Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim

God birthers tire me.

Seriously, can't these people go run off and have a interkook baseball game with the truther's and just stay away for a bit.

The absolute worst of those two tin foil hat crowds are the people who don't even have the guts to actually be open about it, acting like they're somehow so much better than the rest of us for "asking questions".

Unfortunante note for them. There are stupid questions, and stupid people, and stupid people that ask stupid questions. While not all birther's may fall into the latter categories, every single one of thier "questions" fall into the former.

There is absolutely zero reasonable, rational, understandable, or commendable about the conspiracy hogwash that the birthers are trying to peddle out there and they do nothing but make themselves look foolish and unworthy of any kind of positive attention or credance of any kind on any subject matter after for it shows a severe and complete lack of rational and logical thought being capable in their heads when it comes to those they dislike.

Ockham said:

Until then, I'll stay neutral instead of blindly believing the quote is true. .

Click to expand...

Translation:

"I will continue to act like a birther, talk like a birther, bring up points like a birther, defend birthers, fight the birther fight, but declare myself 'neutral' and act 'above the fray' because everyone knows the notion behind the entire birther movement is ****ing retarded and absolutely idiotic and no one would ever take me seriously if I actually made my position well known so I'm hoping that somehow everyone else are absolute bafoons and can't tell that I'm a duck while I'm walking, quacking, swimming, and eating like one".

Zyphlin said:

Translation:

"I will continue to act like a birther, talk like a birther, bring up points like a birther, defend birthers, fight the birther fight, but declare myself 'neutral' and act 'above the fray' because everyone knows the notion behind the entire birther movement is ****ing retarded and absolutely idiotic and no one would ever take me seriously if I actually made my position well known so I'm hoping that somehow everyone else are absolute bafoons and can't tell that I'm a duck while I'm walking, quacking, swimming, and eating like one".

Click to expand...

Birthers think Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Because you don't like the subject matter doesn't mean you can take it out on my, or what you percieve are my motives. Wait, your a mod right? Should I have to remind you to discuss the topic and not the poster?

Now we see if I get thread banned or a little 3 point infraction...

Ockham said:

Birthers think Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Because you don't like the subject matter doesn't mean you can take it out on my, or what you percieve are my motives. Wait, your a mod right? Should I have to remind you to discuss the topic and not the poster?

Now we see if I get thread banned or a little 3 point infraction...

Click to expand...

Indeed, and the birther movement is directly and unquestionably tied into the "Obama is a Muslim" movement as each is simply the jumping off place to suggest the other. Obama isn't a citizen therefore he's lying therefore he really is a secret evil muslim! Obama is actually an evil secret Muslim and has been lying to us and therefore he really isn't a citizen! This is along the same lines as those that try and say "oh no, of COURSE 9/11 was done by Radical Islamists" and then turn around and try to suggest that it was known to be happening by Bush and they allowed it to happen in order to wait 2 years to invade Iraq for the oil we don't have. Its the splitting of a conspiracy theory into two parts in hopes that one is more platitable than the other and so you can say something outrageous without it seeming AS outrageous as what you actually hope.

In this case your own statements and arguments are part of the discussion. You're stating you're "remaining neutral" which is an utter and complete falsehood, a statement made in words only but in no way actions. Pointing out that your actions show the lie that is your statement is not a personal attack nor avoiding the topic, but discussing the valididity of your argument. Discussing the poster is like someone going "Zyphlin you're an asshole". Discussing the topic by referencing the credibility of the person making the comments would be going "Zyphlin, you keep saying you believe the Patriot Act is completely fine but its obviously you don't really believe that because your posts are filled with complaints you have and changes you want to the Patriot Act". Referencing a poster, their views, and how they relate is not the same as making a post simply about an individual.

By all rational and reasonable accounts Obama is not a Muslim. The only way to accuse otherwise is to take things completely out of context, to believe that a 10+ year conspiracy has duped both political vetters on his side and political opponents, that blog sites and questionably biased sources are somehow 100% trustworthy bastions of unquestionable truth, and even then its hazy at best.

Zyphlin said:

[a bunch of stuff]

Click to expand...

OMG Zyphlin is a Muslim!! He's in on it! :shock:

Ockham said:

If you had more of a rebuttal I'd appreciate it... that's what happens when things are hidden and we can't discuss facts--- supposition by definition is a "what if". Is this where I claim the "ahh yes, the typical progressive talking points..." blabla? At least rebut with substance.

It's not for lack of looking - but if you find it and post it I'm sure there will then be the standard whining of the "translation", context, misinterpretation and "Obama didn't mean it that way", not to mention the call of question into the agenda and seeded conspiracy theories of Israel underminding Obama due to the snub last month by Obama at the White House. Did I miss anything?
So does not actually debating, blindly apologizing and making partisan excuses. Perhaps actually discussing the evidence that is available is beyond your scope due to your political beliefs. :shrug:


There we go... they're lying, or it was a misinterpretation. A faux pas, fault in wording or translation...

When you find the facts that it's a lie or misinterpretation, let me know. Until then, I'll stay neutral instead of blindly believing the quote is true. A position you may want to adopt instead of putting up the defensive walls of excuses.

Click to expand...

AS I understand this whole post, it seems to be saying that despite there being zero evidence to back up this claim, until some one proves it wrong it stands. That is an odd standard. Some of it is classic though. Obama is hiding stuff, which is why the facts are not out there, and since the facts re not out there, clearly Obama is hiding stuff.

Zyphlin said:

Its the splitting of a conspiracy theory into two parts in hopes that one is more platitable than the other and so you can say something outrageous without it seeming AS outrageous as what you actually hope.

Click to expand...

What do I hope and how do you know what I am hoping? Notice this is all about me?

Zyphlin said:

In this case your own statements and arguments are part of the discussion. You're stating you're "remaining neutral" which is an utter and complete falsehood,

Click to expand...

Because you know me so well... I'm stating an opinion based on the evidence available. I'm drawing no definite conclusions nor am I taking a side. The accusation is inappropriate and of itself - a falsehood.

Zyphlin said:

a statement made in words only but in no way actions. Pointing out that your actions show the lie that is your statement is not a personal attack nor avoiding the topic, but discussing the valididity of your argument.

Click to expand...

You're not discussing validity, you're discussing intent - which you have no basis in knowing other than assumption based on my previous posts. Let me set you straight - it was an attack because you dismiss the subject matter by launching into accusations of being a "birther". This seems a problem more with you and not me.

Zyphlin said:

Discussing the poster is like someone going "Zyphlin you're an asshole". Discussing the topic by referencing the credibility of the person making the comments would be going "Zyphlin, you keep saying you believe the Patriot Act is completely fine but its obviously you don't really believe that because your posts are filled with complaints you have and changes you want to the Patriot Act". Referencing a poster, their views, and how they relate is not the same as making a post simply about an individual.

Click to expand...

Then please - reference my posts and show my support for the "birthers". And yes, you continue to discuss me and my intent and credibility but not the topic. My charge stands - either discuss the topic and why it's outrageous, the credibility of the evidence, the lack of substance of the quote, etc... but not my intent, my motivations or my credibility. What you deem credible is not my problem - nor should I have to continually defend myself at personal attacks on my creditability, my intent or my motivations of which you seem to know.

Zyphlin said:

By all rational and reasonable accounts Obama is not a Muslim.

Click to expand...

I agree - the only statement to the contrary is his misuse during the interview in the campaign and the quote provided by the Egyptian News station and the Israeli publication that quoted it. This does not then exclude the topic from being discussed nor does it invite or excuse Post #152.

Zyphlin said:

The only way to accuse otherwise is to take things completely out of context, to believe that a 10+ year conspiracy has duped both political vetters on his side and political opponents, that blog sites and questionably biased sources are somehow 100% trustworthy bastions of unquestionable truth, and even then its hazy at best.

Click to expand...

I agree. Discussing a topic of "what if's" and supposition based on an article I believe, is what we're all here for. Continual posting of Translation: "Your a birther" nonsense has no place in this thread nor adds to the topic of discussion or debate thereof. I'll be plain: Take your accusations and put them away. You're pet peeve is not my problem so stop it.

That's the end of this discussion between you and I on this subject and I'd appreciate the bare minimum of civility if you can muster it in the future.

German guy said:

Don't forget this:

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.” (...)

Click to expand...

Council for Secular Humanism

Click to expand...

This is an Op-Ed piece from the editor of th Charleston Gazette , supposedly citing an article from Lausanne University's school newspaper,( a French-language Swiss paper? ) by a Dr. Romer (credentials?) who was allegedly contacted by Pres. Chirac regarding the statement. LOL, how much more circumstantial could this evidence possibly be? AMAZING how the mainstream media (who, BTW was all over EVERY flub EVER committed by Bush) missed this one! Hmmmmm........apparently a very reputable source. :lol:

Redress said:

AS I understand this whole post, it seems to be saying that despite there being zero evidence to back up this claim, until some one proves it wrong it stands. That is an odd standard. Some of it is classic though. Obama is hiding stuff, which is why the facts are not out there, and since the facts re not out there, clearly Obama is hiding stuff.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the quote is curious as to it's motives (if true) and I'm not sure who it's intended to benefit. That IF Obama were hiding being a Muslim, there are good reasons for him to do so and that his own flub during the campaign lends credibility to this Foreign Ministers quotation. I don't know if it's true or not, but apparently I've hit upon a nerve that everyone (especially the Mods) seem to be overly sensitive about as the result is accusations and assumptions on my intent and motivation which I see as inaccurate, inappropriate and unfair. Either way, it's apparent that even the discussion about the possibility of the quote being real is causing some real agida...

I don't know if the quote or story is made up or real. To your previous point, there's no reference to coorborate it. That doesn't mean it's true or not true.

FluffyNinja said:

This is an Op-Ed piece from the editor of th Charleston Gazette , supposedly citing an article from Lausanne University's school newspaper,( a French-language Swiss paper? ) by a Dr. Romer (credentials?) who was allegedly contacted by Pres. Chirac regarding the statement. LOL, how much more circumstantial could this evidence possibly be? AMAZING how the mainstream media (who, BTW was all over EVERY flub EVER committed by Bush) missed this one! Hmmmmm........apparently a very reputable source. :lol:

Click to expand...

Just do a short google search. You will find that this statement by Bush has indeed been confirmed by former French President Chirac.

Now Chirac may be lying. But this story is very well confirmed. Chirac did make this statement, and this particular site is just one of the few hits when doing a google search. If you don't like it, do another search and you'll easily find better sources.

Ockham said:

No, I'm saying that the quote is curious as to it's motives (if true) and I'm not sure who it's intended to benefit. That IF Obama were hiding being a Muslim, there are good reasons for him to do so and that his own flub during the campaign lends credibility to this Foreign Ministers quotation. I don't know if it's true or not, but apparently I've hit upon a nerve that everyone (especially the Mods) seem to be overly sensitive about as the result is accusations and assumptions on my intent and motivation which I see as inaccurate, inappropriate and unfair. Either way, it's apparent that even the discussion about the possibility of the quote being real is causing some real agida...

I don't know if the quote or story is made up or real. To your previous point, there's no reference to coorborate it. That doesn't mean it's true or not true.

Click to expand...

I am not a mod, but I will give you my reaction. Your posts in this thread annoy me because you keep asking leading questions based on some very circumstantial evidence. Think of this as a court room, would you want to be a lawyer arguing your case?

FluffyNinja said:

LOL, how much more circumstantial could this evidence possibly be?

Click to expand...

Not nearly as "circumstantial" as the totally non-verifiable, literally impossible god-stuff you've obviously bought into. :doh

What. Ever.

As I said before, you and Mr. Bush are free to adhere to whatever out-there, completely impossible-to-prove religious dogma you need to in hopes of justifying your actions, and I really hope that works out for you; but do keep in mind that some of us live on planet Earth and recognize the difference between reality and fairy stories that were written solely to keep the unwashed, uneducated rabble in line.

A bit of advise first. You're not a mod. If you feel a rule was violated, report it, and let the other mods look at it.

