• 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'

Objective Voice said:
Grant, You're purposely being too literal here.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Objective Voice said:
: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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The truth of your words lies in the fact that apart from a small sliver of land called Israel, the Muslims control the entire Middle East, despite the Christians and Jews being there first. They will continue to try and eliminate Israel and, with the help of the Left and their leaders, they may well succeed.
 
Grant said:
Whoa!!! Are you denying it was Democrats who created the Jim Crow Laws??
Click to expand...

Once again you forget the words Southern Conservatives in your post.
Did you miss the genesis of Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' that began after the Civil War, caused by 'Radical Republicans' not using Lincoln's Reconstruction .
 
Grant said:
The truth of your words lies in the fact that apart from a small sliver of land called Israel, the Muslims control the entire Middle East, despite the Christians and Jews being there first. They will continue to try and eliminate Israel and, with the help of the Left and their leaders, they may well succeed.
Click to expand...

So here we have another GOP poster accusing the left (Democrats) of trying to eliminate Israel.
Haven't you ever wondered why 75% of American Jews vote for Democrats ?
 
NIMBY said:
Today, your kind refers to liberals as Democrats.
Unless you need to refer to Southern Conservatives, today's GOP base, as Democrats .
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're going with this.

The Jim Crow Laws were passed by Democrats and protected by Democrats. There is no evidence that any Christians fought for these laws. None. It was the racist Democrats who enacted these laws and no amount of obfuscation will change that historical fact.

In fact it was the Christian leaders, such as Martin Luther King and William Wilberforce, who famously fought against slavery.

The Democrats cannot seem to come to terms with their past. Isn't it about time you did a few mea culpas, worked against racism, and moved on?
 
NIMBY said:
So here we have another GOP poster accusing the left (Democrats) of trying to eliminate Israel.Haven't you ever wondered why 75% of American Jews vote for Democrats ?
Click to expand...
We only need look to the president to see where he stands with Israel and the Muslims. And of course I only said they would help.

Yes, I have wondered why even one Jew would would for the Democrats, and the same holds true for Blacks.
 
Grant said:
The truth of your words lies in the fact that apart from a small sliver of land called Israel, the Muslims control the entire Middle East, despite the Christians and Jews being there first. They will continue to try and eliminate Israel and, with the help of the Left and their leaders, they may well succeed.
Click to expand...

They want more than just to eliminate Israel. They want the whole world.

What is never discussed is that at the core of their religious belief is the goal of a worldwide world war, that prophesy says they will win. Muslims are 1/4th of the world population. While there are claims the percentage of Christians is slightly higher, a much larger percentage of Christians are Christian in self identity only and do not practice Christianity. A large percentage of Muslims practice the religion of Islam daily. Muslims generally do NOT share the usual religious tolerance of Christians either.

There is a VERY (very) small train of thought in radical Christianity that also believes in the same world war, but that belief is very ingrained into a large portion of Muslim population. The goal is not peace nor co-existence. It remains what the religion of Islam began with by Muhammad - a war-religion of invasion, conquest and absolute religious intolerance.

Are they fought now while small in active numbers and highly fragmented into different factions, regions and countries in an unified manner? Or do we hope they change their views with they have a unified half a billion people with WMDs of all kinds and fully integrated into our countries - while we are fully excluded from theirs?
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

Try reading how that London Historian embarrassed BO peep, and what he thought he knew about history.

Stay focused on that.
 
Grant said:
We only need look to the president to see where he stands with Israel and the Muslims. And of course I only said they would help.

Yes, I have wondered why even one Jew would would for the Democrats, and the same holds true for Blacks.
Click to expand...

The phrase is "the self hating Jew." Have you ever heard that before?
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what Heretics do......and oh those all coming out to talk about how as usual BO peep got it wrong. Helps with the real perspective as to how he was interpreted. Even from those overseas.
 
This kind of thing illustrates the problems of mixing politics, government and religion. That's why it needs to be avoided. The U.S. government needs to focus on what can be observed empirically. What we can observe is behavior and we can say that if you behave a certain way, this is how the government will respond. It should be kept as simple as that. We don't need to be condemning and killing people in the name of relgion. Neither should we be engaged in telling religions what they can and cannot teach. What we can say is that anyone who teaches and encourages people to go out and kill innocent people will be punished. It does not matter whether it is a certain religion or not. In other words, IT IS WRONG FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW ISLAM SPECIFICALLY TO TEACH THIS OR THAT. That is totally out of the bounds for the government to do that. What we can say is that ANYONE who teaches certain things will not be tolerated, regardless of whether it is a religion or not.
 
Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if a person doesn't like abortion they are a terrorist? WTF? And you claim my reality is full of holes?

Good luck!
 
If the U.S. government is allowed to tell a specific religion what it can and cannot teach, then there is no freedom of religion anymore.
 
ocean515 said:
So if a person doesn't like abortion they are a terrorist? WTF? And you claim my reality is full of holes?

Good luck!
Click to expand...

A Christian who blows up "abortionists" ISN'T a terrorist in your reality? Who threatens and harasses pregnant women isn't terrorising them?
 
Manc Skipper said:
A Christian who blows up "abortionists" ISN'T a terrorist in your reality? Who threatens and harasses pregnant women isn't terrorising them?
Click to expand...

He most certainly is, and is not a Christian in the strict sense of the term. Such a person is indeed a terrorist, ON THE LEVEL OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS AND PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SUICIDE BOMBINGS TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.
 
Manc Skipper said:
A Christian who blows up "abortionists" ISN'T a terrorist in your reality? Who threatens and harasses pregnant women isn't terrorising them?
Click to expand...

LOL. Where did I suggest someone blowing up an abortionist isn't a terrorist? So your suggesting that when gay rights/abortion activists harasses people who don't support their beliefs they are terrorists?

You may think so, but I don't.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL. Where did I suggest someone blowing up an abortionist isn't a terrorist? So your suggesting that when gay rights/abortion activists harasses people who don't support their beliefs they are terrorists?

You may think so, but I don't.
Click to expand...

Is killing an old man in a wheelchair with Hellfire missiles and killing innocent people in the process an act of terrorism?
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the average Libbo isn't historically proficient enough to know better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom