until LBN just churns like
a river of malaise.

As any old poor uneducated imam should know,
the prophet is off at a resort in Brazil having sex with dozens of women every day,
enjoying their every breathing and sweaty compulsion, 5 times a day (at least),
and in very good health for it!

[Pavulon]

5. Mehmet (removed name char not recog by browser) (muslim)

tried to kill the last pope..you think they could be a bit more original.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

6. Yeah, this kind of crap just gives the neo-cons more ammunition

for their fear campaign.

[rockymountaindem]

7. ...because the best way to refute accusations that you're violent

is to go out and kill people :sarcasm:

[Tom Joad]

9. another post to feed the anti-Muslim hysteria. Had to go all the way

to somalia to find that.

[treestar]

25. Yeah and as if it would not be possible to find a freeperish American

to quote who would sound just as bad - I've heard plenty of expressions of desire to kill them all, usually claiming it's just because "they want to kill us." (all of them).

[Freedom_from_Chains]

10. Allegedly this is a photo that is circulating on the net on Islamic

websites.



The translation reads:

"Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross, hateful evil man, stoned Satan, may Allah curse him, blood-sucking vampire."

The script in red calls for the Pope's beheading

[Henny Penny]

14. Probably the kind of site that shows the fat Osama videos. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

15. These Muslims and for that matter other religious leaders need to...

ignore the other religions. What the hell should they care about what other religions do if they truly believe their god is the only true god and they will receive their reward when they die? Why should they care if others don't bow down to their god and become believers? Should be more room in their place of reward to enjoy without being crowded. (That applies to all religions)

For the ones that go by the 144,000... do they know for sure that it isn't already filled up and they will be turned away? There has been how many born and died since the beginning and they think they will be one of the 144,000? Nuts

[LiberalFighter]

12. They need to determine which Muslim was nearest Pope at that time.

We are getting nothing but trouble from all these religious nuts. As far as I am concerned religion is the root of all evil.

We don't need religion to live as good people.

[crossroads]

16. A Big AMEN To That!

AMEN

[Raine]

17. That kind of statement

gives the pope ammunition that he was correct in his statement, people are so stupid on all sides.

[hollowdweller]

20. Amen. Those guys are their own worst enemies when it comes to reactions.

You know there's and IQ problem when the way to react to claims of being violent is to threaten the person saying it.

[Truthiness Inspector]

19. Kill people for exercising free speech

Just great. People say things that outrage me and my sensibilities everday, but do I call for their deaths and/or incite others to kill the offending parties? No, and most other people in the world don't either.

I'm getting really sick of this shit.

[Igel]

23. Don't you know,

speech is only free to the extent it submits to Islam.

I've heard similar loony things from Xian preachers; thing is, they have no congregation anymore, and lots of people in their own congregations were free to tell them to STFU.

They eventually clarified their position: People shouldn't say things that are offensive, but it's up to God to punish, not for the state to restrict speech.

Some of the Muslim hate-addicts, on the other hand, have clarified their positions. In the other direction.

[brentspeak]

22. "Let's kill the Pope because he says we are a violent people!"

:freak: :freak: :freak: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[papau]

33. :-)

:-)

[CJCRANE]

28. Stupid idiot..

but then again Somalia is a basket-case country and not worthy of being listened to on any subject.

[stepnw1f]

30. These Religious Leaders are all Dangerously Fanatical Idiots

The World would be a much more peaceful place without them. You never hear the good religious leaders say such things. Just contrast these two knuckleheads with the recent quotes from the Dali Llama.

Well, at least the Pope tried apologizing... but still, embarrassing and dangerous.

[roguevalley]

31. I am SICK! SICK! SICK! of organized religions. ALL OF THEM!

Islam isn't going to be a religion with a long term healthy outlook without the ability to talk and critique and hash out what it all means. Look at fundamental Christianity. Absolutism is going to kill us all.

[tnlefty]

34. And that I can certainly agree with. Fanatics in all of their shapes and

forms are dangerous critters. I have my own sort (fundies of the protesant persuasion) to deal with right here at home.

[Disturbed]

35. Stupid idiot.

Yeah. Not a smart idiot, is he?

Maybe these relgious leaders should arm wrestle to determine which god is the toughest, eh?

[tnlefty]

72. Well ya know, arm wrestling would be better than killin' them all.

I'd settle for arm wrestling or something other than 'kill'em all let god, or allah or whoever' sort'em out. Christianity isn't supposed to be a religion of violence but its' history and now tell a different tale. Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, okay. When are people going to figure out that it's the hardline nutjobs of ANY religion who are causing the problems?

Perhaps I should become Disturbed2?

edited to add: a prepositional phrase

[Divine Discontent]

50. I'm actually sick sick sick of those aligning themselves to the religions

who say one thing but advocate something different. what do they call them??? oh yeah, hypocrites. Bushy is a good one at that, "when I talk about war I'm actually talking about peace"


oh yeah, I heard Jesus saying that one all the timeeeeeeeeee, not.

Bush SCARES me!



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[LeftCoast]

38. Hmm, nobody seems to see the irony here

:)

[OKIsItJustMe]

75. I see the irony (I'm glad someone else does!)

This cleric is so offended by the suggestion that Islam might be a violent religion, that he wants someone to kill the pope.

