Iraq al-Qaida Says Pope, West Are Doomed

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 9/19/06 | Anna Johnson

[XR7]

An al-Qaida-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters raged across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.

In Indian-controlled Kashmir, meanwhile, shops, businesses and schools shut down in response to a strike call by the head of a hard-line Muslim separatist leader to denounce Benedict. For the third day running, people burned tires and shouted "Down with the pope."

Protests also broke out in Iraq, where angry demonstrators burned an effigy of the pope in Basra, and in Indonesia, where more than 100 people rallied in front of the heavily guarded Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, waving banners that said the "Pope is building religion on hatred."

The pope...cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of Islam's Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman" and referred to spreading Islam "by the sword."

[The_Reader_David]

Well, according to the left, we attracted them to Iraq. Oddly, the left regards this as a bad thing. Sure they're killing Iraqis, which is bad, but at a lower rate than the Ba'athist government killed its citizens in 'peace' time. Given the lowering of violent mortality among Iraqis--even including the tit-for-tat Sunni-Shia set-to's lately--compared to pre-invasion levels, how exactly was turing their country into a roach motel for jihadis a bad thing?

[headstamp]

".......and in Indonesia, where more than 100 people rallied in front of the heavily guarded Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, waving banners that said the "Pope is building religion on hatred."

Pot meet kettle.

[Peisistratus]

"So if you pay a "head tax" (non-muslim) you're ok? But in the next breath if you don't convert you die? They need to make up their minds."

Being a dhimmi was never OK. You were usually allowed to live another day, that's all.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Exactly. Listen to what some Imams say it is OK to do to Kuffars.

[tobyhill]

They've been saying this for over 5 years and we're still around.

[B Knotts]

You're quite correct.

[Peisistratus]

"Exactly. Listen to what some Imams say it is OK to do to Kuffars."

Nothing like being forced to pay a tax while being whipped, only be allowed to walk, your daughters forced to "convert" (this STILL happens in countries like Egypt - a country we give well over a billion dollars to each year!), having no legal rights, having to wear special symbols and dress, not be allowed to repair your church or build a new one...

"Dhimmi" means both "protected" and "guilty". Many converted in the end to avoid the abuse. I'm willing to bet they consider the foreign aid our government thinks its a good idea to extract from us at gunpoint and give to our enemies as our jizya and their due.

[stephenjohnbanker]

"According to news reports I've seen, these Muslim "activists" only resort to violence in self defense and if we imperialistic Americans (and our butcherous Jewish friends) would just LEAVE THEM ALONE they'd only be too happy to live their lives in peace and harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors."

Last time I checked, Israel was the country who just wanted to be left alone to live in peace.

[spinestein]

[Last time I checked, Israel was the country who just wanted to be left alone to live in peace.]


That's only according to you and me and anyone else with a brain.

According to most press accounts I see, Israel is the villain for audaciously wanting to avoid extermination.

[KingofQue]

Let's try a hundred million or two

[stephenjohnbanker]

Gee, if animals were blowing up my cafes for sport, I would audaciously avoid extermination. I must be a closet terrorist!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Let's see:

Kill 100,000 we will be monsters to the MSM
Kill 500,000 we will be no better than al queda
Kill 2,000,000 of these cockroaches, and the world will hush up for fear they will be next in line : )

[nopardons]

As I sad previously......IT ALL DEOENDS UPON WHAT COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THEY GO TO.

And what I originally posted it correct.

[maryz]

As I understand it, nowadays all students are subsidized because the cost of providing the education is not covered by the cost of tuition -- even full price; most of the subsidies are from the government, unless it's a college like Hillsdale, for example. And there aren't nearly as many full scholarships as there were, say, 30 or 40 years ago (when tuition was a lot cheaper. Today, the thing in financial aid seems to be to offer a package -- maybe a paltry partial scholarship, with loans (mostly government and school) and work-study.

All the schools I've been familiar with that offer scholarships have actual scholarship funds, provided by donors.

[nopardons]

Many colleges and universities still off full scholarships; no loans needed nor required of some of the students. Though yes, there ARE some specific scholarships that are fully funded by donations put into self renewing hedge funds/stock funds, most aren't.

Oh I've seen the adds about how NO students fees are really covered by what they pay too. That isn't exactly true. Lots of colleges and universities use funds for things they don't count towards actual education, but throw in those costs into the mix.

College/university costs were a LOT less in previous times, because they weren't being used as high schools; as they are today and most people did NOT go to college. But costs are also misleading. WHY? Because it's all relative, vis-a-vis what people earn now and what they earned 50 or more years ago.