• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

As to the issue of the Crusades (and the Spanish Inquisition), I find it interesting that people would even attempt to gloss over the evil that was done in the name of God and Christ during such times. It did happen! Why the Crusades or the Inquisition began, who started it, whether or not either were benevolent is really irrelevant. Fact is, people did commit murder and other vile acts during such times in the name of God and Christ. They put their own personal ambitions ahead of their religious calling or the humane tenants of their faith. Doesn't matter whether they were during "modern times" or medieval times. The fact remains that even those who believed they were doing "God's will" still committed sinful acts in His name.

You are correct, they did indeed do it, and the only reason people want to gloss over it is to provide cover so that they can attack Obama. It's political.
 
WHAT ??

His decision to pull every last remnant of American military personel out of Iraq for purely Political reasons didn't give them cover ?

He gave them much more than " cover " . He gave them a opportunity.

Are you saying he did it to give ISIS cover? The people of the U.S. elected him to get us out of Iraq.
 
Are you saying he did it to give ISIS cover? The people of the U.S. elected him to get us out of Iraq.

Which suggests that those who vote for words instead of experience and character should be very afraid that they might get what they ask for huh.
 
Which suggests that those who vote for words instead of experience and character should be very afraid that they might get what they ask for huh.

No it says they wanted us out of Iraq and still feel that way although you might not agree.
 
I'm going to try to speak to the three highlighted points above because they seem to reflect both the intellectual and emotional tone of the thread.

I've read the transcript of the President's 2015 National Prayer Breakfast and feel confident in saying that the theme of the President's speech can be summed up in the 2nd sentence to paragraph 9:



Religious faith used for good...religious faith subverted and used for evil. No matter what commentary you've heard about the speech, if after listening to it or reading the transcript yourself you don't walk away with an acute understanding that people and/or groups claiming to be of a particular faith have done evil things in the name of their Holy deity, then you've missed the point entirely!

While I would agree that one should never mix religion with politics (i.e., "God spoke to me and I was compelled to ask Congress for authority to destroy our nation's enemies showing no mercy"), I don't think it's wrong to ask God for a military victory over those we are at war against (i.e., God, bless our troops as they go into battle against a foreign enemy; may they be victorious.). The trick here is the war must be justified.

As to the issue of the Crusades (and the Spanish Inquisition), I find it interesting that people would even attempt to gloss over the evil that was done in the name of God and Christ during such times. It did happen! Why the Crusades or the Inquisition began, who started it, whether or not either were benevolent is really irrelevant. Fact is, people did commit murder and other vile acts during such times in the name of God and Christ. They put their own personal ambitions ahead of their religious calling or the humane tenants of their faith. Doesn't matter whether they were during "modern times" or medieval times. The fact remains that even those who believed they were doing "God's will" still committed sinful acts in His name.

What about the murder and vile acts that the Muslims committed in Europe, Africa and Asia during the three centuries before the Crusades?

It was Muslims who murdered 1 million Armenians just a hundred years ago.

It will never cease to amaze me how educated people are so ignorant of history.

Nobody seems to want to even acknowledge those events.
 
Non denominational? Which religions did he point out by name that are or have been guilty of atrocities other than Christians?
I'm pretty much sure that "all faiths" covers the spectrum.
 
Yeah, Saddam only murdered 300 thousand Iraqis. We should a left him alne. :lamo

And in our decade of fighting there, we killed another 2-300,000!!!!! What's your point?
 
Yeah, Saddam only murdered 300 thousand Iraqis. We should a left him alne. :lamo

And who was Saddam supplied by in the 1980s.
Smooth move there don't you think ?
 
Why do you hate America?

How is it that he can criticise US foreign policy, and that means he hates America, and you come on here every day trashing the American president, and you somehow love America presumably???
 
And in our decade of fighting there, we killed another 2-300,000!!!!! What's your point?

What's your point with those faked numbers? You don't get tired of posting lies? Inbet you're a huge fan of Brian Williams.
 
How is it a false narrative? Because it's not what you want to believe? Or because it's not your religion?

Hm.

Roll this around in your head for a second:


President Obama shouldn't be lecturing us on whether or not ISIL's actions are right or wrong or whether or not slavery was right or wrong. Doesn't he know that President Washington led an army against the Whiskey Rebellion?


Now. Doesn't that seem kinda sorta.... stupid? Sort of like an argument trying to tie together completely disconnected events that took place centuries apart because one actor shares a title with one from a previous era is kinda.... dumb?
 
No it says they wanted us out of Iraq and still feel that way although you might not agree.

I didn't want us there in the first place. And I don't want any of our military put in harms way in a war they aren't allowed to fight, aren't allowed to win, and don't even have a plan for what they are supposed to accomplish. But the fact is, we were there and we left against the advice of all the top military advisors. And if Fearless Leader keeps to his timetable for withdrawing from Afghanistan too soon, the same thing will happen there and it will be against the advice of all the top military advisors, including many top Democrats.

Even now even the Democrats are wavering on whether to trust Obama with war powers to mobilize the military in other hot spots in the Middle East.

Nothing is a simple as it seems and we seem to have a President who is utterly clueless when it comes to critical thinking, taking advice from experts, or knowing how to handle bad situations.

Which is why he is probably completely clueless as to why his remarks at the Prayer Breakfast were offensive and ignorant to so many.
 
Who gives a ****?

Why is the name of the enemy so much of an issue with the Obama camp?

The main person complaining about what people call the group is MMC, and I don't think he can be described as in Obamas camp
 
I'm pretty much sure that "all faiths" covers the spectrum.

Oh I see. Christianity is different from 'all faiths' then? That really clears that up.
 
What's your point with those faked numbers? You don't get tired of posting lies? Inbet you're a huge fan of Brian Williams.

Faked numbers huh? Ya think I should accept the Bush administrations numbers, lol. So tell me apdst, how man civilians do you say we killed in Iraq, 3? And what on earth has Brian Williams got to do with this.
 
Wait.....what does BO's former US Joint Chief of Staff of the Army say? Seems he doesn't.
But Al-Qaeda does. Are you really telling me you know better than the leadership of Al-Qaeda who they consider to be Al-Qaeda? Even 6 year old boys aren't so stupid as to think they can tell another group who is or isn't in their club.

By the way, nothing in your link says anything about whether ISIS is currently affiliated with Al-Qaeda. So not only is Al-Qaeda themselves telling you ISIS isn't part of Al-Qaeda, your link doesn't say otherwise.

Not surprisingly, you're not letting facts get in the way of BS.

Hm.

Roll this around in your head for a second:

President Obama shouldn't be lecturing us on whether or not ISIL's actions are right or wrong or whether or not slavery was right or wrong. Doesn't he know that President Washington led an army against the Whiskey Rebellion?


Now. Doesn't that seem kinda sorta.... stupid? Sort of like an argument trying to tie together completely disconnected events that took place centuries apart because one actor shares a title with one from a previous era is kinda.... dumb?
I'm sorry, are you trying to say Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan was "centuries" ago? And you have the nerve to call someone else dumb?
 
And in our decade of fighting there, we killed another 2-300,000!!!!! What's your point?
"We"? No, it was Islamists who were murdering the Iraqi people, just as they are doing today. The Iraqi people, for the firsy=t time in their long history, finally had the opportunity to vote, despite death threats from the Islamists.

Had the 40,000 troops remained in Iraq, as the military wanted, many thousands of lives would have been saved and ISIS would be dust.
 
But Al-Qaeda does. Are you really telling me you know better than the leadership of Al-Qaeda who they consider to be Al-Qaeda? Even 6 year old boys aren't so stupid as to think they can tell another group who is or isn't in their club.

By the way, nothing in your link says anything about whether ISIS is currently affiliated with Al-Qaeda. So not only is Al-Qaeda themselves telling you ISIS isn't part of Al-Qaeda, your link doesn't say otherwise.

Not surprisingly, you're not letting facts get in the way of BS.


I'm sorry, are you trying to say Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan was "centuries" ago? And you have the nerve to call someone else dumb?
Actually Barrack Obama has his history all wrong, his analogies confused, and is one of the best examples of why Affirmative Action is one of the worst ideas every devised by leftist, and racist, screwballs.
 
Actually Barrack Obama has his history all wrong, his analogies confused, and is one of the best examples of why Affirmative Action is one of the worst ideas every devised by leftist, and racist, screwballs.
I searched two pages of the BN forum, and couldn't find this story anywhere, and my apologies if it was already posted...But, come on folks....Give me a damned break! :doh This would be like Churchill during WWII telling us that although the Nazi's were bad, that maybe they were justified for what the Moore's did centuries earlier....It's a load of crap!


There is no equivalency....It's a false narrative that once again leads some to believe that Obama protects, and runs cover for terrorists.
Hm.

Roll this around in your head for a second:
President Obama shouldn't be lecturing us on whether or not ISIL's actions are right or wrong or whether or not slavery was right or wrong. Doesn't he know that President Washington led an army against the Whiskey Rebellion?


Now. Doesn't that seem kinda sorta.... stupid? Sort of like an argument trying to tie together completely disconnected events that took place centuries apart because one actor shares a title with one from a previous era is kinda.... dumb?

Man, you Christians sure do get livid when a negro says Christianity was anything other than perfect. At no point did he excuse ISIS's actions in any way, shape or form. He called them evil barbarians and is currently waging a bombing campaign against them, supporting the local nations. I find it extremely sad that you guys seem to have run out of actual things to whine about that you have to make things up that he never said or even implied.

We're not gearing up for another war like you'd like because the American people don't want another war, and Obama is respecting our wish.
 
Last edited:
But Al-Qaeda does. Are you really telling me you know better than the leadership of Al-Qaeda who they consider to be Al-Qaeda? Even 6 year old boys aren't so stupid as to think they can tell another group who is or isn't in their club.

By the way, nothing in your link says anything about whether ISIS is currently affiliated with Al-Qaeda. So not only is Al-Qaeda themselves telling you ISIS isn't part of Al-Qaeda, your link doesn't say otherwise.

Not surprisingly, you're not letting facts get in the way of BS.

Were you still going to say that ISIS isn't working with AQ? Or isn't still part of them......since they include them in their Caliphate?

Look I know you have difficulties and just can't fathom that ISIS was AQIL. Obviously most already know this fact. Then they morphed into the Islamic State brought on by Baghdadi's split from the Z-Man. While still maintaining their ties. Now I know even you can understand that Point. What do you think the General meant by Outgrowth?

Moreover all now, know ISIS, Al Nusra of AQ and AQAP are all working together in Syria with another named Khorasan. Whom BO also came out and told all how they are the Upper Ranks of AQ. He did manage to let that slip out.....despite his narrative AQ is on the run. Or that they are a former shadow of themselves.

Did you believe what your BO peep says or not?
 
"We"? No, it was Islamists who were murdering the Iraqi people, just as they are doing today. The Iraqi people, for the firsy=t time in their long history, finally had the opportunity to vote, despite death threats from the Islamists.
Had the 40,000 troops remained in Iraq, as the military wanted, many thousands of lives would have been saved and ISIS would be dust.
`
Had we not immorally invaded Iraq on false pretenses to start with, none of this would have happened.
 
Back
Top Bottom