so ... he's a puppet.
A gay, Kenyan-born, Muslim terrorist puppet.
so ... he's a puppet.
You have got to be kidding me? I don't credit you with much intelligence, but this takes the cake. Rewind? You stated: Please site a specific example of Obama not denouncing terrorists after any attack of significance during his two terms. A single instance will do.
I gave you two examples - Fort Hood, which he labeled workplace violence (and wouldn't call it terrorism for 6 years), followed by a general reference, a phrase he uses too often to avoid calling terrorist acts "terrorism" - his infamous 'random acts of violence' comments he's used regarding Paris, and Palestinian attacks on Jews.
I asked you to define what 'denouncing terrorism' means. You didn't answer.
So you show some examples of other times where he denounced terrorism. Applause, applause!
So the original poster was right - Obama refuses to 'consistently' denounce terrorism. There are examples where he avoids it, and won't do so. You claim that's false. You are wholly incorrect.
The examples you provide above, which gave some folks a temporary glimmer of hope that the moron was finally getting it, did nothing to answer the question - what is your definition of denouncing terrorism. But at this point, you answering that is rather moot. And I know why you wouldn't answer it :: :: (that whole being painted into a corner thing is awkward)
I've already answered your question, clearly it went right over your head. To denounce terrorism is to do exactly what President Obama has done, of which I've given two specific examples. You stand up and in no uncertain terms, you denounce terrorism. Obama has denounced terrorism time and time again, you guys are just too dense to comprehend it. Or more likely, you simply refuse to do so, as it doesn't fit the narrative.I guess we can all play this game
I dunno, something along these lines?
Obama: 'This was an act of terrorism'
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/obama-oval-office-address-isis-terror/
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama on Sunday issued his most passionate denunciation yet of ISIS, vowing to "destroy" the group in a relentless, strong and smart campaign that is consistent with the nation's values.
Obama, speaking in the symbolic surroundings of the Oval Office, unequivocally told millions of television viewers in prime-time that last week's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, was a terrorist attack by a couple who had gone down the "dark path of radicalization" and embraced a "perverted" form of Islam.
"This was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people," Obama said. "Here's what I want you to know. The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us."
or...
Barack Obama denounces Islamic State as ‘cancer’ that must be ‘extracted’ from Middle East
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-that-must-be-extracted-from-Middle-East.html
What the President of the United States says publicly does not put his life at risk but rather the lives of soldiers
and traveling Americans. I am sure he is coached on what he should say to minimize the risk to American lives.
.
The Dear Leader once avoided using the word "terrorism" and went the "workplace violence" route when convenient ,...but since the worldwide escalation of terror attacks, he had come to the realization he can no longer bury his head in the sand.
What Obama now refuses to do is put "Islamic" and "terrorism" together, continuing to deny that this vile religion has anything to do with terrorism. The Dear Leader will say "terrorism" but never "Islamic terrorism" which is exactly what it is.
White House censors the French presidents utterance of "Islamic terrorism".
http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/white-h...rrorism-quote/
I am completely ill every ******* time that ******* tells me what "American values" are. He has no CLUE about American values......and it's just another example of the liberal co-option of Goebbels/Hitlerian mind warping method of repeating something often enough and it eventually becomes accepted......not me.
Yeah....because don't piss them off.
His head was never "buried in the sand." But he continually tries mightily to bury ours. He is fully and completely aware of the facts on this issue. I have absolutely no doubt that he secretly relishes the fact that America is finally getting its " come uppance."
Muslim anti-Isis march not covered by mainstream media outlets, say organisers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...am-media-outlets-say-organisers-a6765976.html
I've already answered your question, clearly it went right over your head. To denounce terrorism is to do exactly what President Obama has done, of which I've given two specific examples. You stand up and in no uncertain terms, you denounce terrorism. Obama has denounced terrorism time and time again, you guys are just too dense to comprehend it. Or more likely, you simply refuse to do so, as it doesn't fit the narrative.
.
The Dear Leader once avoided using the word "terrorism" and went the "workplace violence" route when convenient ,...but since the worldwide escalation of terror attacks, he had come to the realization he can no longer bury his head in the sand.
What Obama now refuses to do is put "Islamic" and "terrorism" together, continuing to deny that this vile religion has anything to do with terrorism. The Dear Leader will say "terrorism" but never "Islamic terrorism" which is exactly what it is.
White House censors the French presidents utterance of "Islamic terrorism".
http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/white-h...rrorism-quote/
"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the ‘Islamic State.’ And they propagate the notion that America — and the West, generally — is at war with Islam," Obama said at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism last week. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."
Additionally, several countries helping the United States fight the Islamic State and other terrorist groups are Muslim nations, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia. In those cases, it is in the United States’ interest not to be at war with a religion. And, as Bloomberg’s Eli Lake points out, there are some Muslims around the world who support some radical ideology practiced legally in some Muslim countries, such as honor killings, but they disavow terrorism.
