• 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'

solletica said:
Yes, in Limbaugh Land, where right wingers live, there was no one even close to knowing.

We're talking about the real world. . .

Experts Warn of High Risk for American Invasion of Iraq - NYTimes.com



rush has been handing out pretzels to his flock for years.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what Limbaugh l;and is, I have never heard the man and don't care. Nice and classic stupid assumption.

Please, let us stop the con game OK?

A TWELVE YEAR old article about "experts" opining a "maybe" BEFORE the invasion took place is a light year or thirty away from proof that it happened, as you outright claimed.

Here is your "expert"

"I think it is incredibly dangerous to be dismissive" of the Iraqi military, said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official who is now a senior fellow and Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan policy organization in Washington. "To be careless about this war, to me, would be a disaster."
Click to expand...

an adviser....a lone spokesman which the Obama loving NYT made into an "expert" which you now tout as fact. He's not even talking about the same subject FFS


Classic sewage...a decade plus old article about an opinion presented as proof. Guberland?
 
Grant said:
So this 'classified secret study' is for American eyes only? And it was also a secret "National Intelligence Estimate"?

You seems to have access to secrets that few others know about. Are you affiliated with Edward Snowden at all?
Click to expand...

Haven't yet had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Snowden. I'm sorry so much of American process is misunderstood by you. I wonder how much you even understand about the Canadian process. Jesus dude, have you ever lobbied your own government on the pressing problems that concern you in the ME.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Again I ask of the Obama blatherers to supply a list of Democrat senators and congressmen who voted "no" on the invasion of Iraq and be clear on how Obama voted.

Classic now that he is clearly losing the war, the debate must be shifted to history, an invasion ten years ago, Reagan and, I expect soon, some blame heaped at Eisenhower just as soon as they figure out where to find some bloggers who know who that is.

The president has justified the enemy. He has consistently tried to undermine and lessen the atrocities of his not-Muslim, not terrorists from a "spontaneous demonstration, to a fake and unnecessary war in Libya that has de-stabilized the country, to a mess in Iraq when he had inherited a controlled situation [enough he could meet the time table, allowed a war to rage in Syria for five years before mentioning red lines, and now minimizes the horror of being burned alive by a disingenuous reference to events of 1,000 years ago.

You know, they used to call that treason.
Click to expand...

There was ample support from the democrats on the colossal failure (that we're still paying for) of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that doesn't vindicate the republicans, it just goes to show that the democrats are no more competent then their fellows on the other side. You won't hear such admissions from a partisan!!
 
Montecresto said:
There was ample support from the democrats on the colossal failure (that we're still paying for) of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that doesn't vindicate the republicans, it just goes to show that the democrats are no more competent then their fellows on the other side. You won't hear such admissions from a partisan!!
Click to expand...

And those who are determined to condemn somebody are not at all interested in the whole story that led up to something like the Iraq invasion and are unwilling to look at all the facts. They want to focus on those they want to accuse and dismiss everything else as irrelevent. Sad actually.

And we see the same phenomenon in those who don't want to see Obama's speech in its full context, but who are more than willing to justify his condemnation of Christians in it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Confessing that I have not read the entire thread before posting, apologies if somebody else has posted this. But the Rev. Franklin Graham posted this on Facebook after the President's offensive remarks at the Prayer Breakfast:

“Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the president implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1,000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition, Rev. Graham wrote. “Mr. President — Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”

“Muhammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ — true followers of Muhammad emulate Muhammad.”

Even so, nobody would have thought anything about it--he might have gotten a standing "O" in fact--if Obama had said that those who commit such atrocities in the name of Allah dishonor peaceful Muslims everywhere and should merit their contempt and condemnation just as those who committed atrocities under the banner of Christianity deserve the contempt and condemnation of true followers of Christ's teachings.

The problem he has is that Jesus of Nazareth did teach peace, forgiveness, tolerance, common sense, and love. And he led or sent nobody into battle to kill, maim, or destroy. Nobody can say that of Mohammed, the Qu'ran or the Hadith.
Click to expand...

