'The War Is Not Over'

[Reality]

HOLY SH**

Pope invites Muslims to dialogue, slams "holy wars"
By Philip Pullella and Madeline Chambers

REGENSBURG, Germany (Reuters)- Pope Benedict invited Muslims on Tuesday to join a dialogue of cultures based on the premise that the concept of an Islamic "holy war" is unreasonable and against God's nature.

In a major lecture at Regensburg University, where he taught theology between 1969 to 1977, Benedict said Christianity is tightly linked to reason and contrasted this view with those who believe in spreading their faith by the sword.

The 79-year-old Pontiff avoided making a direct criticism of Islam, packaging his comments in a highly complex academic lecture with references ranging from ancient Jewish and Greek thinking to Protestant theology and modern atheism.

In his lecture, the Pope quoted, among others, the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos who wrote that Mohammad had brought things "only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added in his own words: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

Benedict several times quoted Emperor Manuel's argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable and that acting without reason -- "logos" in the original Greek -- was against God's nature.

At the end of his lecture, the Pope again quoted Manuel and said: "It is to this great 'logos', to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."

I have a funny feeling this war has JUST BEGUN!

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.asp...

[Bill R]

Reality wrote:

HOLY SH**
Pope invites Muslims to dialogue, slams "holy wars"
By Philip Pullella and Madeline Chambers
REGENSBURG, Germany (Reuters)- Pope Benedict invited Muslims on Tuesday to join a dialogue of cultures based on the premise that the concept of an Islamic "holy war" is unreasonable and against God's nature.
In a major lecture at Regensburg University, where he taught theology between 1969 to 1977, Benedict said Christianity is tightly linked to reason and contrasted this view with those who believe in spreading their faith by the sword.
The 79-year-old Pontiff avoided making a direct criticism of Islam, packaging his comments in a highly complex academic lecture with references ranging from ancient Jewish and Greek thinking to Protestant theology and modern atheism.
In his lecture, the Pope quoted, among others, the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos who wrote that Mohammad had brought things "only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added in his own words: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
Benedict several times quoted Emperor Manuel's argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable and that acting without reason -- "logos" in the original Greek -- was against God's nature.
At the end of his lecture, the Pope again quoted Manuel and said: "It is to this great 'logos', to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."
I have a funny feeling this war has JUST BEGUN!
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.asp...

Good post. Thanks.

[Reality]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Good post. Thanks.

No problem - I've never seen anything like this. Its truly amazing.

[Sandy Las Vegas]

Kearney wrote:

Bush's War will not be over until Bush is out of office. Whosoever follows Bish whether Republican or Democrat can make the appropriate changes to correct Bush mistakes by blaming Bush. He most certainly will be blamed as it will be politically expedient to do so in order to regain World Respect for the USA. Of course, Dems would blame harder since the mirror reflection upon them is not strong in reality.
One thing the new administration should do is drop the "war on terror" terminology. That just incites a erroneous methodology for military solution. What is required in international cooperation and diplomacy. I ho0pe an internationl anti terrorist police force of some kind will be formed.
Thank god, only two more years of this moron.

Why don't you want to call the war on terror what it is, it is a war on terror because terrorists want to kill all of the infidels, that is their mindset. I hope the new administration also calls it what it really is and uses the same terminology. If I remember right most all of the liberals saw the same information President Bush saw, and most of them also voted for it before they voted against it. You say the war won't be over until President Bush is out of office, I really don't think the war will be over until the terrorists are gone, or we are gone. If you think putting a liberal in office will resolve this, I think you are dreaming. All they will do is try to pacify them while all the while they are planning their next big attack on America. No one is going to change the mind of a terrorist. Not even a liberal.

