Will Obama ever lecture radical muslims against killing Christians?

[IndySteel]

so ... he's a puppet.

A gay, Kenyan-born, Muslim terrorist puppet.

 

[Tibs]

A gay, Kenyan-born, Muslim terrorist puppet.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

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 guess we can all play this game...

 

[Tibs]

I guess we can all play this game

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.

 

[Stewey]

.
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/

 

[Rod Farva]

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

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.

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.

Yeah....because don't piss them off.

.
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/

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."

 

[Stewey]

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."

But that's what the idiom "burying your head" means...that you are in denial of something. You are aware of the facts but look the other way, or bury your head in the sand.

 

[Rod Farva]

Meh......semantics...........I kind of view it as putting your head in the sand so you're not being bombarded by uncomfortable stuff, facts included.

 

[Stewey]

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

Media coverage of the very few Muslim led protests would be like indicting Muslims for terrorism, that islamic terror is real and that Muslims are admitting to it. The media doesn't want to put bad ideas into our heads. Get it?

The mainstream media wont admit to an Islamic crisis in Europe, but this Imam does...
http://www.pe.com/articles/people-798004-muslim-attack.html

What the **** do you suppose he's talking about when he says:
"We are totally condemning what’s happening in Europe,” he said. “It’s just a crisis.”

...the riots after soccer games?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

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.

Good Lord, you're about as sharp as a pencil. You said "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. One instance would have sufficed. I gave two. Could have given more.

You then somehow tried to defend yourself by showing two rare occasions where the weak-*** did call it 'terrorism'.

Can someone else explain to me Tibs' vacillating from his first question (show me one instance), to being proven wrong (given two instances), to switching the subject to a lower standard of proof (well here's two rare examples where he did call it 'terrorism')?

LOL WTF

 

[scraps]

.
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/

That link to the censoring of the French president's comments no longer works (hmm...). Below is the actual footage and how the administration tried to hide his utterance of "Islamic terrorism" by omitting it and saying there was a 'technical issue with the audio'. Obama will go through any length possible to protect his beloved cult.

David Wood does a great job showing the ORIGINAL footage compared to the censored one....

 

[Tibs]

PunditFact: Why Obama won't label ISIS 'Islamic extremists'
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-why-obama-wont-label-isis-islamic-extre/

"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.

 

[Tibs]

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?

 

[deljzc]

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?

If it was prevalent over multiple countries, multiple continents and consistently attacked western culture ideals and western targets, absolutely. If polls indicated 35-45% of "christians" were sympathetic to the acts of violence, if multiple churches were preaching hate and acting as money laundering for terrorism groups, absolutely....

 

[Superman]

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?

no. i would want the POTUS to blatantly ignore this, use some bullshit PC term to skate around the issue and broker through - back door deals - guns and funds to assist these "freedom fighters"

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

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.

 

[Stryker]

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...

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It was called the crusades, but that was a while ago...

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.

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.

 

[Stewey]

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?

As far fetched as that sounds, I'll entertain the question anyway.

It all depends. The only reason for a Christian terror group to exist in the first place would be for the purpose of killing Muslims, so call them Christian trash disposers.
If you did some research, you would have found out that there are a few Christian "terror" groups in Africa dishing out some payback against Muslims.

If a Christian group were engaging in terror acts on the scale the Muzzies are, then hell yeah, call them Christian terrorists. The term separates them from good Christians like me so no offense taken... there would be a clear distinction between the terrorists and good Christians. Good Christians would be protesting that **** every day, not sitting on their hands doing nothing like these so called "good" Muslims.


Your scenario proves most ludicrous considering that Christians believe in Jesus who was murdered. He was tortured, crucified and died for us, whereas Islamists believe in Mohammad who was a murderer. A heathen and child molester who killed those rejecting his teachings....an evil ideology that transcends to this day.

 

[Stryker]

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.

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.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

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.

Conflating Christian history in any way with what's going on now with Islamic terrorism is ridiculous. These snarky relativism arguments are amazing.

 

[DBS1970]

Cope,
You should probably read up on the fall and sack of Constantinople.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

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.

You need to do some research.

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.

I'll say it again. As Stewey said. The religions are diametrically opposed. One religion teaches you to kill anyone who doesn't believe its God, the other's religion's God died for it's people and mentions nowhere to kill non-believers. Islam teaches it's people to kill non-believers in 280 verses. The Bible does not.

Now, were Christians political? Yup, very. And crooked. These incidents weren't driven by Christians pointing to the scripture telling them to go kill in the name of God or Jesus. Allah directs his followers to do so.

And you're wrong about the Crusades. It's a commonly studied fact that the Muslims had been invading Christian lands for centuries, trying to convert their people to Islam, killing, raping and pillaging and that one of the main/core reasons the Crusades began was a retaliatory measure against those incursions. It's out there if you want to learn about it.

 

[hamster]

Cope,
You should probably read up on the fall and sack of Constantinople.

.........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.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

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.

Because most Liberals are incapable of being critical of Islam without being critical of Christianity too. In their view Muslims are the oppressed minority because they are the minority in the USA while conveniently ignoring the fact that they are the largest religion in the world. Like I said before, Liberals can always be counted on to side with 1) whoever is against America and 2) whoever the darker-skinned people are.