BF2S Forums Pope sparks fury

churches attacked on the west bank:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene … ticlePage1

Lisik something like this would have been good enough. As far as the whole pope thing goes, an apology has been made, so this post is finished.

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'."


K from that statement the only thing i believe a Muslim has reason to be angry at is that he was "evil and inhuman" how ever the rest is just fact, he did spread his faith through war just like every other religion in the world. Any religion that bases itself on death but tries to preach kindness and forgiveness etc is just a pile of crap imho, personally i think all orgainised religion should just be banned etc.

CameronPoe wrote:

How 'systematic'. LOL. I suppose Haditha was 'systematic' killing of Iraqis? LOL. By definition a riot is not systematic, by definition it is in fact riotous. LOL

sys·tem·at·ic Pronunciation (sst-mtk) also sys·tem·at·i·cal (--kl)
        Purposefully regular; methodical

Riots at constant intervals is purposefully regular. Thats retarded to think because riots are not precise or controlled they cannot be systematic.

CameronPoe wrote:

that Mexicans have not advocated a satellite state of Mexico in USA, unlike the Zionists

Oh you mean the partition that was designed and push by the United Nations ? Yeah I suppose you think just becuase Israel agreed to the partition that they were the ones who invented it ? Oh noes a zionist plot ? More like a United Nations plan to alleviate the Jews suffering under Arab violence.

CameronPoe wrote:

For me declaring a state of Israel in Palestine was a declaration of war. And that's how it was understood by the arabs.

Again this is the partition designed by the UNITED NATIONS, you know the organization you love to support every time they sanction Israel. What the Arabs saw was the last opportunity to expell the Jews not some declaration of war by the Jews.

CameronPoe wrote:

Oh yeah - 'don't declare war on your neighbour' - roughly translates as 'sit there and take it like a bitch up the ass' - very un-neocon like attitude for you to be holding.

That one of the problems with you douchebag .. you see only your side and if I'm not on your side I simply must be a right wing Republican who watches FOX news. I'm not a fuckin "neo-con" in fact I bet we agree on many other subjects, aside from this one of course. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat or a Neo Conservative or a Christian Conservative. I'm pretty liberal on most fronts . I hate Bush Cheney Rumsfeld and FOX news. You have absolutely no understanding of me or my positions and personally I believe you are a product of Ireland's sympathising with a cause that has absolutely no continuity with the Protestant Catholic conflicts.

I can sympathize with the Palestinians to a certain extent, I think Israel needs to leave certain settlements that obviously prioritize a handfull of Jews over a much larger community of Arabs. I'm not certain what kind but some sort of concession is due to Palestine but intifada's and wars ruin chances of that happening. I don't support some warped zionist cause like the Kahanist's. If you associate zionist's and Kahanists with the direction Israel is taking you're wrong and there is a perfect example of the difference between the two entities. In Israel Kahanists are watched by the govt and harassed and jailed. In Palestine they elect terrorist groups like the PLO and Hamas and encourage and promote suicide bombings and terrorism.

Last edited by ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ (2006-09-17 08:54:56)

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

sys·tem·at·ic Pronunciation (sst-mtk) also sys·tem·at·i·cal (--kl)
        Purposefully regular; methodical

Riots at constant intervals is purposefully regular. Thats retarded to think because riots are not precise or controlled they cannot be systematic.

Personally, I don't think these riots were designed and orchestrated to purposefully eradicate all jews from Palestine. I don't really see much evidence that they wished to systematically eradicate jews, who had lived there in relative peace for hundreds of years.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Oh you mean the partition that was designed and push by the United Nations ? Yeah I suppose you think just becuase Israel agreed to the partition that they were the ones who invented it ? Oh noes a zionist plot ? More like a United Nations plan to alleviate the Jews suffering under Arab violence.

I don't agree with the UN plan. The general Palestinian populace were never consulted and all states in teh region were against the plan. Hardly 'democratic'. THe arabs paid the price for German crimes.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Again this is the partition designed by the UNITED NATIONS, you know the organization you love to support every time they sanction Israel. What the Arabs saw was the last opportunity to expell the Jews not some declaration of war by the Jews.

Addressed by my point deriding the UN plan. I don't love the UN. It is ineffective and pointless because of the vetoes - designed to monopolise power in the hands of the dominant world players: I'm into equalisation and levelling of playing fields. I sometimes bring up Israeli UN violations to demonstrate points when Americans talk about Iraq and fail to see the double standards of successive US administrations.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

That one of the problems with you douchebag .. you see only your side and if I'm not on your side I simply must be a right wing Republican who watches FOX news. I'm not a fuckin "neo-con" in fact I bet we agree on many other subjects, aside from this one of course. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat or a Neo Conservative or a Christian Conservative. I'm pretty liberal on most fronts . I hate Bush Cheney Rumsfeld and FOX news. You have absolutely no understanding of me or my positions and personally I believe you are a product of Ireland's sympathising with a cause that has absolutely no continuity with the Protestant Catholic conflicts.

I can sympathize with the Palestinians to a certain extent, I think Israel needs to leave certain settlements that obviously prioritize a handfull of Jews over a much larger community of Arabs. I'm not certain what kind but some sort of concession is due to Palestine but intifada's and wars ruin chances of that happening. I don't support some warped zionist cause like the Kahanist's. If you associate zionist's and Kahanists with the direction Israel is taking you're wrong and there is a perfect example of the difference between the two entities. In Israel Kahanists are watched by the govt and harassed and jailed. In Palestine they elect terrorist groups like the PLO and Hamas and encourage and promote suicide bombings and terrorism.

That's fair enough - I'm not prejudging. Obviously I don't know you - all I can do is make assumptions based on what I've read of your posts. The Irish problem is not one of religion. It is territorial and based on righting the injustice of invasion, land stealth and culture destruction. There are similarities between the Irish issue and the Palestinian issue. Given - no two situation are exactly the same.

I thought Kahanism was illegal? Modern zionists and the zionists of yesteryear differ slightly. Israel now has a state - why does it feel the need to steal more land, dispossess more arabs of their homes and cut Palestine into myriad non-contiguous cantons that will never make a feasible state?

Palestine had moderates at the helm for ages but hard-line Israelis wouldn't engage them properly because they wanted to continue to steal more land and build more settlements. You say Palestine elect terrorists. That may be true but I also say that Israel elects terrorists. Israel has turned into a terrorist state, it just uses laser guided bombs, targeted assassinations and apache helicopters to do their job. Terrorists in uniforms.

A lot of twisted facts and words of hate being typed...  May I suggest a little reading be done before posting on such serious topics {the children are listening honey}.

IMHO - The Pope incorporated a quote from the fourteenth century into a speech and if you read it,
in context, you'll find nothing offensive.  It seems the issue is the double standards in which the radical Clerics/Imams choose to twist things so as to keep their base energized - terrorist tactics! 

It's getting to the point that nothing can be said about the Muslims without fear of the Clerics/Imams setting off demonstrations, riots, and harm against anyone who doesn't agree with their specific views.
Oh, and by the way it looks like the killing of the sixty year old Nun who was shot in the back at the SOS hospital by two gunmen in Somalia was linked to the local Imam who called for the death of those who spoke against Islam. 

Also, you'll find several views in this thread that tend to believe that certain things shouldn't be said about Islam because it might offend the Muslims and cause harm - simply put you have just bowed to terrorism!
Muslim extremest have done everything to insult, offend, harm, and kill those, in every part of the world, who disagree with anything they say and do or who don't subscribe to their views  - this is terrorism!  Now go back and read the quote, not from the Pope, but from a fourteenth century Byzantine Emperor - one would now think that he was absolutely correct wouldn't we.  He figured it out a long time ago - when will you!?!?

It's about time that the world let's these extremest know that we will not be intimidated or become submissive to their views.  We need to stand united as humans to tell these extremest that they need to conform to society and despite their "religious" teachings it's no longer going to be tolerated for them to commit acts of terrorism against anyone, including themselves, and their double standards are unacceptable!
One point five billion and climbing - stand up now to the extremest and their terrorist tactics or convert.

Kaboom.

ps - Do you think this is what Mohammed really wanted?  I think he was a man of his time and fought for his people and would have adapted as the world became more civilized.  Mohammed was pure - it's these twisted clerics/Imams who have perverted his teachings for their own purposes - those are the ones who should have Jihad called against them.

mafia996630 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

No i haven't seen that. i guess many of these extremists do call for the deaths of non-Muslims.
Anyway there is noting offence about "infidal" all it means is:.

a person who does not believe in your particular religion, denomination or religious tradition. Similar to "Unbeliever" but more of a "snarl" word.

I do agree, you cant blame an entire race, that's why i hate isreal. But these people have been getting screwed for very long by an army which is mainly jewish, they see JEWS when they look at isreal. Still don't think you can blame them for hating jews. Yes they are prejudice according to our standards. Their is no "we", you can criticize the Muslim religion all you want, the whole bf2s forum can do it for all i give a shit, but when it comes to the pope, you would expect him to have a bit more patience.

TO them isreal=jews.

But that's ridiculous. I don't see Iraq as every muslim, even though most of the country IS muslim.

And you hate israel for blaming an entire race? lol I don't see them telling their kids to hate palestineans on TV :S..

Before I became an athiest I was jewish, and the main rabbi at the temple I went to always used to pray for peace in israel with palestineans, and said that the school children would do the same (when he lived there). You may think they're preaching hate, but that's not true, they do infact just want to live in peace with the palestineans. but now we're getting off topic, let's stay on the topic of this.