[saltpoint]

39. You just can't beat these folks for rationale problem-solving.

"Hunt him down and kill him" ?!

Is it legitimate, then, for all the rest of us, whenever someone writes or says something we find objectionable -- whether in politics or religion, or you name it -- is it ok for us then to enjoin others of like mind to hunt the objector down and kill him? Or her?

[lynne]

40. Wonder if the pope paid this cleric to prove his point?

[Truthiness Inspector]

53. You can't be serious.

Do you think the Pope paid the people who firebombed churches in Gaza too? :eyes:

[lynne]

71. Guess I should have used that sarcasm emotion thingy -

- however, the cleric certainly did prove the pope's point.

[jgmiller]

43. Does anyone in charge of anything have a brain anymore?

Seriously, the pope's speech was poorly chosen and he should clarify it himself. However now we have religous knucklehead #2 confirming exactly what the pope was quoting. Don't any of these people think anymore?

Pope: Mohammaed and Islam are violent.
Cleric: No we're not! Now hunt him down and kill him!

Maybe if just a few people in charge these days had a brain we wouldn't be in these messes.

[The Stranger]

44. So the Neonazicons dig this up from Somalia, but Mann Coulter can cutely

talk about blowing up the New York Times building? And little Glen Beck can call -- virtually every fucking night -- for war against Muslims (which, one would assume, includes killing them (or, at least, more of them), yet where's the outrage?

[Evoman]

45. HE CALLED US EVIL AND VIOLENT!

LETS KILL HIM AND ALL OTHERS WHO OPPOSE US!

Um...is there some kind of disconnect in the brains of these idiots?

[Trajan]

46. ANTI-Muslim ......

ANTI-Judaism ...

ANTI-Christian ....

ANTI-Theism ....

PRO-Humanity ....

I am an ANTI-Theist Secular Humanist ....

And this is why ......

[Harper_is_Bush]

47. who cares, not me.

This Pope is an idiot, and the death threats are understandable. Death threats would occur if a Muslim famous in the Western world insulted Jesus.

So who the F cares?

This Pope is a criminal anyway.

[Zynx]

54. How is he a criminal?

[Harper_is_Bush]

66. Obstruction of justice in cases of child molestation:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html

Witholding evidence is against the law. So is ordering others to do so.

[Eugene]

52. BBC: Italian nun killed in Mogadishu

Last Updated: Sunday, 17 September 2006, 12:15 GMT 13:15 UK

Italian nun killed in Mogadishu

Gunmen have shot dead an Italian nun in the Somali capital Mogadishu,
witnesses and medical workers have said.

The attackers shot the nun three times in the back in a hospital
in the south of the city, also killing her bodyguard before fleeing
the scene.

The nun, who has not been named, is believed to be in her seventies.

It is unclear whether the shooting is connected with strong criticism
by radical Somali clerics about the Pope's recent comments on Islam.

-snip-

Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5353850.stm

[kamtsa]

55. "My religion is peaceful and I will kill you if you disagree"

[Henny Penny]

56. I've just noticed that the video of the offending speech

live.. in the raw so to speak is available here...

third link down on the right for any German speakers amongst you.

http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/31/0,3672,3978751,00.html

[RFKHumphreyObama]

57. Waleed Ali in Australia has a good perspective on this

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/subtle-scholar-but-what-an-inept-politician/2006/09/17/1158431582819.html

[Henny Penny]

58. Yes a very good article....

and it is hard not to agree with his conclusions:

"The trouble with being the Pope is that you are simultaneously a theologian and a politician. Theological discourse is regularly nuanced and esoteric. Political discourse is not.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said "the Pope spoke like a politician rather than as a man of religion", but the truth is the exact opposite. In theological terms, Benedict chose an example well suited to his narrow argument.

In political terms, his choice was poor. He was naive not to recognise how offensively it would translate into the crudeness of the public conversation, and should at least have made clear that he was not endorsing Manuel II's words."

[lgn19087]

59. What makes you think that it was unintentional?

His predecessor had been accused of being "soft" on islamic terrorism. He is trying to play to the conservative base, and even though he "regrets" it, how can we be sure that he wasn't looking to tick people off? He had to know what the Muslim reaction would be, and he comes off looking like the good guy with all the crazies running around trying to kill him.

[Henny Penny]

60. I've read the speech and watched the video...

You can too and draw your own conclusions.

Speech link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf

Video link:
http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/31/0,3672,3978751,00.html

[Bridget Burke]

76. I've read the speech as well.

It's quite over the heads of 99% of the populace. Too bad the Pope didn't realize the idiots would take those phrases out of context.

It's too bad that the current Pope isn't as charismatic & photogeneic as JPII. JPII was every bit as conservative, but many DU'ers hate Benedict because he isn't as charming. Or because they were raised to hate the Church anyway & love an excuse to prove they never escaped from their narrow-minded upbringings.

[cyberpj]

62. This is exactly what Bush wants - The Pope just did his dirty work. nt

Holy War - here we go!

[TankLV]

68. Oh, goodie - we have another fucking asshole turning up the heat

...and essentially proving the Pope's idiotic words RIGHT...

Who'd a thunk?!!

Could anybody else see this comming a mile away?!

[DaDeacon]

78. Get in line pal and good luck with that !?! (idiot) n/t