Oh boy, this is a doozy

The pope makes some statement about Islam and violence. He apparently was quoting or referring to something written in medieval times. Which is a GREAT example from the pope's point-of-view, because the Muslims were violent in the middle ages, not the Christians, right? uuuuuuh...?

Almost as ridiculous is this...
In response, several churches in the middle east are burned down, a nun is killed, and effigies of the pope are set on fire (on camera, which means there must have been a preceding outrage that gave the camera-people time to get there for the finale), and who knows what else. This is an angry response because the pope will not say that he was wrong or sorry or something. If someone calls you violent, but you're not, you would get angry. And the very very worst way to show that you're angry is to prove the original statement has some truth to it.

I'm pretty confused. Were the people who reacted in violence (which makes no sense) actually just proud of the statement? And separately, other peaceful people just protested? That would make at least some sense.

If this wasn't such a sensitive subject, it could be a comic or something.
"You're violent"
"I am not!"...PPRFFF!... (that was the *onomatopoeia for a punch)
"ouch!"
END

*A word that sounds like the thing it describes, like "bang" or "clang"
I don't think PPRFFF really qualifies since it's not a real word.