So what religion do you first think off when u think Iraq ?

i hate isreal for many reasons. Because signing bombs is what they do (the kids).


Peace can't be reached while isreal is occupying lands and killing so many people. And yes we are getting of topic, but its kol.

I told you, muslim. But I don't see them as EVERY muslim and just because a few of them blow things up I don't blame every muslim in the world...which is exactly what the extremists and the followers of them do to the jews.

and again, I don't care if you hate israel, that's your opinion, but when these scumbags hate JEWS in all, that's prejudice and nothing short of it.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

I do and they groups that comitted some acts expressly said that was thier intention.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I concede the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time did hold those kind of intentions though.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

The Arabs paid for thier own crimes. Saying Israel exists as a misguided punishment for the holocaust is garbage. Israel exists becuase of the Arab resistance to Jewish immigration plain and simple.

Again, agree to disagree. I disagree with the international community shitting all over the arabs by suggesting a minority group be given a state on their land. A group bolstered by uncontrolled immigration the Palestinians could do nothing about as the region was under British administration. For me it goes back to the original crime - unjustly bringing the state of Israel into existence in that particular region. I would resists any kind of immigration aimed at establishing a state in my country, maybe you are more casual about territorial issues. 

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

You're descirbing the same thing. Kahanism and Kahane specifically started the "greater Israel" movement. What you percieve as currently exspansionist I believe is incorporating settlements taken after the 67 and 73 war. The legitimacy of these settlements is certainly disputed and some of those are the ones I refer to as needed to be evacutated for causing undo burden on a larger Palestinian population. Places like Hebron are there to stay and personally I don't feel the right to decide for Israel after 48 67 73 etc what they deserve for reprocussions for their sons dying to fight a war they did not launch. This land they are "stealing" was "stolen" a long time ago.

Hebron: 400 odd Israelis among a population of several hundred thousand Palestinians - so needless and antagonistic. The legitimacy of the settlements is not disputed. The only one who disputes the fact that they are illegitimate is Israel. No nation on earth recognises Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem.

Quote from Ariel Sharon (not a Kahanist - a zionist, war criminal and prime minister of Israel):
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."

That is quite simply stealing. The establishment of settlements was unnecessary - expansionism was the name of the game. For me the Arabs had, and have, legitimate cause for attacking Israel so I don't agree with your 'might makes right' view on the spoils of war.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Even if they evacuated every settlement in the West bank I believe there would still be intifada's. Settlements are not the real cause but Israel's existance is the root of the conflict. Untill Israel ceases to exist and all Jews leave the middle east there will allways be killing. The difference in my opinion is that the Jews have the desire and capability to live peacefully with thier neighbor while the Palestinains may not.

I disagree with your assertion that Israel have the desire for peace but I agree with your assertion that they have the capability to bring it about and I agree with you that giving back what rightfully belongs to the Palestinians probably still won't end the conflict. There is too much hatred towards Israel at this stage. They are in for perpetual war.

Major_Spittle wrote:

I think everyone should act a reasonable the the children of Islam do.  Since the morons defending these idiots seem to think Islam is so peaceful, maybe the Christians need to start killing random Muslims everytime anything is said about Jesus or their religion.  I am sure CameronPoe will step right up and defend a Cardinal preaching hate and violence toward Muslims after the Muslims speak hate towards the Pope.  A group of Christians killing any given Mulsim after a Christian church is burnt is justified, Hell they brought it on themselves, right Cameron????

Morons

CP your a popular person as usual.

Six pages and were still going on about something out of context.

If your going to have a debate, you should know what your talking about.  Yes I am talking about most everyone in this thread. 

Read the speech for yourself.  DO NOT take someone else's word for what happened.  Take 5 minutes.  Read the speech.  Come back and tell us all what your thoughts on what he SAID.  Not about what somebody else tells you they think he said.

Don't let one assholes take on the matter color your own opinion.  Form one of your own by reading the speech.  Don't read an article, don't listen to the radio, don't listen to the TV.  They are all looking for a story. 

The story is that the Pope said some idiot during the 14th century took a harsh view on Muslims.  That is all.

Don't believe?  Read the speech.  READ THE SPEECH!!  Read the speech.

Did anyone notice that the Pope didn't apologize for what he said?  He apologized for how the Muslims reacted.  Why do you think he did that?  Probably because he was surprised by the reaction.

But don't listen to me.  Read the speech for yourself...I just cant say it enough.

Good luck with that.

CameronPoe wrote:

We'll have to agree to disagree.

If you enjoy disagreeing with historical facts... the Black Hand engaged in old fashion racism against all jews zionist or not. In the 20's the Jews simply bought homes and thier numbers were very low so any defense of saying they were just staving off some Jew invasion would be ignorant.

