Page 33 of 75 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 746

Thread: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

  1. #321
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyO View Post
    He IS excusing it-- that's the problem. He is accepting the argument the al queda types make-- that Moslems has been brutalized over the years, lands robbed and stolen and so on. He is rationalizing his indifference to what has been going on.

    And its so hypocritical: the man who spent the last six years denying any connection exists between jihad and Islam has no problem identifying a connection between the crusades and Christianity or the Inquisition and Christianity. If the president is willing to condemn sins of Christianity from half a millennia ago, is it too much to ask him to condemn sins of Islam from the past six months?
    It was amusing that BHO condemned Christians for the Jim Crow Laws when it was his own party which created them. What a maroon!

  2. #322
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    I'm sure you meant to say the Southern Conservative Protestants who now are GOPs.

    Just follow the family trees brother Grant .

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It was amusing that BHO condemned Christians for the Jim Crow Laws when it was his own party which created them. What a maroon!
    Physics is Phun

  3. #323
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    I'm sure you meant to say the Southern Conservative Protestants who now are GOPs.

    Just follow the family trees brother Grant .
    Whoa!!! Are you denying it was Democrats who created the Jim Crow Laws??

  4. #324
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    Irrelevant. Those terrorists wouldn't have been able to get the power they have today had dumbya not invaded back in 2003--a fact which he was repeatedly warned about, so those deaths wouldn't have happened.

    Big question is when are you and your right wing bros gonna suit up and ship out to go fight ISIS, i. e. take responsibility for your voting screwup in 2000 and 2004?
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    George Bush gave them the power? How did he do that?

    Do you sincerely believe that this would have been going on in Iraq if the 50,000 troops had remained?
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    that's a question we often hear from Leftists who have been victims of the public education system but arithmetic isn't related to the subject at hand. The question was "How did George Bush give ISIS power?"

    Have you read the entire article you submitted and critiqued it at all?

    Are you familiar with this? Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Grant,

    You're purposely being too literal here. You know exactly what solletica means when she asks "who gave them [ISIS/ISIL and even Al-Qaeda in Iraq] the power" to rise up and become such a menacing terrorist group in the ME? The sources she links to (see post #224 and 225) along with the Bush Doctrine itself makes this very clear. More to the point, even GWB's former Secretary of Defense, Gen. Collin Powell said it plainly when he stated, "If you break it, you guy it," referring to if you tear down the only stable government Iraq has by removing Saddam Hussein from power without putting a new stable government in its place, you effective own the problem you create in the aftermath of leaving a power vacuum behind. And that's exactly what's happened in Iraq and the region today.

    The alarm bells were ringing loudly before the War in Iraq even commence. From a summary study of the Bush Doctrine:

    Anticipating the critics, the National Security Strategy recognizes that pre-emptive action in the past required "the existence of an imminent threat--most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack." It says, however, that terrorists and rogue states will not use conventional armies and navies, but rather terrorism...
    It's very clear who gave them the power. I think a more apt question, however, would be "under what circumstances did ISIL/ISIS eventually rise to power?" You could argue that not leaving a residual force in Iraq (Obama Administration) led to it, but there is sufficient evidence to show that radical elements were already on the rise in Iraq as early as 2001 but didn't really go into high gear until (2004-)2006 (GWB Administration) and was formally established in 2013 (Obama Administration). (See article w/timeline here.)

    Who's more at fault? GW Bush because his decision to forge a pre-emptive strike against Iraq under false pretenses left a power vacuum in the country that gave rise to terrorist extremism outside of Afghanistan where it could have been contained. Not leaving a residual force added fuel to the fire, but when the reigning sovereign government tells you they don't want your assistance and to leave under established agreement, you have no choice but to leave least you be viewed as an occupying force.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #325
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It was amusing that BHO condemned Christians for the Jim Crow Laws when it was his own party which created them. What a maroon!
    Political party had nothing to do with it. People who used religion to do evil things...that's the point no matter if those who commit the acts are Democrats or Republicans, White or Black, gay or straight, male or female, Protestant or Catholic, Jews or Gentiles, Christian or Muslim. If you commit evil in the name of God using religion as your justification, you're doing wrong. Period!
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  6. #326
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Grant, You're purposely being too literal here.
    Of course I am being literal. Words have meanings and muddled words make for muddled thinking. We must do our best to clarify what the facts are and what they mean.
    You know exactly what solletica means when she asks "who gave them [ISIS/ISIL and even Al-Qaeda in Iraq] the power" to rise up and become such a menacing terrorist group in the ME?
    I can only guess that that statement is what she means. How I can interpret otherwise? But the stubborn fact remains that when Barrack Obama decided, as a Presidential candidate and quite probably unaware of the consequences, he chose to remove the troops from Iraq. All of this was against the advice of the military, who were in a much better position to understand the consequences than Barrack Obama. Nonetheless, as has been shown repeatedly, BHO said "we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq". This was certainly the greatest military blunder, and lie really, of this young century.
    The sources she links to (see post #224 and 225) along with the Bush Doctrine itself makes this very clear. More to the point, even GWB's former Secretary of Defense, Gen. Collin Powell said it plainly when he stated, "If you break it, you guy it," referring to if you tear down the only stable government Iraq has by removing Saddam Hussein from power without putting a new stable government in its place, you effective own the problem you create in the aftermath of leaving a power vacuum behind. And that's exactly what's happened in Iraq and the region today.
    Iraq was not "broken" when Bush left office. It was as Barrack Obama described. It is BHO himself who 'owns' Iraq, given that it was he who removed the troops. How can George Bush possibly be blamed for whats going on in the Mid East now when it was Barrack Obama, against all advice, who ordered the retreat? That makes no sense whatsoever.
    And who really believes that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was 'stable'? Has the mass graves, the rape rooms, the genocide, all been forgotten in a contemporary rewrite of history?
    The alarm bells were ringing loudly before the War in Iraq even commence. From a summary study of the Bush Doctrine:
    Be suspicious of any article which uses the term 'neo-con, or 'seemingly'. If you want to discuss the Bush Doctrine, using the words of George Bush, let's do it.
    It's very clear who gave them the power.
    Certainly. Barrack Obama left the field open for the return of the terrorists when he removed the troops. Now, of course, no foreign leaders trust him because he is way out of his depth.
    think a more apt question, however, would be "under what circumstances did ISIL/ISIS eventually rise to power?" You could argue that not leaving a residual force in Iraq (Obama Administration) led to it, but there is sufficient evidence to show that radical elements were already on the rise in Iraq as early as 2001 but didn't really go into high gear until (2004-)2006 (GWB Administration) and was formally established in 2013 (Obama Administration). (See article w/timeline here.)
    Again, "we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq". What does that mean to you? That terrorism is on the rise?
    Who's more at fault? GW Bush because his decision to forge a pre-emptive strike against Iraq under false pretenses left a power vacuum in the country that gave rise to terrorist extremism outside of Afghanistan where it could have been contained. Not leaving a residual force added fuel to the fire, but when the reigning sovereign government tells you they don't want your assistance and to leave under established agreement, you have no choice but to leave least you be viewed as an occupying force.
    The "reigning government" was a diabolical dictatorship intent on doing harm to its neighbors and in violation of the restrictions laid down following Desert Storm. How can a murderous megalomaniac ever be used in the same sentence as 'stable'? And his successor government could not have ordered the retreat of the American forces. Certainly a SOFA could have been reached but Obama had made a campaign promise and had an ideology that we see in full play since his re-election. There are over 80 SOFAs in place around the world.
    With the removal of Saddam Hussein and 40,000 troops remaining, as advised, many thousands of lives would have been saved and the world a more peaceful place. As is is Barrack Obama has made the world a far more dangerous place for political purposes, catering to a hopelessly naive electorate.
    Last edited by Grant; 02-08-15 at 04:02 AM.

  7. #327
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Political party had nothing to do with it. People who used religion to do evil things...that's the point no matter if those who commit the acts are Democrats or Republicans, White or Black, gay or straight, male or female, Protestant or Catholic, Jews or Gentiles, Christian or Muslim. If you commit evil in the name of God using religion as your justification, you're doing wrong. Period!
    What evidence do you or BHO have that the Jim Crow Laws were in place for religious reasons? It was for racist reasons and designed and passed into law by the Democrats. The rest of your post is straw.

  8. #328
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    When Obama condemns "the Crusades" and those who use "the name of Christ" - while he declares Islam is the "religion of peace" - the extreme radical and false claim he made is stunning.

    The religion of Islam was started by war, total religious intolerance by the actions and doctrines of Muhammad:

    Muhammad gained few followers early on, and met hostility from some Meccan tribes. To escape persecution, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Abyssinia before he and his followers in Mecca migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina. After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The attack went largely uncontested and Muhammad took over the city with little bloodshed. He destroyed the pagan idols in the city[17] and sent his followers out to destroy all remaining pagan temples in Eastern Arabia.[18][19] In 632, a few months after returning to Medina from the Farewell Pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and died. Before his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam, and he had united Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.

    The prior Christian, Jewish and pagan religion countries were attacked, their temples and churches destroyed, and forced conversions to Islam.

    From it's start, Islam was a religion of war, religious intolerance and forced conversions - convert or be killed. From this start it continued as a war-religion attacking every country and people in every direction - for the next centuries- as far East as India and as far West as Spain and France.

    President Obama certainly has no criticism of that history whatsoever. What he condemned is that Christians resisted and fought back. In his view, for that great evil of Christians all of the West also isn't Muslim. And yes, Christian armies in defense and attempts at liberation did cite the name of "Jesus."

    The evil of the Crusades was that Western Christian nations were not defeated by centuries of Muslim invasions and therefore all Christians were not forced to become Muslims too. That is the great historic evil in his open opinion. Condemning the Crusades is his ratifying the slogan and claimed justification of Islamic violent radicals.

    President Obama has a Muslim father and grandfather. His earliest schooling was at a Muslim school. He attended the "god damn America" church. To this day he absolutely will not say the word Islam or Muhammad in any negative context - thought will say Jesus and Christian in the context of brutality and murder.

    Now that he no longer has to worry of elections, he can devote himself to stating and acting upon his real viewpoints:
    1. That the USA is an evil country of evil white Christians, along with evil white Europeans, that have brought misery to the whole world
    2. That Muslims worldwide should unit into a world super power.
    3. That opposing a Muslim world superpower is wrong.

    Regardless of what he says and what minor actions he takes to divert from public outrage, his actual real policy decisions and actions will be on those beliefs.
    Last edited by joko104; 02-08-15 at 04:14 AM.

  9. #329
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    What evidence do you or BHO have that the Jim Crow Laws were in place for religious reasons? It was for racist reasons and designed and passed into law by the Democrats. The rest of your post is straw.
    That also is another horrific lie by the President. Christians were the most vehement opponents to slavery and bigotry. The tenant of racial equality is straight out of Christianity. Essentially President Obama pissed on MLK Jr's grave too.

    We've never really had a president before who saw Christian and Americans as the enemy before.

  10. #330
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    Re: Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

    Today, your kind refers to liberals as Democrats.
    Unless you need to refer to Southern Conservatives, today's GOP base, as Democrats .

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    What evidence do you or BHO have that the Jim Crow Laws were in place for religious reasons? It was for racist reasons and designed and passed into law by the Democrats. The rest of your post is straw.
    Physics is Phun

Page 33 of 75 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •