Content?
Link?
Something?

http://www.haaretz.com/...n/spages/604536.html

---

_______________________________________________

Thanks for the link.

And he didn'y condemn terrorist attacks in Tibet, the Phillipines, Bali, Ireland, or the Sudan.

Quit freakin whinin Israel. Professional victim nation.

---

_____________________________________


You call yourself a Christian, I call you hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot well, I think you're full of s**t

NeoCon by the Rolling Stones

And he didn'y condemn terrorist attacks in Tibet, the Phillipines, Bali, Ireland, or the Sudan.

Were there attacks there in the last week?

---

_______________________________________________

I didn't know that there was a week long cutoff timetable. And if the Pope was to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel he should also condemn Israel's own state sponsored terror campaign.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Sharon you fat whiner.

---

_____________________________________


You call yourself a Christian, I call you hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot well, I think you're full of s**t

NeoCon by the Rolling Stones

Aren't you clever. You got me on the time frame.

The pope was talking about "recent" terror attacks. All the ones he mentioned happened in the last 2-3 weeks. 2 weeks ago there was also a suicide bombing in Israel, that was not mentioned.

But anyway your bias is pretty evident, so there's no point in me trying to convince you.

---

_______________________________________________

Likewise

---

_____________________________________


You call yourself a Christian, I call you hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot well, I think you're full of s**t

NeoCon by the Rolling Stones

Condemn Israelis terror campaign?

What the US is doing is FAAARRR worse than Israel. There are bombings or fear in Israel EVERY day. Israel says stop, they dont, and they arent just going to sit back. Would you? Would the US?

The US has been attacked ONCE by terrorists and we are attacking people because of it who had nothing to do with it.

You dont know a fucking thing about me.

---

_______________________________________________

Whoa, man. You feeling OK? You just cursed at the guy for saying, "Likewise."

I'm just sayin'.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Further,you obviously don't know the history with the pope and the Jews (blood libel, etc). For years the entire church was at arms with the Jews (obvious), but it was until recently where there were MANY moves towards coming at peace with eachother. Pope Paul II was pushing that motive for his entire life.

This pope seems to be stepping backwards. When the peace between the church and jewish people was approaching, but is all in a sudden stopped -- we should be worried, especially the leader of Israel.

This pope seems to be stepping backwards. When the peace between the church and jewish people was approaching, but is all in a sudden stopped -- we should be worried, especially the leader of Israel.

Laughable. "Seems" to be stepping backwards? Like, whatever. I seem to recall that one of his first acts as pope was to meet with Jewish leaders. And I missed whatever steps backward you're dreaming up and spewing out.

Obviously, not mentioning Israel specifically in a condemnation of terrorism is the first step towards the next Holocaust.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

When you think of national terrorism, whats the first country you think of? Israel. No doubt about it.

To not mention it at all? That's not too credible IMO.

   

When that guy...

1) doesn't bother to get his facts correct in the first place (yeah no shit the pope didnt condemn the Bali attacks in a sentence referring to recent attacks)

2) comes back with nonsense like "Quit freakin whinin Israel. Professional victim nation. " and "Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Sharon you fat whiner."

3) hasn't been around long enough to take part of any of the Israel/Palestine discussions here but presumes to know that I'm biased

yeah, I'll curse at him. He certainly hasn't done a thing to earn my respect, that's for sure.

---

_______________________________________________

When you think of national terrorism, whats the first country you think of? Israel. No doubt about it.

Err, actually, not Israel.

To not mention it at all? That's not too credible IMO.

Yes, yes. You and Sharon have both peered into the tea leaves and seen the Pope as anti-Semite. Gotcha.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

hasn't been around long enough to take part of any of the Israel/Palestine discussions here but presumes to know that I'm biased

You presumed to know he's biased, jhc, and I submit that he has just as much evidence for his assumption as you have for yours.

yeah, I'll curse at him. He certainly hasn't done a thing to earn my respect, that's for sure.

OK, on that note, I'm out. Gettin' pretty testy in here, and I'm not sure exactly why. Never a good sign.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Not really the first problem between a jew and a german... "

.....or the first problem between Jews and the Catholic church. A good read is the book "Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII" by John Cornwell.

It's contraversial, but a very good read.

Ditto

---

_____________________________________


You call yourself a Christian, I call you hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot well, I think you're full of s**t

NeoCon by the Rolling Stones

Ditto

Here's what I know about you:

1) And he didn'y condemn terrorist attacks in Tibet, the Phillipines, Bali, Ireland, or the Sudan. = not paying attention

2) Quit freakin whinin Israel. Professional victim nation...And if the Pope was to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel he should also condemn Israel's own state sponsored terror campaign...Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Sharon you fat whiner. = yeah, I feel pretty confident, given your own words on this thread, saying you have a bias.

