WB: Objectively Pro-Bin Laden

September 17, 2006

Billmon:

Ratzinger’s little dissertation was all pain, no gain. It was totally gratuitous. It served no useful purpose, either for peace or war. As such, it amounted to a nice little windfall gift to Al Qaeda — and was thus objectively pro-bin Laden.

I hope the pope has learned at least a small lesson from this debacle, which is that he simply doesn’t have the intellect, the stature or — most important — the moral authority of his precedessor to pontificate on such matters.

Objectively Pro-Bin Laden

Posted by b on September 17, 2006 at 04:43 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Let us not misunderestimate out little Ratzinger.
He knew exactly what kind of hornet’s nest he was stirring up. My optimistic side says that he is taking a stance between those who view reconcilliation and dialogue with Islam as impossible, and those who think it is up to the West to make the effort to “reach out” to Islam.
I think the point he wanted to make is that if a dialogue is possible, it will require a great deal of effort from both sides.
My pessimistic side is that he knows that something major and nasty is coming down and wants to establish clearly and in advance which side he is on: that of the Crusaders, of course.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 17 2006 8:04 utc | 1

Some actions, such as the overthrow of the Taliban, may be necessary and worth the collateral damage they cause to the larger struggle
this statement seems to be universally and unconditionally accepted by everyone, from the rabid right through the moderate middle and now into the vulgar Marxist left. I guess I haven’t really been paying attention the last 5 years or so since I really have no idea just what it is that the Taliban do or did that is a threat to the mighty US or Europe for that matter given that NATO just announced it will take another 5 years to defeat the poorest nation on the face of the earth.
from Gulf Times

US, British and Canadian politicians say they are surprised by intensifying Taliban resistance. They have only their own ignorance to blame.
Attacking Pashtuns, renowned for xenophobia, warlike spirits, and love of independence is a fool’s mission. Pashtuns are Afghanistan’s ethnic majority. The Taliban are an offshoot of the Pushtun people. Long-term national stability is impossible without their co-operation.
What the west calls the “Taliban” is actually a growing coalition of veteran Taliban fighters led by Mullah Dadullah, other clans of Pashtun tribal warriors, and nationalist resistance forces led by Jalalladin Hakkani and former prime minister, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
Many are former mujahidin once hailed “freedom fighters” by the west, and branded “terrorists” by the Soviets. They represent national resistance to foreign occupation. In fact, what the US and its Nato allies are doing in Afghanistan today uncannily mirrors the brutal Soviet occupation during the 1980s.

somebody help me out, I really don’t “get” why Europe has got itself sucked into this. Is it only about control of oil?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 17 2006 9:56 utc | 2

sorry, me above

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 17 2006 9:56 utc | 3

Ratzinger’s comments reminded me of that little walk Ariel Sharon took a few years ago, strolling around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem with a couple hundred armed Israeli cops and soldiers.
Direct, purposeful provocation. The message could not be made much clearer, even by tattooing it on every forehead in the Middle East.
Bush has stirred up a hornet’s nest in the Middle East, and Europe is making gestures in the direction of putting the nest back the way it was.
To no avail.
There is a Crusade in the works. The only hesitations have to do with finding ways to blame it on Islam, the Iranians, al Quaeda, the Democrats, whomever.
Mistah Cheney needs another war, or he might have to go to jail.

Posted by: Antifa | Sep 17 2006 10:19 utc | 4

Mistah Cheney needs another war, or he might have to go to jail.
Indeed, Antifa.
Olbermann/Turley

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 17 2006 10:43 utc | 5

“Objectively Pro-Bin Laden” = “Fellow Traveler”

Posted by: Doran Williams | Sep 17 2006 12:38 utc | 6

antifa
exactly so
thought it was classic right wing exercise, that is, throwing out test baloon, to see how far they can really go
its intentioon was to offend, indeed it was to alienate
indeed i think it was intended to burn any of the bridges that had been built by interfaith elelements

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 17 2006 13:30 utc | 7

Ratzinger, head of the Inquisition prior to assuming his current post, has as his goal a “purer” i.e. more fascist and smaller Church – so yes, when he does something that promotes interreligious hatred, it should be seen as intentional.

Posted by: mistah charley | Sep 17 2006 13:56 utc | 8

Deliberate provocation, absolutely.
Westerners, and the media who shape their thought, need this kind of provocation and reaction to reinforce prejudice and hate towards Muslims.
Muslims go out in the street to burn flags, they demonstrate, get all hyped up, etc. about cartoons, pictures, about words in a speech, etc. This is something Westerners understand, in the sense of objecting to trivial stuff (a remark about gays, a picture that encourages rape of women, that was the last flap here in Switzerland) Their protest falls into a Western frame, into a sort of cultural war where offended hyper-sensitivity rules. It makes them look anti-democratic, anti-free speech, culturally backward, stupid, determined, clueless, risible. Fools. And also dependent, subservient; who cares what the Pope says? Many American Catholics do not, gleefully. And here are all these rabid Muslims…and the left wringing its hands…
Obviously, objections and demonstrations of that type are allowed, perhaps even encouraged, by the disgusting Gvmts. of most Arab/Muslim (can’t be too precise here) countries. They love it, and don’t permit their people to object or demonstrate for more egalitarian Gvmt, etc. Channelling their frustration or rage into objecting to some decrepit nasty religious leader’s words suits everyone fine. Just fine.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 17 2006 14:32 utc | 9

he simply doesn’t have the ….the moral authority
Well, I don’t know, being an unenthusiastic Nazi sympathizer ought to count for something…

Posted by: Rizzo | Sep 17 2006 15:35 utc | 10

Dan,
unfortunately we have a lot of governments that believe that to win on the US side is to matter in the world. Get a share of the spoils. Now that win has been replaced with lose few wants to commit more troops to Afghanistan or for that matter Iraq.
But in Afghanistan NATO is more stuck as it is a NATO mission and the European troops are quite many in comparision to the US, making it harder to cut and run. But I think that over the next few years NATO countries and collaborating countries (why of why has Sweden got 200 soldiers in Afghanistan, bring them home) will pull out.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Sep 17 2006 15:48 utc | 11

There is a Crusade in the works.
Not necessarily. Muslims may be the pretext in an Urgent Exercise in Mis-Direction. The Real Target is most likely destroying American & European Political Structures. Why do I say this?
For those who missed these, they are The Most Important Links Ever Posted. PLEASE READ LISTEN to Jim Lovelock, one of the Most Impt. Scientists of our time.
He says that we are doomed. Global Warming is irreversible. The planet exists in 2 steady-states – the current one & a hotter one. He asserts that according to their models the probabilities are (it’s science, so nothing is known w/certainty) we have already crossed the “barrier”, the point of no return, so the earth will transit to its hotter state, in which it existed 55M years ago. Avg. Temp. of Earth will increase by 16 degrees F/8 deg. C., but locally perhaps by much more. By mid-century (2040-2060) Am. & Europe, minus the northern fringe & the UK & Asia will be too hot to grow crops – Eur. summer of ’03 will be standard – & hence will be uninhabitable, no matter what steps are taken now to reduce CO2 emissions. By the end of the century he expects 80-97% of the earths population will be gone, and remaining 200,000-600,000 who survive the coming wars, plagues & famines to be living near the Arctic – UK, Siberia & Canada – waiting out the 200,000 yrs. it will take for the earth to return to its current “cool” steady-state.
So, draconian steps are obviously in the planning stages, steps that everyone will resist if they have a choice. Do you really expect Elected Head of State to hold press conference saying Oops, we blew it. Our entire civilization is no longer viable…Logos has built a death trap…No, they’ll say look over there the _______(fill-in-the-blank) are attacking our way of life…
So, pls. check out those links, so you can update yr. knowledge banks.
Incidentally, I’m not saying that Lovelock is right, or that he wasn’t asked/pressured to write the book, pursuant to other agendas. I’ve ordered his new book, Revenge of Gaia: Eath’s Climate in Crisis & the Fate of Humanity & intend to read it shortly. Hope others will join me.
Can non-American Barflies weigh in on what play Lovelock’s assertions/book are getting in their country?
What say ye, Antifa, et al?
At best I would argue, that we’re at the Apocalypse Now stage of :”planning”. Anything goes, if you say you’re planning for the apocalypse.
Ohhhhh…but don’t forget kos’ wisdom…it’s all the Repugs… 🙂

Posted by: jj | Sep 17 2006 16:50 utc | 12

…why Europe has got itself sucked into this. Is it only about control of oil?
Not only, but also. And gas, and pipelines, hence the tag team Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai. On top of that, Afghanistan is of strategic importance, being just down the road from Iran.
Having said that, the Taliban is not really a friendly and humane bunch of men, with no gripes about maiming or killing people in its way. Especially women have a great number of reasons to fear them. And coming from that angle, Europe and NATO see their current mission there as justified, you know, the official line that they are there to help stabilise the country, assisting the Afghan people in their effort to become a democracy, etc.
5 years after the invasion though, and 1000’s of civilian casualties later, death and destruction is still the daily bread of many living in Afghanistan. But hey, mission accomplished, Afghanistan is again open for business.

…Another recent report on Afghanistan’s “reconstruction” written by Fariba Nawa, an Afghan-American journalist, is devastating and “confirms that Afghanistan has been ‘Enron-ized’ by the Bush administration.”33 The report states that foreign contractors “make as much as US$1,000 a day, while the Afghans they employ make $5 per day.” It reveals that the USAID “gives contracts to American companies (and the World Bank and IMF give contracts to companies from their donor countries) who take huge chunks off the top and hire layers and layers of subcontractors who take their cuts, leaving only enough for sub-par construction.” The result is collapsing hospitals, clinics and schools, rutted and dangerous new highways, and “help” for farmers that leaves many of them worse off than before. Overall, countless millions have been wasted through misdirection, inefficiency, and corruption – leaving in its wake an alienated Afghan population. The reality is that the bulk of the people continue to languish in grinding poverty, with less clean water and electricity than before the war. The aid agencies have helped, but at great cost, and they have not endeared themselves to the local people…

>>>> just like Ratzinger himself, objectively Pro-Bin Laden.

Posted by: Feelgood | Sep 17 2006 16:56 utc | 13

backpaddling

At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.

kind of …

Posted by: b | Sep 17 2006 19:08 utc | 14

he simply doesn’t have the intellect, the stature or — most important — the moral authority of his precedessor to pontificate on such matters.

Heh.

I’d concentrate on doing what he clearly is equipped to do best, which is keeping the chair warm for his hopefully more able and less reactionary successor.

John XXIII was supposed to keep the chair (of St. Peter, of course) warm for Montini and he managed to do a lot of damage in 6 years or so. Not that I’m complaining, mind you.

Posted by: Jeff R. | Sep 17 2006 20:44 utc | 15

jj (12)
From commentary on the Lovelock book I’ve seen, it seems he is mainly pimping for the nuclear power industry as our “salvation”. For that reason alone I decided against buying his book…at least until I can pick it up well used at Amazon Marketplace.
However, I can give credence to his observations on climate change, a subject I have been reading on for several years now. I’m looking forward to the IPCC’s 5-year update due out this year.

Posted by: woodswitch | Sep 18 2006 1:20 utc | 16

i haven’t read enough of lovelock to form an opinion, but lester brown is squarely behind wind energy combined with electric/gas hybrids – won’t require building new infrastructure and environmentally friendlier. not to discount how lovelock’s dire view, brown is still looking implementable solutions.

Posted by: conchita | Sep 18 2006 1:48 utc | 17

@woodswitch, you can get it used now from amazon – according to their website. I ordered it used online.

Posted by: jj | Sep 18 2006 2:33 utc | 18

agree with billmon that Pope Benedict went above his papal pay-grade with this speech. Very very clumsy.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 18 2006 4:46 utc | 19

Karen Armstrong weighs in on Pope Ratzo’s remarks: We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam
In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. “I approach you not with arms, but with words,” he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, “not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love.” Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the “bestial cruelty” of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? “I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree,” he expostulated, “worse than cattle if I assent!”
Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such “love” might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.

Posted by: jj | Sep 18 2006 7:40 utc | 20

former Hitler Youth, child sexual abuse protector, former head of the papal office which ran the Inquisition, that Ratzinger?
All
Heil Ratzinger!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 18 2006 10:05 utc | 21

Liar Liar, Pope on Fire

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 18 2006 10:10 utc | 22

What does the Bope, GW Push and Bin forgotten (until needed), all have in common?
People of the hook, crook and book.
hahahaha…puke.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 18 2006 10:14 utc | 23

Back to Main