Someone finally gets it! I read threads on this site, and others, and shake my head because most people really don't have a clue about Islam. ISIS IS ISLAM because they do exactly what Mohammad did and would do if he were alive today. Any Muslim who does not realise this, should probably leave their religion.....oops, they risk death if they do in Muslim countries. People I respect and admire are those Muslims who become apostates...it takes real courage to critically look at Mohammad and Islam and come to realise that "moderate Islam" is against real Islam and what Mohammad would do.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
Someone finally gets it! I read threads on this site, and others, and shake my head because most people really don't have a clue about Islam. ISIS IS ISLAM because they do exactly what Mohammad did and would do if he were alive today. Any Muslim who does not realise this, should probably leave their religion.....oops, they risk death if they do in Muslim countries. People I respect and admire are those Muslims who become apostates...it takes real courage to critically look at Mohammad and Islam and come to realise that "moderate Islam" is against real Islam and what Mohammad would do.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with this. I do know Muslims who have rejected the jihadist mentality and who are perfectly happy to co-exist with and cooperate with Christians, Jews, and people of all other faiths. But they do so at their personal peril because once they reject the notion that their sole mission in life is to put all the Earth under the authority of Allah by any means at their disposal, or that their duty is not to avenge an insult to Mohammed or whatever, they become apostate and subject to Islamic discipline. And that can include stoning to death, beheading, or burning alive or any number of means used to punish the infidel.

Anybody can pick up a translation of the Qu-ran or Hadith and find words and phrases that suggest a peaceful, tolerant, and forgiving religion. But a careful look at those phrases can almost invariably be interpreted as applying to MUSLIMS, and not to infidels. And there are many other passages that not only give consent to but demand violence to all who refuse to worship Allah and/or obey his laws and that applies to all men, women, children or errant Muslims.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I mostly agree with this. I do know Muslims who have rejected the jihadist mentality and who are perfectly happy to co-exist with and cooperate with Christians, Jews, and people of all other faiths. But they do so at their personal peril because once they reject the notion that their sole mission in life is to put all the Earth under the authority of Allah by any means at their disposal, or that their duty is not to avenge an insult to Mohammed or whatever, they become apostate and subject to Islamic discipline. And that can include stoning to death, beheading, or burning alive or any number of means used to punish the infidel.

Anybody can pick up a translation of the Qu-ran or Hadith and find words and phrases that suggest a peaceful, tolerant, and forgiving religion. But a careful look at those phrases can almost invariably be interpreted as applying to MUSLIMS, and not to infidels. And there are many other passages that not only give consent to but demand violence to all who refuse to worship Allah and/or obey his laws and that applies to all men, women, children or errant Muslims.
Click to expand...

If one read the Koran, there are passages that refer to Christians and Jews as "people of the books" or followers of the abrahamic concept of one god.
 
In other words, Islam does not yet permit its adherents to evolve into a peaceful religion that is an asset to the world as Christianity has done. And our President doesn't seem to understand that or appreciate the danger that militant Islam presents to peace on Earth and/or the welfare of its people.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If one read the Koran, there are passages that refer to Christians and Jews as "people of the books" or followers of the abrahamic concept of one god.
Click to expand...

But putting those passages into context, it is nevertheless the duty of Islam to bring those Christians and Jews under the authority of Allah and to destroy all who resist.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But putting those passages into context, it is nevertheless the duty of Islam to bring those Christians and Jews under the authority of Allah and to destroy all who resist.
Click to expand...

Did the Islamic kingdom in Spain persucute Christians and Jews?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If one read the Koran, there are passages that refer to Christians and Jews as "people of the books" or followers of the abrahamic concept of one god.
Click to expand...

Please remember the word Abrogation...all of the nice verses in the Quran (which were stolen from Judaism) are abrogated.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Did the Islamic kingdom in Spain persucute Christians and Jews?
Click to expand...

In the beginning (8th Century) not so much though Christians and Jews were certainly second class citizens to the Muslim heirarchy. But they were allowed a certain autonomy and there was some syncretization (merging) of the Muslim cultural customs with both Jewish and Christian customs. By the 11th Century, however, the original Muslim heirarchy had broken down into various factions and the strongest of these were friendly to neither Jews nor Christians. The Jews especially were subjected to harsh treatment including the slaughter of many. When the Christians managed to defeat Islam in Spain, they weren't quite so barbaric, but they did expel most or all of the Jews from Spain as well as most Muslim, especially under the regime of Ferdinand and Isabella. The methods look intolerant and cruel now, but under the culture of those times, it was the way to restore stability and peace within the Iberian people.

