Welcome to PatsFans.com

Pope

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Harry Boy, Sep 20, 2006.

  1. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,720
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +503 / 2 / -9

    The Pope has apologized 4,332 times and the Muslims still want to cut his head off, when will the world smarten up to these people and realize what a threat they are to the population of "Filthy Infedels".

    They are not the "cuddly" little rascals the Looney Pandering Politically Correct Liberals would have you believe.
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,780
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +171 / 4 / -4

    I guess there are several ways to protest. The Al Qaeda way -- blow up innocent civilians. The Bush way -- start a war for no good reason. I myself prefer the peaceful-protest approach, even though sometimes a few of the protesters overreact and say really nasty things.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,720
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +503 / 2 / -9

    Believe it or not we all would like that, (peaceful approach) now try telling that to the Muslims.
  4. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Muslims, for the most part, do not believe in the peaceful approach. They do not believe in the freedoms most of us cherish (but some take for granted). They will gladly kill anyone and everyone that dares insult Islam. And then kill that person's family. And then other people of the same religion of that person.

    The Pope was absolutely right in his comments about Muslims (or, I should say, the individual the Pope was quoting was absolutely correct).

    And, to prove how peace loving they are, Muslims are rioting and calling for the Pope to be assassinated.

    Let it never be forgotten that if these people get their way, all other religions would be outlawed (and the practicioners of other religions killed) and the concept of free speech would be obliterated. What cracks me up is how openly so many of them living in the west (such as that guy in Britain) pretty much openly flaunt their desires because they know they are protected by free speech laws that they would not give the rest of us if they were in charge.

    Seems to me like Australia is the only country with any common sense these days...
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,780
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +171 / 4 / -4

    Care to post a link to support your point of view? If not, what's it based on? It sounds like blantant racist stereotyping to me, but perhaps I'm wrong. Sure, the Muslim radicals are more powerful than the Christian radicals, but that hasn't always been the case. In fact, the war on Iraq could be seen as a war by a Christian state against a Muslim state. That's certainly how they see it.

    Defending an ex-Nazi, are we? How ironic.

    Sort of like us calling for the overthrow of Saddam; the only difference is that we we back our calls with action, while the Muslim protesters seem to engage mostly in rhetoric. They didn't kill Salman Rushdie, and I doubt if they'll kill the pope (though he does have to worry about radical groups like Al Qaeda).

    We want to keep all radicals out of power, not just Muslim ones. There are many religious Americans who would like our law and institutions based on the Bible, and would certainly like to eliminate free speech.

    What do you mean by that? Australia is only targeting radical Muslims, which are a very small number. You seem to think Muslims in general are the problem.
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,720
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +503 / 2 / -9

    First the TV Beheadings, then the Cartoon sh!t, now the Pope, the Muslims and their Religion are now showing the world what they really are, and make no mistake about it all those American Muslims that scurry into their Mosques whenever the "Headhunters" start to act up as just as bad as the "Butcher" because they won't say one word of disgust at the savage behavior of their "fellow muslims".

    There have been several of the Muslims that the Liberals like to call "Good Ones" on TV, Fox had one on last night all he kept saying was "the pope should apologize" the Pope has apologized, ten times, the Rotten Bastards won't accept his apology.
  7. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Sorry, but I don't frequent the same hate-filled, anti-Semitic websites as you do. So you probably wouldn't accept any link I gave.

    Wow. That's a lowlife scumag thing to say, even by your lowlife scumbag tactics we are all accustomed to. If you are so ignorant as to the Pope's personal history, then there's nothing I can do to educate you. I mean, I know you personally agree with and sympathize with Nazis and other anti-Semites, but it does not fall on me to explain to you how the Pope does not fall into that category.

    You are a miserable person living a miserable life. I am done with you, your ignorance and your anti-Semitic hate-filled propaganda. Have fun at your next Aryan Nation - uh, I mean "Institute for Historical Review" - meeting.
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    181
    Ratings:
    +414 / 5 / -2


    Wow, you're comparing the Pope to Saddam. Absolutely Patters'esque. I'm not sure even NEM would attempt such stupidity.
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,780
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +171 / 4 / -4

    Only in the sense that our righties got all riled up by Saddam even though he wasn't doing us any harm. The righties were calling since 1991 for his overthrow. While he's certainly worse than the pope, my point was that while some Muslims engage in irrational protests, the same is true for some Americans. Had we continued with containment, we wouldn't have sacrificed 3,000 soldiers to an irrational right-wing cause. .
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,726
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13

    www.memri.org

    I'm amazed you need a link to document the desire of the Islamist to impose Sharia law worldwide. Living in a cane are we?

    The Pope is a Nazi. seems a bit young for that. Do you have any proof of that outrageous atatement. BTW, I heard you are a communist.


    Tell tahat to Damiel Pearl, the nin they just killed, how bout the churches they are torching in the weat bank, WTC bombing 1 (with Iraqi involvement), Khobar towers, innumerable suicide bombings, the Cole bombing, the Kenyan bombing, The Beruit suidice bombing, the occupation of the US Embassy, the London bombing, the Madrid bombing, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the assisanation of Pim Fortuyn, shall I go on?

    Many? You got statistics to support that claim out just blowing smoke again? The extremist I am interested in keeping out of office are the Socialist?Communist ones who have killed hundreds of millions.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,726
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13

    His involvement in the first WTC bombing wasn't "trying to do us harm"?

    Yeah right. :rolleyes:
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    181
    Ratings:
    +414 / 5 / -2

    The righties were calling for his overthrow? Really? A little selective memmory perhaps? Or maybe you don't remember what politicians say in speeches. I laugh at pols af all sorts that make statements, ride the proverbial "public wave", and then later John Kerry their way as the public tide changes.

    Me thinks this guy isn't a righty. Matter of fact, he's your choice for president.

    [​IMG]

    "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

    I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

    What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

    The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

    The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

    This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

    We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.

    The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."


    Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
    Addressing the US Senate
    September 12, 2002
    http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html


    Anyhow, incase you were asleep in 1998. The Righty president Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as official US policy. Among other things it states:

    [​IMG]


    The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

    "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

    Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
    105th Congress, 2nd Session
    September 29, 1998
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,780
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +171 / 4 / -4

    RealWorld, the righties were calling for his overthrow since 1991, and were upset when Bush I didn't "finish the job." After 9/11, it's true the country rallied behind the president and believed him when he and Cheney implied that Saddam was involved in 9/11, was developing nuclear weapons, stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, and so on. Who would have known that our leader would exploit 9/11 to accomplish other, more questionable, aims.

    As far as the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, it sounds like a reasonable act, but there's a difference between supporting efforts to remove Saddam and going to war.
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,720
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +503 / 2 / -9

    Look, look, look at that picture of Edwards, his pimple is back, he has a pimple that comes and goes, why would anyone in their right mind want a President who has a pimple that is there one day and gone the next.

    I told you people about this and you all thought I was crazy, well, there it is.
    Oh Jesus.
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,780
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +171 / 4 / -4

    What involvement? All I could find was that the Iraqi bomber, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was allowed to return to Iraq, though Iraq claimed he was imprisoned. A NewsMax article said that Cheney used the fact that he was allowed to return to Iraq as evidence that Saddam was behind the attack, but it appears that Al Qaeda financed it.

    The Wikipedia article states:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin

    "On several occasions, Iraq offered to turn Yasin over to the US government in exchange for lifting UN economic sanctions. Tariq Aziz, spokesman of Iraq, claimed that in the 1990's all Iraq wanted in return was a signed statement that Iraq had handed over Yasin. But reportedly the statement presented to the U.S. at the time contained lengthy wording essentially exonerating Iraqi involvement in the 1993 WTC attack. Nevertheless, Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

    "With Yasin reportedly being held as a prisoner in Hussein's Iraq, Leslie Stahl of CBS interviewed him there for a segment on 60 Minutes on May 23, 2002 (see below). Yasin appeared in prison pajamas and handcuffs. It was claimed that Iraq had held Yasin prisoner on the outskirts of Baghdad since 1994.

    This, from another Wikipedia article is also interesting:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

    In a sweep the same day, Salameh's arrest led to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin in Jersey City, New Jersey, which Yasin was sharing with his mother, in the same building as Ramzi Yousef's apartment. Yasin was taken to FBI headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, and was then released. The next day, he flew back to Iraq, via Amman, Jordan. Yasin was later indicted for the attack, and eventually in 2001 he was placed on the initial list of the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, on which he remains a fugitive today.
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    181
    Ratings:
    +414 / 5 / -2

    Exactly, there's being a bum politician and telling people what they want to hear, i.e. passing the buck, and then there is being a leader and having the stones to make tough decisions. Whether you hate him or not, Bush makes tough decisions. I don't agree with him on most of his decisions, but I atleast know where he stands. When the polls show people want action everyone talks tough, when the polls change, everyone points fingers. Some leaders eh?
  17. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,720
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +503 / 2 / -9

    Thats why Fanatical Muslims all over the world DESPISE this president, G Bush, they know he will fight back, Bush won't take their "Killing Sh!t".
    Murdering Smelly Terrorist Muslims Want The Democrats Back, They Want To Learn How To Fly But Not Land And They Want To Learn Right Here In America, They Loved Billy Blue Dress And His Gang Of Saps.
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,726
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13

    I would love to see the video to see what sort of condition Yasin was in after 7 years in an Iraqi prision. I doubt he would be presentable to a US television crew. I wouldn't put it past the Iraqi's to say he was in prision to protect one of their own.

    I was refering to Ramsey Yousef.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

    Note the author worked on the 1992 Clinton campaign.
  19. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    This is one of the most blatantly racist posts in this board's history.
    Anyone who dares to look just a couple inches below the surface would realize a few facts that are contrary to the above hate filled post:
    1. Most Muslims are not violent.
    2. Most Muslims live / come from countries that are / have
    been oppressed and underdeveloped (third world) thus
    not offering the best of educational opportunities. in
    other words, they are ignorant which is the desired
    stage, for it is a lot tougher to feed this type of bull
    to a bunch of college graduates.
    3. The oppression in these countries has a history of
    partnership with colonial / imperialist powers. In other
    words, we have and still do place/take
    down/replace/assist the
    dictators in these countries whose wealth is only more
    sickening than the other side of the coin which is the
    extreme poverty of the masses that they rule.
    4. The poor, uneducated, poverty stricken masses are
    made comfortably numb with religion. Mao called
    religion, opium for the masses.
    In other words,
    they are told that it is God's unquestionable wish that
    they suffer in this world, and the more they suffer
    the more wonderful gifts that are waiting for them in
    the next life and that the tighter they hang on to their
    religion, the better off they will be, forever. They should
    never question, it is Allah's wish and questioning is a
    sin.
    5. So, the masses buy into all this and they do suffer. They
    live under conditions not even imaginable for most of us.
    Because they have their religion, they keep taking it.

    After all that, we expect these same people to have a sense of humor when cartoons are made making fun of the one thing that they have? Wasn't it the same Westerners who partnered with their dictators and sucked the resources out of their countries that were telling them that their religion was most sacred?
    The Muslims that you see in these violent acts of reaction are not middle class people, they cannot even imagine that type of life. Not that any of it is excusable, but these are what is beneath the surface.
    That's why the post by Qui Gon is racist and inflammatory. It is comparable to a white person in the south in the "good" old days claiming that the blacks just don't have the mental capability of a white person. Might that be because of a little thing called, slavery and that they are just a bit busy to be studying?
    Muslims that you see rioting have been a bit busy as well, getting oppressed in the most violent of ways. Violence, in that aspect, is not something that we oppose, however.
    Bush, holding the hand of the Saudi Sheik is all the proof you need on this matter.
    But God forbid, once these peasants start displaying the same violence which is all they know, then we are right there to tell them how barbaric they are. How about reading the Quran and backing up your claims Qui Gon? Show me where it condones violence, and I will show you just as many, if not a lot more so, in the Bible, that can be perceived that way.

    The Pope, who made a very calculated statement at a crucial time, made no mistake. It was a well planned statement, and he almost got the results that he wanted, Turkey which is a mostly Muslim country, to be excluded from the EU, which in his greedy view should be a Christian fraternity so that his power over it does not diminish, but grow. He tried to inflame, and had he been able to point out to the violent reactions, then his case would have been served in that no Muslims allowed into the EU, they are violent, barbaric and simply not good enough to be European.
    I got news for you, Europe or USA would not be enjoying the standard of living that we do, had it not been for the resources taken out of (some may call it stolen) those countries that these "killers" come from.

    By the way, Syriana was a great movie, as close to the truth as you can possibly get on all these subjects.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2006
  20. ctpatsfan1

    ctpatsfan1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Defending an ex-Nazi, are we? How ironic.

    learn the facts, he was a Nazi in name only, he deserted the army. He didn't espouse their goals as a matter of fact he fought against them where and when he could. That is exactly the BS anti-Catholic cr@p from the left that pisses me off to no end. Twist and distort to fulfill their anti-Catholic agenda.


    We want to keep all radicals out of power, not just Muslim ones. There are many religious Americans who would like our law and institutions based on the Bible, and would certainly like to eliminate free speech.

    at least we can agree on this.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>