Declassified files from Osama bin Laden’s compound show that the Obama administration’s decision to try and separate terrorist groups from Islam had negatively impacted al-Qaida’s brand. Bin Laden wrote that Muslims were less likely to feel as if they belonged to al-Qaida because the Obama administration had "largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims," according to the Washington Post.
It would not be wrong to call the Islamic State an "Islamic extremist" group, Gelvin said, but it’s unnecessary to emphasize the religious aspect when "their doctrine is exceedingly unpopular among most people who consider themselves Muslims."
Just as Muslims worldwide refused to take up bin Laden’s brutal brand of Islam, the vast majority of Muslims are also not heeding the call of the self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Tufts University religion professor Kenneth Garden said accepting the terror group’s self-description would amount to "an own-goal" by the United States.
So ask yourself this.
If a crazy, cult-like group came around that called themselves 'The Christian State' and claimed to be acting in the name of Jesus Christ, with a vision to create some warped version of biblical times as found in the Bible. This group then carried out horrific acts of violence in the name of Jesus Christ; raped, murdered, beheaded civilians, carried out mass terrorist acts murdering hundreds and thousands of innocents. Would you want the president of the United States to declare war on Christianity? Would you demand he use the term 'Christian terrorists' when referring to the group?
So ask yourself this.
If a crazy, cult-like group came around that called themselves 'The Christian State' and claimed to be acting in the name of Jesus Christ, with a vision to create some warped version of biblical times as found in the Bible. This group then carried out horrific acts of violence in the name of Jesus Christ; raped, murdered, beheaded civilians, carried out mass terrorist acts murdering hundreds and thousands of innocents. Would you want the president of the United States to declare war on Christianity? Would you demand he use the term 'Christian terrorists' when referring to the group?
So ask yourself this.
If a crazy, cult-like group came around that called themselves 'The Christian State' and claimed to be acting in the name of Jesus Christ, with a vision to create some warped version of biblical times as found in the Bible. This group then carried out horrific acts of violence in the name of Jesus Christ; raped, murdered, beheaded civilians, carried out mass terrorist acts murdering hundreds and thousands of innocents. Would you want the president of the United States to declare war on Christianity? Would you demand he use the term 'Christian terrorists' when referring to the group?
Hereinlies the difference. In the Koran, there are about 280 verses directing Muslims to kill infidels. Nowhere in the Bible does Christianity instruct Christians to kill non-believers.
Muslims can and do kill in the name of their religion. It's documented.
Christians killing (in your hypothetical example) in the name of religion would be faux Christians. Imposters. Therefore, not Christians.
And the other big difference is that Muslims are currently killing innocents around the globe in the name of Allah. There is no world-wide Christian jihad aimed at establishing anything like a caliphate with targets being non believers.
Unless you can prove otherwise.
It was called the crusades, but that was a while ago...
The most immediate cause for the Crusades is also the most obvious: Muslim incursions into previously Christian lands. On multiple fronts, Muslims were invading Christian lands to convert the inhabitants and assume control in the name of Islam.
So ask yourself this.
If a crazy, cult-like group came around that called themselves 'The Christian State' and claimed to be acting in the name of Jesus Christ, with a vision to create some warped version of biblical times as found in the Bible. This group then carried out horrific acts of violence in the name of Jesus Christ; raped, murdered, beheaded civilians, carried out mass terrorist acts murdering hundreds and thousands of innocents. Would you want the president of the United States to declare war on Christianity? Would you demand he use the term 'Christian terrorists' when referring to the group?
And the Christian Crusades were a retaliation against non-ending Muslim attacks against them. Christians weren't killing non-believers by the decree of their God.
Conflating Christian history in any way with what's going on now with Islamic terrorism is ridiculous. These snarky relativism arguments are amazing.I disagree. The Crusades were a power grab by the strongest political power of that time, to march across a continent to secure "holy lands and relics".
Christians have been killing, murdering, and destroying societies and peoples for centuries. The Spanish Inquisition of europe, the Witch Burnings of colonial america, the Crusades, the burning, torture, and beheading of non-believers as they spread their message through Africa, the Americas, and pacific islands all in the name of their God.
We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world was turning. But don't go thinking Christians have clean hands.
I disagree. The Crusades were a power grab by the strongest political power of that time, to march across a continent to secure "holy lands and relics".
Christians have been killing, murdering, and destroying societies and peoples for centuries. The Spanish Inquisition of europe, the Witch Burnings of colonial america, the Crusades, the burning, torture, and beheading of non-believers as they spread their message through Africa, the Americas, and pacific islands all in the name of their God.
We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world was turning. But don't go thinking Christians have clean hands.
.........and do a Google search of the Gates of Vienna, where the Muslim imperial hordes were finally stopped. The comparisons to the Crusades is naive and laughable.Cope,
You should probably read up on the fall and sack of Constantinople.
Christians have a piss poor track record and have led to millions of deaths. On this I do not disagree. But everyone, like Tibs and Elfie, who try to say Christianity and Islam are 'both bad' murdering religions fall prey to ignorance, or feign ignorance because it serves their political perversion.