---

_______________________________________________

See my post above- - I submit that you're wrong on this one.

---

_______________________________________________

---

_____________________________________


You call yourself a Christian, I call you hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot well, I think you're full of s**t

NeoCon by the Rolling Stones

No it equals expressing an opinion that there are terror attacks all over the world in many different conflicts. Why does Israel always have to stand up whining "what about us" whenever someone condemns terror. Ohhh look its lunchtime and that German Pope hasn't condemned the PLO yet! anti-semite bastard!

Serious question: are there other recent terror attacks that the pope left off the list?

I can think of a reason why the pope may have left Israel off, and I'm sure things will be clarified with the Vatican envoy. Still, it's not like the Catholic Church and Israel/Jews have been age-old allies, so it's not surprising that Israel would be a little hypersensitive.

---

_______________________________________________

According to your article the last attack in Israel was 2 weeks ago. Perhaps the Pope's idea of recent is less than 2 weeks....good enough reason for you?

And as for being hypersensitive, how many times over the years has an Israeli leader condemned the killing of Catholics in Northern Ireland by the British?....I'd say ZERO.

This whole broohaha just more evidence of Israel's cult of victimhood.

---

_____________________________________


You call yourself a Christian, I call you hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot well, I think you're full of s**t

NeoCon by the Rolling Stones

Why don't you take a deep breath and wait for tomorrow's news or maybe even the day after. Give this pope a chance before you start throwing the "Catholics hate Jews" crap.

According to your article the last attack in Israel was 2 weeks ago. Perhaps the Pope's idea of recent is less than 2 weeks....good enough reason for you?

Not really, given the London attack with all the casualties was 7/7. But maybe that was the reason... if so the Vatican should clarify that, instead of refusing to comment.

And as for being hypersensitive, how many times over the years has an Israeli leader condemned the killing of Catholics in Northern Ireland by the British?....I'd say ZERO.

Not the point... it's not like an Israeli leader condemned other recent terror attacks but left out some attack on Catholics.

---

_______________________________________________

I'm just going by previous precedent. When he doesnt mention the most terrorized country in the world when speaking about terror attacks, thats a problem. Further, because each pope is going to be accused of being antisemitic (especially the ultra conservative ones like this one) then he should go OUT OF HIS WAY to show hes not (that is...IF hes not).

What he just did is pretty much like the red sox congradulating every team in baseball who won a world series...except the yankees.

Or rather condemning all of the diseases around the world and praying that they be cured...except cancer/aids.

"I condemn the common cold, influenza, and herpes because they killed someone last week"

I can think of a reason why the pope may have left Israel off

The likeliest reason, imo, is simply that the terrorism in Israel is of a different breed than the type the pope was talking about. The Israel/Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades now. I think it's pretty safe to say that Pope Benedict was addressing the wider spread of Islamic terror- you know, the same terrorism that we're in a war with right now.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That was sort of what I had in mind. My thought was that Israel/Palestine can be though of as a smouldering war zone. Except I ralized a little later that he did also mention Iraq which is essentially an highly active war zone.

The conflict in Iraq is quite analogous to the one in Israel - disenfranchised Arabs, some with a nationalistic bent, some with an Islamist bent, are fighting against a perceived unjust occupation. So why did the pope condemn the bombings in Iraq but not Israel?

---

_______________________________________________

The conflict in Iraq is quite analogous to the one in Israel <>So why did the pope condemn the bombings in Iraq but not Israel?

Because he's a German and a Catholic, and therefore hates Jews twice as much as anyone else could.

Or because the conflict in Iraq isn't really analogous to Israel at all.

Pick one.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

number 1?

---

_______________________________________________

Consider this: How many people outside the terrorists in Iraq think they have a valid position, and how many people advocate giving them large portions of what they demand, and how many people say we should encourage peaceful negotiations with them?

The Israeli/Palestinian situation is unique, or at least not of a sort with the rest of the terrorism mentioned specifically by the pope. If it isn't, we should start asking ourselves why our own official foreign policy is anti-semitic. Why is it terrorists need to be hunted down and killed/brought to justice/eradicated, unless they're only killing Israelis?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

How many people outside the terrorists in Iraq think they have a valid position, and how many people advocate giving them large portions of what they demand,

You mean like conceding to their demand that we leave Iraq? Pretty much the whole world in fact.

The Israeli/Palestinian situation is unique, or at least not of a sort with the rest of the terrorism mentioned specifically by the pope.

Iraq, Turkey, Britain and Egypt are all unique situations, and cannot be lumped together any more than you can lump Iraq, Turkey, Britain, Egypt and Israel.Why is it terrorists need to be hunted down and killed/brought to justice/eradicated, unless they're only killing Israelis?

