Things That Piss Us Off About This Morning's NYT Article (5) - Militant Islam Confuses Them. Except Not Really, Ya Know?
Playing dumb so that the public can't figure out how extreme terrorists are is not nice:
In Egypt, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been critical of the pope, initially said Sunday that the pope’s remarks represented a “good step toward an apology.” Later comments from the group, however, seemed to cast doubt on whether it fully accepted the pope’s statement.
Yeah, the way they came down on that is just laden with doubt. Totally impenetrable:
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood says Pope Benedict has not made a "clear apology" for remarks on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world. "It does not rise to the level of a clear apology and, based on this, we're calling on the pope of the Vatican to issue a clear apology that will decisively end any confusion," Mohammed Habib, the deputy leader of the group, told Reuters. Habib had earlier described the pope's remarks as a "sufficient apology".
But really, this is the best part:
And for many conservatives here, fearful of terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and rising Muslim immigration in Europe, the remarks of the pope - despite his own denial that he meant to criticize - amounted to a rare public airing of a delicate concern many of them share: whether, in fact, Islam is at the moment especially prone to violence.
Let's see... is Islam "at the moment especially prone to violence". If only there was some sort of evidence we could point to in order to settle this debate. Maybe examining the ongoing conflicts in the world and seeing whether Muslims appear to be overrepresented. Or, alternatively, you could read a little further down in the article where he answers his own question by writing that "meanwhile, protest continued around the Muslim world". Usually, of course, "protests" isn't necessary the same thing as being "prone to violence" - but he's the one counting 'shooting a nun four times' as a "protest". All we're asking for is a little consistency.
In Egypt, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been critical of the pope, initially said Sunday that the pope’s remarks represented a “good step toward an apology.” Later comments from the group, however, seemed to cast doubt on whether it fully accepted the pope’s statement.
Yeah, the way they came down on that is just laden with doubt. Totally impenetrable:
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood says Pope Benedict has not made a "clear apology" for remarks on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world. "It does not rise to the level of a clear apology and, based on this, we're calling on the pope of the Vatican to issue a clear apology that will decisively end any confusion," Mohammed Habib, the deputy leader of the group, told Reuters. Habib had earlier described the pope's remarks as a "sufficient apology".
But really, this is the best part:
And for many conservatives here, fearful of terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and rising Muslim immigration in Europe, the remarks of the pope - despite his own denial that he meant to criticize - amounted to a rare public airing of a delicate concern many of them share: whether, in fact, Islam is at the moment especially prone to violence.
Let's see... is Islam "at the moment especially prone to violence". If only there was some sort of evidence we could point to in order to settle this debate. Maybe examining the ongoing conflicts in the world and seeing whether Muslims appear to be overrepresented. Or, alternatively, you could read a little further down in the article where he answers his own question by writing that "meanwhile, protest continued around the Muslim world". Usually, of course, "protests" isn't necessary the same thing as being "prone to violence" - but he's the one counting 'shooting a nun four times' as a "protest". All we're asking for is a little consistency.
