After vowing to fight antisemitism, but still managing to offend almost everyone with some various so-called gaffes and ill-advised decisions, the Pope’s trip treads a pitfall-riddled path.
There’s plenty of press and internet coverage of a jpost article about the Pope’s hasty exit after an impromptu speech by Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi.
Pope Benedict abruptly got up and left before the end of the event, though not before performing the obligatory ‘handSheikh’
Speculation surrounds the issue, ‘did he or didn’t he?’ that is, walk out deliberately or merely need the gents.
The incident has brought out some virulently anti-Israel bile from readers of the Catholic and other press, supporting the gist of the Sheikh’s rant. These angermongers must be the recipients and consumers of BBC news reporting, simply reacting to tales they have been told.
But on a lighter note, there are also a number of supporters of what the Pope did, if indeed he did it.
So far, on this matter, the BBC remains silent.
I for one don’t give a damn about the Pope, Israel or Palestine, etc., etc., but I do care about having to pay to have a TV.
A very good point that is not made enough, and a point that is generally ignored by the owners of this site.
However you would surly have to agree, that if that was all that this site was trying to do, it would be a very boring place to come.
If you have the patience and can make the effort, no one seems to be stopping you campaigning personally for what you wish, on this very site.
Please feel free to do so, you never know you might actually get somewhere.
Although don’t for one second start thinking that you will succeed in getting rid of the licence free. Because for that to even stand a chance of actually happening, you would have to be living in a free functioning democracy, which IMO you clearly do not.
Also IMO there is no point in fighting a battle you can not win. Mainly because you don’t know who the enemy is, where it is, or why it is doing what it is most certainly doing, even though you may believe you do.
Generals fighting wars with such little intel on their real opposition, are basically on a hiding to nothing. So much so, that even if the blind fool believes he has won the battle, he will have in reality already have lost the war.
Atlas shrugged
Sue:
When in doubt you flail.
And you’re looking for fans.
Keep digging.
It’s your thread.
Knacker.
Looking for fans-
Shall I take it you’ll never be one?
Who cares what a superstitious old German Palpatine lookalike says or doesn’t say?
The point is made well here by JohnA and others that, if the Pope had insulted Islam, it would be top news on the BBC. The other way round , it dopesn’t get reported.
Typical BBC bias.
Why do the Beeboids crawl to muslims ? Are they afraid of them ?
“Doesn’t ” !
DP – see here, from the comments of the last article you linked to.
http://www.neshamah.net/reb_barrys_blog_neshamahn/2009/05/the-pope-walked-out-.html
I think a balanced survey of all the sources (dismissing those in whose interest it is to argue he left because of the comments) suggests there was no link between what was said and the Ope leaving.
If the Pope’s people confirm he walked out because of what was said, then I’ll accept I’m wrong. But it’s notable that they have not done that. Why would that be do you suppose? Perhaps because it’s not true?
Pure speculation on your part. The BBC are to be congratulated for not making more of the incident, based on speculation.
Anonymous,
You’re grasping at non-existent straws here. This eye-witness you’ve found says the same thing as everyone else. The Pope left before the conference was over, immediately after he was informed of the contents of Tamimi’s speech.
This eye witness is saying that the Pope didn’t walk out “during” the speech, but CNN and others aren’t saying that. They’re saying that the Pope walked out before the conference ended, right after Tamimi’s speech.
Now, it’s clear that the Pope walked out immediately after Tamimi’s speech, once he was informed of the content. That’s not my speculation. That’s reality, based on eye-witness accounts. If you continue to deny that, then you’re not being honest.
The only possible doubt you could cling to would be the Pope’s motivation for leaving right after the speech, and before the conference was over. It’s possible that he just wanted to get back to the hotel in time to catch East Enders, I grant you. But will you believe the Pope’s own Press Office?
The intervention of Sheikh Tayssir Attamimi was not scheduled by the organizers of the meeting. In a meeting dedicated to dialogue this intervention was a direct negation of what a dialogue should be. We hope that such an incident will not damage the mission of the Pope aiming at promoting peace and also interreligious dialogue, as he has clearly affirmed in many occasions during this pilgrimage. We hope also that interreligious dialogue in the Holy Land will not be compromised by this incident.”
This is the official explanation of why the Pope walked out and didn’t come back. No speculation on my part needed here. You can’t deny it any longer.
“This is the official explanation of why the Pope walked out”
Where!? No it isn’t! It’s an expression of regret at the content, not an explanation of his actions.
The witness says “But I have to say, it certainly did not feel like the Pope was walking out on the speech.” This from someone who is “sort of pleased that the “spin” being put on it is that the Pope walked out on him, because it certainly would have been a good thing for the Pope to walk out on something like that.”
The issue is entirely about his motivation for walking out. And to link it to what Tamimi said is pure speculation. It may well be that he did, but there’s nothing but speculation that this is why he left.
1 The Pope and his party walked out directly after the Muslim’s rant, before the meeting ended. Surely that is now agreed after all Anon’s wriggling ? And the meeting was supposed to be about religious tolerance.
2 The Pope’s party issued a statement clearly expressing displeasutre at the Muslim’s unscheduled interruption – and his rant.
3 A Jesuitical argument might be that these two things are not in any way connected, that it is “pure speculation” to connect them. Rubbish, says anyone with commonsense. That is – anyone except Anon.
Perhaps beyond the dhimmi BBC’s comprehension:
‘Jihadwatch’:
“Pope Benedict’s colossal error” (by Hugh Fitzgerald, 14 May).
JohnA – “wriggling”
No!
The Pope and his people were clearly not happy at what was said, subsequently. But the (admittedly small) issue at hand here is whether Tamimi’s comments caused the Pope to walk out. I’m saying there is no evidence that this was the cause of the Pope leaving the conference (NB cause, not correlation), that the balance of evidence supports this view, and that the BBC were right, in reporting the incident, not to make a causal link between the comments and the Pope leaving.
The accusation here was that the BBC is being remiss not mentioning the link between what was said and the Pope leaving. I’m saying it would have been remiss had they made the causal link where this seems at best unclear.
On all other matters (Pope not happy, Tamimi a bad man etc I agree entirely. But don’t see bias where there is none.
Anyway, can we agree that Sue put up the wrong pope?
Anon
Ridiculous.
The Pope walked out. After the rant. Before the meeting ended.
No causal Link ? How warped can your arguments get ? There had to be a cause. Try Occam’s Razor – the obvious answer is usually right.
Maybe as Sue cynically suggested – perhaps the Pope needed to go to the gents ? Perhaps he was not at all offended by the rant ?
Perhaps there was a horse race he wanted to see, or a football match. Or some hot chick had texted him.
And the core fact remains – the BBC failed to report the incident in any way on TV or radio. Through all your evasions, you have never disputed this.
“the BBC failed to report the incident in any way on TV or radio. Through all your evasions, you have never disputed this”
That’s because, as an empiricist, I didn’t hear or see any coverage. Occam’s razor suggests correlation surely? For causation to be there you need to explain why the hand was shook and why the Vatican did not support the contention that the Pope walked out as a result of the comments subsequently. The simplest explnation is that there was no causation. And the balance of coverage from the the major media organisations does not support the argument from causality.
Yawn.
I have Radio 4 on all day long, while I work. I never heard a damn thing about the incident, nor did I see it mentioned in any of the TV reports I saw on the Pope’s visit.