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.

---

_______________________________________________