So again we cannot look to history to define who the religious among us are today. We should judge people by who and what they are now, and not what their ancesters once were. And who would you feel safer being among doing your own thing now? Christians? Jews? Or militant Islam? It is pretty much a no brainer, isn't it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
In the beginning (8th Century) not so much though Christians and Jews were certainly second class citizens to the Muslim heirarchy. But they were allowed a certain autonomy and there was some syncretization (merging) of the Muslim cultural customs with both Jewish and Christian customs. By the 11th Century, however, the original Muslim heirarchy had broken down into various factions and the strongest of these were friendly to neither Jews nor Christians. The Jews especially were subjected to harsh treatment including the slaughter of many. When the Christians managed to defeat Islam in Spain, they weren't quite so barbaric, but they did expel most or all of the Jews from Spain as well as most Muslim, especially under the regime of Ferdinand and Isabella. The methods look intolerant and cruel now, but under the culture of those times, it was the way to restore stability and peace within the Iberian people.

So again we cannot look to history to define who the religious among us are today. We should judge people by who and what they are now, and not what their ancesters once were. And who would you feel safer being among doing your own thing now? Christians? Jews? Or militant Islam? It is pretty much a no brainer, isn't it.
Click to expand...

I think nature itself has given all of mankind the idea of god.

ISIS are fanatics, pure and simple.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And those who are determined to condemn somebody are not at all interested in the whole story that led up to something like the Iraq invasion and are unwilling to look at all the facts. They want to focus on those they want to accuse and dismiss everything else as irrelevent. Sad actually. And we see the same phenomenon in those who don't want to see Obama's speech in its full context, but who are more than willing to justify his condemnation of Christians in it.
Click to expand...
They were indifferent to the genocide and mass murders being carried out by Saddam Hussein and indifferent now to the plight of those Muslims and Christians now suffering under ISL, Al Qaeda and Boco Harom. They believe that right is doing nothing to help their fellow man.

It was the same during the Cold War. They are not worthy of anyone's respect.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I think nature itself has given all of mankind the idea of god.

ISIS are fanatics, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

As are other militant Islamic groups or any who do evil in the name of whatever religion or ideology they profess. And the militant Muslims all are dangerous and they all will destroy, murder, maim, torture, kidnap, and terrorize as many 'infidels' or disobedient Muslims as they can all presumably to honor and obey Allah. (I suspect some don't even believe what they profess but do love having the power and ability to commit mayhem.)

But the truth is that MOST terrorism in the world today is commited by militant Islam. We we downplay or ignore that at our peril.
 
Grant said:
How is what happened a thousand years ago is relevant today? Are you realy parroting the historically confused Barrack Obama?
Click to expand...

Why do we have to define ISIS by the religion they claim to represent and not for what they actually are: monsters and power mad individuals using the religion of Islam to justify acts of inhumanity.
 
Grant said:
They were indifferent to the genocide and mass murders being carried out by Saddam Hussein and indifferent now to the plight of those Muslims and Christians now suffering under ISL, Al Qaeda and Boco Harom. They believe that right is doing nothing to help their fellow man.

It was the same during the Cold War. They are not worthy of anyone's respect.
Click to expand...

We do have to be careful here though. Sometimes what feels so right at the time turns out to be so very wrong. What truly helps our fellow man? When we look at so many things from the Civil War to Prohibition to insertion of social mores into the courts to anti-poverty programs to Affirmative Action to broadening rights and tolerance, etc., etc., etc., the honest critical thinker looks at the unintended destructive consequences as well as whatever good is accomplished. And those of us who want to be right instead of just appearing to be noble try to be careful that when we intend to do good that we don't make a bad situation worse.
 
