• 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: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

That's the problem you THINK you know things. Why would you defend savage head-choppers? Read the Qur'an, read the Bible, pray for understanding. Read II Timothy III, we are living in those days.
51UpqTuuzAL__SL500_AA300_.jpg
 
Montecresto said:
C'mon dude, not unlike Bush or any president before him, he stated an obvious, that IS isn't Islamic in the sense that they don't represent it at all, in a very awkward and unfortunate way. Which always gives your opposition room to ridicule you and distract from the more important. So squeeze it for all you can get, and have your laughs, and then we'll move on, I'll not blame you for having some fun.
Click to expand...

A Christian American doesn't get to say what is or is not Islamic in my book. Either way - it's a fallacy.
 
grip said:
Did you even read and follow what you said in response?
Click to expand...
You can go back to the original posts and respond to them again, fair enough? Otherwise you are reading things that aren't there, and we know it.
 
To me, Islam is just as ridiculous and any other religion. To each their own.

I view ISIS as being as much Islamic and I view Westboro Baptist being as much Christian.

Granted, they are apples and poisoned oranges. Not the same at all except they both use "religion," to validate their despicable actions.

I wonder how many people have died in the name of these "peaceful," religions. Some say religion is the "opiate of the masses." I consider them to be cancers.
 
Grant said:
You can go back to the original posts and respond to them again, fair enough? Otherwise you are reading things that aren't there, and we know it.
Click to expand...

I only ask for you to clarify if that was what you meant? If it wasn't, then ok. ;)
 
Montecresto said:
Yet he became president, not once, but twice. And he has been a Christian for 2-3 decades. Or was the guy that just beheaded a woman in London, who had converted to Muslim five years ago, really still a Christian, or whatever he had been prior to his conversion?
Click to expand...

Obama is living proof that we get the government we deserve.
 
Captain America said:
To me, Islam is just as ridiculous and any other religion. To each their own.

I view ISIS as being as much Islamic and I view Westboro Baptist being as much Christian.

Granted, they are apples and poisoned oranges. Not the same at all except they both use "religion," to validate their despicable actions.

I wonder how many people have died in the name of these "peaceful," religions. Some say religion is the "opiate of the masses." I consider them to be cancers.
Click to expand...

The same is true of political movements as well. They often have a ruthless, or Messianic, leader with similar promises to those of religions in order to inspire their followers.

I'll go along with whatever religious or political movement which says 'live and let live', though the 'do unto others...' is excellent as well.
 
grip said:
I only ask for you to clarify if that was what you meant? If it wasn't, then ok. ;)
Click to expand...
I questioned why some would deflect from the topic of "ISIL is not Islam" to that of Christianity. Do you have a plausible and honest theory on why that might be?
 
Grant said:
The same is true of political movements as well. They often have a ruthless, or Messianic, leader with similar promises to those of religions in order to inspire their followers.

I'll go along with whatever religious or political movement which says 'live and let live', though the 'do unto others...' is excellent as well.
Click to expand...

I'll second that.
 
His point was that Muslims wouldn't kill Muslims based on their religion if they believed the same thing.

ISIS claims to be Islamic but their beliefs are obviously warped outside of normalcy for the religion. The religion has 1.6 billion members and clearly they're not all following the same radical agenda of ISIS. Obama is just pointing that out. Were his comments precise? Maybe not, but describing it in the necessary detail to be precise would likely have bored most viewers and would have lost their attention.
 
Grant said:
So you don't know?
Click to expand...
I'm stating it's as much semantics as claiming half the Muslim supports killing civilians. You can twist definitions and logic around until you've made even the most revered society members out to be vile, depending on the viewpoint and the propaganda.

I don't support ISIL, but it's not because of their religion. Their religion is an internal viewpoint. Internal viewpoints aren't of harm to me until exercised. I disagree with their violence, which is a common issue across humanity.

We don't define them as "human." We don't define them as "male." We don't define them as "religious." We define them as Islamic because that definition fits in with the propaganda.
 
kramercat said:
"Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim."

Oh really? There has been an ongoing war, even before ISIS, with Sunni and Shia Muslims killing each other, and both killing Christians - so exactly who is innocent and who is guilty?

Whether you like it or not, the name of the terrorist group is 'Islamic State'. They want a government governed strictly by Sharia, or Islamic, law. So yes, they are Islamic - the most fundamentalist form of Islam, but Islam. The Muslims are waiting for their 'Mahdi' - who is the anti-Christ. The Islamic religion itself is anti-Christian. It was created to directly oppose the notion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind, and the Koran says explicitly that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. So who is so adamantly opposed to Christ? I mean, there is no other religion that takes the religious text of another religion and twists it around to mean something else. The Virgin Mary appears in the Koran, as well as Jesus... only their roles have been changed. Those who think that they are following the same God of Abraham are mistaken - Allah is the ancient moon-god, and the crescent and star derive from him. So who is it that desperately wants mankind to NOT accept Jesus Christ as Savior - why the devil, of course.

Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic" | Video | RealClearPolitics
Click to expand...

If ISIL or ISIS is not Islamic, why does he keep calling them ISIL?

ISIL by their own definition are Islamic. They are a sick extreme version of Islam that needs to be destroyed by all means necessary, however, they still are Islamic fascists terrorizing millions of people. What should happen is the civilized people of Islam (which there are millions) should rise up and destroy ISIL/ISIS. And we should be glad to help with that endeavor.
 
Unrepresented said:
The majority of posters in this thread support violence on civilians. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Can't win the argument so you resort to that? I'll take that as you concede the point then.
 
Grant said:
That wrath is often more than divine, with honor killings being an example of that. And of course the murder of Muslims by other Muslims is in the news daily.
Click to expand...

True but it's not really any different than the old "Irish troubles" where the Catholics and the Protestants were at war.

Anyone who gains political power has to espouse a belief in something that will inspire their followers. In the case of Obama it was Hope and Change, in the case of ISlS it is an Islamic caliphate. One message doesn't mention religion and the other does, but both required committed believers.
Click to expand...

Which is certainly true and in both case, they require the believers to have blind faith. Most of the time, rational people actually have something in the real world to measure success against but not so for religious claims. No matter how badly things go, they have to keep having faith that there's something positive that will come of it.

I'm not certain what rights you're referring to but we do know that what rights we enjoy were inspired by Christianity. I think that's yet to be determined. It has been said that people who believe in nothing will believe in anything, and there has been much evidence of that.
Click to expand...

No they weren't. Whatever Christianity adopted came from the human experience, none of it was original to Christianity, Christians have simply tried to take credit.

I see no evidence of that at all. Who is holding that leash?
Click to expand...

Secular society. We no longer allow Christians to run wild in the streets, we don't allow them to own slaves, we don't allow them to force adherence to their religion, we don't allow Inquisitions, etc. None of those things were give up voluntarily by Christianity, they were taken away by force by a society sick and tired of Christian abuses. If it wasn't for secular society, the Catholics would still be raping altar boys without consequence. They're still doing it, of course, but at least there are criminal and civil penalties for it now.
 
Fearandloathing said:
They certainly are as ****ed up!
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how you define "****ed up". As bad as ISIS are, I couldn't see them doing something so moronic as protesting Robin Williams funeral. On the other hand, If I had the choice of being stuck in a room with a group of people from ISIS or Westboro, at least with Westboro I don't have to worry if my will is up to date.
 
Grant said:
I questioned why some would deflect from the topic of "ISIL is not Islam" to that of Christianity. Do you have a plausible and honest theory on why that might be?
Click to expand...

Because the thread is full of terrorists? ;)
 
Hamster Buddha said:
You would have a point about us meddling, if it were a problem focused at us, but it isn't. There isn't a country in the world today that hasn't had some sort of incident with radical jihad-dist. Even countries like Russia and China, that have opposed us almost every step of the way, face their own problems and have had numerous deadly attacks over the years. And as far as Sharia law not being barbaric, this is the problem when you have have no strong moral center, and want to believe that we're all the same. There is a right and wrong in this world, beheading journalist because they disagree with you is wrong. Stoning women, under any circumstance, is wrong. Forcing women in general to be nothing but ornaments to a man, is wrong. It took us a while, but we in the west finally figured that out. Not to say we're perfect mind you, we still have some issues to come to term with including how we handle people who are homosexual. But our system is far more preferential than that.
Click to expand...

Everyone says they have a "strong moral center" but disagrees with what morality actually means. What they really mean is that they are strongly committed to what they think is moral, but cannot actually demonstrate that it really is. Morality is subjective, not objective. That's the reality behind it. Morality is a social short-hand. It's a way to declare what rights and abilities are going to be applied across a particular society. Often, it's a means of simply demanding that something be true without having to actually defend or rationalize why it ought to be true. People in the U.S. are indoctrinated into a particular social and moral code. People in other countries are indoctrinated into other social and moral codes. None are demonstrably true. You can probably argue why some are better than others, for various definitions of "better", but that's about as far as it goes. People get uncomfortable when their morality gets questioned because they don't have the ability to step back and actually evaluate their morality, and the whole concept of morality, objectively.

You say that stoning women is wrong and, based on our shared subjective morality, I'd agree with you. However, Hindus think that eating cows is wrong, based on their subjective shared morality, yet we eat hamburgers here every day. Who is "right"? It all depends on your point of view because right and wrong are entirely subjective terms. We really need to get away from arbitrarily declaring things right and wrong and get into the nuts and bolts of *WHY* one way is better or worse than another way. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable, as I said, and lots of people would rather react emotionally than deal with issues rationally and intellectually.

Just because you have an opinion that you favor doesn't make that opinion objectively better than someone else and so long as people have that view, nothing will ever change.
 
Grant said:
I'd like to see some support for these claims you're making.
Click to expand...

It's not at all hard to do but this is the wrong thread and the wrong forum for such a discussion. If you'd like to start one elsewhere, that would be fine.
 
Cephus said:
Everyone says they have a "strong moral center" but disagrees with what morality actually means. What they really mean is that they are strongly committed to what they think is moral, but cannot actually demonstrate that it really is. Morality is subjective, not objective. That's the reality behind it. Morality is a social short-hand. It's a way to declare what rights and abilities are going to be applied across a particular society. Often, it's a means of simply demanding that something be true without having to actually defend or rationalize why it ought to be true. People in the U.S. are indoctrinated into a particular social and moral code. People in other countries are indoctrinated into other social and moral codes. None are demonstrably true. You can probably argue why some are better than others, for various definitions of "better", but that's about as far as it goes. People get uncomfortable when their morality gets questioned because they don't have the ability to step back and actually evaluate their morality, and the whole concept of morality, objectively.

You say that stoning women is wrong and, based on our shared subjective morality, I'd agree with you. However, Hindus think that eating cows is wrong, based on their subjective shared morality, yet we eat hamburgers here every day. Who is "right"? It all depends on your point of view because right and wrong are entirely subjective terms. We really need to get away from arbitrarily declaring things right and wrong and get into the nuts and bolts of *WHY* one way is better or worse than another way. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable, as I said, and lots of people would rather react emotionally than deal with issues rationally and intellectually.

Just because you have an opinion that you favor doesn't make that opinion objectively better than someone else and so long as people have that view, nothing will ever change.
Click to expand...

The problem doesn't come from having a moral code, it's when you convoluted it with stuff that isn't relevant to it, like the cow line. There are certain things that every human being knows is wrong without being told, until the indoctrination comes in. For instance, killing someone is not something that a human being does naturally; there's reason why most murders occur either accidentally or in the heat of the moment. Very rarely do you have the try sociopaths that are just evil. You wanna know what my moral code is? ""Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The idea that people shouldn't be interfering with another's life, unless it directly affects them. This is why I believe that we have the higher moral ground in the west, because (in general) we respect an individual's wishes to live the life as they wish (again with the caveat that it doesn't interfere with mine.) I know as long as our government follows the principle, then we'll be alright.

And by the way, as nice of an idea of saying that "one way isn't any more right or wrong than other" might be, you realize the number of things you are condoning by not condemning them? I won't insult your intelligence by listing them all, but needless to say, when one doesn't have that sense of what is right and what is wrong, you can find yourself defending a lot of bad things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom