C'mon dude, not unlike Bush or any president before him, he stated an obvious, that IS isn't Islamic in the sense that they don't represent it at all, in a very awkward and unfortunate way. Which always gives your opposition room to ridicule you and distract from the more important. So squeeze it for all you can get, and have your laughs, and then we'll move on, I'll not blame you for having some fun.
Best respond to the quotes when you actually read them.
Any of them advocating attacks against ISIL.
You can go back to the original posts and respond to them again, fair enough? Otherwise you are reading things that aren't there, and we know it.Did you even read and follow what you said in response?
Invariably some will be, arguably all will be, definitions deciding the latter.Are ISL 'civilians'?
So you don't know?Invariably some will be, arguably all will be, definitions deciding the latter.
You can go back to the original posts and respond to them again, fair enough? Otherwise you are reading things that aren't there, and we know it.
Yet he became president, not once, but twice. And he has been a Christian for 2-3 decades. Or was the guy that just beheaded a woman in London, who had converted to Muslim five years ago, really still a Christian, or whatever he had been prior to his conversion?
To me, Islam is just as ridiculous and any other religion. To each their own.
I view ISIS as being as much Islamic and I view Westboro Baptist being as much Christian.
Granted, they are apples and poisoned oranges. Not the same at all except they both use "religion," to validate their despicable actions.
I wonder how many people have died in the name of these "peaceful," religions. Some say religion is the "opiate of the masses." I consider them to be cancers.
I questioned why some would deflect from the topic of "ISIL is not Islam" to that of Christianity. Do you have a plausible and honest theory on why that might be?I only ask for you to clarify if that was what you meant? If it wasn't, then ok.
The same is true of political movements as well. They often have a ruthless, or Messianic, leader with similar promises to those of religions in order to inspire their followers.
I'll go along with whatever religious or political movement which says 'live and let live', though the 'do unto others...' is excellent as well.
Obama is living proof that we get the government we deserve.
I'm stating it's as much semantics as claiming half the Muslim supports killing civilians. You can twist definitions and logic around until you've made even the most revered society members out to be vile, depending on the viewpoint and the propaganda.So you don't know?
"Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim."
Oh really? There has been an ongoing war, even before ISIS, with Sunni and Shia Muslims killing each other, and both killing Christians - so exactly who is innocent and who is guilty?
Whether you like it or not, the name of the terrorist group is 'Islamic State'. They want a government governed strictly by Sharia, or Islamic, law. So yes, they are Islamic - the most fundamentalist form of Islam, but Islam. The Muslims are waiting for their 'Mahdi' - who is the anti-Christ. The Islamic religion itself is anti-Christian. It was created to directly oppose the notion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind, and the Koran says explicitly that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. So who is so adamantly opposed to Christ? I mean, there is no other religion that takes the religious text of another religion and twists it around to mean something else. The Virgin Mary appears in the Koran, as well as Jesus... only their roles have been changed. Those who think that they are following the same God of Abraham are mistaken - Allah is the ancient moon-god, and the crescent and star derive from him. So who is it that desperately wants mankind to NOT accept Jesus Christ as Savior - why the devil, of course.
Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic" | Video | RealClearPolitics
The majority of posters in this thread support violence on civilians. What's your point?
That wrath is often more than divine, with honor killings being an example of that. And of course the murder of Muslims by other Muslims is in the news daily.
Anyone who gains political power has to espouse a belief in something that will inspire their followers. In the case of Obama it was Hope and Change, in the case of ISlS it is an Islamic caliphate. One message doesn't mention religion and the other does, but both required committed believers.
I'm not certain what rights you're referring to but we do know that what rights we enjoy were inspired by Christianity. I think that's yet to be determined. It has been said that people who believe in nothing will believe in anything, and there has been much evidence of that.
I see no evidence of that at all. Who is holding that leash?
They certainly are as ****ed up!
I questioned why some would deflect from the topic of "ISIL is not Islam" to that of Christianity. Do you have a plausible and honest theory on why that might be?
No. Just pointing out the propaganda at play here.Can't win the argument so you resort to that? I'll take that as you concede the point then.
You would have a point about us meddling, if it were a problem focused at us, but it isn't. There isn't a country in the world today that hasn't had some sort of incident with radical jihad-dist. Even countries like Russia and China, that have opposed us almost every step of the way, face their own problems and have had numerous deadly attacks over the years. And as far as Sharia law not being barbaric, this is the problem when you have have no strong moral center, and want to believe that we're all the same. There is a right and wrong in this world, beheading journalist because they disagree with you is wrong. Stoning women, under any circumstance, is wrong. Forcing women in general to be nothing but ornaments to a man, is wrong. It took us a while, but we in the west finally figured that out. Not to say we're perfect mind you, we still have some issues to come to term with including how we handle people who are homosexual. But our system is far more preferential than that.
I'd like to see some support for these claims you're making.
Everyone says they have a "strong moral center" but disagrees with what morality actually means. What they really mean is that they are strongly committed to what they think is moral, but cannot actually demonstrate that it really is. Morality is subjective, not objective. That's the reality behind it. Morality is a social short-hand. It's a way to declare what rights and abilities are going to be applied across a particular society. Often, it's a means of simply demanding that something be true without having to actually defend or rationalize why it ought to be true. People in the U.S. are indoctrinated into a particular social and moral code. People in other countries are indoctrinated into other social and moral codes. None are demonstrably true. You can probably argue why some are better than others, for various definitions of "better", but that's about as far as it goes. People get uncomfortable when their morality gets questioned because they don't have the ability to step back and actually evaluate their morality, and the whole concept of morality, objectively.
You say that stoning women is wrong and, based on our shared subjective morality, I'd agree with you. However, Hindus think that eating cows is wrong, based on their subjective shared morality, yet we eat hamburgers here every day. Who is "right"? It all depends on your point of view because right and wrong are entirely subjective terms. We really need to get away from arbitrarily declaring things right and wrong and get into the nuts and bolts of *WHY* one way is better or worse than another way. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable, as I said, and lots of people would rather react emotionally than deal with issues rationally and intellectually.
Just because you have an opinion that you favor doesn't make that opinion objectively better than someone else and so long as people have that view, nothing will ever change.