Funny, I didn't read about any conservatives jumping up and down in protest when Jindal said the same thing. 
Why does he persist and continue to refer to them as ISIL?
ISIL has as much in common with Islam as the KKK does with Christianity, yet everyone lumps ISIL in with Islam but never associates the KKK with Christianity.
And how about The Covenant, The Sword and The Arm of the Lord as well as many other groups in the Christian Patriot and Christian Identity movements? Terrorist Timothy McVeigh was influenced by the Christian Identity movement.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate-look-at-timothy-mcveighs-beliefs-cms-15532
...your righty brethren for straying off-topic. Here's a recent thread where you kept mum while not one, not two, but three righties all went off-topic, since they didn't have the brains to address the OP:
http://theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=241057&boardID=39&page=1
That will require accepting the truth and the ability to see scientific facts. Not in their DNA.
And how about The Covenant, The Sword and The Arm of the Lord as well as many other groups in the Christian Patriot and Christian Identity movements? Terrorist Timothy McVeigh was influenced by the Christian Identity movement.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate-look-at-timothy-mcveighs-beliefs-cms-15532
So calling them a "Christian Terror Group" seems perfectly fair to me.
I would say that the true "Christian Terror Groups" in this country are those lunatics that go around bombing abortion clinics, murdering people "in the name of the Lord", but IMO it's only a matter of degree.
The problem I do see in this Post 911, Post Patriot Act world, is by labeling these groups "terror groups" do they then lose their right to assemble, their right to free speech, etc? I abhor these people, but if we muzzle them, who's next?
In a very similar way that ISIS/ISIL wraps itself in the Koran. Except where it comes to scale, and how dangerous each group is to the world, I don't see a lot of difference here.
Lets suppose just for a moment that the KKK movement had gotten more traction and that they achieved the same level of power that ISIL has in the ME, do you really think that they would not have ushered in a Fundamentalist Christian Government, where not only Black, Asian, Hispanic, Jew citizens were not equal, but all non Christians would be considered second class citizens, or simply wiped from the face of the earth?
It's not really that far fetched if you have ever been around some of those people. They might be pussies as individuals, but like most bullies, they have huge balls when in groups.
Financing a capable terror organization isn't cheap.
Lets suppose just for a moment that the KKK movement had gotten more traction and that they achieved the same level of power that ISIL has in the ME, do you really think that they would not have ushered in a Fundamentalist Christian Government, where not only Black, Asian, Hispanic, Jew citizens were not equal, but all non Christians would be considered second class citizens, or simply wiped from the face of the earth?
It's not really that far fetched if you have ever been around some of those people. They might be pussies as individuals, but like most bullies, they have huge balls when in groups.
What is very different is how we dealt with the KKK vs. how we are dealing with radical Islamists today. The KKK self-identified as Christians. There is nothing Christian in the origin of the name KKK as there is Islam in ISIS or ISIL so my simple curiosity goes to why Obama uses their own self identity as members of Islam when he insists they are not Islamic.
Virtually all accepted Christian denominations and organizations not only denounced the KKK (eventually) but many of their members actively worked towards destroying them. But since their name wasn't/isn't the CKKK we won't ever know how people would have reacted to that name.
"...Obama uses their own self identity as members of Islam when he insists they are not Islamic."
...a religion. So is Judaism for that matter.
You don't seem to know much about the history of the KKK if you think they just hate blacks.
ISIL - a Muslim group that hates Muslims; KKK - a Christian group that hates Christians.
-- Modified on 2/7/2015 1:15:19 PM
-- Modified on 2/7/2015 12:48:29 PM
When is the last time the KKK lynched a black man and when is the last time the KKK attacked Jews?
...support your previous post. How many have occurred in the last century?
Funny how you chicken hawk righties are ready to send troops (but none of your relatives) to go to war with ISIL but keep your yaps shut over white supremacist terrorists in the US who have killed far more Americans than ISIL has. When are you joining up to hunt down domestic terrrorists, tough guy?
Here are a few more "isolated incidents" for you...
Apart from the members of the KKK, the number of actual churches that supported them was what is called "statistical zero," too few to have meaning.
There was never support from Rome or any mainstream American religious group.
This is in direct contrast to many Moslem groups that have supported terrorists. If you go on line and find things that mosts mosques in Egypt, Pakistan, or other countries say, you can see a tie in.
Likewise, their actions are very Moslem. People are beheaded in public in S. Arabia, the religious heart of Islam, while public beheading or crucifiction is rather rare, shall we say in Vatican City.
In other words, beheading, the shocking thing that ISIL does, is not outside the norm of Islam.
And I love the blast to the past. Maybe 100 years ago, the KKK had some influence, itself doubtful. But when was the last time they did anything and what was the level of support
Actually ISIS is more Islamic than the POPE is Christian. KKK never followed the Bible as a guide for what they did. They never wrote or preached a sermon, they never quoted quoted a verse. If they did go to church their racism came first and the Bible 2nd. KKK didn't seek to convert other to a religion.
ISIS on the other hand says "convert or die". They use the Koran intimately for everything they do.
The Bible says all people are equal, there is no difference between slave or free, rich or poor, male or female, Jew or Greek. Jesus said to forgive others and take care of them no matter who they are. Jesus forgave the prostitute. Jesus said "Father, forgive them" when they took him to the cross. It was Christianity that stopped the slave trade in Europe and America. The abolitionists were Christian based.
Islam (not just ISIS) says no one is equal unless you convert. They still take slaves. They say only feed the poor if thet convert. The Koran says any infidel should be killed if they do not convert. The Koran then defines Infidel as anyone that does not follow the Koran to a "T". Many Muslims do not. 80% of them do not follow it. They are the peaceful ones. ISIS does follow the Koran. Their view is not "just another interpretation of it. That's why few Imams condemn ISIS outright. Mohammed taught war. Jesus said turn the other cheek. Mohammed said if someone even disgrees with him, they should recant or be killed. That's why ISIS kills other Muslims. That's why they attacked in Paris. The other Muslims "are not following the Koran." So if only 20% of Muslims are "bad" because they Do follow the teaching of Mohammed, because there are so many of them, it means that nearly 300,000,000 (yes, 300 Million) are terrorists or support them financially, or support them ideologically. Folks, that's nearly the size of the United States. And a portion of them already live here.
They hate freedom and want Sharia Law here. In Michigan there is a large Muslim community. They've already implemented Sharia among themselves. Ther have been beheadings (reported locally but not nationally) and the cops can't find who did it because the Koran says it's ok to lie if it furthers their cause. So there are no witnesses that come forward. Two Muslim men were caught in an affair. They were castrated in Detroit. The Koran says the should be killed, but the local Imam had "mercy".
I know this because I'm from Detroit and my nephew is a cop there.
and that way we know what we're talking about. Like my homeless friend would say. Do lions and sharks know they are called that. Would a shark say, I'm a shark
Which I assume there could only be a ridiculous answer to.
According to network news, the only place I receive my FP news from. The moderates are going to stand up against the extremists
Putting ISIS on the backburner, the president has called an emergency meeting with the Joint Chiefs and his security advisors to address the imminent world wide threat posed by a resurgent KKK.
wake up, grow a pair, and be man enough to call isis et-al Radical Islamic Extremists.
unless he is on their side and is rooting for them.
Thank you
2016 = GOP WH Senate and House
the year 1200 to today! But that's how the Prez can condone the murder carried out by ISIS.
He's such a pathetic liberal. I'll bet he winds up as a professor at Columbia when this term is up.
you still have not provided a reference to your claim!
It's obvious he thinks they are NOT Islamic.
Now that we've dispensed with your trivial attempt at disqualification, I invite an actual attempt to address the question.
Or maybe now you'll claim he doesn't refer to them as ISIL
Just admit it. You had a brain fart and it came out your ass!
Or, perhaps you missed the pertinent part of the interview!
"ZAKARIA: Lindsey Graham says that he's bothered by the fact that you won't admit that we're in a religious war. There are others who say that the White House takes pains to avoid using the term "Islamic terrorists."
So my question to you is are we at - are we in a war with radical Islam?
OBAMA: You know, I think that the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam.
And they're doing damage in a lot of countries around the world.
But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don't even recognize it as being Islam.
And I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it's very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we're looking for - order, peace, prosperity - and so I don't quibble with labels. I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities, and that the Middle East and South Asia are sort of ground zero for us needing to win back hearts and minds, particularly when it comes to young people.
But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology."
Is he attempting to be careful in his words so as not to paint all Muslims with a broad militant Islamic brush, the brush Lindsey Graham and other neo-cons seem quite willing to use. Yes indeed, and he give good reasoning for doing so. And, I support him in that just as I support Bush for exercising the caution, and I don't recall much if any protest by the righties when he did so: "Bush sought to calm American Muslims' fears of a backlash against them on Monday by appearing at an Islamic center in Washington. There he assured Americans that 'the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about.'"
So you can't back up your case for the obvious.
It included a direct quote of Obama stating that "ISIL is not Islamic".
I got nothing? Gosh. I never said I had anything, except a question. Stop making things so complicated.
I said it was a simple question. Too simple I guess. I understand and agree with you that Obama is doing and saying things to differentiate ISIL from the majority of Muslims that do not agree with ISIL. But is he doing everything he can? I simply asked if he believes what he says then why does he keep calling them the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.
I can understand why you don't want to address my question so if you're looking for a new diversion, we could discus how wrong President Obama is in his statistics that you quoted above. 99.9%? Just where does that number come from? Recent polling of various Muslim populations puts the figure at 75% to 90%. Even in the U.S. it might only be about 93%. I suppose you're going to ask for another link now. I think I should be asking Obama for a link to his data.
-- Modified on 2/7/2015 8:01:29 PM
Given that, I think most people understood what he meant, particularly given what he has said along, and what he said in his interview with Fareed Zakaria. In both your link and mine, he us saying that ISIL's behavior does not represent Islam; no more than does the KKK represent Christianity. I know plenty of people who believe Mormon's are not Christians, because of what they view as perversions in the Mormon doctrine and scriptures, though Mormons view themselves as Christians. What I hear Obama saying is that, because of the perversions in ISIL's doctrine and behaviors, he does not view them as legitimate Muslims, nor representing Muslim beliefs and values, even though they have their origins and community in the Muslim world. I think, as I said before, he is taking great pains to not paint all Muslims with the broad brush of radical Islam, particularly ISIL. Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, is not so careful in doing so, which to me is very short-sighted and dangerous.
First. The KKK and Mormons do not call themselves Christians. Yes, they both claim to self identify with and to adhere to the tenants of Christianity (to one degree or another) but neither includes the term Christian in their name.
Right or wrong, Obama goes to great lengths to distance ISIL from Islam but then turns right around and calls them Islamic (State of Iraq and Levant), every time he uses the name they gave themselves. WHY? Is he trying to be respectful to ISIL? If he think they are in no way Islamic (AS HE HAS STATED) then he should quit calling them ISIL.
The people that think Obama is mostly wrong have no problem using the name ISIL or ISIS because they believe they ARE Islamic (to one degree or another).
First, I have never heard Mr. Obama refer to ISIL as the “Islamic State.” In the speech you linked he said that ISIL refers to itself as the “Islamic State”, and the speech even has that name in quotation marks. He then immediately and properly explains that there is nothing Islamic about these murderers.
He and his administration have been very carefully to consistently use only the acronym ISIL. To even suggest that the use of this acronym is somehow a validation that they are the Islamic State is ridiculous. That is equivalent to inferring that “Bank Of America” is actually the bank of America. It is simply the name, not a validation of the content of the name. And when you use the acronym following an express denunciation of its Islamic roots, you are that far removed from the type of validation you suggest.
But you are right he should quit call them ISIL. The criticism you should be leveling is whether it is bad policy to even acknowledge the self-styled name of the group. When President Bush consistently referred to Al Qaeda in his post 9/11 speeches – at a time when they were a nascent organization of two or three hundred, he unwittingly provided priceless free advertising for them that made them seem far more accomplished than they actually were. Same with Mr. Obama and ISIL – he is just giving them free recruiting advertisements by making them seem like a terrorist organization so accomplished that even the President recognizes them
You know it but can't admit it.
What do YOU think the "S" stands for? Does your attitude towards saying the acronym but not intending the definition also apply to people who only ever say USA and then claim they aren't designating The United States of America?
Come on mari. Your pathology of apologetics for Obama is getting out of control.
-- Modified on 2/8/2015 4:38:39 PM
And no, it's not simple.
"Right or wrong, Obama goes to great lengths to distance ISIL from Islam but then turns right around and calls them Islamic (State of Iraq and Levant), every time he uses the name they gave themselves. WHY? Is he trying to be respectful to ISIL? If he think they are in no way Islamic (AS HE HAS STATED) then he should quit calling them ISIL."
Mari addressed your straining at gnats very respectfully and adroitly, yet your rejection of his reasoning was very flimsy.
Do you think Obama is "trying to be respectful to ISIL"? If so say so, and why you believe it, and what you believe his intent is in doing so? When others address him about ISIL how do you suggest that he respond? By what name would you have him call them? Unless you can answers these questions, I believe your question is a straw man.
"Right or wrong, Obama goes to great lengths to distance ISIL from Islam..."
I'd say your interpretation is not correct. I say he is saying ISIL's behavior and ideology are perversions if Islam, though he does not deny their origins, nor their place in the Muslim world and communities. He knows that terrorists win when we start treating everyday, law abiding citizens like suspected terrorists
It only appears flimsy or complicated to those that deny the definition of words (or acronyms in this case).
I'm with Graham Beckel on the naming issue. Call them the "Piss Ants", if they are really in the 0.1% as Obama claims (and I assume you believe since you posted the quote with no comment). But of course they are not just 0.1%. Their sympathizers and supporters around the world are much more numerous. It is those he seems to not want to alienate.
Obama has been getting a little closer to reality this past week though. You might have missed it since some of it was so embarrassing it got little coverage, but at The National Prayer Breakfast he did refer to ISIL as "a vicious death cult".
-- Modified on 2/8/2015 4:37:48 PM
Now your true colors are shining through. Why the straw man question in an attempt to hide them!
-- Modified on 2/8/2015 4:44:27 PM
until you know what other people think? I bet you never liked going first as a kid.
The original question is perfectly valid regardless my opinion.
I've provided OP's, and gave me opinion, initially, many times. And, in your thread, it seems I stated my opinion and position before you came out from behind your straw man question!
"But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology."
Is he attempting to be careful in his words so as not to paint all Muslims with a broad militant Islamic brush, the brush Lindsey Graham and other neo-cons seem quite willing to use. Yes indeed, and he gives good reasoning for doing so. And, I support him in that just as I support Bush for exercising that caution, and I don't recall much if any protest by the righties when he did so: "Bush sought to calm American Muslims' fears of a backlash against them on Monday by appearing at an Islamic center in Washington. There he assured Americans that 'the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about.'"
So, since you've been reduced to just spouting bullshit, I'll end on this note and let you have the last word! ;
You stated your position but you had a shit conniption that I hadn't spoke to the issue yet.
"overwhelming majority reject this ideology"?
"99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we're looking for - order, peace, prosperity"?
You're blindly accepting of Obama's statistics.
Being called a joke by you is an honor.
When the media refers to Symbionese Liberation Army, they are actually talking about some great liberators. And the Shining Path terrorists in Peru, those guys actually know the right way to go. And when I bet on the New England Patriots for the Super Bowl, I really meant that those guys are patriots, even if they did underinflate the ball.
You are right – context can be ignored. It is the literal meaning of words that matter
but your trivial examples didn't include an element where a Presidential figure is attempting to repudiate their legitimacy while simultaneously offering an air of authority to the organization. It's not only context that matters; the scale of the consequences does as well.
Malcolm or Dr King ? Nope , he's a one dip pencilneck wimp. He's a girlscout like HONDAMATIC and Annoy.
Reference his PT video for fact check . I know people in their 80s who hit it harder in the gym than that sissy boy.
That rat worshiper Dinesh D'Souza even put the truth on easy to see film and you ass clowns still protect that shit bag . You are on denial too because you can't admit you voted for a Muslim douche bag who intent is to destroy America .
He will fail
Reference his PT video for fact check . I know people in their 80s who hit it harder in the gym than that sissy boy.
That rat worshiper Dinesh D'Souza even put the truth on easy to see film and you ass clowns still protect that shit bag . You are on denial too because you can't admit you voted for a Muslim douche bag who intent is to destroy America .
He will fail !
"A so-called religion that allows for and endorses killing those who oppose it is not a religion at all, it is a terrorist movement."
-- Modified on 2/9/2015 5:36:39 PM
saying ". . . a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris"
Funny, I didn't read about any conservatives jumping up and down in protest when Jindal said the same thing.
Your point about Zogby is just a deflection from this point.
Jindal's not backing down and neither is the press. Some are conflating the earlier flat assertions by someone else regarding Birmingham's zones that were proved false, with those of Jindal's. At least The Press is doing their job in the case of Jindal.
You and the entire main stream press lap up every lie told by Obama as gospel truth. The only diversion here is your flat disregard for my challenge to Zogby.
Jindal said the same thing Obama said and yet I'm not aware of much if any objection, in the press, by conservatives, to what he said, but plenty with what Obama said. And, none here, by the conservatives, like you, on this board. Why is that? You just keep dodging the issue you brought up yourself!
I'm wondering if anyone in Jindal's audience experienced "verbal rape" like Ms. Parker claimed experience while in the audience during Obama's remark? Or, was that just for the benefit of all the Sean Hannity groupies!
Jindal said a lot of things. If you would like one conservative viewpoint on something in particular he said (compared and contrasted to supposedly similar words from Obama) then you need to be more specific. I can't read your mind.
There is though a theme scattered throughout this thread (amid the many questions I've asked of you that have gone unanswered) where you have pointed out that Obama says things to differentiate ISIL's actions from mainstream Islam. I have said so myself, right here in this thread.
Maybe it has more to do with Jindal's speech so as a start here are his actual words in context:
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2015/02/04/a-lecture-by-governor-bobby-jindal-3/
Here's also an interesting critique of Jindal, from a conservative. He tends to pick apart Jindal's wording more than intent, with the main criticism coming in the form of a scolding of Jindal for lecturing to Mulsims for not being more critical of ISIL (when in fact the criticizer claims they have). I think Jindal's larger point was that Muslim's haven't taken enough actions to stop ISIL rather than just denounce them.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/has_bobby_jindal_read_the_koran.html
Interesting how that takes us back to my OP question of Obama. Should Obama do more (or something different)?
If you had something else in mind, please elaborate.
Obama,
"ISIL is not 'Islamic.' No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state; it was formerly al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates."
"ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple, and it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
Jindal
"A so-called religion that allows for and endorses killing those who oppose it is not a religion at all, it is a terrorist movement...Let's be honest, Islam has a problem...OK, it is their problem and they need to deal with it."
Obama is saying ISIL is not Islamic because of their behavior, while Jindal is saying Islam is not a religion, but a terrorist group, because they allow the same said behavior that ISIL demonstrates.
So, there you have it; the differences. Obama is saying ISIL is not Islamic, not a religion, but rather a terrorist group, while Jindal is saying Islam is not a religion, but rather a terrorist group.
Now, I can see why conservatives are incensed by what Obama said, but not with what Jindal has said, because he said something entirely different!
-- Modified on 2/11/2015 10:22:26 AM
OK, except your entire point has nothing to do with my OP.
Actually I’m not quite sure that you have a point. Are you going to continue your detection of supposed irony by pointing out that liberals who have no problem with what Obama said are also excoriating Jindal’s comments?
Also, I find it hilarious your new found logic relies on a quote opening with Obama saying “ISIL is not Islamic” when it was only a day ago you were demanding proof that he ever said it.
Another point, Jindal did not say “Islam is not a religion”. Here’s the quote with further context:
“In my country, Christianity is the largest religion and we require exactly no one to conform to it. We do not discriminate against anyone who does not conform to it; it’s called freedom. A so called religion that allows for and endorses killing those who oppose it is not a religion at all, it is a terrorist movement. I do continue to believe and hope that most Muslims oppose these blood thirsty acts of terror”
I believe he was talking about the distorted version of Islam that ISIL believes it is following, but to a degree (if you read his entire speech), it was sort of a challenge to main stream Muslims that if they want to continue as a recognized and respected religion there are certain things they need to do.
But for your purposes, what he DID say about ISIL is closer to the point I think you were trying to make.
Regardless, my OP was simple.
If ISIL is not Islamic (Obama’s words) then maybe he should stop calling them Islamic (which is what he does by calling them ISIL.)
If ISIL is not a State (Obama’s words) then maybe he should stop calling them a State (which is what he does by calling them ISIL.)
I still like “The Piss Ants” but that might be a bit in left field.
But to your last point, in the general, the foundational precepts of both Obama’s and Jindal’s description of what ISIL is and is not, are very similar to which I say, “so what?”. I’ve never faulted Obama for the descriptions he has used. I do fault him for the things he refuses to say and the things he refuses to do. And to a degree, those who criticized Jindal were for the points where he went beyond his agreements with Obama.
-- Modified on 2/11/2015 7:10:28 PM
Yes, your origin question hid your belief, which you ultimately revealed: "I'm with Graham Beckel on the naming issue. Call them the "Piss Ants", if they are really in the 0.1% as Obama claims (and I assume you believe since you posted the quote with no comment). But of course they are not just 0.1%. Their sympathizers and supporters around the world are much more numerous. It is those he seems to not want to alienate."
Well, that's in essence where we disagree. Not about whether the true numbers of Muslims who sympathize or support ISIL or militant Muslims is 0.1%, or a greater number, but rather who he is "not wanting to alienate. I believe it's not them but the moderate Muslims, who do not support nor sympathize with ISIL or militant Muslims.
-- Modified on 2/11/2015 5:56:15 PM
Poor little matt. He thinks someone "hid" their opinion from him. LOL.
I have to give you credit though. You have a remarkable ability to avoid reality and a voracious appetite for single minded logic. If I ever see you walking down the street I must remember to never offer you any chewing gum.
And yet we still really don't know if you agree with Obama regarding his claim that 999 out of 1000 Muslims reject radical Islam. Why are you hiding that opinion?
-- Modified on 2/12/2015 1:18:50 AM
You wanted to take Obama literally and out of context, while not requiring the same for Jindal. And, if you go back over the string of posts, yes I did express my stance before you did. Why pose a question without clarifying your stance on the subject?
As far as walking down the streets, I'm not too worried about running into you, because you'll be too preoccupied with trying not to step on any cracks in the sidewalk!
Amazing! I still have no clue why you think I’ve been dishonest but I do clearly observe. . .
that regarding hypocrisy, I must question your knowledge of the definition.
To your point where the supposed “straw man came out after my true colors were revealed”, my opinion about why I think Obama MIGHT not take my suggestion (i.e. to quit using the Islamic label or State label) has absolutely nothing to with what I still think is a good idea. Note I say “might” as earlier I said “It SEAMS to be ‘those’ he does not want to alienate.” My “hidden” opinion as to his objective or motive has zero bearing on the quality of my suggestion. But the total quantity of “those” is very important to the analysis. If 99.9% is correct then you might be right (i.e. don’t alienate the VAST majority who are “good” Muslims), but we both know that number is baloney. The number is easily less than 75%, (maybe even 50% in some countries) so as my post clearly stated, he’s trying not to alienate a large group that could be described as leaning towards radicalism. They’re the ones he needs to “win over”. The non-sympathizers are already with Obama, right? But you ignored my posts regarding the numbers so maybe that’s where you’re confused about my position. And don’t claim I meant ISIL as being “those”. I posited that as a question.
To be clear about more you never addressed there were other clarifying points I made. For example “Obama calls four targeted Jews as random folks” yet in DIRECT response you say “Jindal said the same thing”?
Let’s try to be clear once more. I have no beef with Obama or Jindal for how either characterizes ISIL as savages. I simply made the suggestion to Obama that since he believes ISIL aren’t Islamic that he not refer to them as such. Maybe you’re upset I didn’t suggest the same about Jindal? Jindal doesn’t set policy. He’s a governor of a State. I didn’t suggest the same of a lot of people. Just where are you setting this equivalency bar?
“Why pose a question without clarifying your stance on the subject?“ Because the question or suggestion should be able to stand on its own, regardless my opinion. It was offered sincerely. I had no ulterior motives. I guess in your world, sadly, personal or ulterior motives take precedence. But this does go to your clear dislike about not wanting to voice your opinion to someone that your believe has nefarious motives. I don’t think I said you never or won’t go first. I said you’re afraid to do so. Afraid was indeed the wrong adjective to use. You just don’t want to do so, for personal reasons about which I won’t take any further guesses.
-- Modified on 2/12/2015 8:23:04 PM
And, extremely arrogant! "The truth?"
I never pretend that I'm the holder of "The truth." I do give my opinions, observations and interpretations of what I hear being said. That's all. But, you are the arbiter of what constitutes "The truth!"
That is a denial of truth.
Then again maybe you simply can't recognize these things.