We’ll kill anyone who suggests some of us might be violent!

Demonstrators in Basra show the world that the Pope was on the money:

Source: Yahoo/AFP

Iraqis set fire to an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI during a protest in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. Hundreds of angry Iraqis called for the pontiff to be tried in an international court.

Plus Al Qaeda in Iraq vows to conquer Rome:

Al Qaeda in Iraq vowed war on “worshippers of the cross” and protesters burned a papal effigy on Monday over Pope Benedict’s remarks on Islam. The statement by an umbrella group led by Iraq’s branch of al Qaeda said “We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya.”

“We shall break the cross and spill the wine … God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome … (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen,” said the statement. The statement cited a hadith (saying of the Prophet Mohammed) promising Muslims they would “conquer Rome … as they conquered Costantinople.”

They may tarnish their reputation if they keep talking like this. If mainstream Muslims don’t start doing something about these freaks, folks may begin questioning the whole “religion of peace” statement.

And don’t forget: “Radical Christianity is Just as Threatening as Radical Islam”

UPDATE: Donald Sensing: Muslims bomb, burn, shoot and threaten for being called “violent”


  1. The problem is, Christianity is no threat at all. In fact, Christians seem not only willing to turn the other cheek, they are for the most part willing to, well, take it like a man. If Christians were a threat, this kind of stuff would stop real quick.

  2. Golly, that makes me so steamed! I think we should send over a couple of really expensive cruise missiles to knock out the power grid for any city that would dare burn the Pope in effegy. Of course, we’d want to make sure we didn’t target any portion of it near a cemetary or Mosque, and we’d have to go back in afterwards to fix their power system and make it better than it was before so they’d know who they were messing with, by gosh! Now I know what it is to be a sissy boy. Suddenly I have an irrepresible urge to kick my own ass.

  3. I need not say anything. I’m confident that the vast majority of moderates in the ‘Religion of Peace’ will shout down the few radical bad apples.

  4. DanC, technically, the Vatican is defended by Swiss Guards…which might mean the Swiss Military would be acctivated. I dunno. and anyway, this whole Muslims Rioting thing isn’t true at all. Those weren’t true muslims commiting acts of violence, but impostors and Zionist collaborators of Mossad in a vain attempt to discredit true muslims. … [/sarcasm]

  5. in regards to the ‘Radical Christianityis just as threatening as Radical Islam’ thing, I seem to recall that there was a ‘Christian Army/militia/faction’ of sorts fighitng in Lebanon some years back; involving atrocities against Palestinian refugees and Ariel Sharon or something. I also read some years ago about militant christrians in the U.S. And these are more mainstream than say Rev.s Moon or Jones. Folks who do want to advance Revelations prophecy type events manually…rather than waiting for God to decide such. I am not sure if our curent Administraton is affeted/infected by that militancy, but clearly from the interview some do think that is the case.

  6. Hmm, were those ‘atrocities’ reported by al Reuters, by any chance? Nothing one sided there. Neither the Moonies or the Jones cult has anything to do with Christianity. As I recall, the US killed Japanese by the millions in the fire bombing of Tokyo as well as the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As far as I’m concerned these Muslim psychos deserve the same and more so. That’s from a strictly non-fundamentalist father and husband.

  7. Sam: You ‘seem to recall’ and ‘read some years back’ about some potential Christian threats. Sure. I’m positive that there are some radical Christians who could cause a bit of trouble here and there if they put their minds to it. Who have they blown up in the last 10 years, though? The last 10 months? The last 10 weeks? The last 10 days? The last 10 hours? The last 10 minutes? I’m thinking that there is a long list of answers for each of those questions for radical muslims and that they are fairly easy to find. That’s not quite the case with radical Christians, is it? So don’t pretend that the statement made any sense whatsoever.

  8. Not sure who reported what about the Lebanon thing…I was 5-10 years old at the time…Star Wars was more important! ‘Neither the Moonies or the Jones cult has anything to do with Christianity.’ I’ve met self-described ‘christians’ describe other self-described ‘christians’ as not actually being ‘christian’. [shrug] And what I was getting at, is that Moonies and Jones cultists are less mainstream than what I was referring to…not sure what name to give them ‘Militant Revelationists’? I do remember in History Class though, one of the rationales stated for the U.S. invasion of the Philipines in the war against Spain was to ‘Christianize’ the populace…nevermind that the Philipines was then and still is heavily Catholic.

  9. Murdoc, 1st an overview of the older war in Lebanon: http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/lima/lebanon1975.htm there were militant Christian factions then and there, it’s not some reuters plot to criticize Christian. Whether they were evil terrorsists is another argument I wont take up. ‘Who have they blown up in the last 10 years, though? The last 10 months? The last 10 weeks? The last 10 days? The last 10 hours? The last 10 minutes?’ Dependson who counts as ‘they’. Given that the U.S. is largely Christian, and has engaged in much blowing up of things, it would be easy for the paranoid to perceive a Christian agenda. Also, given that the Muslims are still aching and groaning over the Crusades, one could say that their cultural sense of ‘now’ goes well beyond 10 years. Conversely one could say that the American sense of ‘now’ is relatively limited, but I digress. So as far as they are concerned, the Crusades are still ‘now’; and the Pope’s quote of an ancient dead emperor is just more evidence of that.

  10. Christianity has done ‘conversion by the sword’ many times over history. That was pretty common in Roman and medeval times. It has probably happened since – though no instances come to immediatly to mind. Sometimes fact and fiction are difficult to separate. I wouldn’t argue Christians never do forced conversions. I would argue we are much better at it than the Muslims. For instance, when Christians were wildly outnumbered in the Roman empire, they didn’t resort to terrorism. Instead peaceful protests converted the empire. Once we were wielded the power of Rome, we converted Europe sometime sword in hand other times without. You use the right tool for the job. It is a very practical religion that way. One thing has been constant regardless of the methods, the courage of the Christians to stand up for what they believe. That’s what we seem to lack today.

  11. Dfens, Nope. Look up the deeds of Emperor Constantine. The Edict of Milan didn’t merely legalize Christianity in the Empire in 313 AD, it made it the official religion. He also ordered the confiscation of the wealth of many pagan temples and other such acts. This was more of a power grab than anything else. Eventually, many pagan temples, the sourceo of much old school wealth, power, and priveledge, were destroyed or otherwise overtaken by force. Had the faith merely been legalized, the world would look very different today.

  12. Well, the Jones cult was a self-correcting defect in the Christian faith. Yes, Christianity was spread by methods stronger than ‘persuasion’ in the Middle Ages. Most Christian denominations, even ‘Fundamentalists’ long ago moved past the use of violence to spread their faith. Unfortunately the Muslim faiths still support ‘Conversion by the Sword.’ Fortunately, the really stink at the art of war; otherwise we would all be genuflecting towards Mecca.

  13. Bram, Peep ‘Arabs at War’ sometime. Ken Pollack explains, on a case-by-case basis, what specific Arab armies have done well and what they do poorly. More often than not, there are cultural reasons for their poor performance, reasons that effect the trust, training, and capacity of junior leaders to actually lead.

  14. Cultural reasons. And their culture has been shaped by which religion? Sam, ‘nope’ what? You expand on what I said and begin with ‘nope’? I’m sure these much-to-be-feared, evil fundamentalists get very even handed treatment by ABC. I love the part in the promo for that tripe where they talk about students being taught to ‘worship an image of George Bush.’ Oh pulleeze. Typical mainstream media. If they were Muslims rioting in France, they would be ‘disaffected French youths of diverse ancestry’.

  15. Dfens, Murdoc asked nicely that we not go down that flamewar path thingy. And without having seen the flick myself, I can’t fairly critique it anyway.

  16. The Swiss are forbidden from exporting mercenaries by the Treaty of Westphalia – signed in 1648. The Papal Guard is the only exception. Dan, you’re right it would be the tenth crusade should we try again. The pope could, at any time preach crusade, the big question is whether anyone would send troops. The Popes in the earlier crusades had little to do with the actual leading of the military forces involved, so I don’t think we’ll see Benedict at the head of column of troops. Not that that has never happened, but I think it’s fairly unlikely at this point. Norvell B. De Atkine has an essay along the lines of what Geeklehal recommended, offering an explanation of the the Arab’s relative failure to field effective military forces. Called ‘Why Arabs Lose Wars’ it can be found here: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html

  17. Sam: Yes, ouch- working in higher ed, the library is probably the single best perk. I’m sure it’s readily available in your public libe too. Dfens: Islam itself had less to do with those armies’ ineffectiveness as the choking grip of clan traditionalism(s) and despotic leadership did. But yeah, I doubt their belief system helped them much either. Buckethead: Brilliant! I was trying to remember that paper you linked. You are a very perceptive cat.

  18. Synopsizing that paper, a lack of trust (and a lack of trustworthiness) leads to an ineffective fighting force. Nothing wrong there that a little bit of good character wouldn’t fix. I had a history professor who used to say people pay too much attention to wars when they study history and not enough to the institutions that form the basis of a society. He saw the wars and how they were fought as an extension of society’s institutions. You see that here. As our nation’s character has failed so has our ability and even will to win wars. How jaded do you have to be to hope your country loses a war just so your political party can win power in the next election? Pretty darn sad.

  19. All of this is as it was to be. The third world war was to be faught with our God (everyone’s God) name used (in the Lords name). One third of the world will be destroyed. Death will be everywhere. This is scripture and we have no superhero to stop it. May God have pitty on us all. Christians be ready for the word. Protect yourself, your family and the Faith. A large historical event is about to happen. The four horsemen are about to ride!

  20. Retraction: According to some other information, the Edict of Milan, while it did legalize Christianity, it didn’t necessarily make it the dominant religion. Though a further schism between Contsantine and a previous pagan ally, Lucianus (the loser), probably changed Christianity to be more dominant. But I won’t say/flame for certain either way until I read up more on the subject. I do wonder if Islam would have appeared if Christianity hadn’t been made dominant. Christians likely at least wouldn’t have the baggage of the Crusades, Inquisition, and other whatnots to agonize over; though perhaps other foibles would have appeared.

  21. Yeah, the thing I really agonize over with regard to the Crusades is the fact they weren’t more successful. It’s like the McCarthy investigation, there are the facts and the spin, and neither has any relationship to the other.