Ockham said:

I agree - the only statement to the contrary is his misuse during the interview in the campaign and the quote provided by the Egyptian News station and the Israeli publication that quoted it. This does not then exclude the topic from being discussed nor does it invite or excuse Post #152.

Click to expand...

Neither of which are in any way either correct (his "misuse") or credible (in regards to the Israeli publication) sources and so yes, there is no worth while and credible evidence to even suggest let alone prove the notion meaning talking about it is an act of futility for anyone who doesn't have a definite and obviously transparent agenda.

If people kept talking about someones "bad attitude" repeatedly and that person later was making a statement that "People keep wanting to talk about my 'bad attitude', as if I am just going to fly off the handle" that would not indicate that the person is agreeing with the notion that he has a bad attitude, but is rather an indication of him referencing what people are claiming. In regards to the sound bite by Barack Obama, heard in context and without the obvious desire to condemn him as a Muslim, its clear he's referencing individuals referencing him as being a muslim. It was not a slip up of meaning "his christian faith" but rather him making a statement in such a way that was politicaly foolish becasue people with obvious agendas can clip out a few words and use it as propoganda fodder for the idiotic masses over crappily made youtube videos and idiotic chain letters. The Israeli publication credited an Egyptian news source as where they got their information from but to this point to my understanding there's still been no evidence of said thing being found anywhere within the Egyptian news service OTHER than the Israeli blog that's claiming its there. As already said, this is like claiming that on CBS Obama declared himself the Anti-Christ and expecting people to believe that it happened because WorldNetDaily reported it as such but such a statement is no where to be found on CBS's website. One can not use the credibility of the Egyptian News service as "proof" that its at least a semi-legit statement because the report is not FROM the Egyptian News service but from an Israeli BLOG who CLAIMS that he got the information from there with absolutely nothing to back it up.

megaprogman said:

I am not a mod, but I will give you my reaction. Your posts in this thread annoy me because you keep asking leading questions based on some very circumstantial evidence. Think of this as a court room, would you want to be a lawyer arguing your case?

Click to expand...

Ok - good answer. Yes they are leading questions on very circumstancial evidence but this is not a court room and I'm not a lawyer (though I play one on TV). And sometimes diving into what if's based on very circumstancial evidence is good for discussion. We're not all here to agree but sometimes speaking out of our comfort zone can help others see things differently. I've had many discussions on different boards about the 9/11 truthers and discussed their views and evidence (as slim as it is) both in and out of nutty conspiracy issues without devolving into accusations. It helps because I learned what their points were and after investigating their points - knew that my gut view of what happened was correct and the "truthers" were nutty as a fruit cake. I'd want to do the same on this subject as I did on the "birther" issue which is just as nutty. My forum namesake identifies the approach --- an all encompassing conspiracy between hundreds if not thousands of people, state governments, the FEC, Congress and everyone at the White House or ... Obama's really a citizen? Just to alleviate any question - Obama's a citizen.

Glinda said:

Not nearly as "circumstantial" as the totally non-verifiable, literally impossible god-stuff you've obviously bought into. :doh

What. Ever.

As I said before, you and Mr. Bush are free to adhere to whatever out-there, completely impossible-to-prove religious dogma you need to in hopes of justifying your actions, and I really hope that works out for you; but do keep in mind that some of us live on planet Earth and recognize the difference between reality and fairy stories that were written solely to keep the unwashed, uneducated rabble in line.

Click to expand...

And some of you seem to have the unending desire to PROVE to us "right wing Christian wackos" that we are wrong and that what IN FACT does make us HAPPY, shouldn't make us happy after all. I HAVE NEVER attempted to "force" anyone else to subscribe to my beliefs and only respond, in kind, when attacked for them by you PROACTIVE atheists. But, you see, the FAITHFUL will never be left alone in the media, on the net, or in public to worship openly without public ridicule, even when we are not the ones on the offensive. It is almost as if we're NOT ENTITLED to our beliefs? It seems that more and more often these days, you guys seem to be the ones with an agenda, LOL.

German guy said:

Just do a short google search. You will find that this statement by Bush has indeed been confirmed by former French President Chirac.

Now Chirac may be lying. But this story is very well confirmed. Chirac did make this statement, and this particular site is just one of the few hits when doing a google search. If you don't like it, do another search and you'll easily find better sources.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you must excuse me if I distrust French politicians. :mrgreen:

FluffyNinja said:

And some of you seem to have the unending desire to PROVE to us "right wing Christian wackos" that we are wrong

Click to expand...

Nor am I the one who sent thousands of soldiers to their deaths because "I'm on a mission from god."

Bush's Shocking Biblical Prophecy Emerges: God Wants to "Erase" Mid-East Enemies "Before a New Age Begins"
Bush explained to French Pres. Chirac that the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Mid-East and must be defeated.

In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins".

The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elyse Palace, baffled by Bush's words, sought advice from Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Romer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university's review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush's invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and "wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs".

In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on "a mission from God" in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.

Click to expand...

P.S. Using a lot of capitalization isn't helping your position at all.

FluffyNinja said:

Sorry, you must excuse me if I distrust French politicians. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure how credible Chirac's claim is. He certainly had a beef with Bush. So it's well possible he made it up, or at least exaggerated what Bush said. Also possible that Chirac didn't get it was a weird joke (Bush was known for his weird sense of humor, after all).

Personally, I'm not sure how credible either Chirac or Bush are when making such statements.

FluffyNinja said:

Sorry, you must excuse me if I distrust French politicians. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Translation: I'll believe whatever nutty thing I want to, facts be damned. :thumbs:

Glinda said:

Translation: I'll believe whatever nutty thing I want to, facts be damned. :thumbs:

Click to expand...

Bush's comments as stated by a person who had noted disagreements and dislike for the man is hardly any more credible or any more reliable really than this with the only difference being at least in that case the person making the accusation is actually confirmed as to have made it. However the swearing of it as gospel truth as if its unquestionable while poo pooing the Obama thing is just nothing but an exercise in complete and utter bias.

And, as someone that's not overly religious, I'll take the relatively average every day christian that minds his own business and simply holds onto his faith over the militant athiets that have to belittle, insult, and swipe down anyone and everyone in broad strokes that dares to believe different than they do. At least the vast majority of every day religious people have tact, class, and are relatively polite in my experience which is quite contrary to the way militant athiests seem to routinely act on this forum when it comes to any discussion then can even LOOSELY begin their religious rants about.

What is this US obsession with Obamas religion for? What does it matter which religion he is?

Mell said:

What is this US obsession with Obamas religion for? What does it matter which religion he is?

Click to expand...

This is mutlifaceted.

In a specific sense, most of those still pushing this are people who have a significant issue with Obama and they think that exposing him as a "muslim" would do him a great deal of political harm and thus get him out of office...if not immedietely at least by 2012.

In a broader sense, if it was somehow true (which is kind of like saying if smurfs existed and lived inside of Pulto. So you know, Possible, but highly highly highly improbable to the point that its ridiculous) it would do grave damage to Obama for a two fold reason. On one hand you'd have people simply upset with him for apparently lying to everyone for years upon years. On the other hand you'd have people who dislike or distrust Muslims in general and thus would use that as extra fuel to raise suspicions about him and work against him.

To the vast majority of the American public at this point though I'd imagine Obama's religion isn't much of an issue as its already known and is a dead issue.

Mell said:

What is this US obsession with Obamas religion for? What does it matter which religion he is?

Click to expand...

That's simple: When he's Muslim, that means he is an enemy of the US and a terrorist with the aim of destroying America. Because all Muslims stick together and have one sinister agenda, they are all the same and there are no differences among them (you know, much like the Nazis said the Jews behaved), are all supportive of terrorism and theocratic dictatorship and enemies of freedom(tm). If you don't believe me, then read the Protocols of the Elders of Islam and look how often they are lying.

Zyphlin said:

...would do him a great deal of political harm and thus get him out of office...

Click to expand...

HaHa! A coup attempt in the US. Do they want to model themselves after Thailand, Kyrgyzstan....or what...

German guy said:

Because all Muslims stick together...

Click to expand...

Like hell they do! They seem to never quit bickering(or killing each other even) over which brand of Islam is better than which.