• 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'

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



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.


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~


http://news.yahoo.com/built-near-impregnable-mass-appeal-book-155052600.html
 
Last edited:
Any excuse to use religion as a way to harm people is wrong--past, present and future.

Yes. And our Fearless Leader would amass HUGE brownie points in public opinion, if he believed that enough to just say it honestly and straight forward: those who commit such atrocities under the name of Allah or Islam or Mohammed are wrong, they are bad, they dishonor peaceful Muslims everywhere, and they deserve the severest consequences for the evil that they do. He can say that if it is a Christian. But he can't seem to make himself say that if it is a Muslim who is involved. Which makes you wonder where his heart truly lies.

And then to make it even worse, he denigrates all of Christianity with that indefensible speech at the prayer breakfast and in effect says that no Christian has any ground to stand on to accuse a Muslim terrorist.
 
Mornin JMac. :2wave: Here is what Jonah Goldberg has to say about this.....oh and he takes BO peep to task. He needs to be more vocal and keep the Highlight on the BO's incompetence. ;)

:rolleyes: the incompetent idiot is the brain-dead Texan fart that created the mess in the ME w/his stupid Iraq invasion, in spite of repeated warnings by everyone w/a brain that it would de-stabilize the ME, which, very obviously, it did. Had there been no Iraq invasion, there would be no ISIS or any other extremist religious group running vast swaths of territory in the former Iraq and Syria.

The solution is obvious--every single right winger who voted for that clown needs to get their asses geared up and take the first flight out to Syria, Iraq, etc. to go fight ISIS.

It's called taking responsibility for one's actions, something the righties like to preach but (obviously) have yet to heed--

the conservative morons were responsible for getting the aforementioned brain fart elected, so it's their job to clean it up.

So what are you waiting for--why are you still here?
 
:rolleyes: the incompetent idiot is the brain-dead Texan fart that created the mess in the ME w/his stupid Iraq invasion, in spite of repeated warnings by everyone w/a brain that it would de-stabilize the ME, which, very obviously, it did. Had there been no Iraq invasion, there would be no ISIS or any other extremist religious group running vast swaths of territory in the former Iraq and Syria.

The solution is obvious--every single right winger who voted for that clown needs to get their asses geared up and take the first flight out to Syria, Iraq, etc. to go fight ISIS.

It's called taking responsibility for one's actions, something the righties like to preach but (obviously) have yet to heed--

the conservative morons were responsible for getting the aforementioned brain fart elected, so it's their job to clean it up.

So what are you waiting for--why are you still here?

Back to blaming Bush again.....when it already has been shown otherwise. Which has nothing to do with AQ or ISIS or Ansar al Sharia all gaining strength under BO terms. Truly you will have to come up with a better answer than that Buuuuuuuuuuuushhh.

I have shed blood for this country.....left piece of myself in NAM. If they would let me go and put together my own Brigade. I would be there as of 2 years ago.

But now when you can actually put your ass on the line and stand there in the face of the enemy. Then you can talk ****.....until then. Don't talk!
 
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.
Isn't it about time people began asking whose side this guy is really on?
 
Yes. And our Fearless Leader would amass HUGE brownie points in public opinion, if he believed that enough to just say it honestly and straight forward: those who commit such atrocities under the name of Allah or Islam or Mohammed are wrong, they are bad, they dishonor peaceful Muslims everywhere, and they deserve the severest consequences for the evil that they do. He can say that if it is a Christian. But he can't seem to make himself say that if it is a Muslim who is involved. Which makes you wonder where his heart truly lies.
You're wrong. Go back and read the article that is in the OP.

And then to make it even worse, he denigrates all of Christianity with that indefensible speech at the prayer breakfast and in effect says that no Christian has any ground to stand on to accuse a Muslim terrorist.
No he doesn't; his speech was non-denominational.

(From j-mac's article from his OP.)

Obama had a more non-denominational message for the audience that also included prominent leaders of non-Christian faiths. The president said that while religion is a source for good around the world, people of all faiths have been willing to "hijack religion for their own murderous ends."
 
You're wrong. Go back and read the article that is in the OP.

No he doesn't; his speech was non-denominational.

(From j-mac's article from his OP.)

Non denominational? Which religions did he point out by name that are or have been guilty of atrocities other than Christians?
 
I liked what Bobby Jindal said today:

"“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,” Jindal said. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”
 
Back to blaming Bush again.....

Because it was his fault. The ME was mostly stable before the Iraq invasion, which is why dumbya was warned repeatedly not to mess with it. Hello. . .

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

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

when it already has been shown otherwise.

Please entertain us by citing when it was shown otherwise.

Which has nothing to do with AQ or ISIS or Ansar al Sharia all gaining strength under BO terms.

Why stop there there--plenty of groups all over the world (terrorist and otherwise) have gained strength under BO's watch.

Oh, lookie here--a journalist murdered by cartel members--

Mexican Narcos Murder Citizen Journalist, Tweet Photo of Her Corpse

--watch while mmc blames Obama for that, too--after all, Obama failed to stop it.

Oh wow, here's a bunch of Muslims killed by Hindus in India for no reason. . .

Muslims burned to death in India attack - Al Jazeera English

HA lemme guess--O's responsible for not stopping it--of course :lamo

Sesame Street word of the day for righties: relevance--one is only responsibly for something malicious he/she initiated, not for failing to stop the direct consequences of an act initiated by someone else (i. e. the Iraq invasion).

Why should O or anyone be responsible for cleaning up a mess he never caused? :rolleyes:

Truly you will have to come up with a better answer than that Buuuuuuuuuuuushhh.

I have shed blood for this country.....

Not enough, apparently, to learn about the concept of personal responsibility.

If you wanna keep going on about how O isn't doing enough to stop something he never caused, time for you to put your body where your mouth is and take responsibility for something you did cause--the elections of a reckless brain-dead idiot from TX running the show from 2001 - 2008.

As the old saying goes, put up, or. . .
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you could enlighten me on what one thing has to do with the other?

Second Sesame Street Word of the day for righties: credibility.

AS in--why believe anything someone has to say who's yet to substantiate his past buffoonish assertions?
 
Second Sesame Street Word of the day for righties: credibility.

AS in--why believe anything someone has to say who's yet to substantiate his past buffoonish assertions?

As opposed to people who post something totally unrelated to anything else that was said? Yeah, I should take that more seriously I guess.
 
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 suspect that the same people criticizing Obama for not labeling the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terror are the same people that complained when he assassinated the Fort Hood shooter's mentor, al-Awlaki in Yemen. Some people are just whiners and impossible to please.

I think most people see a radical convert shouting "Allah Akbar" while killing 13 people and wounding 30 others as a terrorist act.
Motives for mass killings are numerous but you've decided that yelling Allah Akbar makes it an act of terrorism? Would yelling "in God's name" while slaughtering people at an abortion clinic or "holy cow, batman" while slaughtering people in a theater make it an act of terrorism or is the label just for Muslims?



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'm not the one that called it a 'mislabeling', you did.

During the GWBush years, conservatives were labeling anyone and everyone that didn't agree with them as terrorists and still do. So perhaps the word 'terrorism' just doesn't mean as much as it used to.
 
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.

You obviously did not attend a madrass <sp?> as a child thus lack the understanding Obama has....
 
Second Sesame Street Word of the day for righties: credibility.

AS in--why believe anything someone has to say who's yet to substantiate his past buffoonish assertions?

Something you demanding makes for quite the irony.
 
Because it was his fault. The ME was mostly stable before the Iraq invasion, which is why dumbya was warned repeatedly not to mess with it. Hello. . .

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

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



Please entertain us by citing when it was shown otherwise.



Why stop there there--plenty of groups all over the world (terrorist and otherwise) have gained strength under BO's watch.

Oh, lookie here--a journalist murdered by cartel members--

Mexican Narcos Murder Citizen Journalist, Tweet Photo of Her Corpse

--watch while mmc blames Obama for that, too--after all, Obama failed to stop it.

