or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Obama Muslim?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Obama Muslim? - Page 2

post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Doubtful. I see where you're going with it. But, no.

I do, however, believe that scientists appreciate the wonder and beauty of the universe more than any religious person does. I believe scientists are more in tune with how wonderful and special it is to live on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam (thanks for that one, Carl Sagan).

I agree with you there. In the main. Though that 'any' might be a bit de trop.

And they are also generally far more moved to preserve and protect the natural world which I always find odd...seems religious people should be more the ones to want to preserve natural heritage but it appears not.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Why not address the issue of WHY some people think it does matter?

Those people are all on your side of the political spectrum - address it.

If my partner started worrying about whether Mr Applebaum next door was Jewish and I kept saying "it's ok, I don't believe he is" then we'd both have a problem. In reality of course I would start to wonder why she even thought about it and NOT whether she was correct.

The question you are avoiding is what makes some people on your side of the fence have an issue about whether he is or not?

I know the answer - but do you?

And if not why not?

Well I can't speak as to what others' think. But I'll tell you that if he WAS a Muslim, it would pose a few problems for me: 1) That means he lied about it. A lot. 2) Given #1, WHY did he lie? 3) What else is he lying about? 4) Is his faith going to be a hinderance to the US given that we're in a struggle with radical Islam? Are there any people he associates with or used to associate with who, while not radicalized themselves, are somewhat sympathetic? 5) How do we KNOW he's not sympathetic to that cause?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Never was there a greater need exposed for an "enemies" option on facebook.

It's not surprising that those who are devout conspiracy theorists (from GW being paid off scientists eager to get rich to BO being an imposter) would leap to defend themselves with more allegations of a conspiratorial nature.

Obviously it's an effective weapon, why else would Donald Trump play the Trump card-

"Whoopi Goldberg got into a furious argument with Donald Trump about President Obama's birth certificate on Wednesday's "The View."
Trump, who has been talking about running for president, has been drawing attention for his comments about Obama's citizenship. He repeated some of them on "The View."
"Why doesn't he show his birth certificate?" Trump said. "Why should he have to?" Whoopi cut in.
"Because I have to and everybody else has to, Whoopi," Trump said. He continued that he believed Obama has a birth certificate, but that he should show it to clear the "pall" hanging over him. Then, he said that it was odd that "nobody from [Obama's] early years remembers him," and that there was "something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like." This last comment seemed to be the final straw for Whoopiand for Barbara Walters.
"That's a terrible thing to say," she said, as Whoopi exclaimed, "oh my God...that's the biggest pile of dog mess I've heard in ages." She continued, "it's not 'cause he's black, is it?" Trump said it had "nothing to do with that."
"Because I've never hear any white president being asked to show his birth certificate," Whoopi said heatedly, pounding her fist into her hand. "When you become the president of the United States of America, you know that he's American. I'm sorry. That's just B.S."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_839927.html

What makes Whoopi so stupid is that she actually thinks she is intelligent enough to discuss political and other issues on television.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well I can't speak as to what others' think. But I'll tell you that if he WAS a Muslim, it would pose a few problems for me: 1) That means he lied about it. A lot. 2) Given #1, WHY did he lie? 3) What else is he lying about? 4) Is his faith going to be a hinderance to the US given that we're in a struggle with radical Islam? Are there any people he associates with or used to associate with who, while not radicalized themselves, are somewhat sympathetic? 5) How do we KNOW he's not sympathetic to that cause?

Ok...#1 is not about his being a Muslim. You should feel like that if he lied a lot about anything important.

I agree though about the lying. Leaders who lie are suspect. But what if he came out and said he was a Muslim from day one (I know he would not be elected but just for argument's sake)?

#2 He might have lied to get elected. Politicians do it all the time and no-one seems to mind. Why does lying about being a Muslim make it worse?

#3 could apply that to every President who gets caught lying and the rest who don't.

#4 Now we are getting somewhere..... Why would it? Why any more than - say - a Christian would
need to?

Why assume because there are Muslim terrorists that any Muslim might be one?

Seems kind of stupid. Or bigoted. Or both.

#5 How does one KNOW anything?

