Obama comparres ISIS to the Crusades

I don't think you understand either term. There are differences in the terms and their meanings.

Moral relativism
Moral absolutism
Moral equivalency

Are you unaware of the philosophy behind The Enlightenment and natural law?

Moral relativism says that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint.

Moral absolutism says that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

Moral equivalency says this is the same as that.

 

I've got a good book for him:

 

It was also Christian leaders who fought against segregation and for Civil Rights.

 

And Christian leaders who did the exact opposite.

 

And guess which Christian leaders eventually won out?

That's Christianity struggling within it's own faith to a fair and equitable middle. Unfortunately for the world there is no such struggle within Islam when it comes to making war on those who are not Muslims themselves.
Or if there is opposition from clerics, it is so feeble and muted it counts for nothing.

The world is waiting for Islam to catch up with the 21st century. I'm quite gratified that most of Islam hasn't taken up arms in jihad but it's also true most of Islam has sat by silently and complicit by doing nothing to counter the
more radical elements in it's religion.

 

Oh yeah, those other religions are in the news daily like islamo-nazis. There is no hope for some people because they give rise to the Hitlers of the world and the slaughter begins at the rate of bison decimation across America

 

Exactly what liberals won't admit

 

How is that relevant to ANY of your claims?

Ten thousand years? And the bison population has actually been increasing since their conservation. Might want to think of a better analogy.

 

It was your claim equating christian violence and islamo-nazis violence.

My analogy was exactly true that bison was slaughtered by the early Americans, just like islamo-nazis and hitler.

 

Such as?

 

Um... Rape.

 

Why would anyone think that they can hold a rational debate with a person who could justify Islamic terrorism by comparing it to the crusades?

 

It's unsafe to insult Muslims, because our enemies seek to turn Muslims against us. We are at war, and our leaders' dialogue should reflect that. Obama, in this instance, seems to be more aware of our enemy's strategy than those of you in this thread who bash him. Right now, millions of Muslims are participating in the global economy. Many nations must import a large portion of their energy resources from the Middle East, and some nations import all of it. There is a massive infrastructure, and millions of workers involved in the process to extract energy out of the region. Westerners are working side by side with millions of Muslims in order to accomplish this. If these Muslims refuse to participate in this process, it will be detrimental to US interests, and disastrous to many countries who rely more heavily on the Middle East. Worldwide suffering and instability would result from a Middle East in which Muslims are not cooperating in global trade.

Our enemy desires a ME in which it is too expensive for the West to do business there. They want to drive a wedge between ME governments and the West, so that it becomes more and more difficult to prosecute war against the terrorists. I believe that is why they chose Charlie Hebdo as a target. They knew the Western response would align with Charlie, an organization that the Muslim world despises. It's part of their overall strategy. They have a 50 -75 year plan to drive the West out of the ME.

Using Islamic to describe our enemy only plays into their strategy. Our enemy wants their fellow Muslims to look at our rhetoric, and think, "Maybe AQ, etc. are right, the West is really out to get us, or against Islam". They want the polarization between ME and West, because that will make it more difficult for the West to operate there.

In war, one should do the opposite of what the enemy wants or expects...

 

It's impossible to do no wrong while conducting a war; even the WWII winners committed many errors throughout. Since the enemy's strategy is to bring more and more Muslims to their cause, or at least sympathize with it, it would seem the correct war strategy would be to apologize for Islam. Your strategy aligns with the enemy.

 

Nonsense. In the case of the cons, both the message and the messengers are crap, so the logical thing to do is to call them both out as being crap.

 

Well if thinking I don't understand the terms makes you feel better about yourself I feel pleased that l have brought some joy into an otherwise unfulfilled life.

 

Obama is the outcome of Al Quacka’s strategy, the Democrats played right into their hands and did exactly what they said they would do:

“America appeared so mighty ... but it was actually weak and cowardly. Look at Vietnam, look at Lebanon. Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat. Such a country needs only to be confronted with two or three sharp blows, then it will flee in panic, as it always has. ... It cannot stand against warriors of faith who do not fear death.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden

September 2001: "Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General...David Muller, South Movement, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia" http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/call1004.php

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

“As we said before to those who launched aggressions on us, including the US, in and before Um-Almarik (the mother of the battles), the world, like Iraq and its Arab nation, needs steadfastness to face the aggression, make it miss its targets. It must not allow the US to be victorious. The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

"Some voices have risen on the part of some peoples, journalists, writers, and, in a very restricted way, the voices of those who are preparing themselves, in the shadow, to replace the rulers there. Nevertheless, the latter are still hesitant voices that deal with the situation in the light of the balance of interests of the posts they expect to occupy, and of the influence of the centers of power." (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Bush did the opposite of what that enemy expected, Obama and the democrats worked to bring their strategy to fruition, which was why this was my signature line throughout most of the war:

“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

 

You're all over the map on this one.

- - - Updated - - -

You can keep thinking that Obama is some screaming success. History won't back you up on that one.

 

nope, i addressed your false accusation and showed that it's really the gop that's incompetent

facts like the ones presented, backup what i said

 

If he wanted to make a fair analogy to modern Islamic extremism and be consistent, he would've said the Crusades and Inquisitions WERE NOT CHRISTIAN.

 

that was his whole point, those weren't christians or muslims

they were people that hijacked religion for political and military purposes

 

Was the Democrat controlled Congress incompetent in Obama's first couple of years, or is that just since the republicans too control of the House of Reps before they got both chambers?

 

try to pay attention, the subject is obama's recent speech, not your malarkey

 

as you all will soon find out, having less than 60 votes in the Senate, even if you have more than 51, might be technically "in control", but practically means little substantive control whatsoever. Mitch should have known that before he went and promised that he'd get a lot of stuff done if the people gave him a senate majority.

ooops.

 

yep, republicans have just entered the same hell democrats have been facing, they have a majority, but not a super majority, sucks to be them