Maybe this isnt the greatest addition to this discussion but just a little snippet. I'm sure youre aware the Arab Jewish conflict isnt new ..in fact in an account written by Mohammed in the Qur'an that when the Jews didnt defend Medina he executed Jews himself. Also later in the Qu'ran he recounts that instance and other like his explusion from Mecca that you cannot trust Jews and they are unbelievers that should be killed.

CameronPoe wrote:

For me it goes back to the original crime - unjustly bringing the state of Israel into existence in that particular region

That is your opinion but I think you convinently forgoet the 50 years that led to that decision. Things happen for a reason and alot of history took place and a sequence of events IMO led to a reasonable decision by the UN.

CameronPoe wrote:

Hebron: 400 odd Israelis among a population of several hundred thousand Palestinians

I was trying to name the largest one out of memory aside from Jerusalem but I don't think I picked the right one. W/e its named there are a majority of Jews there but anyways while there might only be 500 Jews in Hebron itself there are 3000 in Kiryat Arba which is adjoined to Hebron but still a disproportionate enough number that they should consider evacuating.

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't agree with your 'might makes right' view on the spoils of war.

That is how just about every country on planet earth was founded. One entity defeats another entity and the winner decides the politics and borders. Whether they were just in attacking Israel or not they lost and in these situations reprocussions are placed. Since the Arabs launched the war and lost they are in no position to dictate the terms of the reprocussions. In all fairness they could have expelled every Arab from Palestine had they chose to.

CameronPoe wrote:

There is too much hatred towards Israel at this stage. They are in for perpetual war.

Well they didnt need any built up hatred or some series of injustices or occupations to start wars in 48, 67, and 73 so I hardly think they need that disctinction now to legitimise continuing. The Palestinians and Arabs perpetually refuse to accept any form of Israel existance and several wars and a few intifada's later the Jews no longer trust thier neighbor to not try to kill them. This leads to the longest occupation in history and a ridiculous amount of hatred distrust and tension between the IDF and Palestine.

I believe the current status is a direct result of these intifada's the IDF and Israel are finally in a status of just accpeting that they are in a perpetual conflct with no solution. Personally I think people like Hamas and the PLO are to blame becuase Israel is there to stay and no amount of suicide bombing or intifada's can defeat them. They absolutely refuse to accept thier defeat no matter how many times it happens.

mafia996630 wrote:

Yes iam sure everyone has heard this story, and those who haven't (http://www.itv.com/news/world_5cbae3408 … e48d0.html). This is what he said:

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'."

Discuss.

I think it was a very bad idea saying this after the whole cartoon thing, and in general, remarks about such a sensitive subject should have been left for another day. And the whole intended thing is bullshit, how can you say for example "i hate all black people", and then say "i intended to say, i hate all black people who commit crimes" (i know it was not that direct but still).

On a side note, just want to say good luck to cpt.fass1. Peace man.

Not to worry, Because Just to appease a Religion(but god forbid we do it for ANY other one) Noone can even show, or draw an image of Mohammad. So in the intrest of not sparking public outrage, newspapers would have to portray mohammad as a blank page. This leads me to believe that the guy didnt even exist really. Because if he did, Why cant ANYONE agree on what the guy even looked like? Theres so many conflicting stories about him that it leads one to believe that he was Created just to further a cause or created with the intent to distort his socalled teachings to also further a cause. Hence the Extremeists.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Pope joined Hitler youth for protection, if he did not join, he might of been suspected of being unpatriot, thus sent to a death camp

The entire vatican are a bunch of evil extreme right wing nut jobs.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Yes iam sure everyone has heard this story, and those who haven't (http://www.itv.com/news/world_5cbae3408 … e48d0.html). This is what he said:

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'."

Discuss.

I think it was a very bad idea saying this after the whole cartoon thing, and in general, remarks about such a sensitive subject should have been left for another day. And the whole intended thing is bullshit, how can you say for example "i hate all black people", and then say "i intended to say, i hate all black people who commit crimes" (i know it was not that direct but still).

On a side note, just want to say good luck to cpt.fass1. Peace man.

Not to worry, Because Just to appease a Religion(but god forbid we do it for ANY other one) Noone can even show, or draw an image of Mohammad. So in the intrest of not sparking public outrage, newspapers would have to portray mohammad as a blank page. This leads me to believe that the guy didnt even exist really. Because if he did, Why cant ANYONE agree on what the guy even looked like? Theres so many conflicting stories about him that it leads one to believe that he was Created just to further a cause or created with the intent to distort his socalled teachings to also further a cause. Hence the Extremeists.

Prophet Muhammad was opposed to pictures of living beings in his life so it is a big deal for Muslims to ensure his picture is not tried at all, for teaching, preaching or jokes.