[Tristan]

TWINKIE wrote:

<quoted text>
Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes.

lol, good one

[Bill R]

Sandy Las Vegas wrote:

<quoted text>Why don't you want to call the war on terror what it is, it is a war on terror because terrorists want to kill all of the infidels, that is their mindset. I hope the new administration also calls it what it really is and uses the same terminology. If I remember right most all of the liberals saw the same information President Bush saw, and most of them also voted for it before they voted against it. You say the war won't be over until President Bush is out of office, I really don't think the war will be over until the terrorists are gone, or we are gone. If you think putting a liberal in office will resolve this, I think you are dreaming. All they will do is try to pacify them while all the while they are planning their next big attack on America. No one is going to change the mind of a terrorist. Not even a liberal.

One of the most fascinating things in this great
divide between conservatives and liberals on this
issue is that the liberals are the ones who champion
many of the things about America that radical
Islamists hold in most contempt and point to as
proof of our depraved state as a culture.

The list is a long, long one. Sexual freedom in-
cluding acceptance of homosexuality even to the point
of recognizing homosexual marriage. The quest to
decriminalize drug use ... blatant use of sexuality
in media and advertizing. Opposition to the presence
of religious symbols of any kind in government.
A lenient appproach to crime and punishment. The
denigration of Jesus as a great religious teacher.

And these are the people who believe that, come 2008,
they will be able to command the respect of radical
Islamists?

[Reality]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
One of the most fascinating things in this great
divide between conservatives and liberals on this
issue is that the liberals are the ones who champion
many of the things about America that radical
Islamists hold in most contempt and point to as
proof of our depraved state as a culture.
The list is a long, long one. Sexual freedom in-
cluding acceptance of homosexuality even to the point
of recognizing homosexual marriage. The quest to
decriminalize drug use ... blatant use of sexuality
in media and advertizing. Opposition to the presence
of religious symbols of any kind in government.
A lenient appproach to crime and punishment. The
denigration of Jesus as a great religious teacher.
And these are the people who believe that, come 2008,
they will be able to command the respect of radical
Islamists?

I never thought of it like that before. Here conservatives are fighting for Democrats freedom more so then republicans freedom and the liberals are trying to stab them in the back for it. If the so called "Neo-Cons" were realy trying to take over - don't you think they would let Radical Islam prosper & win?
Boy did you open a whole new can of worms.

[Bill R]

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
I never thought of it like that before. Here conservatives are fighting for Democrats freedom more so then republicans freedom and the liberals are trying to stab them in the back for it. If the so called "Neo-Cons" were realy trying to take over - don't you think they would let Radical Islam prosper & win?
Boy did you open a whole new can of worms.

Reality: All I am really saying is that the liberal
Democrat has more to lose ... many of those cherished
rights and freedoms ... than traditional Republicans
who are inclined to a more traditional approach of
giving religion an appropriate place in American life.
Along with it are values many liberals mock ---
traditional marriage, family values, discipline,
modesty, etc. I do not regard myself as a neo-con
and am not a member of the Religious Right, but it
is striking to me that the liberal side of the
political spectrum doesn't see that their ideology
is abhorrent to radical ... even traditional ...
Islam.

[Sandy Las Vegas]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
One of the most fascinating things in this great
divide between conservatives and liberals on this
issue is that the liberals are the ones who champion
many of the things about America that radical
Islamists hold in most contempt and point to as
proof of our depraved state as a culture.
The list is a long, long one. Sexual freedom in-
cluding acceptance of homosexuality even to the point
of recognizing homosexual marriage. The quest to
decriminalize drug use ... blatant use of sexuality
in media and advertizing. Opposition to the presence
of religious symbols of any kind in government.
A lenient appproach to crime and punishment. The
denigration of Jesus as a great religious teacher.
And these are the people who believe that, come 2008,
they will be able to command the respect of radical
Islamists?

I totally agree with you, they are for everything that is wrong. I talk to liberals all the time, my niece attended a college in Santa Clara by the time she graduated she was convinced Jeffery Dommer while still alive, should to be released from prison and only needed psychiatric care. I'm sure her mind has been altered by many liberal professors, I can't believe what has happened to this country in the last 15 years or so everything is backwards now. We are going downhill fast. The liberal agendas will destroy us. All they really care about is regaining power. That is why everything, and it doesn't matter what it is they blame President Bush.

[Reality]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Reality: All I am really saying is that the liberal
Democrat has more to lose ... many of those cherished
rights and freedoms ... than traditional Republicans
who are inclined to a more traditional approach of
giving religion an appropriate place in American life.
Along with it are values many liberals mock ---
traditional marriage, family values, discipline,
modesty, etc. I do not regard myself as a neo-con
and am not a member of the Religious Right, but it
is striking to me that the liberal side of the
political spectrum doesn't see that their ideology
is abhorrent to radical ... even traditional ...
Islam.

I am in agreement Bill - Nor am I a "Neo-Con" Just looking at it from another perspective is all - Just never thought of it how you put it - Great post by the way.
Nothing on the "Liberal Agenda" is what Radicals see as "Normal" and Why is it I had to see that for the first time in a forum?

[Reality]

One more question before I head to bed:

Today, we again hear the democrat lies about Saddam being 'contained' and 'in a box'(Jay Rockafeller for example).
Well, in early 1945, the Nazis were no longer in France, the German army was broken and was no longer an offensive threat, and Hitler was 'contained.'
Why didn't we leave him in office?

The Dems of today say that about Saddam.
What threat did Hitler pose in 1945?
Why take Berlin?
Why the rush to the Elbe, Hitler was no threat, he was contained!!!
Japan was "contained" too
most of their navy was on the bottom of the pacific -
?????

[YO Mamma]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Yo....while you are READING go to the dictionary
and look up your key word in your post ... "diluting"
as in "diluting yourself." I think I know what you
meant but will trust you will do some READING and
make your correction. Looking forward to it.

The last and only defense of a desperate man is to criticize a spelling error. Congratulations on the post count ++

[Tristan]

Reality wrote:

One more question before I head to bed:
Today, we again hear the democrat lies about Saddam being 'contained' and 'in a box'(Jay Rockafeller for example).
Well, in early 1945, the Nazis were no longer in France, the German army was broken and was no longer an offensive threat, and Hitler was 'contained.'
Why didn't we leave him in office?
The Dems of today say that about Saddam.
What threat did Hitler pose in 1945?
Why take Berlin?
Why the rush to the Elbe, Hitler was no threat, he was contained!!!
Japan was "contained" too
most of their navy was on the bottom of the pacific -
?????

Mainly it was agreed by the Big 3 Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, that only "Unconditional Surrender" would be acceptable.

[YO Mamma]

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
And you have an idea? What is YOUR idea of what happned to THOES people under the US control - What happned to THOES people under Terrorest control?
Your idea ot torture is misguided. We don not stone women - we do not cut off ears - hands - and OTHER extremadies - you have no clue. I suggest your diluting yourself or just pouring gas on the fire for your own agenda.

I guess all those CIA and Military police that spoke out on the horrors they inflicted to innocent Muslims were all rubbish then. It must be an elaborate hoax then that it is well known that the US uses Chinese water TORTUE techniques and fly’s terrorists to Egypt so they can have their fingernails pulled out, or how about the beatings that MPs in GITMO inflicted. Hmmm, seems like you dont know anything about your own country and its dealings. Maybe smo that doesn’t know what hey are talking about should shut the funk up, dont you agree. And I suppose that the published material and the ruling that Rummy’s orders were declared torture is nothing. I guess then you can ignore the fact that the UN has declared it torture too. But I guess you know better than the International communities leader, the United Nations, the Supreme Court and the FBI as well as bipartisan reports.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tortu...

