Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

apdst · Feb 7, 2015

Montecresto said:
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.

Not 300 thousand.

ocean515 · Feb 7, 2015

Montecresto said:
Apparently I misunderstood your post. I thought you were the one accusing Obama of aiding and abetting the enemy, sorry for that.

I don't know the quoting function as well as I should, so I cut and paste the previous posters complete comments. I can see how that might have led you to your misunderstanding.

So no harm. I do remain baffled by the reluctance of the Obama Administration to label obvious terrorist acts for what they are. If there is a reason for such a policy, I haven't seen an explanation for it.

ocean515 · Feb 7, 2015

Moot said:
I suspect that the same people criticizing Obama for not labeling the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terror are the same people that complained when he assassinated the Fort Hood shooter's mentor, al-Awlaki in Yemen. Some people are just whiners and impossible to please.

Motives for mass killings are numerous but you've decided that yelling Allah Akbar makes it an act of terrorism? Would yelling "in God's name" while slaughtering people at an abortion clinic or "holy cow, batman" while slaughtering people in a theater make it an act of terrorism or is the label just for Muslims?

I'm not the one that called it a 'mislabeling', you did.

During the GWBush years, conservatives were labeling anyone and everyone that didn't agree with them as terrorists and still do. So perhaps the word 'terrorism' just doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Like many others, it's apparent you have to stretch reality to the point of breaking to think the logic of your argument makes any sense.

At present, terrorists are causing havoc around the world in the name of their god. Tens of thousands of videos and propaganda pieces exist where Allah Akbar is chanted, yelled, etc. by these terrorist fighters. The recent terrorist attacks in France produced videos of the terrorists yelling Allah Akbar in the street.

The Ft Hood terrorist had converted and communicated with known terrorist instigators. He yelled Allah Akbar while eviscerating unsuspecting victims. Only the most desperate and warped minds can try to view that event as something other than a terrorist attack.

Terrorist means what it means. PC efforts won't change that. It remains a mystery why the Obama Administration, and I guess, people like you, have such a difficult time calling events for what they are.

MMC · Feb 7, 2015

ocean515 said:
Like many others, it's apparent you have to stretch reality to the point of breaking to think the logic of your argument makes any sense.

At present, terrorists are causing havoc around the world in the name of their god. Tens of thousands of videos and propaganda pieces exist where Allah Akbar is chanted, yelled, etc. by these terrorist fighters. The recent terrorist attacks in France produced videos of the terrorists yelling Allah Akbar in the street.

The Ft Hood terrorist had converted and communicated with known terrorist instigators. He yelled Allah Akbar while eviscerating unsuspecting victims. Only the most desperate and warped minds can try to view that event as something other than a terrorist attack.

Terrorist means what it means. PC efforts won't change that. It remains a mystery why the Obama Administration, and I guess, people like you, have such a difficult time calling events for what they are.

Heya Ocean. :2wave: Well a couple of Historians came out to help BO. Just another field of people who disagree with him. Like the Historian said from London. To suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.

Historians Weigh in on Obama's Comparison of ISIS Militants to Medieval Christian Crusaders.....

Meanwhile, historians have been quick to discourage a link between ISIS and the Crusaders, who fought to reclaim holy lands in the Middle East nearly 900 years ago.

“I don’t think the president knows very much about the crusades,” Thomas Madden, a historian at the University of St. Louis, told ABC News. “He seems to be casting them as an example of a distortion of Christianity and trying to compare that to what he sees as a distortion of Islam in the actions of ISIS,” Madden said. “The initial goal of the Crusades was to give back lands to Christians that been conquered, due to Muslim conquests.”

Thomas Asbridge, a historian at the University of London, said in a statement to ABC News, “It is true to say, that by modern standards, atrocities were committed by crusaders, as they were by their Muslim opponents, it is however, far less certain that, by medieval standards, crusading violence could be categorized as distinctly extreme in all instances.” Asbridge said he doesn’t have a problem with the president reminding the world that the Christian Church “advocated violence, and at times even encouraged its adherents to engage in warfare” but to suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.”.....snip~

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-we...s-militants-medieval-christian-233947247.html

ocean515 · Feb 7, 2015

MMC said:
Heya Ocean. :2wave: Well a couple of Historians came out to help BO. Just another field of people who disagree with him. Like the Historian said from London. To suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.

Historians Weigh in on Obama's Comparison of ISIS Militants to Medieval Christian Crusaders.....

Meanwhile, historians have been quick to discourage a link between ISIS and the Crusaders, who fought to reclaim holy lands in the Middle East nearly 900 years ago.

“I don’t think the president knows very much about the crusades,” Thomas Madden, a historian at the University of St. Louis, told ABC News. “He seems to be casting them as an example of a distortion of Christianity and trying to compare that to what he sees as a distortion of Islam in the actions of ISIS,” Madden said. “The initial goal of the Crusades was to give back lands to Christians that been conquered, due to Muslim conquests.”

Thomas Asbridge, a historian at the University of London, said in a statement to ABC News, “It is true to say, that by modern standards, atrocities were committed by crusaders, as they were by their Muslim opponents, it is however, far less certain that, by medieval standards, crusading violence could be categorized as distinctly extreme in all instances.” Asbridge said he doesn’t have a problem with the president reminding the world that the Christian Church “advocated violence, and at times even encouraged its adherents to engage in warfare” but to suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.”.....snip~

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-we...s-militants-medieval-christian-233947247.html

Hi MMC :2wave:

I continue to struggle with the Obama Administration and their apologists, when it comes to the posturing they go through on a regular basis. The President's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast is just another example of this posturing. Ruminating over classifications of obvious terrorist actions is another.

Perhaps I'm blind to an obvious end game they have in mind, but the optics are disturbing to me, and it appears many millions of people.

MMC · Feb 7, 2015

ocean515 said:
Hi MMC :2wave:

I continue to struggle with the Obama Administration and their apologists, when it comes to the posturing they go through on a regular basis. The President's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast is just another example of this posturing. Ruminating over classifications of obvious terrorist actions is another.

Perhaps I'm blind to an obvious end game they have in mind, but the optics are disturbing to me, and it appears many millions of people.

Well, now the Democrats can come out with their Liberal and Progressive brethren and jump all over this London Historian. As he just got done embarrassing BO Peep. You know how they get with the acting out, when something like this happens.

ocean515 · Feb 7, 2015

MMC said:
Well, now the Democrats can come out with their Liberal and Progressive brethren and jump all over this London Historian. As he just got done embarrassing BO Peep. You know how they get with the acting out, when something like this happens.

Yes I do. It would seem it usually requires attack of a single source, while ignoring the multitude who have reached the same conclusion.

MMC · Feb 7, 2015

ocean515 said:
Yes I do. It would seem it usually requires attack of a single source, while ignoring the multitude who have reached the same conclusion.

Well, they can't just be worried about Netanyahu embarrassing BO. I am sure a few of them are already calling Cameron in the UK.

apdst · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
Considering that 500,000 were killed for not leaving him alone. . .

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

FYI, 500,000 > 300,000. You can use your fingers to count these nos. (since righties don't know arithmetic :Lol: ).

Who killed those 500 thousand?

By that stupid logic, millions of deaths could have been prevented had we left Hitler alone. Right?

solletica · Feb 7, 2015

apdst said:
Yeah, Saddam only murdered 300 thousand Iraqis. We should a left him alne. :lamo

500,000 were killed for not leaving him alone. . .

:

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

500,000 > 300,000. You can use your fingers to count to 500,000 to see how large it is (since righties don't know arithmetic) compared to 300,000.

The following individual from Sesame Street will teach you how to do this. . .

apdst · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
500,000 were killed for not leaving him alone. . . :

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

500,000 > 300,000. You can use your fingers to count to 500,000 to see how large it is (since righties don't know arithmetic) compared to 300,000.

The following individual from Sesame Street will teach you how to do this. . .

WHO killed them? Because, if the terrorists killed them, you can blame the terrorists.

Its idiotic to blame anybody, but the terrorists, for what the terrorists do.

I guess you want to legitimize Hitler the same way you're legitimizing Saddam.

solletica · Feb 7, 2015

apdst said:
Who killed those 500 thousand?

Your hero dumbya. . .

A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

apdst said:
By that stupid logic, millions of deaths could have been prevented had we left Hitler alone. Right?

Nope, if Hitler had been left alone, the total no. of casualties as a result of his reign over Europe would've exceeded the deaths in WWII.

In contrast, the total no. of deaths in the ME as a result of the dumbya invasion has already exceeded the total no. of civilian deaths attributed to Saddam's 23-year rule.

-> 3rd Sesame Street word of the day for righties: false analogy.

solletica · Feb 7, 2015

apdst said:
WHO killed them? Because, if the terrorists killed them, you can blame the terrorists.

