Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with the first part of your post, but strongly disagree with the "we all know what we reeeeeallly mean" sentiment.
That is exactly how Nazi Germany got it's foothold.
Rather than spending time discussing who we are not talking about (I agree with you there), why not just say who we ARE talking about, which is ISIS.
Not confuse things by talking about Muslims when we mean ISIS.
Not confusing things by saying Obama is giving ISIS a pass, when he clearly isn't
Not confusing things by quoting speaches which were clearly edited to make a false point.
Not confusing things by arguing about every little point.
Most rational people know that most Muslims aren't terrorist, most Christians are not Klansmen, Most Liberals don't hate America, and Most Conservatives don't hate the poor. Most rational people understand that we all have similar goals, and VERY DIFFERENT ideas on how to get there.
So how 'bout we ALL STOP THE CRAP, and try to have a productive discussion.
A productive discussion on the topic of ISIS would start with how to deal with ISIS, and would not really start with a dissertation on why our Muslim President (who is not a Muslim) hates America (when he doesn't), and it wouldn't start with how he apologizes for, and approves of ISIS (when he clearly doesn't). It would start with what he said in WilliamSmyth's quoted text, and it would be focused on how we can single out the enemy (ISIS), without further alienating the huge group of people (Muslims) that they have been somewhat successful in associating themselves with.
[MOD CUT/inappropriate language]
I generally prefer the term " terrorists" because it'snot limited to ISIS.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 02-05-2015 at 04:10 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post
I really can't figure out the motivation for his making such utterly stupid remarks. Nobody in their right mind would ever take that seriously. It goes beyond any remote definition of credibility to call for a tolerant attitude today because of something that happened a thousand years ago. I just can't believe nobody involved in the speechwriting and reviewing process ever said "Are you serious with this? The president is going to look like an idiot referencing something from the middle ages"
Just because a barbaric activity has survived a millennium doesn't justify its practice today. All Obama has done is point out that while Christians have become more humane, the practitioners of the Islam...
He did suggest that Christians shouldn't feel better than ?, haughty ?, think too badly of ? the 'distorters' of Islam. Whatever 'lest we get on our high horse' means. After all, some among 'us' misused Jesus in the past.
I admit, a reader has to connect 3 or 4 sentences to come up with --- 'look folks, we all screw up, have some missteps, death-culters, bad apples among us, so let's show some humility, restraint, judgment, and civility in our criticism of the other guys.'
The connection is there.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 02-05-2015 at 04:13 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
I really can't figure out the motivation for his making such utterly stupid remarks. Nobody in their right mind would ever take that seriously. It goes beyond any remote definition of credibility to call for a tolerant attitude today because of something that happened a thousand years ago. I just can't believe nobody involved in the speechwriting and reviewing process ever said "Are you serious with this? The president is going to look like an idiot referencing something from the middle ages"
We can include a lot of people on here who do the same. Talk about reaching for the golden calf......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temp43k
Just because a barbaric activity has survived a millennium doesn't justify its practice today. All Obama has done is point out that while Christians have become more humane, the practitioners of the Islam...
When has President Obama said something positive about Christians. Watch his body language when he speaks of Christians.......can see the veins in his forehead and the anger on his face.
It's far more complicated than that. I don't expect you to know everything I've written but I also blame Bush. (and others before him) for their insane desires for war.
Do I blame others for doing many of the very same things we would do if others invaded our country? No, I do not. We have dropped bombs on innocent women and children that have done absolutely nothing to us. If another country was dropping bombs on us and killed your wife and children (assuming here, you may have neither) and you had the chance to violently retaliate, would you?
Whether you would or not, many of us would. If I thought chopping the head off of someone would stop the killing would I? Yes I might. Look at what we did at Hiroshima.
I believe the first attacks on the US occurred in Beirut in 1983 in retaliation for poking our nose into the Lebanese civil war. The US embassy was hit and Marine barracks. Almost 400 US people were killed.
There may have been prior attacks and I'll heave that to the historians.
My point is that we intruded for decades and it has not mattered who sat the oval or held the majority.
Good question.
In the old days, a crackdown was when the French Gendarmes would go to a Muslim neighborhood, kick in the door and break the woman's jaw with their rifle butt when She started screaming. If the husband moved an inch they would shoot him. Then they'd go to the next house.
They don't do crackdowns anymore since the end of WWII. Bad press.
The crusades comparison is bad. Technically speaking, religious zealotry is only a factor in that. A lot of that is war politics; the same ones (more or less) we still use today. But the genocide of the Native Americans seems to be the exact same thing that ISIS is doing. Killing in the name of spreading their religion. You can avoid death in the Middle East by submitting to Islam.
The Crusades comparison was safe. Beyond that it hits too close to home for a lot of people.
Seems to me the genocide of Native Americans was as much about a land grab as anything else. Not too different than the objectives of global terrorism. Then there's the over through of the Kingdom of Hawaii, another blend of religion and a land grab.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
