Why can't Obama say "Islamic terrorists?"

[TUMe]

AQ Yemen says they planned and executed it, the first two said they wanted to die as martyrs, the weapons came from outside of France. The whole world knows it and says it. Yet Obama and his Administration cannot bring themselves to put the two words in their mouths. It is Islamic terrorism. Obama couldn't bring himself to go or send Biden, at least, to the memorial. He could have asked Hillary to go, she has more balls than he does. She could have went as an unofficial official.

The reason that Barry doesn't get it is that he doesn't want to. Maybe that's why liberals go crazy if you say his middle name.

 

[lawpoke87]

Obama doesn't think that ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq) is Islamic. Not sure why you would think he would label people as Islamic terrorists.

 

[TUMe]

I'm not going to say that all Muslims are bad, but extremist Muslims are the enemy of free speech, women's rights, and all people not of their faith. Yet, Obama was able to identify people who clung to theirs guns and their Bibles as people he was running against. And right now he is sending some of the worst terrorist that we held at Gitmo back to the Middle East.

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by lawpoke87:

Obama doesn't think that ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq) is Islamic. Not sure why you would think he would label people as Islamic terrorists.

Can anyone identify a single "known" Christian terrorist cell (one who commits a violent act in the name of Christianity)? A Jewish terrorist network? Present day of course. I think we could define the KKK as a terrorist cell at some point in the past in the USA, but they haven't commited one in a very long time and presently reside in the shadows of society. Black Panthers, SLA and other splinter groups in past years were obviously terroists with a political cause. You could say the drug cartels in Mexico have been govt allowed terror groups couldn't you? A terror group is designed to terrorize and intimidate the populace through acts of depraved violence. At least thats my definition.

Obama will try to say there are some right wing terrorists in the world, but he'd be hard pressed to find any. Its going to be all about misidentifying the bad guys. He knows who they really are, but its not hard to confuse his voter base. Happens all the time.




This post was edited on 1/14 11:01 AM by rabidTU

 

[rabidTU]

You could say the Murrah Bld bombing was a terrorist act. But is it in the same vein as the others? According to all the evidence I can find, it was a misguided retaliation for the Waco raid and burning of the Branch Dividians, a religious "order" who were basically minding their own business until they were invaded, leveled by a tank and burned alive - women, children and Christians.

Wasn't that kind of the same thing that once occurred in Rome a couple thousand years ago? Just a thought.

The Murrah Bld is not something that could by any means be justified and I DO NOT! But neither should an act of terror by our govt during the Clinton1 Adm. Our federal govt should be held to a higher standard. Shouldn't the ones in govt responsible for that be in jail? If we are going to put a policeman in Ferguson Mo in front of a judge and jury and another in NYC for excessive force, why don't we do it with the federal govt (ATF) as well?

IMO








This post was edited on 1/15 5:17 PM by rabidTU

 

[aTUfan]

he still thinks islam is a religion of "peace"

 

[WATU2]

Also would using the word "Islamic" actually do anything other than increase racial or religious tensions in the US?

Oh well, more evidence for those who think the President is a secret Muslim.

Originally posted by lawpoke87:

Obama doesn't think that ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq) is Islamic. Not sure why you would think he would label people as Islamic terrorists.

 

[lawpoke87]

WATU2 posted on 1/16/2015...

Also would using the word "Islamic" actually do anything other than increase racial or religious tensions in the US?

Oh well, more evidence for those who think the President is a secret Muslim.

I fail to see how denying that a group who:

1) First name is "Islamic"

2) Patterns their entire lives after their interpretation of Islam

3) Incorporates Islam into every video and/or terrorist activity which they conduct

helps in tensions in any way. It's an idiotic position which does nothing but draws more attention to the issue rather than defuse the same imo as everyone (sans our President) understands that the Islamic State of Iraq is Islamic.

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Also would using the word "Islamic" actually do anything other than increase racial or religious tensions in the US?

Oh well, more evidence for those who think the President is a secret Muslim.

Does murder and other acts of terrorism increase tensions?

President Obama saw no problem in increasing racial tensions following the deaths of people shot by police during arrests.

I don't care if Obama is a Muslim or not, I do care that he refuses to confront the largest current global threat.

 

[WATU2]

Just want to make sure I understand. The point is that not calling out ISIS as "Islamic terrorists" at every opportunity is a material hindrance to solving our problems in the Middle East? It's an omission, that if corrected would contribute to making things better? Each time the President doesn't make a apply or underscore the "Islamic terrorist" label to ISIS, it's a set back?

IOW it means something other than just pissing on the President?

 

[lawpoke87]

I could care less if he calls ISIS out as Islamic. My reference was him going out of his way to say that they weren't Islamic. Stupid comment IMO.

This post was edited on 1/16 8:26 PM by lawpoke87

 

[TUMe]

Once would be nice, just to prove he is capable of saying it.

There seems to be a disconnect, even under questioning of his spokesmen.

 

[WATU2]

Another way to make the point?

Anti Islamic Patriot at work

 

[TUMe]

Thanks WATU for the chance to clarify this. This guy is a nut. If he had said he was doing this for Christianity then he would be a Christian Nut. He said he was doing it for security reasons so he is a security nut.

No one here has proclaimed him a hero and danced in the street. I along with everyone I know rebuke him and say he doesn't represent us. I don't know of anyone who thinks he is a hero. Our culture doesn't feel like anyone who doesn't except our beliefs ought to die unless certain little things happen like they try to kill us.

Even in politics, sometimes it is okay to acknowledge a simple truth. These ISIS is an Islamic terrorist group. They kill Christians, the destroy artifacts of history because the people who lived a millennia before Mohammed were of a different religion. They are good with kidnapping, beheading, and burning people in cages if the are of a different religion. They are not a crazy man putting two bombs in the woods. They an organization in Syria, Iraq, West and East Africa and parts of the Arabian Peninsula. They do not represent all Muslims but they are a part of a large group of militant Islam.

 

[lawpoke87]

Unfortunately, the acts of ISIS aren't that far removed from those of mainstream Muslims in the Middle East. An Afghan woman was beaten to death and them burned by a mob last week. Why? She was accused of burning a few pages of the Quran. Afghan officials said it's not the place of mobs to enforce Islamic law but if she was a non-Muslim and did the act if which she was accused then the punishment was justified. This is what and who we are dealing with in the Middle East.

 

[TUMe]

I'm glad that in the last 8 days WATU was able to find an article about a crazy man who left two bombs on a back road in a rural park in Georgia so he could compare that act to ISIS. Great detective work. Hopefully the guy will get treatment. He seems to more of a sick person than a good bomb maker since there is no mention of them exploding.

Great job of finding an US act to compare to ISIS.

 

[aTUfan]

He called the shooting at Ft Hood "work place violence". even though the Shooter was shouting praise to ala while he was Killing everyone.

 

[WATU2]

Just as it is not fair to claim this Nut doesn't represent all Christians, it's equally unfair to claim Isis is representative of all of Islam. Sure Isis is more than a single person, but Islam is measured with a billion.

We decry the horrible acts perpetuated by Islamic extremists, but we also ignore the US use of drones and the effect they and our military presence have on the civilian populations in Islamic countries. Maybe we have to be there, but our presence and actions contribute to the conditions that makes Isis and Al Queda appealing to some. It's a Catch 22 that started with our invading Iraq.

Originally posted by TUMe:

Thanks WATU for the chance to clarify this. This guy is a nut. If he had said he was doing this for Christianity then he would be a Christian Nut. He said he was doing it for security reasons so he is a security nut.

This post was edited on 3/26 12:14 PM by WATU2

 

[lawpoke87]

Would it be fair to say that the Afghan leadership who said that the beating to death and burning of a woman for destroying pages of the Quran was proper punishment under Islamic law representative of Islam?

Agree with the what I consider the illegal use of drones to murder individuals and their "collateral" damage...ie...innocent civilian lives.
This post was edited on 3/26 12:28 PM by lawpoke87

 

[WATU2]

"All of Islam" No.

Are the beliefs and practices of, say, So. Baptists (quite a large group) or any Christian sect representative of all of Christianity?

 

[aTUfan]

but the fringe element of christians isn't beheading people, or taking bombs into markets..

This post was edited on 3/29 10:55 PM by aTUfan

This post was edited on 3/29 11:19 PM by aTUfan

 

[2PoorTUFans]

Originally posted by aTUfan:
but the fringe element of christians isn't beheading people, or wearing bombs into crowed areas.

are the methods of torture, murder and intimidation employed by the Aryan Nation, the KKK, the Lord's Resistance Army, and various other Christian hate/terrorist groups any better?

 

[lawpoke87]

Boys and girls....we aren't talking about fringe groups. I was referencing the position of a country. A position shared by any number of countries in the region.

The closest thing that comes to my mind would be the Catholic Church in Europe during the middle ages where laws where often written in accordance with Church doctrine. Did the Catholic Church represent Christians everywhere at the time...no. Did the Church represent Christians in areas where it was located...absolutely. We have tens of millions of people (and governments) who believe someone destroying a page in a book deserves to be beaten and burned to death. Believe that murdering gays is justified, etc....

Please stop comparing the beliefs of millions and governments to fringe groups. Surely you can see the fallacy in such a comparison.

 

[URedskin54]

Sharia is the "extremist" law that is being enforced. Unfortunately, a majority of muslims support it so it is really not "extremist," it is mainstream. Does this represent all muslims? Of course not, particularly not those living in the United States. But it does represent Islam as a whole. The sooner this is accepted, the sooner we can help those who are trying to change it.
This post was edited on 3/26 5:07 PM by URedskin54

 

[TUMe]

I need to get out more, I've never even heard of The Lord's Resistance Army. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want me.

 

[lawpoke87]

I have never understands liberals implicit support of laws which make it a crime punishable by death in some countries to be gay. Laws which support death for destroying a page in a book. Laws which give women very few rights compared to their male counterparts. By not recognizing the hundreds of millions of Muslims who support these beliefs and attempting to compare them to fringe groups you empower them to continue these extremist views. Yet you call out (and rightly so) idiot conservative Christians who try to legislate their values.

 

[WATU2]

Total BS. Sorry I considered your posts worth replying to.

Originally posted by lawpoke87:
I have never understands liberals implicit support of laws ....

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Total BS. Sorry I considered your posts worth replying to.

Originally posted by lawpoke87:
I have never understands liberals implicit support of laws ....

I think that means you got the best of him Poke. He's down to either acting superior or leaving the board forever.

 

[lawpoke87]

Suppose that was a little harsh. My lunch discussion on the topic left me a bit frustrated with my liberal friends. They use the same deflection tactic arguing that those views aren't representative of Islam and refuse to admit that millions upon millions of Muslim support this line of thinking. Sharia law is extremist IMO. My previous post was accurate as it relates to this law. Most Muslim support it and it is the foundation of the legal system in numerous Islamic countries. Comparing it to fringe Christian extreme groups is a farce. You're better than that. Disappointed in the deflection, the argument, the hypocracy and double standard.

 

[rabidTU]

The application of Sharia today and the application of Nazi Law in the 1930's is pretty much the same. One was a crime against humanity at the end of WWII, the other seems to be trivialized by the WH and accepted under BHO. That is all that needs to be said.

 

[lawpoke87]

The point I made today at our weekly political discussion is that by comparing the beliefs and actions of hundreds of millions of Muslims to a few fringe extremist groups does a disservice to those thousands being persecuted and killed by those following Sharia law. The attempt the minimize their actions by grouping them with those fringe Christian groups fails to address the vast number of followers of these extreme Islamic views and the harm and danger they present. Recognize the number of people following this philosophy and demand basic human rights for those effected by the same. Time to stop deflecting and support basic human rights.

 

[WATU2]

A man walked into the New Orleans airport on March 20, swung his machete at TSA officers and sprayed poison at them. His duffel bag contained six homemade bombs. His motives remain unknown; and to many Americans, his actions do, too, because the news media paid little attention to them.
Richard White, the 63-year-old attacker, died after he was shot during the assault, but the media had little interest in his motives, identity or religion. Why not? Because he was neither an Arab nor a Muslim.
The fact that White was a devout Jehovah's Witness was only mentioned in passing in the stories written about the crime.
If a Muslim had been behind this assault, it would have been branded as terrorism and splashed across breaking news TV screens and front pages all over the country. ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is he representative of all Christians or just all Jehovah's Witnesses?

They have a point

 

[lawpoke87]

Unless he's attacking non-Christians in accordance of his religious beliefs then they have no point. Again....apples and oranges. One very large group of people murdering in the name of Islam and forcing conversion of those they don't murder versus a lone dead idiot who actually hurt no one with no evidence the attack was against non-Christians based on his religious views.

This post was edited on 3/29 7:16 PM by lawpoke87

 

[TUMe]

Didn't we go through this once with the guy who left and bomb in the woods?

A guy shot another guy outside of a bar in Tulsa the other night. There was no mention of either person's religion. WATU needs to investigate it and get back with a post.