Iranian Leader Urges More Papal Protests

Who ever said that al Qaeda doesn't have a problem with Christianity? The point that people like me keep trying to get across is that Muslims in general don't have a problem with Christianity, and that even with al Qaeda they hate Christians and "the West" because of their perception of being oppressed by us for years.

While I agree with you Adam, that the majority of Muslims do not have an issue with Christianity, the fact remains that there is now a call for Muslims to take arms against seemingly any and everything. The way it is looking, I'm beginning to wonder if these Muslims that do want peace and to live without violence are in fact the minority.

SOME Muslim leaders have scorned Christianity many times before and Christians for the most part let it go. They sort of wrote it off as "crazy talk". I understand they take their religion seriously, and that's fine with me... but it is getting a little carried away... play time is over - we just all need to grow up a little.

Most of the Muslims in a non-Muslim country tend to not truly follow their teachings (at least that's how Muslims in Afghanistan, Iran, and so on feel). We may not see a huge uprising in the US of angry Muslims over what the Pope said, but they aren't necessarily the ones we're too worried about... it's predominantly Iran and some of her influential people.

The way it is looking, I'm beginning to wonder if these Muslims that do want peace and to live without violence are in fact the minority.

They are overwhelmingly the minority. You just don't hear announcements on TV when Muslims don't want to take over the world. It's not news.

Most of the Muslims in a non-Muslim country tend to not truly follow their teachings.

Oh how I love hearing about "true teachings" of ambiguous religions. I understand that you were talking about what people in Afghanistan think, and not necessarily whether you agree, but it's still annoying that people talk about what is the "true" teaching of the Bible or the Quran. Especially when that person is not even in the religion he's talking about.

Adam, I dont see anyone saying that all Muslims in general have a problem with Christianity or the west. I keep seeing this brought up but no one is saying it. We are all talking about a very select group of people.

Fl, do you see any Muslims speaking out against it? Let me rephrase that. Do you see any high prominent Muslims speaking out against it? Nope. Because in order to become a Mullah you have to be a EFFEN lunatic.

They are overwhelmingly the minority. You just don't hear announcements on TV when Muslims don't want to take over the world. It's not news.

Wouldn't that make it the news? We hear about minority events (not ethnic, but like... how a small group of protesters want something and what their cause is). I would think that this IS news. Either the state run media of the Eastern countries (specifically Iran) want to give the wrong impression on as you've implied - that the majority of Muslims do want violence.

Oh how I love hearing about "true teachings" of ambiguous religions. I understand that you were talking about what people in Afghanistan think, and not necessarily whether you agree, but it's still annoying that people talk about what is the "true" teaching of the Bible or the Quran. Especially when that person is not even in the religion he's talking about.

Its a good thing I never said "true teachings", but instead said "true following". You can truly follow a bad teaching, and you can falsely follow a good teaching , and since both Bible and QUran have been translated many times it is more than safe to assume that things have been lost in translation. Therefore in my opinion, there is no more "true" teaching, yet you can "truly" follow what teachings have been taught to you as an individual - that's what I was saying. I'm not going to pretend I know the Quran like I know the Bible. I can't make heads or tails of the Quran due to it's lack of time line. It doesn't mean it's not a well intended book, it just means that as a person I can't grasp how things play out, who did what when and why; if their opinions or teaching changed over time or were the people inteh Quran just indecisive... I just don't know.

Fl, do you see any Muslims speaking out against it? Let me rephrase that. Do you see any high prominent Muslims speaking out against it? Nope. Because in order to become a Mullah you have to be a EFFEN lunatic.

To name a few, Muslim leaders in the UK, Turkey, and Indonesia have spoken out against the violence and have called on other Muslims to accept his apology or risk proving the quotations to be correct by continued violence.

The only ones fanning the flames are the extremist radicals in Iraq and Iran who have a vested interest in continued controversy -- for obvious reasons.

Rimuladas
I agree with you to some extent. Were a high profile Muslim cleric, like the Ayatollah of Iran, come out and say terrorism is bad, peace is the only way, it would make big news. Do you think that would happen? And why isnt it happening?

As for some of the smaller ones, to some extent, I believe they are afraid that the whackos will kill them. I think alot of the regular Muslims that dont agree with the Islamo-facists (you all know who Im talking about) are afraid to speak out. It was very similar when we took out Saddam. Alot of people were worried about supporting us since there were still so many insurgents around and they didnt know if we would leave them hangin again. If they spoke up they would pay the price and we couldnt protect them.

FL: You asked for an example of someone saying that all Muslims were anti-Christian, and someone immediately spoke up. How convenient. :)

Seriously, I see people claim all the time that Islam is an inherently violent religion that teaches people to kill all infidels. That's complete BS, but it is a frequent claim. I've seen it so much that I've started getting involved in any discussion that looks like it's heading that way. As a result, sometimes I respond to someone assuming they meant something they didn't. I hope I didn't assume too much of you.

Shawn:

We hear about minority events (not ethnic, but like... how a small group of protesters want something and what their cause is). I would think that this IS news.

Right, so if the majority of Muslims want peace, then when they speak out about it, it's not news.

Either the state run media of the Eastern countries (specifically Iran) want to give the wrong impression on as you've implied - that the majority of Muslims do want violence.

Can you name any other prominent religious leader in Islam? If not, then why would you care if one that you had never heard of was speaking out against violence? Why would the media show some random guy (as far as their audience is concerned) talking about something which should be obvious (that violence is bad)? Again, that's not news. It's no surprise, then, that the minority of Muslims (the violent ones) get lots of press, while the peaceful ones hardly ever get any at all.

I feel compelled, again, to mention the numbers. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. If a majority of those were violent, then we would be seeing violence in every country, and we would be in the middle of a real global war, instead of fighting small, fragmented groups using terrorist/guerrilla tactics.

Well I guess I stand corrected there is one. :)

You do have to wonder why, though, the Ayatollah has not stepped up to say something. I imagine his word would have much clout among the Muslim world.

Open your eyes, they ARE around the world. They ARE violent. The violence WILL increase.

Adam Kemp - I feel compelled, again, to mention the numbers. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. If a majority of those were violent, then

we would be seeing violence in every country,

and we would be in the middle of a real global war, instead of fighting small, fragmented groups using terrorist/guerrilla tactics.

How about New York City, London, Paris, Spain, Germany, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Chad, Darfur, Central Africa just as a start.

On the 2nd of November 2004, in Amsterdam, Theo Van Gogh was stabbed and shot dead by a Muslim. Van Gogh was killed because he publicly opposed Islam and made critical comments about it, including a movie on the position of women in Islam. Moderate Muslims condemned his murder, but other Muslims believed it was right.

The balance below are the released information from the US State Department until 2003.

Kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, January 23, 2002: Armed militants kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistani authorities received a videotape on February 20 depicting Pearl murder. His grave was found near Karachi on May 16. Pakistani authorities arrested four suspects. Ringleader Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh claimed to have organized Pearl kidnapping to protest Pakistan subservience to the United States, and had belonged to Jaish-e-Muhammad, an Islamic separatist group in Kashmir. All four suspects were convicted on July 15. Saeed Sheikh was sentenced to death, the others to life imprisonment.

Synagogue Bombing in Tunisia, April 11, 2002: A suicide bomber detonated a truck loaded with propane gas outside a historic synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia. The 16 dead included 11 Germans, one French citizen, and three Tunisians. Twenty-six German tourists were injured. The Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites claimed responsibility.

Attack on a French Tanker, October 6, 2002: An explosive-laden boat rammed the French oil tanker Limburg, which was anchored about 5 miles off al-Dhabbah, Yemen. One person was killed and 4 were wounded. Al-Qaida was suspected.

Car Bomb Explosion in Bali, October 12, 2002: A car bomb exploded outside the Sari Club Discotheque in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, killing 202 persons and wounding 300 more. Most of the casualties, including 88 of the dead, were Australian tourists. Seven Americans were among the dead. Al-Qaida claimed responsibility. Two suspects were later arrested and convicted. Iman Samudra, who had trained in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda and was suspected of belonging to Jemaah Islamiya, was sentenced to death on September 10, 2003.

Attacks on Israeli Tourists in Kenya, November 28, 2002: A three-person suicide car bomb attack on the Paradise Hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 15 persons and wounded 40. Three of the dead and 18 of the wounded were Israeli tourists; the others were Kenyans. Near Mombasa airport, two SA-7 shoulder-fired missiles were fired as an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757 that was carrying 261 passengers back to Israel. Both missiles missed. Al-Qaida, the Government of Universal Palestine in Exile, and the Army of Palestine claimed responsibility for both attacks. Al-Ittihad al-Islami was also suspected of involvement.

Attack on a Bus in the Philippines, December 26, 2002: Armed militants ambushed a bus carrying Filipino workers employed by the Canadian Toronto Ventures Inc. Pacific mining company in Zamboanga del Norte. Thirteen persons were killed and 10 wounded. Philippine authorities suspected the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which had been extorting money from Toronto Ventures. The Catholic charity Caritas-Philippines said that Toronto Ventures had harassed tribesmen who opposed mining on their ancestral lands.

Truck Bomb Attacks in Saudi Arabia, May 12, 2003: Suicide bombers attacked three residential compounds for foreign workers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The 34 dead included 9 attackers, 7 other Saudis, 9 U.S. citizens, and one citizen each from the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Philippines. Another American died on June 1. It was the first major attack on U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia since the end of the war in Iraq. Saudi authorities arrested 11 al-Qaida suspects on May 28.

Truck Bombing in Chechnya, May 12, 2003: A truck bomb explosion demolished a government compound in Znamenskoye, Chechnya, killing 54 persons. Russian authorities blamed followers of a Saudi-born Islamist named Abu Walid. President Vladimir Putin said that he suspected that there was an al-Qaida connection.

Attempted Assassination in Chechnya, May 12, 2003: Two female suicide bombers attacked Chechen Administrator Mufti Akhmed Kadyrov during a religious festival in Iliskhan Yurt. Kadyrov escaped injury, but 14 other persons were killed and 43 were wounded. Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bomb Attacks in Morocco, May 16, 2003: A team of 12 suicide bombers attacked five targets in Casablanca, Morocco, killing 43 persons and wounding 100. The targets were a Spanish restaurant, a Jewish community, a Jewish cemetery, a hotel, and the Belgian Consulate. The Moroccan Government blamed the Islamist al-Assirat al-Moustaquim (The Righteous Path), but foreign commentators suspected an al-Qaida connection.

Truck Bombing in Northern Ossetia, August 1, 2003: A suicide truck bomb attack destroyed a Russian military hospital in Mozdok, North Ossetia and killed 50 persons. Russian authorities attributed the attack to followers of Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev.

Hotel Bombing in Indonesia, August 5, 2003: A car bomb exploded outside the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing 10 persons and wounding 150. One of the dead was a Dutch citizen. The wounded included an American, a Canadian, an Australian, and two Chinese. Indonesian authorities suspected the Jemaah Islamiah, which had carried out the October 12, 2002 bombing in Bali.

Bomb Attack on U.S. Diplomats in the Gaza Strip, October 15, 2003: A remote-controlled bomb exploded under a car in a U.S. diplomatic convoy passing through the northern Gaza Strip. Three security guards, all employees of DynCorp, were killed. A fourth was wounded. The diplomats were on their way to interview Palestinian candidates for Fulbright scholarships to study in the United States. Palestinian President Arafat and Prime Minister Qurei condemned the attack, while the major Palestinian militant groups denied responsibility. The next day, Palestinian security forces arrested several suspects, some of whom belonged to the Popular Resistance Committees.

Suicide Bombing in Riyadh, November 8, 2003: In Riyadh, a suicide car bombing took place in the Muhaya residential compound, which was occupied mainly by nationals of other Arab countries. Seventeen persons were killed and 122 were wounded. The latter included 4 Americans. The next day, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said al-Qaeda was probably responsible.

Truck Bombing in Nasiriyah, November 12, 2003: A suicide truck bomb destroyed the headquarters of the Italian military police in Nasiriyah, Iraq, killing 18 Italians and 11 Iraqis and wounding at least 100 persons.

More Suicide Truck Bombings in Istanbul, November 20, 2003: Two more suicide truck bombings devastated the British HSBC Bank and the British Consulate General in Istanbul, killing 27 persons and wounding at least 450. The dead included Consul General Roger Short. U.S., British, and Turkish officials suspected that al-Qaeda had struck again. The U.S. Consulate in Istanbul was closed, and the Embassy in Ankara advised American citizens in Istanbul to stay home.

Train Bombing in Southern Russia, December 5, 2003: A suicide bomb attack killed 42 persons and wounded 150 aboard a Russian commuter train in the south Russian town of Yessentuki. Russian officials suspected Chechen rebels; President Putin said the attack was meant to disrupt legislative elections. Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov denied any involvement.

Suicide Bombing in Moscow, December 9, 2003: A female suicide bomber killed 5 other persons and wounded 14 outside Moscow National Hotel. She was said to be looking for the State Duma.

Suicide Car Bombing in Irbil, December 24, 2003: A suicide car bomb attack on the Kurdish Interior Ministry in Irbil, Iraq, killed 5 persons and wounded 101.

Attempted Assassination in Rawalpindi, December 25, 2003: Two suicide truck bombers killed 14 persons as President Musharraf motorcade passed through Rawalpindi, Pakistan. An earlier attempt on December 14 caused no casualties. Pakistani officials suspected Afghan and Kashmiri militants. On January 6, 2004, Pakistani authorities announced the arrest of 6 suspects who were said to be members of Jaish-e-Muhammad.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, December 25, 2003: A Palestinian suicide bomber killed 4 persons at a bus stop near Petah Tikva, Israel. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack in retaliation for Israeli military operations in Nablus that had begun two days earlier.

mcrg: Like I said, small, fragmented groups working through terrorism. The fact that you can pull out a few dozen terrorist attacks in the world over a course of several years is not indicative of a global war against a huge group of people. If they had almost a billion on their side (which they would if a majority of Muslims were violent) then they wouldn't need terrorism. They would have the largest army in the world.

Shawn: Ayatollah is a religious title of of a particular sect of Islam (Shiia). There are actually many Ayatollah's. The one you're probably referring to is Khamenei, the leader of Iran. He is not a representative of the majority of Muslims. I wouldn't even say he's a representative of the majority of Shiia, and I'm not even sure he's representative of a majority of Iranians. It's not like they really elected him:

According to current election laws, a body of 12 experts called the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The majority of the members of this body are appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, this council vets also Assembly of Experts candidates, which in turn in supervise and elect the Supreme Leader, which ultimately creates a closed loop of power. (Source)

Khamenei is certainly anti-American, and most likely violent, but there's no reason to believe that he is representative of a majority of Muslims in general.

Adam, I dont see anyone saying that all Muslims in general have a problem with Christianity or the west. I keep seeing this brought up but no one is saying it. We are all talking about a very select group of people.

Yes, a select group of people- the crazies. Hey mcrg, Shawn, others- everyone knows about the crazies. The crazies need to stopped, yes. No one is arguing that the crazies are good people. All anyone is arguing is that the VAST majority of muslims are not these crazies. I know that fox news and cnn don't show you these non-crazy muslims, but there are quite numerous. They don't make the news because they aren't violent, they don't have weekly outrages, and they don't want to destroy anyone. They aren't very newsworthy.

You don't need to point out that there are crazy muslim fundamentalists and tell us they are bad- everyone knows. All most of us are concerned about is that we make sure we aren't lumping the vast majority that are not bad in with the true crazies.

Actually Fox news makes the distinction. None of the people I have seen have even come close to saying that all Muslims are the problem. They go out of their way to make sure this said.

It is more that a few crazies that celebrated over the 911 attacks, blew up over the Danish cartoon or now with the pope's speech. They have a government and religion sponsored mind set

All a few Mullahs would have to do would be to remind Muslims that "We are a religion of peace, and violence and burning effigies and threatening people is not the way of Islam."

The fact that they cant/wont tend to lead me to believe all Mullahs need to be replaced with ones who do have the balls to direct and lead Muslims in the way of the religion of peace. If they are afraid to speak out or wont speak out and condemn these things, they are forfeit in the appointed "leadership" post.

Well I cant argue with the statement regarding what real leaders would do. However, its mostly like that most religious leaders, when the time comes calling, fail to practice what they preach and provide a shining example of the faith they espouse. It is part of the reason why I am not a fan of organized religion.

Rimuladas: Do you have any indication that Mullahs have not been promoting peace? Here is a list of Muslim condemnations of violence. Now what is this about "all Mullahs"?

@Adam

I think rimuladas was not sayong "ALL a few Mullahs", he said "all a FEW Mullahs". Sometimes I wonder if you just sort of look so hard for blanket statements that they appear when they are not there. Maybe I looked at the wrong place Rimulads spoke, but thats the one time I see ALL and MULLAHS in a sentence within this comment thread.

Khamenei is certainly anti-American, and most likely violent, but there's no reason to believe that he is representative of a majority of Muslims in general.

I very strongly disagree to a point of almost saying you are completely wrong.

In 1981, after the assassination of Mohammad Ali Rajai, Ayatollah Khamenei was elected President of Iran by a landslide vote in the Iranian presidential election, October 1981 and became the first cleric to serve in the office. Ayatollah Khomeini had originally wanted to keep clerics out of the presidency, but this view was compromised. Many saw Khamenei's presidency as a sign that Iran was abandoning secularism policy, and becoming more religious.

Of the total 16,841,800 total votes, the following numbers were won by each candidate:

Candidate Votes %

• Ali Khamenei 16,003,242 -95.02 %
• Ali Akbar Parvaresh 342,600 - 2.034 %
• Hassan Ghafourifard 78,559 - 0.467 %
• Reza Zavare'i 62,133 - 0.369 %
• Blank or invalid votes 356,266 - 2.12 %

He was re-elected to a second term in 1985. As a close ally of Khomeini, his term in office rarely clashed with the Supreme Leader, unlike Iran's first president, Abolhassan Banisadr. When Khomeini died, Khamenei was elected as the new Supreme Leader by the Assembly of Experts on June 4, 1989. Since Khamenei was originally not considered to be as high-ranking a cleric as needed to assume the office, and the new amendment to the constitution that allowed a cleric of his then status to be elected as the Supreme Leader had not been put to a referendum yet, the Assembly internally titled him a temporary office holder until the new constitution became effective.

Ayatollah Khamenei was appointed as Supreme Leader of Iran in 1989. Although Khamenei wields the greatest religious and political power of anyone in Iran, he is elected by the Assembly of Experts which is itself elected by the people.

Ayatollah Khamenei is widely regarded as the figurehead of the country's conservative establishment.[7] Ayatollah Khamenei has consistently backed the supervisory role of the conservative Guardian Council. In August 2000, he sided with the Guardian Council in rejecting a Majlis (parliament) bill reforming the country's press law. A letter he wrote to parliament, quoted by the state news agency, said the current law had prevented the "enemies of Islam" from taking over the press. "Thus any re-interpretation of the law is not in the interests of the country," the letter argued. The letter led to scuffles in the Majlis and to a debate on the powers of the Majlis and the Guardian Council. The press bill was withdrawn.

- source

I very strongly disagree to a point of almost saying you are completely wrong.

..and by this I mean - the latter half of.

Khamenei is certainly anti-American, and most likely violent, but there's no reason to believe that he is representative of a majority of Muslims in general.

Obviously he's Anti-Western (which isn't exclusively the US), and back Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi - said to be the ideological advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who as we all know is not a fan of the US...

Rimuladas said this:

The fact that they cant/wont tend to lead me to believe all Mullahs need to be replaced with ones who do have the balls to direct and lead Muslims in the way of the religion of peace. (emphasis mine)

I don't have to make up a blanket statement, because that is a blanket statement. He was saying that no Mullahs were speaking out against this stuff, so they all need to be replaced. I called him on it. If I misunderstood him, then let's let him say that. I would welcome clarification. I don't like the implication that I'm trying to make him sound bad by making up my own interpretation. I read a simple statement (the one I quoted) and interpreted it the only way that makes sense to me.

I very strongly disagree to a point of almost saying you are completely wrong.

Well if you disagree with me, then show some evidence that he represents a majority of Muslims in general (which is what you're supposedly disagreeing with). You showed some evidence that maybe a majority of Iranians in 1981 supported him, but where's the evidence that a majority of Muslims support him? Or even that a majority of Iranians support him today? It's not like their system of government allows Iranians to vote him out of office.

What? I said NO pun intended! Alright, at least use the good straw.

Hmm...I'm trying to imagine the outcry if a very popular, mainstream leader in the US said that Christianity has brought nothing but bad things to the world. Somehow I doubt Christians would take that sitting down.

I wouldnt expect them to. But they wouldnt riot, bomb, and threaten violence. Or if they did, it would be an extremely small minority. They would boycott.

Oh and Christianity HAS brought alot of bad things to the world. It has done some good too. I wonder if it would balance out or lean more towards one side?

Probably not in America, but I would bet money that they would in a country like Nigeria, where Christians have committed as many atrocities as Muslims in their sectarian war. Violence is a result of poor education and general instability, not just religious belief.

Then again, the comment was complaining about protests, not violence.

See Im not sure I agree completely on that. Violence as result of general instability, thats ok. But a result of poor education and not just religious belief, Im not sure.

If someone was brought up with poor education but raised with religious belief in the true teachings of Jesus and taught that peace is the way and violence is not, and their religious leaders set the example, would they be violent?

Plus well educated and smart people can be just as violent.

Then again, the comment was complaining about protests, not violence.

Muslim protests are pretty much synonymous with violence. Where there's one there's almost always the other.

Bad things have been said about Christianity but you don't see a huge number of us out in the streets rioting or telling people we're going to cut their heads off and enjoy doing it.

I could just as easily argue this:

If someone was brought up with poor education but raised with religious belief in the true teachings of Mohammad, PBUH and taught that peace is the way and violence is not, and their religious leaders set the example, would they be violent?

The problem is that there is no "true teaching". It's a fact that Muslims in stable, well-educated countries are just as peaceful as Christians in stable, well-educated countries. It's also a fact that Christians in unstable, poorly-educated countries are just as violent as Muslims in unstable, poorly-educated countries. So it's not rational to conclude that the religion is the cause.

I just used Christianity as an example, it could have been religion. And maybe "true teachings" was a poor choice. I should have said where non violent or teachings of peace were the dominant methodology.

I do not think we have enough information to rule out any of the items as part of the cause. However, I believe stability is probably the dominant factor.

Right, so which is more likely: that violence is caused by poor education, or that violence is caused by violent religious teachings, which is caused by....more violent religious teachings? If you want to argue in favor of the religious teachings being the cause then you have a chicken/egg problem. At some point there has to be a reason for people to be angry enough to want to kill each other. I think instability and poverty is a very obvious reason for people to get that anger. I'm not convinced that religion alone could cause that.

Just makes you wonder why he would say such a thing right?? What was he thinking????

Oh to the others, I am a Muslim and I am protesting what the Pope said..

And there is no violence here... :) not anywhere around here at all....

Please stop saying "those Muslims" w/ a simple brush or rather click of the hand - you can't group ONE BILLION people as the same......

If you want to Ponder on whether it would be terrorism or not here is a good read "On Terrorism"

seriously :)

Here's hoping Mr. Ahmadinejad's plane gets hijacked.

The "Iranian Leader" the article is referring to is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not President Ahmadinejad.

Here's hoping to a pleasant flight for the Iranian President - there's much to be discussed.

FL, Khamenei does not represent Islam. The Pope is the representative of Catholicism, but no such concept exists in Islam. Khamenei is one Ayatollah of many. It's sad that such a high-ranking religious leader is so idiotic, but he only represents a fraction of a particular sect of Islam (the Shiia), and even among them he is not the representative. He is the leader of Iran (and not by choice). He is not the leader of Islam.

We also know, several governments have indeed acted like terrorists, giving credence to a quote, taken out of context, and fed to the Muslim world in a way to rile them up.

We also know, several media outlets have indeed acted like warmongers, giving credence to a quote, taken out of context, and fed to the Western populous in a way to rile them up.

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

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

If we are going to defend the Pope's remarks and say they were taken out of context, then let's give Ahmadinejad the benefit of the doubt as well. He can't even ask for the time without the West turning it into a call for slaughter.

All in all, I'd say I'm pretty rational. I know the Pope wasn't calling Muhammad a murderer, just as I know Ahmadinejad wasn't calling for Israel to be nuked. Unfortunately, everyone loves sensationalism - both East and West alike.

...at least we have something in common. (Disclaimer: this last line was a joke)

EDIT: FL, I accidentally replaced your word "groups" with my word "governments" when I meant to replace my words "media outlets" with my word "governments" (media outlets are only part of it). Totally destroyed the satire I was going for...

Please Newsvine, in the name of Jesus or Allah (PBUTBOT), give us a 1-minute window for editing.

Brock
I agree to some extent about the sensationalism. However, I believe Ackie has made his anti Israel comments on more than 1 occassion. And I would not put much trust in his quote to Time magazine, hes not stupid, just potentially nutty. I would be more interested in what he says in public rallies in his country or on TV in his country when he is talking to his people and not our media.

Adam
I know he does not represent Islam, but he is quite high profile and his word will carry some weight just by the simple fact he will get media coverage for the things he says (ie this article). Unfortunately he does appear to be part of the problem.

Aww, that's okay, Brian, we love you anyway. Hugs and kisses! ~.~

I saw "Pepsi"

Its also interesting that the headline encompases a grand total of two short paragraphs of the article. I guess AP is for the War in Iran.