Oh wow, here's a bunch of Muslims killed by Hindus in India for no reason. . .

Muslims burned to death in India attack - Al Jazeera English

HA lemme guess--O's responsible for not stopping it--of course :lamo

Sesame Street word of the day for righties: relevance--one is only responsibly for something malicious he/she initiated, not for failing to stop the direct consequences of an act initiated by someone else (i. e. the Iraq invasion).

Why should O or anyone be responsible for cleaning up a mess he never caused? :rolleyes:



Not enough, apparently, to learn about the concept of personal responsibility.

If you wanna keep going on about how O isn't doing enough to stop something he never caused, time for you to put your body where your mouth is and take responsibility for something you did cause--the elections of a reckless brain-dead idiot from TX running the show from 2001 - 2008.

As the old saying goes, put up, or. . .



Post 123 what BO Peeps own US Army Joint Chief of Staff has to say. Its been sitting in the thread and the other one goes back to post 66. So it is a little late to talk about whats already up.
 
:rolleyes: the incompetent idiot is the brain-dead Texan fart that created the mess in the ME w/his stupid Iraq invasion, in spite of repeated warnings by everyone w/a brain that it would de-stabilize the ME, which, very obviously, it did. Had there been no Iraq invasion, there would be no ISIS or any other extremist religious group running vast swaths of territory in the former Iraq and Syria.

The solution is obvious--every single right winger who voted for that clown needs to get their asses geared up and take the first flight out to Syria, Iraq, etc. to go fight ISIS.

It's called taking responsibility for one's actions, something the righties like to preach but (obviously) have yet to heed--

the conservative morons were responsible for getting the aforementioned brain fart elected, so it's their job to clean it up.

So what are you waiting for--why are you still here?

It's Bush's fault and not the terrorists. Right?
 
I suspect that the same people criticizing Obama for not labeling the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terror are the same people that complained when he assassinated the Fort Hood shooter's mentor, al-Awlaki in Yemen. Some people are just whiners and impossible to please.

Motives for mass killings are numerous but you've decided that yelling Allah Akbar makes it an act of terrorism? Would yelling "in God's name" while slaughtering people at an abortion clinic or "holy cow, batman" while slaughtering people in a theater make it an act of terrorism or is the label just for Muslims?



I'm not the one that called it a 'mislabeling', you did.

During the GWBush years, conservatives were labeling anyone and everyone that didn't agree with them as terrorists and still do. So perhaps the word 'terrorism' just doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Zapping Awalaki is one of the few things Obama got right.
 
Second Sesame Street Word of the day for righties: credibility.

AS in--why believe anything someone has to say who's yet to substantiate his past buffoonish assertions?

well, obviously you are far more intelligent than the rest of us, thank you for the vocabulary lesson.

I have a question professor.....is that credibility with or without "you can keep your plan", "I didn't say that, what I said was you can keep your plan until the insurance companies change it", "Al Qaeda is on the run"...or anything else Obama, or merely limited to "righties"

And, professor, I have tried to look up "righties" and been unable to find a reference...does that mean all people who see through Obama, or just the "traitors, jihadists, and terrorists" duly elected to represent Americans in congress.

I am also concerned about a deeper meaning of the Sesame street lesson, in that does "Credibility" relate in any way to such things as labeling every Republican on the face of the earth "enemies"? And can we revisit the "it was a spontaneous demonstration thing now that we have a proper definition of "credible"....

And, can we also examine the credibility of a sitting president who allows the terrorists...oops, spontaneous demonstrators, to slip aweay and brag about how they atatcked America and got away with it, lololololol isn't that hillarious?

so in thanking you for providing us with this droplet of socialist wisdom, and we all look forward to further enlightenment on the subject of credibility with a guy who votes "present"
 
When Obama refuses to call these heinous acts terrorism and ignores them, hoping they will go away, he is aiding and abetting our enemies.

He condemned them. The charge that Obama is aiding ISIS is totally absurd. How anyone could believe such a ridiculous notion is beyond me.
 
Back
Top Bottom