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?

apdst · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
Your hero dumbya. . .

Nope, if Hitler had been left alone, the total no. of casualties as a result of his reign over Europe would've exceeded the deaths in WWII.

In contrast, the total no. of deaths in the ME as a result of the dumbya invasion has already exceeded the total no. of civilian deaths attributed to Saddam's 23-year rule.

-> 3rd Sesame Street word of the day for righties: false analogy.

Nothing you posted shows who killed those 500 thousand people, nor does it separate civilian deaths from military deaths.

The real proof in the pudding are your insulting comments; confirming that you know you're losing the argument.

apdst · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
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?

Nobody forced those terrorists to target civilians. That's a decision they made, all...by...themselves.

MMC · Feb 7, 2015

apdst said:
WHO killed them? Because, if the terrorists killed them, you can blame the terrorists.

Its idiotic to blame anybody, but the terrorists, for what the terrorists do.

I guess you want to legitimize Hitler the same way you're legitimizing Saddam.

Anything to stop the finger from pointing at BO peep and the lost sheep. They can't afford to constantly be focused upon failure after failure after failure. You have to understand.....its always back to blaming Bush and Iraq. Even though they have no clue as to what was going on with Iran or Russia or the Saud and all their involvement. Nor anything else that was connected to Iraq.

So its natural for them to blame Republicans for all their woes. Maybe when an enemy kicks in their door they will remember to not call any Republicans for help.

Grant · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
500,000 were killed for not leaving him alone. . . :

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

500,000 > 300,000. You can use your fingers to count to 500,000 to see how large it is (since righties don't know arithmetic) compared to 300,000.

Do you see who has been doing all the killing?

solletica · Feb 7, 2015

apdst said:
Nobody forced those terrorists to target civilians. That's a decision they made, all...by...themselves.

And nobody forced the righties to vote for the idiot that gave them the power to do it, by removing the only regime that was successfully keeping them down.

That's a decision they made all by themselves, and we're still waiting for them to ship out and take responsibility for their screw up by helping to clean up the mess they made.

So why are you still here and not on the first plane to the ME?

solletica · Feb 7, 2015

MMC said:
Anything to stop the finger from pointing at BO peep and the lost sheep. They can't afford to constantly be focused upon failure after failure after failure. You have to understand.....its always back to blaming Bush and Iraq. Even though they have no clue as to what was going on with Iran or Russia or the Saud and all their involvement. Nor anything else that was connected to Iraq.

So its natural for them to blame Republicans for all their woes. Maybe when an enemy kicks in their door they will remember to not call any Republicans for help.

No one in his/her right mind calls righties for "help"--they keep stupidly volunteering and making situations worse. Hello?!

Grant · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
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.

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?

MMC · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
No one in his/her right mind calls righties for "help"--they keep stupidly volunteering and making situations worse. Hello?!

Yeah Right, that's why we see all those libs like yourself telling NAVY Seals and Rangers......no don't save us. Go away you will ruin everything. Buuuuush......Republicans you suck leave us to die. Were not worth saving, go on without us.

Leave us here.....we like it, we love it, we want some more of it.

apdst · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
And nobody forced the righties to vote for the idiot that gave them the power to do it, by removing the only regime that was successfully keeping them down.

That's a decision they made all by themselves, and we're still waiting for them to ship out and take responsibility for their screw up by helping to clean up the mess they made.

So why are you still here and not on the first plane to the ME?

Congress voting for the war--Lefties voted for it too--didnt, in any way, shape, or form, cause the terrorists to murder people.

What unit did you serve in during the war?

Grant · Feb 7, 2015

solletica said:
No one in his/her right mind calls righties for "help"--they keep stupidly volunteering and making situations worse. Hello?!

You probably supported Obamacare, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG7gYNE-WWs

solletica · Feb 7, 2015

Grant said:
George Bush gave them the power? How did he do that

How do you add 1 + 1. . .?

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed

solletica · Feb 7, 2015

Grant said:
Do you see who has been doing all the killing?

Of course we know--we knew way back in 2003 when the right wing kooks elected the idiot that gave these killers the green light, as many other world leaders already knew. . .

In addition, they fear that a war against Iraq will destabilize the entire region and radicalize Muslim immigrants who live in Europe in large numbers.

Iraq war splits NATO - World Socialist Web Site

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed

Trouble is we couldn't shove this basic piece of knowledge up the right wingers' clogged asses, no matter how much force we applied to the pumps.

And now we see the result.