ISIS attack on Vatican thwarted…

for now:

Italian authorities arrested six suspects who allegedly received orders from the Islamic State terrorist group to attack the Vatican and the StMichaelIsraeli embassy in Rome.

The arrests made in Lombardy and Piedmont April 28 were the result of a joint operation coordinated by the district attorney of Milan and the Italian anti-terrorism agency.

According to the Italian news agency ANSA, authorities arrested Abderrahim Moutaharrik and his wife, Salma Bencharki; Abderrahmane Khachia, and three people who have maintained contact with a couple that left Italy to join the Islamic State in Syria. All of the suspects are of Moroccan origin.

A warrant has been issued for the couple, Mohamed Korachi and his Italian wife, Alice Brignoli, who are believed to have left for Syria in 2015.

Authorities monitored a series of conversations between the suspects via WhatsApp. One of the messages sent to Moutaharrik said: “Dear brother Abderrahim, I send you … the bomb poem … listen to the sheik and strike,” ANSA reported.

Milan prosecutor Maurizio Romanelli told reporters authorities believe the word “sheik” is a reference to Islamic State leader Abu-Bakir Al-Baghdadi. He also said the messages, intercepted in February and March 2016, mentioned a strike against the Israeli embassy as well as against Christian pilgrims in Rome for the Jubilee Year of Mercy.

“I swear I will be the first to attack them in this Italy of crusaders, I swear I’ll attack it, in the Vatican God willing,” a message from one of the arrested suspects stated, according to ANSA.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Originally published at Brutally Honest.

Another Confederate Symbol Going Bye-Bye
Ted Cruz is no Hoosier.
  • jim_m
    • Walter_Cronanty

      Gosh, that’s a little harsh. Don’t the members of ISIS worship the same God as us? I mean, the ISLAMIC State in Iraq and Syria and those who shout “Allahu Akbar” while beheading Christians aren’t really Muslims, right?

  • Walter_Cronanty

    How can the Pope say we worship the same God?

    “…Throughout history, Muslim theologians have understood and taught this progression, that the message of the Quran culminates in its ninth chapter.

    Surah 9 is a command to disavow all treaties with polytheists and to subjugate Jews and Christians (9.29) so that Islam may “prevail over all religions” (9.33). It is fair to wonder whether any non-Muslims in the world are immune from being attacked, subdued or assimilated under this command. Muslims must fight, according to this final chapter of the Quran, and if they do not, then their faith is called into question and they are counted among the hypocrites (9.44-45). If they do fight, they are promised one of two rewards, either spoils of war or heaven through martyrdom. Allah has made a bargain with the mujahid who obeys: Kill or be killed in battle, and paradise awaits (9.111).

    Muslim thought leaders agree that the Quran promotes such violence. Maajid Nawaz, co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation in the United Kingdom, has said, “We Muslims must admit there are challenging Koranic passages that require reinterpretation today. … Only by rejecting vacuous literalism are we able to condemn, in principle, ISIS-style slavery, beheading, lashing, amputation & other medieval practices forever (all of which are in the Quran). … Reformers either win, and get religion-neutral politics, or lose, and get ISIL-style theocracy.” In other words, Muslims must depart from the literal reading of the Quran in order to create a jihad-free Islamic world.

    …I simply want to make clear that while ISIL may lure youth through a variety of methods, it radicalizes them primarily by urging them to follow the literal teachings of the Quran and the hadith, interpreted consistently and in light of the violent trajectory of early Islam. As long as the Islamic world focuses on its foundational texts, we will continue to see violent jihadi movements.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/

    • Walter, perhaps you missed this published months ago…

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I read that article when you published it and was in awe of its illogic – it is as if the author has no knowledge of the Quran, which is akin to opining on Christianity without any knowledge of the New Testament. Also, to deny Christ’s divinity is not an “imperfect” view of God, it is a denial of God Himself.

        The Quran is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims believed was revealed by God to Muhammad. The Quran, in turn, dictates that Muslims subjugate Christians [and Jews and every other religion] and if they do not subjugate Christians by any means necessary then they are hypocrites.
        Your author’s analogy makes the mistake of equating Christians belief in a triune God with Lois Lane loving only Superman, while Lana Lang loves only Clark Kent. Not true.
        Christians love Kal-El [God the father, if you will, in the analogy], Superman [Christ] and Clark Kent [the Holy Spirit]. Muslims deny the existence of Superman and Clark Kent, but claim to believe in Kal-El – an impossibility. Additionally, they believe that Kal-El has mandated that they kill both Lois Lane and Lana Lang because they do not love only Kal-El. If they don’t, they are not true believers in Kal-El. This is not the same God.

