• 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'

Unitedwestand13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What you choose to call them is relevant only to you. They are Muslims who are following their interpretation of the Koran and that is just the way it is.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. So can President Obama. And IMO you both are playing right into their hands of the Mullahs who are directing the terrorist operations when you do so.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh really? Are Muslims really so sensitive that they will self destruct if criticized?

In fact when they are criticized they often go out on a killing rampage against others. Islam has a wealth of comedic value and most everyone with an eye for comedy understands that. But of course laughing at Islam is a killing offense, which makes most comedians reluctant to joke about them.
 
Grant said:
What you choose to call them is relevant only to you. They are Muslims who are following their interpretation of the Koran and that is just the way it is.
Click to expand...

So that means That particular interpretation of Islam and the people who follow that particular interpretation alone should be identified as the problem, right?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Uh huh. So can President Obama. And IMO you both are playing right into their hands of the Mullahs who are directing the terrorist operations when you do so.
Click to expand...

And the mullahs do not speak for all Muslims, just as Christians reject the pope when he states that he speaks for all Christians.
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...


Heya Grant :2wave: These guys came up with something on the 16th of January.




A hard reality is finally sinking in across America: for a long time now – actually, for more than thirty-five years – the United States has been at war with an enemy sworn to its destruction.

It did not seek enmity or hostilities with them. Both are the product of forces that long predated the establishment of this country, to say nothing of its adoption toward the end of the 20th Century of certain policies towards the Middle East or other regions. The enemy is the Global Jihad Movement. And it is inspired, guided, and enabled by the Islamic supremacist doctrine its adherents call shariah. For much of this period, the U.S. government has pursued various approaches to the threats posed by that enemy – including selective military engagements, benign neglect, willful blindness, and outright appeasement. They have all shared one common denominator: They ignore the aforementioned realities and, as a practical matter, have exacerbated them. Yet, no one has advanced a more reality-based, more practical and more effective way to counter, let alone defeat, this ideologically driven enemy.

Until now.....snip~

Center for Security Policy | It’s Time For The ‘Secure Freedom’ Strategy
 
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.
Click to expand...
My reality is just fine but yours is full of holes.

Apparently, the "desperate and warped minds" at the DoD characterized the Fort Hood shootings as "workplace violence" instead of terrorism because of jurisdiction differences between the military and the FBI. To the military he is an employee, to the FBI he's a terrorist. There now, that mystery was solved in a matter of seconds simply by using Google.

After 9/11, there were terrorists hiding under every bed and behind every bush and no one was immune from getting labeled a terrorist. Stupid, mindless fear gave us the Patriot Act and took away a lot of our freedom. You don't need to kill anyone to get labeled a terrorist in this country ...just try to take some fingernail clippers onto an airplane...or donate money to an animal rights group....or post an anti-government opinion on Facebook...or engage in any kind of civil disobedience and voila, you qualify as a terrorist. So if terrorism doesn't quite mean what it used to, we have GWBush and I guess people like you to thank for that.

Obama has said that "ISIS a terrorist group, pure and simple". But the right wing are upset because he doesn't call them an 'Islamic" terrorist group. Apparently, he doesn't think ISIS represents Islam the religion. Yes, the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terror and has been reclassified as such...but you still won't find many people in government openly calling it an "Islamic" terrorist act for the same reason.


Personally, I don't have a problem calling ISIS is an Islamic terrorist death cult. And when Christians kill Gays, doctors and threaten women for exercising their rights, I don't have a problem calling them Christian terrorists, either. That sword that swings both ways as far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
So that means That particular interpretation of Islam and the people who follow that particular interpretation alone should be identified as the problem, right?
Click to expand...
Right. That's why we call them Muslim Extremists, or Islamic terrorists, and so forth.

If you are trying to make the point that not all Muslims are terrorists there are thousands, perhaps millions, who have done that already.
 
MMC said:
Heya Grant :2wave: These guys came up with something on the 16th of January.




A hard reality is finally sinking in across America: for a long time now – actually, for more than thirty-five years – the United States has been at war with an enemy sworn to its destruction.

It did not seek enmity or hostilities with them. Both are the product of forces that long predated the establishment of this country, to say nothing of its adoption toward the end of the 20th Century of certain policies towards the Middle East or other regions. The enemy is the Global Jihad Movement. And it is inspired, guided, and enabled by the Islamic supremacist doctrine its adherents call shariah. For much of this period, the U.S. government has pursued various approaches to the threats posed by that enemy – including selective military engagements, benign neglect, willful blindness, and outright appeasement. They have all shared one common denominator: They ignore the aforementioned realities and, as a practical matter, have exacerbated them. Yet, no one has advanced a more reality-based, more practical and more effective way to counter, let alone defeat, this ideologically driven enemy.Until now.....snip~Center for Security Policy | It’s Time For The ‘Secure Freedom’ Strategy
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for that MMC and it is very encouraging. There is no doubt though that, as with Ronald Reagan, America's internal enemies will be in lockstep with those who would destroy her, thereby making the profound challenge that much more difficult.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And the mullahs do not speak for all Muslims, just as Christians reject the pope when he states that he speaks for all Christians.
Click to expand...

