• 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'

Grant said:
Do you sincerely believe that this would have been going on in Iraq if the 50,000 troops had remained?
Click to expand...

Probably not. That's why you need to be one of those 50,000 troops so that the rest of them that didn't vote for the idiot that caused the big mess in the ME can come back.
 
MMC said:
Anything to stop the finger from pointing at BO peep and the lost sheep. They can't afford to constantly be focused upon failure after failure after failure. You have to understand.....its always back to blaming Bush and Iraq.
Click to expand...

And we're still waiting for one of these right wingers to explain how O could be responsible for not cleaning up the mess caused dumbya's deliberate destabilization of the ME.

Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed

The clock is ticking.
 
Grant said:
George Bush gave them the power? How did he do that?

Do you sincerely believe that this would have been going on in Iraq if the 50,000 troops had remained?
Click to expand...



I sincerely believe if the USA had stayed out of Iraq (Which was no threat to the USA.) We would have a lot more peace on this planet. :roll:

But we don't have a time machine so we can't undo Bush's disaster in Iraq.
 
solletica said:
How do you add 1 + 1. . .?
Click to expand...
that's a question we often hear from Leftists who have been victims of the public education system but arithmetic isn't related to the subject at hand. The question was "How did George Bush give ISIS power?"

Have you read the entire article you submitted and critiqued it at all?

Are you familiar with this? Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Zyphlin said:
It is undeniable that those acting within the Crusades (especially leadership) were, by and large, acting in the name of their Religion.
Click to expand...

That is most certainly deniable. Timothy McVeigh CLAIMED to be acting in the name of justice. Was he actually acting in the name of justice?
 
shrubnose said:
I sincerely believe if the USA had stayed out of Iraq (Which was no threat to the USA.) We would have a lot more peace on this planet. :roll:

But we don't have a time machine so we can't undo Bush's disaster in Iraq.
Click to expand...
In fact it was successful and even Barrack Obama said so.

The real problems began after Obama ordered a retreat.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Man, you Christians sure do get livid when a negro says Christianity was anything other than perfect.
Click to expand...

:) You know how I know we are actually correct in our rather simple and narrow critique here? You are forced to resort to particularly stupid strawmen including the race card.

At no point did he excuse ISIS's actions in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...

Did you notice how no one in the posts you quoted claimed that he did?

:) No. You have what you want to respond to, and no reason allowing the little fact that you can't find it mess with that, eh?

He called them evil barbarians and is currently waging a bombing campaign against them, supporting the local nations. I find it extremely sad that you guys seem to have run out of actual things to whine about that you have to make things up that he never said or even implied.
Click to expand...

:lol: What the President said is a dumb enough cliche not to need embellishment.

We're not gearing up for another war like you'd like because the American people don't want another war, and Obama is respecting our wish.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you follow the news or not, but we've been steadily increasing out footprint in Iraq.
 
solletica said:
Irrelevant. Those terrorists wouldn't have been able to get the power they have today had dumbya not invaded back in 2003--a fact which he was repeatedly warned about, so those deaths wouldn't have happened.

Big question is when are you and your right wing bros gonna suit up and ship out to go fight ISIS, i. e. take responsibility for your voting screwup in 2000 and 2004?
Click to expand...

That's interesting logic. Do you blame the Japanese for the atomic bombs, then?
 
solletica said:
And we're still waiting for one of these right wingers to explain how O could be responsible for not cleaning up the mess caused dumbya's deliberate destabilization of the ME.

Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed

The clock is ticking.
Click to expand...


When you figure that part out, on how terrorism has increased under BO and expanded and with more groups and AQ themselves growing in Strength fourfold, then you might have just caught up with current events.
 
Grant said:
Following Obama's retreat, of course.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Wrong.

After Bush's replacement of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government with a Shia-dominated government Iran was mighty happy with the fine job that Bush had done. :roll:
 
Grant said:
In fact it was successful and even Barrack Obama said so.

The real problems began after Obama ordered a retreat.
Click to expand...

I would guess most of us now wish we had never invaded Iraq in 2003. But the fact remains that there was strong bipartisan support voted in Congress and 70% approval rating from the public and approval from almost all heads of state in the free world and most of the Middle East and absolutely no objection from the U.N. when we did so. We were actually enforcing numerous U.N. resolutions. At least 23 countries committed some troops, N.A.T.O. furnished a contingency of advisors, and others contributed other support services. So to call it 'Bush's War' is really a misnomer.

It was pulling our punches during the nation building part that became the problem and allowed those who did not want a free and democratic Iraq to regain a foothold there and it was that insurgency that caused most of the deaths to both military and civilian populations. I do fault the Bush administration for handling that part of it badly.

The bombing raids in Syria may have been philosophically justified with little if any objections from Congress, but the conventional wisdom is that it has forced cooperation between al Qaida and ISIS that had not existed since they separated some months earlier. Should that have been foreseen? History will judge that.

What impact does Obama's comments at the prayer breakfast have on all this? Well, including being highly offensive to millions of Americans, history will also judge whether his timidity or empathy with the terrorists--you pick--encourages terrorism by assuring them the terrorists they are having at least psychological success with the American President.
 
apdst said:
Nobody forced those terrorists to target civilians. That's a decision they made, all...by...themselves.
Click to expand...



Wait....

Is the war in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. still on?

If so, why the **** are you blathering about history and who ****ed up? Don't you care about your country? The fighting men and women risking their lives? Or are yo0u primarily concerned about Hitler, WWII and the holocuast? Because if so, go start a ****ing thread on that offering you uninformed opinions as THIS tread is abot today. not ****ing history...OK?

Now can we return to the topic of Obama and how HE fights wars ...or doesn't?
 
solletica said:
Irrelevant. Those terrorists wouldn't have been able to get the power they have today had dumbya not invaded back in 2003--a fact which he was repeatedly warned about, so those deaths wouldn't have happened.

Big question is when are you and your right wing bros gonna suit up and ship out to go fight ISIS, i. e. take responsibility for your voting screwup in 2000 and 2004?
Click to expand...


Please substantiate that absolutely absurd opinion.

No where in ten years have I seen that even remotely suggested by anyone who would be even close to knowing.

I say it's another invention of Pretzel Logic inc.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Wait....

Is the war in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. still on?

If so, why the **** are you blathering about history and who ****ed up? Don't you care about your country? The fighting men and women risking their lives? Or are yo0u primarily concerned about Hitler, WWII and the holocuast? Because if so, go start a ****ing thread on that offering you uninformed opinions as THIS tread is abot today. not ****ing history...OK?

Now can we return to the topic of Obama and how HE fights wars ...or doesn't?
Click to expand...

Slow down, cat! I'm not the one that's running around blaming Bush for what the terrorists are doing. You need to take that up with those folks, or chill the **** out!
 
The problem is that we have generals doing this type of stuff

Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a guy named Satan."

Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.
Click to expand...

General Casts War in Religious Terms - Los Angeles Times

If he wants to believe that fine, but he should have the sense enough to know if he is going to be in a position like that, he should keep it private.

And training officers like this

A red-faced Pentagon has conceded that an instructor at its Joint Forces College in Virginia for military officers was until recently teaching a course advocating “total war” with Islam that could require obliterating the holy cities of Mecca and Medina without concern for civilian deaths.

The material in the course, which officers could elect to take but was not obligatory, flew in the face of repeated assertions by the Obama administration that the war on terrorism is just that and should under no circumstances be read as an assault on a religion observed by 1.4 billion people around the world.

Details of the course were obtained by a blog on Wired.com, drawn from a presentation given by the teacher, Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, in July last year. He suggested that destroying Islamic holy sites would follow the precedents of the nuclear strike by the allies on Hiroshima in World War II and the firebombing of Dresden. His course was called ‘Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism’.
Click to expand...

Pentagon instructor urged total war with Islam - Americas - World - The Independent

Obama was absolutely right to call it out.
 
MildSteel said:
The problem is that we have generals doing this type of stuff



General Casts War in Religious Terms - Los Angeles Times

If he wants to believe that fine, but he should have the sense enough to know if he is going to be in a position like that, he should keep it private.

And training officers like this



Pentagon instructor urged total war with Islam - Americas - World - The Independent

Obama was absolutely right to call it out.
Click to expand...


Heya Steel. :2wave:.....:naughty


Historians Weigh in on Obama's Comparison of ISIS Militants to Medieval Christian Crusaders.....

Meanwhile, historians have been quick to discourage a link between ISIS and the Crusaders, who fought to reclaim holy lands in the Middle East nearly 900 years ago.

“I don’t think the president knows very much about the crusades,” Thomas Madden, a historian at the University of St. Louis, told ABC News. “He seems to be casting them as an example of a distortion of Christianity and trying to compare that to what he sees as a distortion of Islam in the actions of ISIS,” Madden said. “The initial goal of the Crusades was to give back lands to Christians that been conquered, due to Muslim conquests.”

Thomas Asbridge, a historian at the University of London, said in a statement to ABC News, “It is true to say, that by modern standards, atrocities were committed by crusaders, as they were by their Muslim opponents, it is however, far less certain that, by medieval standards, crusading violence could be categorized as distinctly extreme in all instances.” Asbridge said he doesn’t have a problem with the president reminding the world that the Christian Church “advocated violence, and at times even encouraged its adherents to engage in warfare” but to suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.”.....snip~

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-we...s-militants-medieval-christian-233947247.html
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Man, you Christians sure do get livid when a negro says Christianity was anything other than perfect. At no point did he excuse ISIS's actions in any way, shape or form. He called them evil barbarians and is currently waging a bombing campaign against them, supporting the local nations. I find it extremely sad that you guys seem to have run out of actual things to whine about that you have to make things up that he never said or even implied.

We're not gearing up for another war like you'd like because the American people don't want another war, and Obama is respecting our wish.
Click to expand...



Well, well, what do we have here?

The first post in this thread and the first I have seen in months playing the...dum dum, dum dum, dum dum...RACE CARD.

You are the first to make note of the man's skin color and suggest opposition to his failed nostrums is racist.

Further you make a sweeping bigoted statement about "you Christians" dong the very thing so many of you followers say Obama is trying not to have happen and that is judge an entire faith on the actions of a few.....

But he is only concerned, as you are, with insulting the stupid ass false prophet and racist Mohamed...who he insists cannot be mocked.

So it is fine in your morality to judge an entire religion of 121 faiths and 3000 sects based on a few dozen posts. But not only that, determine that not only are we all WHITE CHRISTIANS, but racist white Christians to boot. You do not know me, my race, beliefs nor background, but are sure enough to stake your reputation on the fact you are convinced that because I find his remarks reprehensible I am white and Christian....AND racist.


Hmmm


I think we see who is the bigot and racist..not to mention hypocrite, as you have judged them as Obama wants not his Muslims to be judged. Yep, we see how religious wars and the KKK get started...with guys like you
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I would guess most of us now wish we had never invaded Iraq in 2003. But the fact remains that there was strong bipartisan support voted in Congress and 70% approval rating from the public and approval from almost all heads of state in the free world and most of the Middle East and absolutely no objection from the U.N. when we did so. We were actually enforcing numerous U.N. resolutions. At least 23 countries committed some troops, N.A.T.O. furnished a contingency of advisors, and others contributed other support services. So to call it 'Bush's War' is really a misnomer.

It was pulling our punches during the nation building part that became the problem and allowed those who did not want a free and democratic Iraq to regain a foothold there and it was that insurgency that caused most of the deaths to both military and civilian populations. I do fault the Bush administration for handling that part of it badly.

The bombing raids in Syria may have been philosophically justified with little if any objections from Congress, but the conventional wisdom is that it has forced cooperation between al Qaida and ISIS that had not existed since they separated some months earlier. Should that have been foreseen? History will judge that.

What impact does Obama's comments at the prayer breakfast have on all this? Well, including being highly offensive to millions of Americans, history will also judge whether his timidity or empathy with the terrorists--you pick--encourages terrorism by assuring them the terrorists they are having at least psychological success with the American President.
Click to expand...
His banal and confused remarks on Christian history, delivered in his usual professorial tone, paired nicely with his earlier remark that "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".

What a guy~!
 
ocean515 said:
I don't know the quoting function as well as I should, so I cut and paste the previous posters complete comments. I can see how that might have led you to your misunderstanding.

So no harm. I do remain baffled by the reluctance of the Obama Administration to label obvious terrorist acts for what they are. If there is a reason for such a policy, I haven't seen an explanation for it.
Click to expand...

I don't know either.
 
MMC said:
Heya Steel. :2wave:.....:naughty


Historians Weigh in on Obama's Comparison of ISIS Militants to Medieval Christian Crusaders.....

Meanwhile, historians have been quick to discourage a link between ISIS and the Crusaders, who fought to reclaim holy lands in the Middle East nearly 900 years ago.

“I don’t think the president knows very much about the crusades,” Thomas Madden, a historian at the University of St. Louis, told ABC News. “He seems to be casting them as an example of a distortion of Christianity and trying to compare that to what he sees as a distortion of Islam in the actions of ISIS,” Madden said. “The initial goal of the Crusades was to give back lands to Christians that been conquered, due to Muslim conquests.”

Thomas Asbridge, a historian at the University of London, said in a statement to ABC News, “It is true to say, that by modern standards, atrocities were committed by crusaders, as they were by their Muslim opponents, it is however, far less certain that, by medieval standards, crusading violence could be categorized as distinctly extreme in all instances.” Asbridge said he doesn’t have a problem with the president reminding the world that the Christian Church “advocated violence, and at times even encouraged its adherents to engage in warfare” but to suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.”.....snip~

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-we...s-militants-medieval-christian-233947247.html
Click to expand...

Hi MMC!!!

The bottom line is this, the U.S. government cannot be out fighting wars and claiming we are doing it in the name of God. Neither can the U.S. government go out and kill people because of their religious beliefs. That is dangerous. We need to focus our attention on what individuals and groups do that we find offensive, not religious ideology.

BTW, I didn't know that you fought in Vietnam. WOW!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom