Pres. Obama speaks about the beheading of James Foley

[House]

One statement I STRONGLY disagree with:

1:55

"So, ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslims and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents".

I'm no supporter of Obama, but I believe the point he was making here is that radicals do not define a religion, which is absolutely true.

There's a difference between claiming to follow a religion and speaking for one.

Do you believe Westboro speaks for Christians? I sure don't.

How many people in Westboro? 20? 50?

It doesn't matter. We're discussing doctrine, not indoctrination.

The peaceful muslims, the ones who only want to live their own little lives and practice their own little religion are in a shrinking minority. So ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda and all the rest, now speak for a substantial percentage of muslims. Substantial and growing.

And when radical Islam becomes plain ol' "Islam", they can claim to speak for it.

Until that time, giving radicals the voice over those peaceful muslims is a huge disservice to those peaceful muslims.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hmmmmm.

I know that you don't think all Muslims are in agreement with ISIL's ideology. I know that you are not suggesting that anyone who follows the Muslim faith ought to be killed.

You are intelligent enough to make the distinction between those Muslims who are violent extremists and those who are not.

What. I don't know is why you aren't doing so in this thread.

You are correct in both assumptions.

But I am not in agreement that an "overwhelming majority of Muslims" are peace-loving.

They are not. And I am tired of the PCness of it all.

These terrorist organizations get their "troops" and support from common everyday Muslim citizens. It's not as if Muslim Terrorists are test-tube grown on some unknown island.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One statement I STRONGLY disagree with:

1:55

"So, ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslims and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents".

I'm no supporter of Obama, but I believe the point he was making here is that radicals do not define a religion, which is absolutely true.

There's a difference between claiming to follow a religion and speaking for one.

Do you believe Westboro speaks for Christians? I sure don't.

I think you make a very fine distinction here.

 

[dilloduck]

One statement I STRONGLY disagree with:

1:55

"So, ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslims and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents".

I'm no supporter of Obama, but I believe the point he was making here is that radicals do not define a religion, which is absolutely true.

There's a difference between claiming to follow a religion and speaking for one.

Do you believe Westboro speaks for Christians? I sure don't.

How many people in Westboro? 20? 50? The terrorist organization NETWORK is thousands, maybe millions. Aside from active members, how many sympathizers? The peaceful muslims, the ones who only want to live their own little lives and practice their own little religion are in a shrinking minority. So ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda and all the rest, now speak for a substantial percentage of muslims. Substantial and growing.

I'm not seeing it-----there are millions of Muslims around the world. Where is you evidence that violence among them is growing ?

 

[House]

One statement I STRONGLY disagree with:

1:55

"So, ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslims and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents".

I'm no supporter of Obama, but I believe the point he was making here is that radicals do not define a religion, which is absolutely true.

There's a difference between claiming to follow a religion and speaking for one.

Do you believe Westboro speaks for Christians? I sure don't.

I think you make a very fine distinction here.

The devil is in the details, as they say.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One statement I STRONGLY disagree with:

1:55

"So, ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslims and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents".

I'm no supporter of Obama, but I believe the point he was making here is that radicals do not define a religion, which is absolutely true.

There's a difference between claiming to follow a religion and speaking for one.

Do you believe Westboro speaks for Christians? I sure don't.

I think you make a very fine distinction here.

The devil is in the details, as they say.

To a certain degree, yes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hmmmmm.

I know that you don't think all Muslims are in agreement with ISIL's ideology. I know that you are not suggesting that anyone who follows the Muslim faith ought to be killed.

You are intelligent enough to make the distinction between those Muslims who are violent extremists and those who are not.

What. I don't know is why you aren't doing so in this thread.

You are correct in both assumptions.

But I am not in agreement that an "overwhelming majority of Muslims" are peace-loving.

They are not. And I am tired of the PCness of it all.

These terrorist organizations get their "troops" and support from common everyday Muslim citizens. It's not as if Muslim Terrorists are test-tube grown on some unknown island.

Stats......

How many militant Muslims are there?

 

[Picaro]

I say we go in and turn them to glass. But just like crime in the US, we no longer fight to win. We gave that up when we caved in Korea.

-Geaux

While it wasn't a mistake to take out Saddam, it was a mistake to adopt a 'nation building' strategy and then leave way too soon. We stayed in Japan, Korea, and Europe for a much longer time, and a General wrote the Japanese constitution, all to put in play a long term cultural and political change and set them on a very different path. We didn't do that in Iraq, and instead allowed them to put in just another corrupt, atavistic 'Sharia' state, doomed before it even got off the ground, did nothing to fundamentally change the culture from the bottom up, and it failed almost immediately. Islam is a political ideology, a violent, sociopathic, and psychotic one, as bad or worse than Nazism. ISIS is just one more manifestation of it. The options are to take them out, no holds barred, and isolate the entire 'culture' that spawned them, or occupy them for decades. We already know most Americans and Westerners don't have the patience, or the will, for the latter.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If the POTUS learned of a mass gathering if ISIL militants, including all leadership, taking place and knew where it was, do you think he would order a drone strike or air strikes to wipe them all out?

He didn't bomb them when they were headed INTO Iraq did he?

A couple of Drones or A-10's would of made short work of them.

So there's your answer.