Imo - as you might guess - very few people KNOW anything at all. They might endlessly parrot newsbites or chirp the party line with not thought at all but KNOW??? I don't think so.

Put another way - how do you know he is not sympathetic to a radical cause now? Answer: you don't. But that doesn't stop millions perhaps believing he is - and in the end that's all that matters.

To them.

But it's interesting your points: other people might think it would be an ASSET in the 'war' on radical Islam to have a Muslim in the White House.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well I can't speak as to what others' think. But I'll tell you that if he WAS a Muslim, it would pose a few problems for me: 1) That means he lied about it. A lot. 2) Given #1, WHY did he lie? 3) What else is he lying about? 4) Is his faith going to be a hinderance to the US given that we're in a struggle with radical Islam? Are there any people he associates with or used to associate with who, while not radicalized themselves, are somewhat sympathetic? 5) How do we KNOW he's not sympathetic to that cause?




What makes Whoopi so stupid is that she actually thinks she is intelligent enough to discuss political and other issues on television.

Like usual you missed the part about you don't have to be an expert to see that the certificate issue is stupid. And please don't ask " why " after all that's been discussed about this issue already. That would make you look stupid as well.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #45 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

He is not questioning it. He is outlining others obsession with it.

Our first black POTUS, Obama, some doubt he's an American, but let's dig deeper and ask the question "Is he a muslim?". What are the implications if he is, especially in regards to terrorism?

Call me crazy but those look like questions to me. They've even got those nice question mark thingies.

Quote:
That sounds plausible. But nowhere near as plausible as what our old friend Occam would point out: that the lunatics who oppose Obama by any means because they are Right wingers can't see past his colour and to them that means un-American which in turn means NON-American.

It really is that simple I'm afraid.

Except it isn't that simple because the simplest way of defeating him at this point is to simply note his incompetence. Noting any other motivations outside of the job simply COMPLICATES the matter.

I mean it isn't as if the man has kept half his promises or three quarter of them or delivered a questionably decent result that you could argue depending upon your allegiances. By the time we are deciding upon his first term he will have added 6 trillion or so to the deficit, we will likely have $4.50-$5.00 gas around, and there will still be Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, signing statements, wars that aren't wars in ever more countries, troops that aren't home, no savings from lack of war being spent on domestic matters, and unemployment that probably will be a minimum of 9% of so.

People can point at all of that so very clearly and you are telling me the simplest way to gin up support will be to declare that he might have been born in Kenya or might be Muslim?

I think Occam would rather disagree with your statement. The man's performance is the simplest and easiest way to discredit him after one term. Everything else becomes more complicated. The simplest answer is those who have the most to benefit by obscuring a discussion about performance and instead making it about intentions and personalities benefit will be the ones who bring up points related to that.

Thus Democrats have the most to gain by bringing up the religion and birthplace issue.

Quote:
But, insane as they are, we're not talking above birthers are we (nice swerve!!!)? The thread title is at the top...check it out.

We are and we aren't. The notion of one being a religion due to where one is born isn't a very American idea but it certainly is an idea in much of the world. Hands lays it out as a DEEPER question. How can it be deeper than being where one is born? Because in much of the world, where one is born determines who one happens to be.

Quote:
You have a point and that may be a factor... I don't know because I am not in the US to observe it. All I can say is that on occasion I do get to meet Christian Fundies here in Europe (US ones) and the ones that believe this - and there are many I have met - also push the 'Muslim' schtick and they are ALL without exception pretty hardcore Republican Right and pretty much all borderline racist.

Yes well since racism has been redefined as disagreement rather than actually believing one race is superior over another that rights should awarded and accorded per that, I have no doubt they meet your definition since I have no doubt they disagree with the Obama agenda.

Quote:
Even if your theory is true it does not explain this group. And there are very many of them.

Well it is easy to see when giving up reasoning and going for nothing more than a win at any cost as Democrats have done. For Democrats, the exception always proves the rule and that of course presumes they even believe in rules since it is clear that whatever wins the day is their only true rule. I could say they use some microscopic exception to define the rule except the fact is that even without that example, they still make the claims. It fits the caricature. It fits their narrative so repeat it. People here have grown use to it. All things are civil rights now. If you want someone to pay $1.00 to ride the subway instead of $.85, it is a civil rights matter. You hate black people. If you want there to be a ballot for a union, well that is a civil rights matter.