        • Are you familiar with Beckwith, the author of the linked piece? You understand he’s a scholar, a lecturer, a man, shall we say, of letters?

          Did you read his piece in its entirety? It’s well thought out and far from illogical.

          And are you serious in thinking he has no knowledge of the Quran?

          It’s one thing to disagree with him… it’s quite another to suggest what you’ve suggested… and on one piece particularly, you are simply mistaken.

          Muslims don’t deny the existence of Christ [Superman] in your example… they simply believe him to be prophet, not messiah, which logically means they believe in his existence. This aligns totally with Beckwith’s point that the same God is believed in only not fully understood by the Muslim.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Appeal to authority much? I don’t care if he’s a “man of letters,” his analogy is based on a false premise and is, therefore, wrong. He’s a “man,” and thus fallible, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge, on many levels.

            You say that Muslims don’t deny Christ’s existence, just his divinity [I’m paraphrasing – If I’m incorrect, feel free to correct]. To borrow from the author’s analogy, that’s like saying you believe in Superman, but do not believe he has super powers – that is an impossibility.

            You say Muslims believe he is a prophet. Then they must believe that he is a false prophet for Christ has said that He is, indeed, God the Father. :

            John 14 – “5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

            7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

            8Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?”

            To deny Christ’s divinity is to deny the essence of Christ – and therefore to deny God.
            And if they worship the “same” God, how can that God mandate that they subjugate Christians. I’m sorry, but the logic is faulty.

          • Walter… you clearly did not read his article in its entirety… clearly…

            Or… you have a comprehension problem… I’ll go with the former…

            In any case, we disagree. Not the first time, won’t be the last.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I read what you excepted. If he wrote something that made sense, you should have included it.

          • Lol… okeydokey smokey… as in blowing smoke… clearly no fire…

            Read his entire piece then perhaps see the error of your ways…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I’ve raised substantive objections to your author’s premise as you presented it. You respond, not by answering my objections, but by taking me to task for having the temerity to disagree with your “man of letters,” insult my reading comprehension and tell me I’ve got to read the article you excerpt in its entirety to discover “the error of my ways.”
            If you believe what you’ve excerpted is the heart of the article, I can’t see wasting my time reading the rest of it. You put it out there. You defend it.

          • No. You’re acting like a third grader. I won’t stoop to that level. You don’t want to read the entire piece, then don’t, But not doing so and criticizing the piece is juvenile. You’re better than this.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So, let’s review. You post an excerpt of an article. The excerpt contains an analogy which is meant to illustrate the point of the article.
            If a reader criticizes the analogy by pointing out that it contains a false premise, the criticism is quickly dismissed because the analogy was posited by a “man of letters.”
            If, however, the unlettered and unworthy reader continues to criticize the analogy, you attack his “reading comprehension.”
            You then direct the unworthy reader to read not only what you’ve posted, but the entire original article. If the unworthy reader doesn’t do what he’s told to do*, yet still maintains his criticism of the analogy, he’s a “juvenile…third grader.”
            Throughout this charade of a discussion, you never address the substance of the criticism, you merely hurl insults. Who’s really the “juvenile?”
            I’d like to say you’re better than this, but I’m afraid I would be wrong.
            *I read the article in its entirety. The analogy is contained, in its entirety, within the portion you posted – there is no need to read the article in its entirety to understand the analogy. My criticism stands.

          • So, let’s review. You post an excerpt of an article. The excerpt contains an analogy which is meant to illustrate the point of the article.

            If a reader criticizes the analogy by pointing out that it contains a false premise, the criticism is quickly dismissed because the analogy was posited by a “man of letters.”

            Completely untrue… the point of my referencing the man’s authority was part and parcel of the larger point that you had clearly not read his entire piece, something you later admitted to, something relevant to the fact that you had problems with a piece of what he had to say without reading all of what he had to say, something accurately reflecting that you had taken his point out of context because you needed something to prove your pretext about what was actually said. It’s completely dishonest.

