• 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'

Quote Originally Posted by bicycleman View Post

When Obama refuses to call these heinous acts terrorism and ignores them, hoping they will go away, he is aiding and abetting our enemies.

I think the reference is to various ACTS the President seems reluctant to identify as terrorist driven. Much like the terrorist act that took place at Ft Hood in 2009, and others, the obvious seems difficult to admit by the President

Calling ISIS a "terrorist group" and "vicious death cult" isn't good enough? So what would change if he called various acts of violence an act of terror? Who gets to decide if it's an act of terror, anyway?
 
Gee, I remember a time when I might be vaporized by an H-Bomb.


Really?
drillsergeant.gif


 
Ive been alright Monte.....but as you can see I have been looking directly at BO and his Team. Even what his own had to say.


The former vice chief of staff of the Army warned the Senate Armed Services Committee today that al-Qaeda has “grown fourfold in the last five years.” “AQ and its affiliates exceeds Iran in beginning to dominate multiple countries,” retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane testified.

Using a term that the Obama administration now eschews, Keane called radical Islam “the major security challenge of our generation…”The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS, is an outgrowth from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was defeated in Iraq by 2009.” “After U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq in 2011, ISIS reemerged as a terrorist organization in Iraq, moved into Syria in 2012, and began seizing towns and villages from the Syria-Iraq border all the way to the western Syria from Aleppo to Damascus,” he reminded the committee.

That leads to an “unmistakable” conclusion that “our policies have failed,” Keane added.....snip~

Four-Star General Tells Congress: Al-Qaeda Has “Grown Four-Fold in Last Five Years” | The Gateway Pundit

Remember now, I don't disagree in the rate of growth of terrorism. Had our intervention ended with Iraq and Afghanistan our efforts would have produced less terrorism than what we have now. The Bush power vacuums created in Iraq and Afghanistan, emboldened terrorism. But now then, add to that the subsequent administrations support of MB in Egypt, its use and support of AQ in Libya, its support of AQ, al Nusra and others in Syria, the Bush on steroids use of PD's, killing a disproportionate amount of civilians, and as such, further radicalising extremists, in places like Yemen and Pakistan, and HELL YEAH, extremists are quadrupling!!!!! Have we all had enough yet, or are we going to continue to support a US policy of intervention, interference, nation building, exploitation and the likes, that has proven to be a failure? And anybody, no, ANYBODY that thinks that the past few decades of US policy in the Middle East has been anything but destructive, isn't observing the results. From Carter to Obama, failure. If it makes MMC feel better to beat Obama over the head as the biggest contributor to terrorism in the ME, I'll not argue with you, but neither of the other four produced fruit there either. Its time for a complete transformation in the thinking of how we deal with the ME and help nurture the region forward, cause beating the region to death hasn't helped a bit.
 
And I am saying that the intelligent and fair minded folks judge religions by how their advocates are now and not by how they once were.

Ah, intelligent and fair minded huh????? Feel good do ya now? I happen to be speaking both historically and presently. Btw, is everybody you disagree with short on fair mindedness and intelligence, just curious. Or just the ones that disagree with you on religion, or just me?
 
Remember now, I don't disagree in the rate of growth of terrorism. Had our intervention ended with Iraq and Afghanistan our efforts would have produced less terrorism than what we have now. The Bush power vacuums created in Iraq and Afghanistan, emboldened terrorism. But now then, add to that the subsequent administrations support of MB in Egypt, its use and support of AQ in Libya, its support of AQ, al Nusra and others in Syria, the Bush on steroids use of PD's, killing a disproportionate amount of civilians, and as such, further radicalising extremists, in places like Yemen and Pakistan, and HELL YEAH, extremists are quadrupling!!!!! Have we all had enough yet, or are we going to continue to support a US policy of intervention, interference, nation building, exploitation and the likes, that has proven to be a failure? And anybody, no, ANYBODY that thinks that the past few decades of US policy in the Middle East has been anything but destructive, isn't observing the results. From Carter to Obama, failure. If it makes MMC feel better to beat Obama over the head as the biggest contributor to terrorism in the ME, I'll not argue with you, but neither of the other four produced fruit there either. Its time for a complete transformation in the thinking of how we deal with the ME and help nurture the region forward, cause beating the region to death hasn't helped a bit.



Even if we would never ever been involved from when Churchill opened things up. It still wouldn't stop this Monte.

isis-caliphatemap.jpg


Which doesn't count the Saud's United States of Islam. Nor the thought of a United States of Africa that Gadhafi was pushing.

Nor the Shia's own version of the Caliphate with them Dominating and subjugating the Sunni.
 
Obama: "ISIL Is A Terrorist Organization, Pure And Simple"

So was/is the MB he supported in Egypt, AQ which he supported and used in Libya, AQ and al Nusra which he supported and armed in Syria. In fairness, similar hypocritical polices were followed by previous presidents though.
 
Quote Originally Posted by bicycleman View Post

When Obama refuses to call these heinous acts terrorism and ignores them, hoping they will go away, he is aiding and abetting our enemies.

I think the reference is to various ACTS the President seems reluctant to identify as terrorist driven. Much like the terrorist act that took place at Ft Hood in 2009, and others, the obvious seems difficult to admit by the President

If Obama is committing treason, why hasn't he been arrested or impeached?
 
Ah, intelligent and fair minded huh????? Feel good do ya now? I happen to be speaking both historically and presently. Btw, is everybody you disagree with short on fair mindedness and intelligence, just curious. Or just the ones that disagree with you on religion, or just me?

I don't recall naming anybody who is short on fair mindedness and intelligence. But it might be something to think about that you thought that applied to you. IMO, those who are fair minded and intelligent, however, have something more than prejudice on which to base their accusations and denigration of another person's religion and/or beliefs.
 
Even if we would never ever been involved from when Churchill opened things up. It still wouldn't stop this Monte.

isis-caliphatemap.jpg


Which doesn't count the Saud's United States of Islam. Nor the thought of a United States of Africa that Gadhafi was pushing.

Nor the Shia's own version of the Caliphate with them Dominating and subjugating the Sunni.

The Ottoman Empire was preferred to what we have.
 
Calling ISIS a "terrorist group" and "vicious death cult" isn't good enough? So what would change if he called various acts of violence an act of terror? Who gets to decide if it's an act of terror, anyway?

Obviously the President thinks he gets to decide. They referred to the Ft. Hood massacre as an example of work place violence, if I am not mistaken.

I think most people see a radical convert shouting "Allah Akbar" while killing 13 people and wounding 30 others as a terrorist act.

As to what would change if it were labeled as such, I think the better question is why is so much effort spent to avoid calling such acts for what they are? If you don't think anything would change, why defend the mislabeling?
 
I don't recall naming anybody who is short on fair mindedness and intelligence. But it might be something to think about that you thought that applied to you. IMO, those who are fair minded and intelligent, however, have something more than prejudice on which to base their accusations and denigration of another person's religion and/or beliefs.

Then to whom are you referring when you say that intelligent and fair minded people agree with you? And from the Christians and Jews waring against Muslims in the ME, the crusades, and more recent, the scourge of pedaphilia in the Catholic Church, the brutality of Buddhists oppression of Muslims in the East, the scourge of religion is manifest.
 
If Obama is committing treason, why hasn't he been arrested or impeached?

Ok. I looked at my comments, actually a couple of times, and then I looked at your post. Again, at least a couple of times.

I have no idea what relationship my comments have to what you posted.

Perhaps you could try again.
 
I searched two pages of the BN forum, and couldn't find this story anywhere, and my apologies if it was already posted...But, come on folks....Give me a damned break! :doh This would be like Churchill during WWII telling us that although the Nazi's were bad, that maybe they were justified for what the Moore's did centuries earlier....It's a load of crap!

There is no equivalency....It's a false narrative that once again leads some to believe that Obama protects, and runs cover for terrorists.
j-mac: The first paragraph of that story pretty much sums up the whole idea of what Obama was conveying. :shrug:

President Barack Obama on Thursday condemned those who seek to use religion as a rationale for carrying out violence around the world, declaring that "no god condones terror."
 
Ok. I looked at my comments, actually a couple of times, and then I looked at your post. Again, at least a couple of times.

I have no idea what relationship my comments have to what you posted.

Perhaps you could try again.

My apologies!

Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of Treason. Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support; actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant.
 
My apologies!

Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of Treason. Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support; actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant.

Again, the mention of treason has no relevance to my post. I only mentioned the poster was referring to not calling certain ACTS for what they were. The President has referred to ISIL as a terrorist organization. He seems to have trouble identifying ACTS as being terrorist related.

So, is there some other point you are trying to make? Or did you misunderstand my post?
 
Then to whom are you referring when you say that intelligent and fair minded people agree with you? And from the Christians and Jews waring against Muslims in the ME, the crusades, and more recent, the scourge of pedaphilia in the Catholic Church, the brutality of Buddhists oppression of Muslims in the East, the scourge of religion is manifest.

I didn't say that intelligent and fair minded people agree with me. I said intelligent and fair minded people judge religion and religious beliefs by how their advocates behave now and not by the ancient history of those religions and religious beliefs. If you can't quote me accurately on what I did say and you didn't understand that the first time I posted it, I doubt further explanation would be helpful.

Do have a nice day.
 
Here let me correct you with that again. Post 66 remember.

The authors also emphasise that IS is not new, but rather emerged from the ashes of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), one of the most brutal foes of the Americans following their 2003 invasion. AQI was largely defeated after the US convinced local tribes to rise up against them -- a strategy known as "The Awakening", which has deeply influenced IS strategy.

"From the beginning, they've been obsessed with the Awakening," said Hassan. "They've done everything to prevent it happening again: built sleeper cells, bought loyalty, divided communities. "They've succeeded in making internal resistance practically impossible. No tribe will fight them, because they will find themselves fighting their own brothers and cousins."

Although the Baathists were originally a secular movement, Saddam introduced a "Faith campaign" in the 1990s that sought to Islamise society. "Very few people have focused on the impact of that campaign," said Hassan. "It radicalised many Baathists and they combined the violence of the regime with that of jihadism, making them even worse than Al-Qaeda." "But they have combined religion, geopolitics, economics and much more in their ideology.....snip~

Here don't let The General trick you with any wording okay?


The former vice chief of staff of the Army warned the Senate Armed Services Committee today that al-Qaeda has “grown fourfold in the last five years.” “AQ and its affiliates exceeds Iran in beginning to dominate multiple countries,” retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane testified.

Using a term that the Obama administration now eschews, Keane called radical Islam “the major security challenge of our generation…”The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS, is an outgrowth from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was defeated in Iraq by 2009.” “After U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq in 2011, ISIS reemerged as a terrorist organization in Iraq, moved into Syria in 2012, and began seizing towns and villages from the Syria-Iraq border all the way to the western Syria from Aleppo to Damascus,” he reminded the committee.

That leads to an “unmistakable” conclusion that “our policies have failed,” Keane added.....snip~

Four-Star General Tells Congress: Al-Qaeda Has “Grown Four-Fold in Last Five Years” | The Gateway Pundit
Wait, are you trying to say ISIS is part of Al-Qaeda? Because, if that's the case, I believe Al-Qaeda disagrees with you.

Al-Qaeda disavows any ties with radical Islamist ISIS group in Syria, Iraq - The Washington Post
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ys-it-has-no-ties-with-one-syrian-rebel-force
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that intelligent and fair minded people agree with me. I said intelligent and fair minded people judge religion and religious beliefs by how their advocates behave now and not by the ancient history of those religions and religious beliefs. If you can't quote me accurately on what I did say and you didn't understand that the first time I posted it, I doubt further explanation would be helpful.

Do have a nice day.

Do you see any quotations in my post? No, you don't. It's what you have inferred now three separate times. And I keep telling you that CURRENT religious abuse earns religion it's deserved label. But apparently, a fourth explanation of that won't help you either, so you too have you a nice evening Owl.
 
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:

Well, radical Muslim extremism (or radical Islam) isn't Islamic. From Dictionary.com:

noun
1. the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.
2. the whole body of Muslim believers, their civilization, and the countries in which theirs is the dominant religion.

Since radial Islam is neither the true teaching of the Muslim faith but rather a subverted form of Islam and the radical Muslim extremist clearly is not embraced by the whole of the Muslim world, ISIL/ISIS and the radical who follow their practices in the name of Islam are not Islamic. You can call them maniacs, religious fanatics or Muslim extremist, but they aren't Islamic.
 
j-mac: The first paragraph of that story pretty much sums up the whole idea of what Obama was conveying. :shrug:

President Barack Obama on Thursday condemned those who seek to use religion as a rationale for carrying out violence around the world, declaring that "no god condones terror."​

But he was focused on the ancient history of Christianity as he expanded on his remarks and used that to justify his criticism of those who denounce acts in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam today.

It would be reasonable to compare the actions of Christians in medieval times with those of Islam in medieval times to both condemn or commend both religions. It is NOT reasonable to compare the actions of Christians in medieval times as a justification for excusing Islam in modern times.
 
Again, the mention of treason has no relevance to my post. I only mentioned the poster was referring to not calling certain ACTS for what they were. The President has referred to ISIL as a terrorist organization. He seems to have trouble identifying ACTS as being terrorist related.

So, is there some other point you are trying to make? Or did you misunderstand my post?

Apparently I misunderstood your post. I thought you were the one accusing Obama of aiding and abetting the enemy, sorry for that.
 
Nobody is hijacking any religion, this is what those religions really are in those areas of the world. However, Obama is trying to baby a largely religious audience so they don't feel bad that religion isn't all butterflies and rainbows.
 
But he was focused on the ancient history of Christianity as he expanded on his remarks and used that to justify his criticism of those who denounce acts in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam today.

It would be reasonable to compare the actions of Christians in medieval times with those of Islam in medieval times to both condemn or commend both religions. It is NOT reasonable to compare the actions of Christians in medieval times as a justification for excusing Islam in modern times.
Any excuse to use religion as a way to harm people is wrong--past, present and future.
 
Back
Top Bottom