Give m a break. Because the Israelis hunt and kill those ones.

---

_______________________________________________

Give m a break.

Give me break. You're seriously contending that the terrorism campaign is of a piece with the larger rise of Islamic terror?

Because the Israelis hunt and kill those ones.

Only when they manage to block out all our demands for peaceful negotiation, and when they do, we holler like it was our own brother they killed.

Stop arguing for its own sake, already. There's no story here. Sharon is squawking precisely because he knows that nobody else in the world associates his problems with the Palestinians with the broader war on terror, and this was a convenient opportunity for him to make the case that it is.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Sharon is squawking precisely because he knows that nobody else in the world associates his problems with the Palestinians with the broader war on terror, and this was a convenient opportunity for him to make the case that it is.


Then those same people shouldn't associate Iraq with that either. I think even you will agree with that one.

---

_______________________________________________

I think even you will agree with that one.

Ummmm. . . . No, I don't think so. Not entirely, at any rate. I think Iraq is at least partially the terrorist magnet that the administration claims it is, and in that respect, (to the degree that those we're fighting over there are simply Islamic extremists who want to kill Americans, and see Iraq as an opportunity to do so), it can be considered as part of the larger terrorism scene.

Is al Quaeda (or whatever you and adam have agreed to call it) not active in Iraq?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Why do they inevitably choose some senile old geezer, one foot in the grave to be the Pope? And all those millions of devouts lingering on his every word. Religions really don't make much sense.

Imagine priests who never touched a woman in their lives giving advice to couples on sex and marraige.

The worse case religious stupidity being the one that encourages it's followers to be so segregrate from the rest of humanity the followers are going around bombing people for no good reason except the one in their religious screwed up archaic minds.

I think Iraq is at least partially the terrorist magnet that the administration claims it is, and in that respect, (to the degree that those we're fighting over there are simply Islamic extremists who want to kill Americans, and see Iraq as an opportunity to do so), it can be considered as part of the larger terrorism scene.

OK, agreed. But that it's Islamic terrorism in the middle of a local anti-occupation uprising makes it a little different than Britain for example.

Is al Quaeda (or whatever you and adam have agreed to call it) not active in Iraq?


I would say no, in the as far as I know Bin Laden or his henchman aren't providing direction or funding for the activities in Iraq. At least I feel pretty confident in saying that Zarqawi is not really Al Qaeda - he has an indendent group with his own money and own recruits. He shares a common goal with Bin Laden, but I think his group is best seen as an Al Qaeda ally, rather than Al Qaeda itself. Remeber when he supposedly pledged allegiance to Bin Laden - there were statements form his group the next day along the lines of "no, actually we didnt mean that". From what I've read Zarqawi sees himself as a peer or even better than Bin Laden, not a lieutenant.

No one can say for sure though, that there aren't cells run by Bin Laden or his group in Iraq though.

---

_______________________________________________

Sigh. Like, whatever. It isn't necessarily that I disagree with most of that, but you've drilled down so far into tangential details and drifted so far from the original question, it's almost like I'm talking with the commodore.

The point is, there's Islamic terrorism, and then there's the terrorism in Israel.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You asked a question, and I thought a detailed answer would be nice, even if off subject.The point is, there's Islamic terrorism, and then there's the terrorism in Israel.

I still think you're creating too much of a false dichotomy. What exactly are the differences between the ultimate goal of Zarqawi and Hamas? Drive out the Crusader/Jew occupiers and establish an Islamic state.

Zarqawi and Hamas are much more alike than Zarqawi and Bin Laden - Zarqawi and Hamas are on the front lines.

---

_______________________________________________

still think you're creating too much of a false dichotomy.

Arguable, of course, but I don't think so. More to the original point, it is quite the stretch to accuse anybody who thinks that the Israeli conflict is distinct from the rest of Islamic terror is anti-semitic. As I've noted, our own foreign policy holds that position, and has for as long as I can remember.

What exactly are the differences between the ultimate goal of Zarqawi and Hamas? Drive out the Crusader/Jew occupiers and establish an Islamic state.

Ridiculous, and you know it.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

More to the original point, it is quite the stretch to accuse anybody who thinks that the Israeli conflict is distinct from the rest of Islamic terror is anti-semitic.

No, but a person who thinks its terrible to kill British, Turkish, Iraqi, and Egyptian civilians but not terrible to kill Israeli civilians might be. At any rate it's suggestive and I think although it's easy to decend into hyperbole about the next Holocaust, an explanation for thoe comments isnt asking too much.

Ridiculous, and you know it.

I most certainly do not. Please clarifiy.

---

_______________________________________________

No, but a person who thinks its terrible to kill British, Turkish, Iraqi, and Egyptian civilians but not terrible to kill Israeli civilians might be.

Yes, I'm sure Pope Benedict thinks it's perfectly OK to kill Israeli civilians, and I'm sure that's exactly what he meant to insinuate by not mentioning Israel specifically. That isn't at all an outlandish position people are trying to thrust upon him for some other reason.

I most certainly do not. Please clarifiy.

You don't really see any difference between the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the larger Islamic terror campaign? You don't think that the Palestinian violence fundamentally flows from what's basically a local dispute over land, and that the terrorism which we're confronted with across the globe springs from religious and ideological conflict? You think it would just go away if we got out of Saudi Arabia? (Oh, wait, we already did that.You think it would end if we pulled troops out of Iraq?)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You don't really see any difference between the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the larger Islamic terror campaign?

You're missing my point... I do see that difference.

You don't think that the Palestinian violence fundamentally flows from what's basically a local dispute over land

Fundamentally, I think this is what terrorism/insurgency in Iraq is about too. If you're going to condemn bombings in Iraq, I see it hard to justify not mentioning Israel too.

Again, I say that Hamas (you can add Islamic Jihad too) and Zarqawi have basically the same goals, and both are local Islamist groups who kill civillians in order to get rid of what they see is an unjest occupation. If you think this statement is ridiculous, please tell what specifically makes you think so.

---

_______________________________________________

You're missing my point... I do see that difference.

Then I'm unclear what the problem here is. So does the pope.

I say that Hamas (you can add Islamic Jihad too) and Zarqawi have basically the same goals, and both are local Islamist groups who kill civillians in order to get rid of what they see is an unjest occupation.

Start with the fact that the civilians Zarqawi kills aren't limited to the ones occupying Iraq. Which leads me to believe that it isn't merely the occupation that motivates him. I haven't heard a whole lot of stories about Hamas blowing up scores of Palestinians.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Start with the fact that the civilians Zarqawi kills aren't limited to the ones occupying Iraq. Which leads me to believe that it isn't merely the occupation that motivates him. I haven't heard a whole lot of stories about Hamas blowing up scores of Palestinians.

Dude, talk about getting away from the main point. The civilians he kills intentionally are all associated with the US occupation or the provisional govt. Of course he doesnt care about the score of others that get in the way either.

I'm sure you're not saying it's bad for Zarqawi to kill poor Iraqi civilians but not that bad for Hamas to kill Israeli civilians because the latter are associated with the occupation. You think if Zarqawi had only killed "legitimate" US miltary targets the pope wouldn't have condemned him?

If nothing else, answer if you will these questions for me

1. Is the deliberate targeting of civillians exer justified?

2. If no, then why do bombings in Iraq and elsewhere warrant condemnations but the ones in Israel don't?

---

_______________________________________________

1. Is the deliberate targeting of civillians exer justified? No. (Now your turn- what do you think?)

2. If no, then why do bombings in Iraq and elsewhere warrant condemnations but the ones in Israel don't? Because apparently Pope Benedict agrees with both of us that Israel doesn't fit into the larger phenomenon of Islamic terror that he was addressing, and he agrees with me, and a whole bunch of other people, that Iraq does, at least in large part. Or, he's Catholic and German, and hates the Jews twice as much as everyone else.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

OK, I've read some comments from the Vatican that explain a lot to me. Both fair points.

There's this:

"The words of Benedict XVI referred explicitly to attacks of 'recent days'. It is surprising that it was decided to distort what the Holy Father meant, using it as a pretext," the Vatican said in a statement.

The Church, and Benedict himself, had many times condemned terrorism "from wherever it comes and against whomever it is aimed," it said.

http://www.cnn.com/...26/pope.israel.reut/



And also this:

``It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation and (that is) for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law,'' said a Vatican statement, which had an unusually blistering tone.

``It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence,'' said the statement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...280,-5173983,00.html

Since I dont think that Israel's response to the Netanya bombing was unduly harsh at all (unlike some past incidents), I think the Vatican's is just getting irritated now.

---

_______________________________________________

Since I dont think that Israel's response to the Netanya bombing was unduly harsh at all (unlike some past incidents), I think the Vatican's is just getting irritated now.

That might be so, and to tell you the truth, I don't blame them. (And while Israel's response to Netanya might not have been overly harsh, they also have a point there in saying that it would be hard to issue condemnations for every Palestinian attack, while not saying anything about the Israeli response, which is often out of bounds, at least from the Vatican's perspective. Maybe Israel should be happy the Vatican just leaves them alone and unmentioned, no?)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Maybe Israel should be happy the Vatican just leaves them alone and unmentioned, no?

At times, yesah, I agree.

Anyway, I'm satisfied with the Vatican response. Time to move on.

---

_______________________________________________

Hey Teege, did you see this article on CNN about the Pope.

http://www.cnn.com/...e.germany/index.html