DebateGate

Actually, I thought it was funny.

Got to hand it to Chavez, the man has a sense of humour.

Plane,

It is a violent situation and you know it. The Holy Father knew it as well.

Should he make a speech in Belfast condemning Protestantism or quoting a centuries old Catholic ruler who did? By your logic, there is no reason why he should not.

I wonder what prevents him from doing so? If he apologized after making such a speech, would you, Sirs, or the Professor question his character?

BT: I understand. Of course the militant Islamists are responsible for the crime they committed. In that there should be no doubt. Yet, the conclusion that many here draw is that all of Islam is responsible, or that "political correctness" (whatever that nebulous term means) is responsible, or that this somehow vindicates everything some long dead Byzantine Emperor said of Islam. I think that in that respect we are making the same point.

Sirs: If anyone is not calling a duck a duck, it is you. You are calling every bird a duck and hoping that someone will declare open season.

You never said Arab Christians were fascists, that's the problem. The most succesful Arab Fascists were a group of Syrian Christians who founded the Baath Party. But that fact undermines the oversimplification on your part that every terrorist group in the Middle East, Indonesia, Phillipines, and anywhere else that is remotely tied to Muslims has the exact same goals, desires, and methods. Oh, and they share the same political philosophy that Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco shared - Fascism.

You don't even come close to "calling a duck a duck." You don't want to learn the complexities that go along with Islam, life in the Middle East, the different races and sub-goups within Islam, the different histories of those groups, how they fare today and what they see as modern injustices. Nope, that's too complex. Like a child, you want one simple answer, which is to group them all in one category of "Islamofascism" because W and your blogger, radio pals say so.

Thinking critically takes effort. Interesting that you select "duck" by the way, there are nine sub-families of ducks as they are difficult to classify in one single family of Anatidae.

Not done directly by the United States government, but done with our knowledge and without our condemnation and what is more - done without our removal of aid and occasionally our continued praise of said regimes. In other words, basically condoning such behavior.

It isn't an exact parallel, true, but let's not play the game where the United States is some innocent nation of good in all of this that has always stood by for Christians and Catholics across the world who faced such terror. We've played the other side as well and looking the other way while sending taxpayer's money and military training (as well as CIA "counter-insurgency" training) to nations that murdered nuns, priests, and laymen hardly gives us this wonderful high ground from which to cast mighty aspersions.

The true Arab fascists that Sirs so dearly loves to talk about, but knows nothing of, where mostly Arab Christians. They founded the Baath party and were considered heroes to Saddam Hussein.

The reaction of these militant Muslims is reprehensible. Of that there is little doubt. Yet, to broadbrush that to all of Islam is ridiculous and to take glee in that violence and subsequent broadbrushing is reprehensible.

This is not about being politically correct. That has nothing to do with it.

This is about personal responsibility Professor, and Pope Benedict XVI needs to realize that he has a responsibility to discourage violence and promote peace. This is the same man who opposed the Iraq War and questioned the justifiability of all modern warfare. I know this is not the outcome he wanted, but that responsibility lies with him. As I said earlier, it doesn't mean that the individuals who fired the shots are no longer culpable - they most certainly are. Yet, that does not mean that the Pope is free of his own responsibility.

You all want to make this about causing offense or being PC. It isn't. This is about igniting the tinderbox. You aren't an "emasculated" leader because you don't travel to Belfast and threaten the RIRA. That makes you an intelligent leader.

I agree with Domer that your celebration of violence as irony (which it is not) only lends more credence to the radical side of Islam. Moreover, the argument celebrates violence and death of individuals as a means to an end.

Yet, that was not the point of Manuel II Palaiologos' fictional debate with a Persian prince, from which Benedict XVI was quoting.

There's no irony in the outcome as it was foreseeable given the ill-chosen words of the Holy Father.

Basically you are suggesting there is irony in an explosion when you light the fuse on a stick of dynamite. I'd call it an anticipated reaction.

No, but he might as well have. It is an inflamed situation involving militants, just as Northern Ireland was (and could be again). His words lit the tinderbox.

Does that take responsibility away from those who pulled the trigger? No. But it doesn't negate the responsibility of a world leader to be mindful of his words.

I go back to my Falls Road example. If you ignite the violence in an area known for violent outbursts, then the blood that follows is on your hands.