[Crusher]

Ever since Bush got in office the fires of Hell have been burning hotter and brighter to accommodate all of the sinner Republicans who will be arriving. There seems to be no end of the corruption and sin we are seeing. It is not stuff like "liberal agendas" (whatever the hell that means) are destroying us, it IS Bush who is screwing Americans, pure and simple for everyone to see who isn't blinded by his use of fear to control the masses. Hitler used the fear tactic also and you may recall where that took us. Something else to think about is that a lot of contributors here can remember back 15 years or so. Well, that spells OLD. As in OLD FARTS. Old people start yelling and screaming about "liberal" every time something changes, including the traffic lights and their hemorrhoid cream.

[Reality]

Tristan wrote:

<quoted text>
Mainly it was agreed by the Big 3 Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, that only "Unconditional Surrender" would be acceptable.

Ok Im still up -
But isn't that exactly what Bush is looking for too? Why can't the democrats agree on this? What is their plan of action if they take over in 2008?

Why didnt we just sign a cease fire agreement and leave him contained?

NOW im done - might not comment back for a few days

[snowman allentown PA]

Tristan wrote:

<quoted text>
Mainly it was agreed by the Big 3 Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, that only "Unconditional Surrender" would be acceptable.

The only problem is that these scum will not surrender. they believe in total annihilation of the infidels. They are on a jihad, and I must congratulate them on being so tenacious in there jihad. They have picked on us the most powerful nation on the Earth , knowing full well that the gutless people who are no longer in power will do anything to get back there, including cutting and running. Where is your guts America and the PRESS.

[Stan]

Reality wrote:

One more question before I head to bed:
Today, we again hear the democrat lies about Saddam being 'contained' and 'in a box'(Jay Rockafeller for example).
Well, in early 1945, the Nazis were no longer in France, the German army was broken and was no longer an offensive threat, and Hitler was 'contained.'
Why didn't we leave him in office?
The Dems of today say that about Saddam.
What threat did Hitler pose in 1945?
Why take Berlin?

Why the rush to the Elbe, Hitler was no threat, he was contained!!!
Japan was "contained" too
most of their navy was on the bottom of the pacific -
?????

Why the rush to the Elbe
why because like the relationship between Bush and Iraq (at time of possible attack of Iraq on Iran) "todays Bedfellow is tomorrows enemy".
Then it was the believed threat of Russia and a wish to push the border (post war) as East a possible.

[Stan]

Crusher wrote:

Ever since Bush got in office the fires of Hell have been burning hotter and brighter to accommodate all of the sinner Republicans who will be arriving. There seems to be no end of the corruption and sin we are seeing. It is not stuff like "liberal agendas" (whatever the hell that means) are destroying us, it IS Bush who is screwing Americans, pure and simple for everyone to see who isn't blinded by his use of fear to control the masses. Hitler used the fear tactic also and you may recall where that took us. Something else to think about is that a lot of contributors here can remember back 15 years or so. Well, that spells OLD. As in OLD FARTS. Old people start yelling and screaming about "liberal" every time something changes, including the traffic lights and their hemorrhoid cream.

Less of the "old farts" you or I'll stop agreeing with basically the rest of your post..........U juvenile
Yes the Fear culture of Bush has many hidden uses (reduce civil liberties for one) as well as create a world more filled with hatred than possibly ever before.

[YO Mamma]

snowman allentown PA wrote:

<quoted text>The only problem is that these scum will not surrender. they believe in total annihilation of the infidels. They are on a jihad, and I must congratulate them on being so tenacious in there jihad. They have picked on us the most powerful nation on the Earth , knowing full well that the gutless people who are no longer in power will do anything to get back there, including cutting and running. Where is your guts America and the PRESS.

Who cut in run? Bushy who didnt go after Osama but instead started a totally unrelated war?

I would like to remind you that an example of the Clinton admin who talked with North Korea and decided on a deal thereby getting North Korea to halt any Nuclear weapon prodution was destroyed by Bushy who decided to cut all talks and stop all deals with NK therby royaly pissing NK off, so they decided to make nukes just to piss of the USA. Who cut and ran from that situation too? BUSH.