The Mullahs speak for those who commit terrorist acts. The Pope does not presume to speak for all Christians. He presumes to speak for all Catholics. And yes, many Catholicss do not obey the dictates of the Pope. There was once a time those who opposed the Pope were subject to the Inquisition or worse. That time has not existed for a very long time now.

The Muslims who disobey the Mullahs, however, do not yet enjoy the non interference that the Catholics enjoy.

It would be wise to acknowledge that.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Did the Islamic kingdom in Spain persucute Christians and Jews?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. For one...they conquered the previous kingdoms in Spain, and they imposed taxes specifically on non-Muslims. Further, there are reports of pogroms on Jews and at times both Jews and Christians faced death if they did not convert, causing many to convert or flee their homes.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I have no idea what Limbaugh l;and is, I have never heard the man and don't care.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. rush is the sole source of your information about the whole world, along w/hannity, glenn beck, fauxnews, etc. as is the case for all conservatives.

That's another thing entertaining about the right--they get their whole world view from these mega-corporate commercial outlets yet are too embarrassed to admit it :lamo. And God forbid any of them should actually read a newspaper instead, much less an academic journal. Oh, yes. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

Fearandloathing said:
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.
Click to expand...

Translates to "I prefer not to listen to an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, because he doesn't have as much credibility as rush and sean hannity."

Of course, there are many other sources--notably world leaders all over Europe and the ME that said the same thing, warning bush that the current situation in the ME would transpire as a result of his childish ejaculation. . .

King Abdullah II of Jordan advised Washington against the Iraq War but later gave the invading coalition covert and tacit support, in defiance of the overwhelming opinion of his own public.[21] The Jordanian government publicly opposed the war against Iraq. The King stressed to the United States and European Union that a diplomatic solution, in accordance with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 1284 (1999) and 1409 (2002), was the only appropriate model for resolving the conflict between Iraq and the UN.[22] In August 2002 he told the Washington Post that an attempt to invade Iraq would be a "tremendous mistake" and that it could "throw the whole area into turmoil"

-- King Abdullah of Jordan, 2002
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that Chirac's opposition is sustained by a deeply held conviction that the consequences of a war to dislodge Saddam Hussein would be far worse than any potential benefit. "Chirac thinks he understands the Middle East very well," says one Western diplomat in Paris, "and truly believes that military action will have a destabilizing effect on the region."

The French Resistance - TIME
Click to expand...

That was a different situation. We were not convinced that that war made sense. We were sure that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we were concerned that the entire region would be destabilized in the long term. Besides, there was no NATO mission, nor was there any legitimization by the UN Security Council.

Interview: Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on Foreign Policy - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Click to expand...

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event August 4, 2002: Scowcroft Warns That Invading Iraq Could Destabilize Middle East, ‘Destroy War on Terror’

Context of 'August 4, 2002: Scowcroft Warns That Invading Iraq Could Destabilize Middle East, ‘Destroy War on Terror’'
Click to expand...

''I do not believe it is in the United States' interests, or the interest of the region, or the world's interest, to do so,'' Crown Prince Abdullah told ABC News. ''And I don't believe it will achieve the desired result.'

Saudis Warn Against Attack on Iraq by the United States - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

And then there are the strategic experts on the inside who gave the Texan nincompoop the same exact warning. . .

Bush and his administration were also warned not to invade Iraq, not only by their own terrorism expert, but by others both within and without their administration.

https://books.google.com/books?id=b...raq could destabilize the middle east&f=false
Click to expand...




Fearandloathing said:
Classic sewage...a decade plus old article about an opinion presented as proof. Guberland?
Click to expand...

The anal output of right wing America is most certainly comparable to classic sewage, but it's all they can muster out of their limited neurons. And so, we can't just criticize them--after all, despite how pathetic their childish ramblings are, its a great source of pride for the right.
Click to expand...
 
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...

Yeah, the problem there becomes Abrogation. Muhammed wasn't happy that Jews and Christians didn't rush to convert and so (similar to Luther, really, now that I think of it), later on, "Allah changed his mind".
 
mac said:
Well, yes. For one...they conquered the previous kingdoms in Spain, and they imposed taxes specifically on non-Muslims. Further, there are reports of pogroms on Jews and at times both Jews and Christians faced death if they did not convert, causing many to convert or flee their homes.
Click to expand...

Want a fun lesson learned? Go check out how the Hindu Kush got it's name. It'll put the whole Pakistan/India thing into an interesting light.
 
solletica said:
Of course you do. rush is the sole source of your information about the whole world, along w/hannity, glenn beck, fauxnews, etc. as is the case for all conservatives.

That's another thing entertaining about the right--they get their whole world view from these mega-corporate commercial outlets yet are too embarrassed to admit it :lamo. And God forbid any of them should actually read a newspaper instead, much less an academic journal. Oh, yes. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y



Translates to "I prefer not to listen to an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, because he doesn't have as much credibility as rush and sean hannity."

Of course, there are many other sources--notably world leaders all over Europe and the ME that said the same thing, warning bush that the current situation in the ME would transpire as a result of his childish ejaculation. . .

And then there are the strategic experts on the inside who gave the Texan nincompoop the same exact warning. . .








The anal output of right wing America is most certainly comparable to classic sewage, but it's all they can muster out of their limited neurons. And so, we can't just criticize them--after all, despite how pathetic their childish ramblings are, its a great source of pride for the right.
Click to expand...

Listen it's been...but would you do me a favor?

Don't reply OK?

I have no ****ing idea what you are talking about wiht Limbaugh land....I grew bored with being accused of being right wing.

For the record and for the 5,867th time this year. I. Am. A. Liberal. I am a member and volunteer for both the Liberal Party of Canada AND the Liberal party of BC.

I am pro universal health, pro universal dental care, pro women's right to chose, pro gay rights and gay marriage. I have never heard a Russ Limbaugh show and don't ever care to.

Good bye
Click to expand...
 
disneydude said:
He's not excusing it at all. He is pointing out that this isn't the first time in history that people have used religion as a shield to justify their violence. It doesn't mean that he is saying that what ISIS is doing is ok....exactly the opposite. Doh!
Click to expand...


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?
 
MMC said:
Yeah, and the other day he called them an Organization. Before that he called them the JV Team. He still says they are not Islamic.....despite them having Islamic Clerics to promote their version of Islam. :roll:
Click to expand...

Just an FYI - the issue isn't about how ISIL/ISIS has been characterized in a general sense whether as a major or minor terrorist group. This is about how people of all religious faiths be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hindu have all committed evil acts in the name of their God and their faith. Try to stay on point.
 
Zyphlin said:
As best as I can gather from MMC, he's upset that Obama...like pretty much nearly everyone else...calls them ISIL or ISIS instead of "Al Qaeda". Why that bothers him about Obama, when I can't really think of any political leader or really any person I've read or heard routinely refer to ISIL/ISIS as "Al Qaeda" is beyond me.
Click to expand...

From what I've gathered from a general reading of this thread, there are several people who believe that ISIL/ISIS is nothing more than a spin-off of Al-Qaeda. The crazy thing is even Al-Qaeda leaders have said that ISIL/ISIS is far more brutal than they are and have taken steps to distance themselves from them. I'd have to say those who are upset that the President won't link the two terror groups together are either extremely partisan or extremely delusional. :shrug:
 
MMC said:
They are Islamic, and such would be this way when using the term Heretics. Even others overseas think and say so.



In a telephone interview with AFP, one of the authors, Syrian-born journalist Hassan Hassan, said it was vital to understand that some of the group's core religious beliefs were widely shared. "It presents itself as an apocalyptic movement, talking about the end of days, the return of the caliphate and its eventual domination of the world," said Hassan, who lives in Abu Dhabi where he works as a researcher for a think tank.

"These beliefs are not on the margins -- they are absolutely mainstream. They are preached by mosques across the world, particularly in the Middle East. "ISIS takes these existing beliefs and makes them more appealing by offering a project that is happening right now," he said, using an alternative name for IS. IS uses certain texts and in-house clerics to provide religious justification for their violence, particularly a book called "The Management of Savagery", which argues that brutality is a useful tool for goading the West into an over-reaction.....snip~


IS has built near-impregnable base and mass appeal: new book
Click to expand...

Come on, MMC. Even the individual you've quoted makes it clear that radical Muslim extremist groups like ISIS "takes existing (Islamic) believes and makes them more appealing" to those they brainwash into believing a different version of their religious faith using "religious justification for their violence". The very thing you've quoted proves that what President Obama said in his National Prayer Breakfast speech is 100% correct.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one's claiming that Muslims of the past didn't commit such acts in the name of their faith or their God any more than anyone is denying some so-called Muslims of today, i.e., ISIL/ISIS, the Talibanor evan Al-Qaeda haven't done it. If you're suggesting that a poster in this thread has said otherwise, I'd very much like for you to point them out because I don't think anyone has said that.
 
BobbyO said:
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?
Click to expand...

It was amusing that BHO condemned Christians for the Jim Crow Laws when it was his own party which created them. What a maroon!
 
I'm sure you meant to say the Southern Conservative Protestants who now are GOPs.

Just follow the family trees brother Grant .

Grant said:
It was amusing that BHO condemned Christians for the Jim Crow Laws when it was his own party which created them. What a maroon!
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
I'm sure you meant to say the Southern Conservative Protestants who now are GOPs.

Just follow the family trees brother Grant .
Click to expand...

Whoa!!! Are you denying it was Democrats who created the Jim Crow Laws??
 
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?
Click to expand...

Grant said:
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?
Click to expand...

Grant said:
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
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
It was amusing that BHO condemned Christians for the Jim Crow Laws when it was his own party which created them. What a maroon!
Click to expand...

:doh 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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom