# Ignorance fights back; or, december, please EXPLAIN yourself? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 7, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808 "2003-03-07T22:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/261 "2003-03-13T12:27:27Z")
Thanks for the cite, \*\*Desmostylus \*\*. I cannot get your link to work. ISTM that this Vatican statment was weak. First of all, the statement is elliptical in its mention of UN resolutions. It implies, but doesn’t quite say, that Iraq has failed to comply with unspecified UN resolutions. It goes into no detail on the nature of the “relevant resolutions of the United Nations.” More importantly, the statement doesn’t mention the real problems. Iraq presumably has huge amounts of biological and chemical weapons. Iraq has used their WMDs in the past. It doesn’t address Saddam’s financial and moral support for anti-Israel terrorism. It doesn’t mention the killings and torture of thousands of Iraqi people. I grant you that the Vatican did make a public statement encouraging Saddam to comply with the UN relolutions. To that degree, my prior post was exaggerated. But, would you agree that my other complaints are accurate? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/262 "2003-03-13T12:33:29Z")
[Fixed link.](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2003/documents/rc_seg-st_20030219_migliore-security-council_en.html) It’s not an acceptable argument to say “there was no public mention”, then complain that the public mention I found wasn’t to your liking. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/263 "2003-03-13T12:41:02Z")
As far as the Vatican failed to spell out which resolutions it was talking about, note that the address was to the U.N. Security Council, who presumably already knew. (I don’t fault you for that, **december** , because the link I first posted didn’t work, so you couldn’t have seen that.) ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/264 "2003-03-13T12:48:11Z")
> [@](#): > > They were dealing with him because he is a leader, whether he’s morally worthy or not. Thank you for defeating yourself, december. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/265 "2003-03-13T12:51:49Z")
I missed this the first time > [@](#): > > From the POV of public perception, it would appear that the Vatican gave Saddam a pass on these awful acts. No december. From YOUR point of view. Not the public. You’re trying to read between the lines of a blank sheet of paper. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/266 "2003-03-13T12:57:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*As far as the Vatican failed to spell out which resolutions it was talking about, note that the address was to the U.N. Security Council, who presumably already knew. \*\* If a speaker wanted to emphasize the importance of the resolutions, he could have gone into detail. Colin Powell and Jack Straw did just this in some of their Security Council debate. Also, the Pope weakened his request for UN compliance by opposing war, which is the only real remedy. He did say, > [@](#): > > The Holy See is convinced that even though the process of inspections appears somewhat slow, it still remains an effective path that could lead to the building of a consensus which, if widely shared by Nations, would make it almost impossible for any Government to act otherwise, without risking international isolation. I find that statement to be wishful thinking. Some feel that war is necessary; others oppose war. But, how can further inspections bring consensus? Everybody already knows that Saddam hasn’t complied. We do not have consensus now, and we won’t have consensus after more inspections. Would you agree that the Vatican appears to have given Saddam a pass on the issues of Iraq’s past use WMDs, Iraq’s financial and moral support for anti-Israel terrorism and the killing and torture of thousands of Iraqi people? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/267 "2003-03-13T13:18:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*If a speaker wanted to emphasize the importance of the resolutions, he could have gone into detail. Colin Powell and Jack Straw did just this in some of their Security Council debate. \*\* This is quibbling detail. I repeat what I said above: It’s not an acceptable argument to say “there was no public mention”, then complain that the public mention I found wasn’t to your liking. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Also, the Pope weakened his request for UN compliance by opposing war, which is the only real remedy. He did say,… I find that statement to be wishful thinking. Some feel that war is necessary; others oppose war. But, how can further inspections bring consensus? Everybody already knows that Saddam hasn’t complied. We do not have consensus now, and we won’t have consensus after more inspections. \*\* What does that mean? “Pope opposed to war” does not equal “Pope supports SH”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Would you agree that the Vatican appears to have given Saddam a pass on the issues of Iraq’s past use WMDs, Iraq’s financial and moral support for anti-Israel terrorism and the killing and torture of thousands of Iraqi people? \*\* Of course I wouldn’t agree to such a ridiculous statement. It’s incumbent upon _you_, **december** , to show that the Pope has said something _positive_ in support of SH. The mere fact that the single quote that I provided to completely refute your “no public mention” statement does not contain the kinds of condemnations you seek is entirely irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/268 "2003-03-13T13:52:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\* It’s incumbent upon you, **december** , to show that the Pope has said something positive in support of SH._\* I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think a world leader who recommends policy to deal with Saddam’s regime ought to acknowledge the nature of that regime. Especially when he’s a moral leader. E.g., from _The Scotsman_ > [@](#): > > \*\*Report reveals horror of torture used in Iraq \*\* > > HORRIFYING details of the torture Saddam Hussein is accused of perpetrating against his own people were revealed yesterday. > > Researchers preparing an indictment of Saddam for crimes against humanity detailed evidence of torture, murder and ethnic cleansing from witnesses in northern Iraq. > > Their report included eyewitness accounts of prisoners being killed by being fed through industrial shredders and children gassed in jail… > > Ann Clwyd, a Labour MP who recently returned from the latest of several visits to Kurdish northern Iraq, said that for the first time in her years of involvement with the country, Iraqi people were urging war to overthrow Saddam. > > **End game: chemical weapons** > > SADDAM Hussein is planning attacks on his own people in the event of a US-led war, and has put a top general nicknamed Chemical Ali in charge of southern Iraq to quell any civilian uprisings, according to reports. > > US military officials told the Washington Times that there are increasing signs Saddam will kill his own people and blame the atrocities on invading US forces… > > The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, warned on Tuesday that Saddam was considering shelling civilians with deadly chemical weapons, as he did in 1988, killing up to 100,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/269 "2003-03-13T13:55:35Z")
[cite for above post](http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=303372003) ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/270 "2003-03-13T14:08:43Z")
for Demo’s sake december, the Pope has not given Saddam a pass for what he did to the Kurds, or for what he did to Jews. the first conclusion you jump to is not alway the truth, no matter how much you want to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/271 "2003-03-13T14:34:38Z")
What was the point of that, **december**? You quote an article saying, in effect, “SH is a bad guy”. So what? Who disagrees with that? I don’t. You’ve been pitted because of a statement that _you_ made about the current Pope’s support for SH, and which you have entirely failed to substantiate. And no, we can’t simply agree to disagree. I think that you are a liar and a weasel. When you say “I think a world leader who recommends policy to deal with Saddam’s regime ought to acknowledge the nature of that regime.”, it’s incumbent upon you to show that he hasn’t. In another probably futile gesture, I offer [this](http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/20/1042911326397.html) (from _The Age_ newspaper, which is a right wing broadsheet, i.e. one biased in your favour): > [@](#): > > Pope’s call for peace > January 21 2003 > > Pope John Paul gathered leaders of the world’s biggest religions in the Vatican on Sunday and issued a joint condemnation of war on Iraq. The conclave in the Vatican included 38 religious leaders from 15 countries and drew together faiths as diverse as Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism. > > The leaders called for “diplomacy and persuasion” in the Middle East and said: “Opting for peace does not mean a passive acquiescence to evil or compromise of principle. **It demands an active struggle against hatred, oppression and disunity, but not by using methods of violence**.” > > The Pope has been a vocal critic of US policy towards Iraq. He publicly attacked the economic sanctions imposed on the country and emphasised that the Roman Catholic Church would not regard any conflict as just. In a Vatican statement, the Pope insisted that war was avoidable and said that if fighting broke out, it would be a “defeat for humanity”. > > About 500,000 Iraqis are Chaldean Catholics, including Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. The Catholic Bishop of Baghdad, Matti Shaba Matoka, is an outspoken supporter of Saddam Hussein and has declined to condemn well-documented abuses of human rights. (emphasis mine). (I felt that I had to quote the whole thing to avoid an accusation of selective quoting, because the story attacks both sides. If any mod disagrees, please feel to delete the quote.) ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/272 "2003-03-13T14:39:21Z")
feel _free_ to delete the quote ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/273 "2003-03-13T14:40:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > \*\*the Pope has not given Saddam a pass for what he did… \*\* Try this analogy. Suppose a world leader were addressing the court in Texas and said, > [@](#): > > My representative has recently met with John William King, Lawrence Russell Brewer, and Shawn Berry and delivered them a message stressing the need for concrete commitments in faithful adherence to the relevant laws of the state of Texas. Moreover, in view of the devastating aftermath of a severe punishment, my representative made an appeal to the conscience of all those who have a role to play in determining the future of the crisis in these coming decisive days, “because, in the end, it is conscience that will have the last word, stronger than all strategies, all ideologies and also all religions”. > > I am convinced that even though the process of disarming these three men appears somewhat slow, it still remains an effective path that could lead to the building of a consensus which, if widely shared by people of Texas, would make it almost impossible for these men to act otherwise, without risking statewide isolation. > > Punishment is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between people. Obviously, it would be unthinkable to defend James Byrd’s murderers in this way. Would this hypothetical statement be described as “giving them a pass”? I think it would. Saddam is even worse than these three killers. Saddam committed crimes as heinous as Byrd’s murder thousands of times over. ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/274 "2003-03-13T17:46:32Z")
Remind me, **december**. Which country is it that’s run by those three men? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/275 "2003-03-13T20:08:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Also, the Pope weakened his request for UN compliance by opposing war, _which is the only real remedy_.** Move to strike italicised section. This is speculation. Respectfully request the poster re-phrase the non-italicised section in its proper form, as an opinion. The Pope requested Iraq comply with UN resolutions on his own authority, he never intended it to be backed with a threat of war. He has no authority to declare war, nor does he command any troops. Plenty of other world leaders are delivering requests to Iraq which are backed by threat of war. The Pope is not, and you think this makes him weak? So asking someone to do the right thing is “weak” unless you also include some sort of clear message that you’ll kick their ass if they don’t do the right thing? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/276 "2003-03-13T20:21:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Obviously, it would be unthinkable to defend James Byrd’s murderers in this way. Would this hypothetical statement be described as “giving them a pass”? I think it would. > > Saddam is even worse than these three killers. Saddam committed crimes as heinous as Byrd’s murder thousands of times over. \*\* This analogy is as stupid as your analogy to Tim McVeigh, and for the same reason. The “bad analogy” tack seems to be a new element in your _modus operandi_, **december** , but it’s no less annoying than the limericks. And still, all you’re doing is repeating your assertions over and over, with no proof. You’re still proving the point of **Guin** ’s Pit thread admirably. Carry on! ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/277 "2003-03-13T20:28:38Z")
**Weirddave** , perhaps YOU could explain the point **december** is missing, rather than leading us around on some scavenger hunt. Maybe then we’ll see where you’re coming from. **december** , the Pope does NOT shun people. That is NOT the Catholic position. You meet with them, even the evil. Jesus himself did that. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/278 "2003-03-13T21:47:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > **december** , the Pope does NOT shun people. That is NOT the Catholic position. You meet with them, even the evil. Jesus himself did that. And, is it the Catholic position that the Vatican should invite evil people to use its facilities for press conferences? Am I wrong to interpret that invitation a sign of Tarik Aziz’s acceptibility? And, would somebody care to respond to this point: > [@](#): > > The Vatican signed an accord with the Palestinians condemning any “unilateral action” on Jerusalem by Israel. No such accord was signed with Israel when Jordan ruled Jerusalem, threw out all the Jews, forbade Jews to visit the Western Wall, and descrated Jewish holy sites and graveyards. Also this one: > [@](#): > > The Pope said that Israel was “desecrating Christian holy sites” when the IDF surrounded the Church of Nativity during its takeover by Palestinian terrorists, yet didn’t mention later how the church really was desecrated—by those selfsame terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/279 "2003-03-13T22:25:56Z")
> [@](#): > > And, is it the Catholic position that the Vatican should invite evil people to use its facilities for press conferences? Am I wrong to interpret that invitation a sign of Tarik Aziz’s acceptibility? Yes. Yes you are. Very wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/280 "2003-03-13T23:17:34Z")
I’ll take the first one, but I honestly don’t care if you find my counter-arguments convincing or not. I’m doing this because **Weirddave** asked for rebuttals of your points and I’m in a generous mood. It’s just not worth the effort to disprove all your assertions because you damn sure aren’t going to admit your errors or change your ways. Plus you always find some more out-of-context quote or pundit opinion to back your “position” with or simply ignore refutations of your claims. The claim is > [@](#): > > The Vatican signed an accord with the Palestinians condemning any “unilateral action” on Jerusalem by Israel. No such accord was signed with Israel when Jordan ruled Jerusalem, threw out all the Jews, forbade Jews to visit the Western Wall, and descrated Jewish holy sites and graveyards. Now, let’s establish a few facts. The full text of the accord signed by the Pope and the PLO can be found [here](http://www.jqf-jerusalem.org/journal/2000/jqf8/pope.html), it is remarkably short. An interesting snippet, which belies your point that this was some sort of anti-Israel accord, was the real context of the “unilateral action” snippet. It is taken from the preamble to the accord and is part of the section establishing the purposes of the accord. > [@](#): > > Declaring that an equitable solution for the issue of Jerusalem, based on international resolutions, is fundamental for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, and that unilateral decisions and actions altering the specific character and status of Jerusalem are morally and legally unacceptable; Now, find me the words “by Israel” anywhere near the words “unilateral action”. This accord rejects unilateral action by ANY side, including the Palestinians. Moreover, this accord was a reaction to an accord signed by Israel and the Vatican in 1998 which placed Catholic Churches and assets in Jerusalem(even East Jerusalem, which Palestine claims as its capital) under Israeli jurisdiction. Palestinians were worried that this gave implicit recognition to Israeli claims on East Jerusalem. The accord with the PA clarified that the Vatican did NOT intend to send the message that Israel was the proper soverign authority over Eastern Jerusalem. I can’t find the full text of that accord online, but [here is an article about it from 2000](http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000215/2000021529.html) > [@](#): > > Two years ago, Israel and the Holy See signed an agreement to place Catholic Institution in Israel and East Jerusalem under Israeli Jurisdiction. The Palestinians were concerned that the agreement implied recognition of Israeli claims to the disputed eastern sector of Jerusalem. As to the second part of the claim, that the Vatican was maliciously, or due to some anti-Jewish bias, withholding this type of support from Israel when Jordan ruled Jerusalem, assuming they, in fact, did not condemn it. I’m not digging through fifty year old press releases, which may well not be available on the web, to find out how the Pope at the time felt, or did not feel, about the issue. I would like to point out that the Vatican did not recognize Israel as a legitimate state until 1994(the reasons for this were many and manifold, some good, some bad), so that pretty much precludes the possibility of signing accords with them at that point. FYI, you should be careful when picking your cites about Papal actions in the mideast. There is more than one person in the world who claims the title of “Pope” and who speaks on these issues. [Pope Shenouda III](http://www.copticpope.org/) of the Coptic Orthodox Church. He’s much more anti-Israel than the Catholic Pope and some of the blurbs I read as your “points” on a previous page were actually quotes from or relating to him instead of John Paul II. **Weriddave** , you’re a fan of not wasting breath, right? Do you now understand why people just roll their eyes and call **december** an idiot instead of debunking his “points” over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? His points are bullshit. Almost every stinking one of them is bullshit and the ones which have some factual basis are warped by his presentation to the point where illuminating the spin he, or the pundits he loves to parrot, have put on them is a lot of effort and it’s just not worth it. To debunk some of his more esoteric ones like “No such accord was signed with Israel when Jordan ruled Jerusalem, threw out all the Jews, forbade Jews to visit the Western Wall, and descrated Jewish holy sites and graveyards.” requires proving the state of mind of dead people half a century ago! Yet he’s allowed to assume, in his accusations, that no accords were signed because the Vatican approved of Jordan’s actions and/or refused to act out of some anti-Israel bias. That is his insinuation, and he’s got no proof for such motives. We’re asked to debunk it? 😕 It’s not worth it. In closing I’d like to re-iterate that lack of condemnation is not the same as support and that opposition to war is not the same as support for the status quo. Thank you. Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808.md?page=15)