Muslims Riot, Murder over Pope’s Words, New York Times Condemns the Words

RUSH: Well, lots of exciting stuff going on out there today, folks. The latest from this whole controversy over the pope, and words. There are some things that happen that are simply propitious, and this is one of them. The pope utters words, he quotes an old emperor from many centuries ago, and now the Muslim world is going bonkers, rioting, killing a nun in Somalia, shooting her in the back while she was praying. These Muslim extremists, Islamofascists are proving everything that the pope’s words indicated. The New York Times had an editorial on Sunday that just totally misses the point, but, boy, is it expressive and illustrative.

First off from Reuters, dateline Dubai. “An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the ‘worshippers of the cross’ in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world. The statement was made in an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, 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. … God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen.” Yeah, this is a peaceful religion, there’s no question about it. The pope simply utters words. But guess who one of the staunchest allies of Al-Qaeda happened to be yesterday? Well, not Jacques Chirac. It was the New York Times.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/09/18/muslims_riot_murder_over_pope_s_words_new_york_times_condemns_the_words2/

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, I had lots of exciting stuff going out there today, folks.
The latest from from this whole controversy over the pulp
and words I there there are some things that happened
that are simply propitious, and this is one of them.

(00:21):
The Pulpe utters words, he quotes an old emperor from
many centuries ago, and now the Muslim world is going bonkers, rioting,
killing a nun in Somalia, shooting her in the back
while she was praying Um. These these Muslim extremists, is
Lamo fascists are proving everything that the Pulpe's words indicated.

(00:48):
New York Times had an editorial on Sunday that just
totally misses the pointment. Boy, is it expressive and illustrated.
First off, from Reuter's uh dateline du I uh An
Iraqi middlitant group led by al Qaeda vout of war
against the worshippers of the Cross in response to a

(01:08):
recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger
across the Muslim world. The statement was made an Internet
statement by the Mujahadeen Shurick Council, an umbrella group led
by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda said, we tell the
worshiper of the cross, that being Pulpe, that you and

(01:29):
the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Zechnia.
We shall break the cross and spill the wine. God
will help Muslims to conquer Rome. God enables us to
slit their throats and make their money and descendants the
bounty of the Mujahadeen said the statement, Yeah, this is
a peaceful religion. There's no question about it. Pope simply

(01:53):
utters words. But guess guess who one of the staunchest
allies of al Qaeda happened to be yesterday? Uh? Well,
not Jacks, your rocket was the New York Times. The
New York Times has an editorial entitled The Pulpe's Words,
The Pope's Words. There is more than enough religious anger

(02:13):
in the world, so it's particularly disturbing that Pulpe Benedict
Sixte has insulted Muslims, quoting a fourteenth century description of
Islam is evil and inhuman. Muslim leaders the world over
of demanded apologies, and the Pope has apologized, and he
keeps apologizing, and he's apologizing even more, and he ought
to just be quiet. Uh, it's not not gonna gain anything.

(02:38):
These are opportunities. How long does it take for these
random mobs to round up these people to get in
front of a p and Reuter's and up I cameras,
to go out there and pose as an angry mob,
thereby making sure these pictures show up all over the world.
Muslim leaders the world over demanded apologies, threatened to recall
their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the popes were

(03:00):
words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam.
For many Muslims, Holy war jihad is a spiritual struggle
and not a call of violence. Well it may be,
but there's still a whole heck of a lot of
them to whom it is more than a spiritual struggle.

(03:21):
It is an actual struggle that has led to a
World War I. You know, the the utter denial of
a reality. That is you have to you have to
close your eyes and blindfold yourself to miss this. A
doctrinal conservative, that would be his greatest sin. Pope Benedict

(03:44):
the sixteen, His greatest fear appears to be the loss
of a uniform Catholic identity. Not exactly the best jumping
off point for tolerance and interfaith dialogue. All Right, if
the New York Times is upset at the Pope's words,
demanding he a hopologize for quoting words from centuries ago
that offended Muslims, uh, maybe we can strike a deal.

(04:08):
You know, I like to offer solutions on this program.
Maybe what ought to happen is that if we get
the New York Times to apologize to Karl Rove and
Scooter Libby and a number of other people they have
impugned and maligned and defended with their printed words and
their editorializing, then maybe we can go to the Pope
for one more apology. Hey, maybe wouldn't mind adding one

(04:32):
more to the list that he has already made. If
you read this whole editorial, and I've been bothered to
read the whole thing to you. But what becomes obvious here,
ladies and gentlemen, that the people of the New York
Times and the Libs, the Libs view religion in an
in a totally different way from anybody else. That's the
only conclusion that you can come to here. Religion is

(04:53):
simply a device whereby practitioners trying to make themselves feel
good in otherwise screwing an out of control world. It's
like it's like the religion of the Church of Oprah.
It's like the religion of the Church of Environmentalism, or
the religion of the Church of Animal Rights or feminism.
It's all designed to make the practitioner feel better about

(05:17):
his own worldview. But it is it has no depth,
it has no foundation, and it has no meaning. Uh
it's you know, these people forget that we are dealing
with evil. They don't even acknowledge it. They haven't even
reached the point where they could forget it. They don't
even acknowledge it. And real religion, um, whatever it's problems.

(05:42):
Maybe real religion is all about fighting the dark side
and fighting evil and fighting sin, is it not? That's
the purpose and to help provide faith for answers to
questions that we are capable of asking but that we
will never be able to answer. The New York Times says,

(06:03):
you know, we just we need love. Jackie DeShannon, what
the wood needs now he loves sweet love. Uh, that's
not what's needed. I mean, paulp has Is, he's practically
bowed down in his hands and he's I'm sorry I
didn't mean any offend anybody, and weren't even my words.
Let me go, leave me alone. And it's still not enough.

(06:26):
You can't apologize to these people. Uh. What is I
think necessary here is a is a muscular and forceful,
unflinching devotion to God that looks evil in the eye
and calls it by its true name. But we're and

(06:48):
I think in a large part much of the population
of this country, Uh indeed feels that way about it.
The New York Times, which will fight to the death
for their own free speech rights, predictably hypocritical and suggesting
the Pope was wrong for exercising his And I want
to go back to this, this whole point that you know,

(07:09):
their demanding the Pope apologized for offending and maligning and
so forth and so on. Boy, I'll tell if anybody
needs to be at the front of that line, it
is the editorial writers and even some of the reporters
at the New York Times who have sought out and
tried to destroy numerous human beings in and out of
the Bush administration in Washington simply because they are in

(07:33):
the Bush administration or support the Bush administrattipiate because they are,
they are conservatives. They noticed that the the restraints, the constraints,
and the shackles the New York Times argues for everyone
else are shackles that they would never ever dream of
allowing to be placed on themselves, even if those shackles
were the shackles of fairness and responsibility