            If, however, the unlettered and unworthy reader continues to criticize the analogy, you attack his “reading comprehension.”

            I did no such thing… instead I wrote:

            Walter… you clearly did not read his article in its entirety… clearly…

            Or… you have a comprehension problem… I’ll go with the former…

            I gave you the benefit of the doubt choosing instead to see you in a brighter, not dimmer, light, one you later admitted was in fact true… and you choose to dishonestly suggest I attacked your reading comprehension… you should be ashamed of yourself and instead you choose to go down a scurrilous path… why?

            I think I’m done here Walter… so in my opinion should you be done, as should your dishonesty.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            All this venom on your part, and you still haven’t answered my criticism of the analogy.

          • I have no venom… none… and your analogy is flawed because your premises are flawed… and I already pointed that out… Muslims revere Christ as prophet but not as Messiah… you don’t accept that, as is your prerogative, nevertheless, it invalidates your argument. Period.

            Only one of us is spewing venom here Walter… check your mirror for spittle.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            What analogy did I make? I merely stated the obvious. If Muslims believe Christ is a prophet, they must believe He a false prophet because He stated that He is the Father, yet they do not believe He is the Father. Is that statement factually wrong?
            You’ve sunk to personal insults, insulting my reading comprehension [since I’ve read the entire article and continue with my criticism of the analogy, it must be my reading comprehension, right?], calling me juvenile, a third grader and dishonest – all without answering my criticism of your author’s analogy. Why?

          • Umm… could you cite for us all, chapter and verse, where Christ said he is the Father?

            And since in fact you’ll be unable to do so because in fact you’ve simply misstated the common Christian doctrine that Christ and the Father are one… you instead imprecisely described Christ… which is what Muslims do… which is the point of the excerpted piece which is what you completely missed…

            Thanks Walter…

          • Relevant I think..,

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You’re correct – I did indeed misstate that Christ is the same as the Father. My bad. As I stated in my original critique of the author’s analogy, however: “Your author’s analogy makes the mistake of equating Christians belief in a triune God with Lois Lane loving only Superman, while Lana Lang loves only Clark Kent. Not true.
            Christians love Kal-El [God the father, if you will, in the analogy], Superman [Christ] and Clark Kent [the Holy Spirit]. Muslims deny the existence of Superman and Clark Kent – an impossibility. Additionally, they believe that Kal-El has mandated that they kill both Lois Lane and Lana Lang because they do not love only Kal-El. If they don’t, they are not true believers in Kal-El. This is not the same God.”

            As the Muslim’s deny Christ’s divinity, I don’t see how it’s possible that they believe in the same triune God that Christians believe in.

          • Scalia

            I was going to ask you about that too (Christ & the Father). From your two comments, it appeared that you subscribed to modalism, or to use the perhaps more precise term, modalistic monarchianism. Of course, it wouldn’t have mattered to me in the context of your debate with Rick. I ultimately refrained because I didn’t want to hijack the thread. 😉

          • Your inputs are valuable Scalia… don’t hesitate to jump in…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, I should have stuck to my original criticism of the analogy. It’s been awhile [like never] since I’ve written about the triune God. I started typing too fast.
            I still think the analogy is wrong – I wish Rick would explain why he thinks it’s correct.

          • I would find it hard to add to anything that Beckwith has said in his piece… it speaks for me.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yet again, a non-answer. Thanks.

          • I think you should clarify… my answer is one that leaves an unsatisfactory taste in your mouth… but that’s not really my problem. That’s your problem.

            Francis Beckwith is articulate, wise, and has given the explanation that I don’t have the desire or frankly the talent to improve.

            You on the other hand have chosen to stick with broken reasons, illogical reasons, why you disagree with what he’s saying. You have every right to do so. Sleep in the error of your thinking. Beckwith, to the open mind, is the alarm clock to that kind of slumber.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Hot air has very little taste…a bit of stench, but no taste.

          • Beckwith’s piece is substantive. You call that hot air… it reveals much.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            No, your non-answer is hot air.

          • Your inability to grasp that I’m stating flatly there’s nothing I could say to add to Beckwith’s wisdom is the elephant in the room…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            The fact that you’re incapable of generating an original thought to answer criticisms of your cited article has painted that elephant pink.

          • Recognizing an authority outside of self is an identifying mark of a principled and practicing Catholic…

            You have a problem with that… you have a problem period.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Jawohl, mein herr.
            See, I can be a good Catholic, too.

          • You wouldn’t know a good Catholic from a horse’s ass… and yes, that’s blunt but it’s the best I can come up with in light of your last ignorant and bigoted response.

            You’re your own Pope Walter… and might make a good Protestant one day… good luck with that.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You’re right – I wouldn’t know you from a good Catholic.

          • The Lord’s true peace to you and yours Walter…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And also with you and yours.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Good read, but I think you misunderstood my point. When I wrote “Jawohl, mein herr” I was referring to you bowing blindly to authority, not to the Catholic church in general, nor to Pope Pius in particular.

          • Walter_Cronanty: “As the Muslim’s deny Christ’s divinity, I don’t see how it’s possible that they believe in the same triune God that Christians believe in.”

            Muslims don’t believe in the same Triune God that Christians believe in.

          • Neither do the Jews believe in the same Triune God that Christians believe in yet… will you or Walter suggest that Jews don’t believe in the same God?

          • Messianic Jews do believe in the same Triune God as Christians. Yes, Messianic Jews are real Jews. Come to think of it, the first people to be called Christians were all Jews.

          • We’re not talking about Messianic Jews, nor are we talking about converted Jews…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            My point exactly. When I commented that I couldn’t understand why the Pope said that Muslims and Christians worshipped the same God, Rick directed me to an article he had posted previously which argues that: “Muslims and Christians do worship the same God,…” The author continues his thought: “…Islam holds an imperfect understanding of the divine, since it denies Christ’s divinity and thus, by implication, God’s triune nature.”

            I believe that is untrue. First, the denial of Christ’s divinity necessarily means that Muslims deny a triune God. That is not “an imperfect understanding of God” – it is a completely different god than Christians worship.

            The author attempts to illustrate his point by an positing the following analogy: “Lois Lane is in love with Kal-El (Superman’s birth-given name), and believes him to be non-human because he was born on Krypton. Now imagine that Lana Lang is in love with Clark Kent (Superman’s newspaper reporter alter ego), and believes him to be a human being because she thinks he was born of human parents, Martha and Jonathan Kent. Lois does not know that Kal-El is really Clark Kent, and Lana does not know that Clark Kent is really Kal-El.

            Are Lois and Lana in love with the same man? Of course they are, even though one of them is clearly mistaken about some of her beliefs about Kal-El/Clark and his nature. The reason for this is that there is only one being that is essentially Kal-El.”

            I argue that the analogy is inapt. In this analogy, it is not the case that “one of them is mistaken” – they both are mistaken. Moreover, Christians love Kal-El [God the father, if you will, in the analogy], Superman [Christ] and Clark Kent [the Holy Spirit]. Muslims deny the super powers [divinity] of Superman and, as far as I know, deny Clark Kent. Thus, the analogy fails – Rick disagrees, but instead of answering my criticism, only tells me to reread his cited article because my reading comprehension is deficient.

            Second, when one views the Quran’s “revelations” about Muslims’ god, it becomes clear that Christians cannot worship the same God as Muslims, because “Allah,” according to the Quran has ordered Muslims to subjugate, by any means, Christians: “Surah 9 is a command to disavow all treaties with polytheists and to subjugate Jews and Christians (9.29) so that Islam may “prevail over all religions” (9.33). It is fair to wonder whether any non-Muslims in the world are immune from being attacked, subdued or assimilated under this command. Muslims must fight, according to this final chapter of the Quran, and if they do not, then their faith is called into question and they are counted among the hypocrites (9.44-45).” http://www.usatoday.com/story/

            How can Christians and Muslims worship the “same God” when this supposed same God demands that Muslims subjugate Christians? The argument that they do is illogical.

          • Rick, in John 10:30, Jesus says, “The Father and I are one.”

            So, how did the Jews respond to that comment? The answer is in the next three verses.

            “The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

          • What exactly is your point?

  • Commander_Chico

    One thing we know, if it happens Saudi Arabia won’t be blamed. I guess it will be Syria and Iran this time.

  • So, Rick is appealing to alleged authority, which is a fallacy of logic, and, no, we don’t have to accept something just because it is said by the Roman Catholic branch of the universal Church. The Roman Catholic branch isn’t the final earthly authority on things pertaining to God and to Christianity.