Muslim leaders demand apologies in a very loud manner when a non-Muslim says something they perceive as offensive. But when Muslims behead captives, hijack planes, and bomb pizza shops, apologies and condemnations from their coreligionists are hard to come by. "God," Pope Benedict noted in quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, "is not pleased by blood--and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature." Nor, one supposes, is God pleased by self-righteousness, double standards, and vehement reactions against what in essence was a plea for peace.

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

I just love this. IOW - "If you say we're violent, we'll kill you, and it will be your fault."

The irony is unbelieveable, not to mention sickening.

"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."

Sounds like he called Mohammed evil. How else can that quote be construed?

Question: has anything anybody has done to NOT offend Muslims made any difference at all? They always seem pretty pi$$ed off and offended about something or another, no matter what. Continued demonstrations that they are angry, mindless primitives should not help their cause. In other words: don't reward these monkeys for bad behavior.

Obi Juan, that quote was not from the Pope but rather an earlier Christian emperor, so who are you referring to as having called Mohammed evil?

Second, in too typical media fashion, there is absoulely zero context given for the Pope's reference and use of that quote other than that it occurred in a university address in Germany. Therefore, the entire article is about a response by various Muslim reps to a single quote of a quote by the Pope. Neither you nor they are justified in drawing any conclusions when the media decides to withold the relevant context of the incident.

Finally, the quote doesn't call Mohammed evil but only the novelties that Islam introduced. That is, where it is a traditional monotheistic faith the Christian emperor sees it as fine or at worst redundant. And wherever Islam claims novelty and new revelation or religious demands it is a false religion, hence by definition of the devil and not of God. Islam has always been at least tacitly reocgnized as Christian heresy, and the Pope should hold that view even if he (correctly) judges it as imprudent to voice it. This quote though, either way, does not call a man, Mohammed, evil but only certain novel beliefs such as jihad. That is the traditional distinction between sin and the sinner.

These are the same animals that the American left and European socialists believe are just misunderstood "victims" of the evil policies of George Bush and Tony Blair. The U.S. government is resposible for the Islamic barbarians actions.
The socialists and leftists still believe these people can be negotiated with or even appeased. These utopians never think that their lack of resolve does nothing but encourage the animals.
What will it take for the leftists to wake up and face reality???? Will it take San Fransico or Portland being destroyed by a terrorists attack?

A handful of Muslims are intent on making life a living hell for the rest of us and in the process they paint Islam in very poor light.

This world is filled with double standards and sadly, always will be.

Todd I think you misunderstand the lefts position on Islam.

They don't consider Muslims victims of US poilicy, they consider us all victims of US policy.

George Bush has made this world a more dangerous place. That means more attacks not only against Muslims and more attacks against us.

Earth to resident liberal moron: the world was just as dangerous before GW and isn't anymore dangerous since GW. These primitives have been behaving badly for quite some time now. The difference is that since 9/11, when we were touched by these fanatics in a big way, are we much more aware and cautious of their activity.

When your boy Clinton was allegedly running the show, we had the first WTC attack, Khobar Towers, the Cole and more. So, the evil was just as fresh. And he chose to do nothing. Bush has had to do something so now he's a target of the looney left.

Hehe I love the Bill O'Reily republicans : )

No one disputes that the world is, has been and will be a dangerous place.

But that's no excuse for making it even more danergous.

And that's what Bush (or his VP rather) has done.

He's taken an already dangerous situation and made it worse by promoting democracy abraod when he should be defending America at home.

Usama Bin Laden listed one of the events that encouraged him was when Bill Clinton tucked his tail and ran from Somalia, after 18 casualties and NO retaliation of any kind. He stated,in his own words,that the US was too weak and lacked the resolve to fight his terrorists.
Now the left doesn't seem to grasp the idea that it is a lack of resolve, like running out of Iraq,
that will encourage the terrorists. The leftists elites are so arrogant that they seem to believe that UBL couldn't really mean what he says, it has to be George Bush's fault.
The lefts words suggest that,if they were back in power, they would make the Islamic terrorists like us and therefore they wouldn't attack again.
Dean,Durbin,Pelosi,Kucinich,Kerry,Kennedy,Carter,
Clinton,etc. seem to believe that if we just talked to the barbarians or showed sensitivity that these animals would leave us alone. Kind of reminds me of when the left thought if the US were to unilaterally disarm, the USSR would do the same and we would all live happily ever after.
I still remember when Kerry was leading the nuclear freeze bandwagon. He stated numerous times that only talks not a military buildup would make the USA safer.
Face reality, the Islamic barbarians will never like us! Resolve and decisive action(i.e. killing them), not meaningless talk, is the ONLY way to defeat them.

Todd there is no doubt that American foreign policy in the 1990's encouraged OBL.

But he's already hit us at home and he's already comitted to doing it again.

I don't buy this BS argument that if we leave Iraq OBL will suddenly realize "Hey America is vulnerable ."

He knows we're vulnerable, he's already hit us for christ sake!

We don't need to make him like us, but we certainly don't need to win a pointless war in Iraq just to prove to him we're tough.

Wanna prove we're tough?

How about we go after HIM instead of Iraqi Sunnis who are (surprise surprise) pissed that we took thier country and gave it to their sworn enemies.

And its not George Bush's fault that OBL is a threat to America, but it is his fault that he's delt with that threat incompetently.

Not only has he not made us safer, but he created a huge money-wasting bureaucractic pork machine (DHS) in the process.

Oh and then there's the whole unwinnable war.

BTW I love that argument that killing them is the only way to defeat them.

Unless you plan on killing every Muslim on earth (over 1 billion and growing) your plan will never work becuase as long as the US arrogantly stays in Iraq for everyone one we kill there will be four more encouraged to join the fight against the infidel.

Some wars take brains and brawn to win, and this war on terror is one of them.

OBL currently is not a threat to America. He is isolated and neutralized.

There is only sentimental value left to capturing him, granted, a very high level of that, we'd all like to see him in chains.

HeHe- why does your leftists buddies think a political poll should be taken before any military action is taken? Bill Clinton put the importance of his poll numbers ahead of national security. Dick Morris has stated that fact on numerous occasions. A leader has a plan and executes it without regard to political polls. Democrats don't care about leading,they are more concerned about being popular,especially with the European socialists. Clinton,Kerry,etc. constantly harp about world opionion ,as though it circumvents all responsibility for national security.
Let me give all the leftists a hint, sending James Carville,Sidney Blumenthal, Harold Ickes,Howard Dean,etc. out to the Sunday morning talk shows to spin, will not win the war on terror. Talk and intentions are never substitutes for results and action.
Anyway, why does the left pretend they are willing to fight a real war? John Kerry,George Soros,Madeline Albright,etc. have stated numerous times, this isn't really a war, it's just a law enforcement and criminal court matter.
These people want to win popularity contests and play cops and robbers.

Bruce, you are making a distinction where none exists. Those novelties that were introduced are Islam and were introduced by Mohammed. You can say that the message was evil but not the messenger, but all those who followed the message must then be evil, including Mohammed since he followed the message.

Look, we could capture OBL tomorrow and it wouldn't make a bit o' difference to the Bush derangement crowd. They used the same ploy with regards to Saddam and once he was captured, it was a big shrug. It's always going to be something that Bush didn't do with these pu$$ies.

And, as Ben-T says, OBL is neutralized. In other words, he's hiding in a series of rat holes, afraid to show his face and completely ineffective. He had his big bang and now he's done.

Don't be fooled though. There are many more "Bin Ladens" out there. But, the limpwrist left would just as soon talk to them and try to reason with them than exterminate them.

And if they get a chance to attack us again, the lefties will say that it's because of something or other that we did. Or didn't do. You can't win or make sense to these nuts and that makes two groups or terrorists we have to fight.