AlbqOwl said:
As are other militant Islamic groups or any who do evil in the name of whatever religion or ideology they profess. And the militant Muslims all are dangerous and they all will destroy, murder, maim, torture, kidnap, and terrorize as many 'infidels' or disobedient Muslims as they can all presumably to honor and obey Allah. (I suspect some don't even believe what they profess but do love having the power and ability to commit mayhem.)

But the truth is that MOST terrorism in the world today is commited by militant Islam. We we downplay or ignore that at our peril.
Click to expand...

The only reason you even know about Islam is because 16 madmen flew planes into our buildings and killed 3000 of our citizens.

I hate the terrorists for what I do, but I will never bring myself to condemn the entire religion.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The only reason you even know about Islam is because 16 madmen flew planes into our buildings and killed 3000 of our citizens.

I hate the terrorists for what I do, but I will never bring myself to condemn the entire religion.
Click to expand...

Nobody is condemning an entire religion. We are, however, acknowledging the reality of the situation. It isn't mostly Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus who are terrorizing a great portion of the world today. It is mostly Muslims.

And only those who are ignorant of history were ignorant of Islam prior to 9/11. We remember the six-day-war and other skirmishes that the Israelis had with their Islamic neighbors. We remember the overrunning of our Iranian embassy and a hostage crisis that existed for more than 400 days. We remember the bombing of our barracks in Beirut and we remember the Cole. And we remember the first bombing of the WTC. And many many other incidents as I previously posted in this thread. Did you really think all that happened in a vacuum?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Why do we have to define ISIS by the religion they claim to represent and not for what they actually are: monsters and power mad individuals using the religion of Islam to justify acts of inhumanity.
Click to expand...
They are Muslims. Whether they are confused about the contents of the Koran is up to their spiritual advisers, not me.

What we do know is that there are Islamic terrorists throughout the world carrying out killings and torture according to their interpretation of their holy book, and that's just a fact. Whether they are 'good' Muslims or 'bad' Muslims seems open to interpretation but, assuredly, they are Muslims.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Nobody is condemning an entire religion. We are, however, acknowledging the reality of the situation. It isn't mostly Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus who are terrorizing a great portion of the world today. It is mostly Muslims.

And only those who are ignorant of history were ignorant of Islam prior to 9/11. We remember the six-day-war and other skirmishes that the Israelis had with their Islamic neighbors. We remember the overrunning of our Iranian embassy and a hostage crisis that existed for more than 400 days. We remember the bombing of our barracks in Beirut and we remember the Cole. And we remember the first bombing of the WTC. And many many other incidents as I previously posted in this thread. Did you really think all that happened in a vacuum?
Click to expand...

I will not call ISIS or any group that sympathizes with their views anything other than what I already call them.

Madmen, fanatics, murderers, sociopaths, terrorists.

I can identify them without dragging the religion they claim to represent into discusion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
We do have to be careful here though. Sometimes what feels so right at the time turns out to be so very wrong. What truly helps our fellow man? When we look at so many things from the Civil War to Prohibition to insertion of social mores into the courts to anti-poverty programs to Affirmative Action to broadening rights and tolerance, etc., etc., etc., the honest critical thinker looks at the unintended destructive consequences as well as whatever good is accomplished. And those of us who want to be right instead of just appearing to be noble try to be careful that when we intend to do good that we don't make a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...
I agree absolutely. But that's where good judgement and leadership with long term strategies come in.

During the Cold War there was largely a continuation of the policies suggested by George Kennan but in the case of the Middle East the policies of one administration, decided on by both political parties (with even Jimmy Carter belatedly catching on), was completely overturned by the succeeding President who didn't seem aware of the consequences of his actions.

Will the next President overturn this isolationist policy or will the nation be at war again, and another change ensure four years later? There has to be a long term strategy in place and if there is one in the present administration few seem to know what it is.
 
Grant said:
They are Muslims. Whether they are confused about the contents of the Koran is up to their spiritual advisers, not me.

What we do know is that there are Islamic terrorists throughout the world carrying out killings and torture according to their interpretation of their holy book, and that's just a fact. Whether they are 'good' Muslims or 'bad' Muslims seems open to interpretation but, assuredly, they are Muslims.
Click to expand...

And if we I idenify them like that, you are giving ISIS the ability to drag 1.5 billion people into a war of self-destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom