-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Once again no comment from Obama as an Egyptian church is bombed at Christmas... why so minimal?
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hillary obama persecuation
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Obama has killed more Muslims than every other president before him combined. He isn't neutral at all but he definitly isn't on the Muslim's side.
tytlyf
Not Religious
There is no such thing as liberal media. RW media lied to you. Of course Israel has been helped by Obama since being elected. You just can't say things without examples (bad journalism). That's what RW media does.
Your picture show you would not recognize a liberal media.
You just said Obama has helped Israel since being elected. Guess what? no examples(bad journalism).
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Google "Shimon Peres" on what he said about this administration's contributions, especially military, towards Israel. If I were to do it, it would just be a waste of my time since you'll find some excuse as to why you don't believe what I would link you to.Your picture show you would not recognize a liberal media.
You just said Obama has helped Israel since being elected. Guess what? no examples(bad journalism).
Oh, I forgot-- you don't do homework either. Oh well.
McBell
Unbound
Source(s) please.
esmith
Veteran Member
It depends on how you qualify the statement and what you blame him for doing or not doing. Just as Bush is directly responsible for the Iraq war to remove Saddam and our increased presence in Afghanistan, he did not order the shooting of Muslims by our military directly, indirectly yes as the Commander in Chief. Was Bush responsible for the Iraqi murder squads? Well not directly, but the military's tactics of the US enabled them. Now to the Obama's case the picture is not quite so clear. Yes he did sign-off the surge into Afghanistan which indirectly caused the death of Muslims as again the Commander in Chief. Now one could say that by removing the troops from Iraq resulted in the rise of ISIS, but of course that is debatable. One could also say than his actions or lack of actions in Syria has indirectly lead to the death of many more Muslims than any other President, but again that is debatable. One could also imply that Obama's adventure into Libya has indirectly lead to the death of Muslims. Now the drone strikes against Muslims; he is both directly and indirectly responsible for. Directly he personally signs off every "military" drone strike and by being the President he is indirectly responsible for the CIA's drone strikes. Therefore depending on what one considers he is and could be responsible for the statement could be 100% correct.
I don't check links that I know will be waste of time and to date no one has posted the evience they say is in their link. If you give me a link of what Peres said, I will check it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't have the time to look for the quotes, but here's a link to show the massive aid package this administration supplied Israel with: U.S. pledges $38B in military aid to Israel for next decade
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Here is a politifact link. There are more sources at the bottom.
I may be wrong. Depends on the definition according to them. Bush killed potentially 33,000 people while Obama only 30,000. However the majority of people killed by Bush were combatants while Obama increased drone strokes ten fold and killed potentially ten times as many people as Bush did in actual targeted attacks.
By either definition the point that he has killed a metric buttload of mulsims stands.
tytlyf
Not Religious
You could say that. And conservatives hate killing muslims, which is why they blame Obama for it.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Under Obama we have switched from a more passive role with fewer targeted attacks to a more proactive approach with ten times the number of targeted attacks. He has been far more aggressive than any other president under him in terms of targeted strikes. Either way the spirit of my point still stands. He has done a great deal of damange to the muslims of the middle east and terrorist organizations. So much of it was preventable by his hand. I don't think there is an argument to be had that he favors Muslims over Christians.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Well soon as Obama did it they hated it anyway.
esmith
Veteran Member
To the
Yes the US under the Obama's policy has increased the number of drone strikes for one known fact and one, (mine and others) hypothesis. First the technology has increased the capabilities of drones to provide a more capable weapon., that is a fact. Now the hypothesis:
1. Drones do not put American lives in danger whereas a SpecOp operation does. Hence there will be less news coverage of flag draped coffins returning to the US, thus less negative publicity for the administration. Yes I realize that categorizing service members deaths as bad publicity is something that should not be even considered but one must when it comes to politicians.
2. If you kill a high value target vice capture one there is no issue with where to keep the high value target. The most obvious place would be Gitmo and we all know where the Obama stands on that.
As far as your point that he, the Obama, has dealt considerable damage to Muslims; I would go further and say that he has killed Muslims with little or no regard to the collateral damage caused. Yes, I'm sure he has questioned his decisions. No moral person wouldn't, but the fact is that it appears that he feels the end justifies the action taken. Myself, I would rather capture a high value target than kill it. However, in respect to the SpecOps members safety, that has to come first. In other words capture if possible but if push comes to shove the US service member comes first. I'm all for removing threats poised by terrorist leaders, but they can and will be replaced.
The Obama policy on drone attacks has its good points and its bad points. Just as none directed air strikes have their good points and their bad points.
Yes the US under the Obama's policy has increased the number of drone strikes for one known fact and one, (mine and others) hypothesis. First the technology has increased the capabilities of drones to provide a more capable weapon., that is a fact. Now the hypothesis:
1. Drones do not put American lives in danger whereas a SpecOp operation does. Hence there will be less news coverage of flag draped coffins returning to the US, thus less negative publicity for the administration. Yes I realize that categorizing service members deaths as bad publicity is something that should not be even considered but one must when it comes to politicians.
2. If you kill a high value target vice capture one there is no issue with where to keep the high value target. The most obvious place would be Gitmo and we all know where the Obama stands on that.
As far as your point that he, the Obama, has dealt considerable damage to Muslims; I would go further and say that he has killed Muslims with little or no regard to the collateral damage caused. Yes, I'm sure he has questioned his decisions. No moral person wouldn't, but the fact is that it appears that he feels the end justifies the action taken. Myself, I would rather capture a high value target than kill it. However, in respect to the SpecOps members safety, that has to come first. In other words capture if possible but if push comes to shove the US service member comes first. I'm all for removing threats poised by terrorist leaders, but they can and will be replaced.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Sure. Which is neither here nor there to the point being made. Someone earlier in the thread made the comment that he was being biased towards Muslims because he didn't make an offical statement on a specific incident where some christians were killed. I think that any idea that Obama is secretly a muslim or that he harbors some kind of bias in favor of muslims is baseless. That was the point being made.
tytlyf
Not Religious
But what happens if your favorite information sources all repeat it over and over and over for months on end, doesn't something like that become believable?
esmith
Veteran Member
Hmmm I guess that isn't exactly true. You have been complaining about RW media and I still watch FNC and Fox Business. But then again you are not even close to being my source of factual information.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Sort of like being told by everyone in your family, school and community that god exists and is exactly like "X"? Yeah. Belief structures are such cheeky little things aren't they?
That started long before Obama became president. He was not the originator of that package.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
LOL! Ya, so I guess we should give Adam & Eve all the credit, eh, using your "logic".
And that's why Shimon Peres at least on three occasions that I personally heard him say when he was last here in the States that this administration has contributed more to Israel's defense than any previous administration. I'm sure he actually meant Adam & Eve but just got carried away in the moment, maybe?
You simply make up your own stories, whether it be politics or the pseudo-science you embrace. But even worse than that, you supported and voted for a man who has continually acted and said things totally opposite of what Jesus taught, so when push came to shove, you ignored Jesus and went for Trump. That's truly unfortunate.