So while I'll explain the group, the left never cares to do so. It could be a fantasy and they would still claim it not only as reality, but as the rule.

Quote:
You need not worry about her chasing you. She is a woman of exquisite taste.

I'm sorry to hear you ate her. I was so looking forward to the chase but now that she is being digested, that won't be possible.

Quote:
You really must stop these fantasies Trumps really.... there's a war on again now, no need to sublimate these urges - it is totally legitimate to project them into the fields of military hardware, nationalism and emasculating the enemy.

I could dissect that in an interesting way, but several levels of play becomes too obscure and thus no fun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well I can't speak as to what others' think. But I'll tell you that if he WAS a Muslim, it would pose a few problems for me: 1) That means he lied about it. A lot. 2) Given #1, WHY did he lie? 3) What else is he lying about? 4) Is his faith going to be a hinderance to the US given that we're in a struggle with radical Islam? Are there any people he associates with or used to associate with who, while not radicalized themselves, are somewhat sympathetic? 5) How do we KNOW he's not sympathetic to that cause?

Sego hits on it but the main point is, he's clearly lied about everything and so many of the other points are much easier to prove. With this, one is stuck on speculation and not only that but proving speculation based on that speculation. So he lied about being muslim so we can thus speculate about other lies.

The man has dozens of easily proven and verifiable lies that have verifiable bad outcomes related to them. It's much easier to show how he is giving billions to foreign governments to drill oil while issuing a drilling moratorium here. It's clean and clear cut. If the electorate didn't care or couldn't comprehend his connections to Bill Ayers or unions or other clearly understood radical and AMERICAN elements in his background (Reverend Wright for example) then how would one ever explain these several hypotheticals all built on each other.

No one need understand his reasoning or motivations for being an incomprehensible and profound failure. You can just point at it and watch him lose the election.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Our first black POTUS, Obama, some doubt he's an American, but let's dig deeper and ask the question "Is he a muslim?". What are the implications if he is, especially in regards to terrorism?

Call me crazy but those look like questions to me. They've even got those nice question mark thingies.



Except it isn't that simple because the simplest way of defeating him at this point is to simply note his incompetence. Noting any other motivations outside of the job simply COMPLICATES the matter.

I mean it isn't as if the man has kept half his promises or three quarter of them or delivered a questionably decent result that you could argue depending upon your allegiances. By the time we are deciding upon his first term he will have added 6 trillion or so to the deficit, we will likely have $4.50-$5.00 gas around, and there will still be Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, signing statements, wars that aren't wars in ever more countries, troops that aren't home, no savings from lack of war being spent on domestic matters, and unemployment that probably will be a minimum of 9% of so.

People can point at all of that so very clearly and you are telling me the simplest way to gin up support will be to declare that he might have been born in Kenya or might be Muslim?

I think Occam would rather disagree with your statement. The man's performance is the simplest and easiest way to discredit him after one term. Everything else becomes more complicated. The simplest answer is those who have the most to benefit by obscuring a discussion about performance and instead making it about intentions and personalities benefit will be the ones who bring up points related to that.

Thus Democrats have the most to gain by bringing up the religion and birthplace issue.



We are and we aren't. The notion of one being a religion due to where one is born isn't a very American idea but it certainly is an idea in much of the world. Hands lays it out as a DEEPER question. How can it be deeper than being where one is born? Because in much of the world, where one is born determines who one happens to be.



Yes well since racism has been redefined as disagreement rather than actually believing one race is superior over another that rights should awarded and accorded per that, I have no doubt they meet your definition since I have no doubt they disagree with the Obama agenda.



Well it is easy to see when giving up reasoning and going for nothing more than a win at any cost as Democrats have done. For Democrats, the exception always proves the rule and that of course presumes they even believe in rules since it is clear that whatever wins the day is their only true rule. I could say they use some microscopic exception to define the rule except the fact is that even without that example, they still make the claims. It fits the caricature. It fits their narrative so repeat it. People here have grown use to it. All things are civil rights now. If you want someone to pay $1.00 to ride the subway instead of $.85, it is a civil rights matter. You hate black people. If you want there to be a ballot for a union, well that is a civil rights matter.

So while I'll explain the group, the left never cares to do so. It could be a fantasy and they would still claim it not only as reality, but as the rule.



I'm sorry to hear you ate her. I was so looking forward to the chase but now that she is being digested, that won't be possible.



I could dissect that in an interesting way, but several levels of play becomes too obscure and thus no fun.



Sego hits on it but the main point is, he's clearly lied about everything and so many of the other points are much easier to prove. With this, one is stuck on speculation and not only that but proving speculation based on that speculation. So he lied about being muslim so we can thus speculate about other lies.

The man has dozens of easily proven and verifiable lies that have verifiable bad outcomes related to them. It's much easier to show how he is giving billions to foreign governments to drill oil while issuing a drilling moratorium here. It's clean and clear cut. If the electorate didn't care or couldn't comprehend his connections to Bill Ayers or unions or other clearly understood radical and AMERICAN elements in his background (Reverend Wright for example) then how would one ever explain these several hypotheticals all built on each other.

No one need understand his reasoning or motivations for being an incomprehensible and profound failure. You can just point at it and watch him lose the election.

Quote:
but let's dig deeper and ask the question "Is he a muslim?". What are the implications if he is, especially in regards to terrorism?

Quote:
Call me crazy but those look like questions to me.

Yup! Those are questions alright. Nutty ones.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #47 of 57
Thread Starter 
A far away echo of the distress caused by hate can be heard.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

A far away echo of the distress caused by hate can be heard.

Yes, but let's leave the terrorism discussion for another thread.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes, but let's leave the terrorism discussion for another thread.

Yeah Obamas a fucking terrorist? Are you fucking serious?

"Posse Comitatus is a Latin term for "power [or force] of the county." It originally referred, in English legal traditions, to the power of local authorities to call upon the body of the people to enforce the law in a time of crisis. The American idea of the "posse," as in the Old West, is a descendant of these traditions.
~ http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/SCM.asp?xpicked=4



The Guardian-

"As emerging reports would have it, Kevin William Harpham, 36, who is accused of setting a bomb to go off at the Martin Luther King Jr Day parade in Spokane, Washington, was yet another "lone wolf" terrorist, acting at his own behest and on his own behalf. Even groups on the racist, radical far right that so clearly inspired him are rushing to disown and denounce the indicted man. Regardless of whether he was a "member" of an organised group, there can yet be no doubt that Harpham saw himself as part of a movement one that has an especially broad reach in the age of Obama, and roots as deep as American culture itself.

The vision of a black president has given the racist far right one of its biggest boosts since the civil rights era of the 1960s. Figures toted up by the Southern Poverty Law Centre suggest a dramatic rise in the numbers of organized groups: their numbers grew by 40% from 2008 to 2009, and an additional 22% from 2009 to 2010, bringing the total to 2,145 groups. It's difficult to know precisely what these numbers mean, since these groups are constantly changing names, dissolving, reforming or springing up, and few of them maintain public membership rolls. What is nonetheless clear is that a strong far right movement has re-emerged, and what unites it is the age-old American doctrine of nativism, born out of fear of some dark outsider sneaking in to steal the white man's homeland and his hegemony.

Nativist thinkers are spread all over the map, but the strongest current comes in the form of the Sovereign Citizen movement, or what used to be called the Posse Comitatus and before the posse, the Silver Shirts. For the old Posse adherents and their contemporary progeny, the white Aryan man is the only true "sovereign" over his land and his life. White women serve beneath him; black and brown "mud people" are menials worthy only of disdain; and Jews (who do not qualify as white) are usually behind it all, running the economic and financial systems through a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. They do not admit to being subject to the laws and dicates of the US government; they eschew social security, cars and drivers' licences, and won't pay taxes.

For the true sovereign, the sheriff is the highest legitimate law enforcement official in the land, and a jury of his (white male) peers the only legitimate government body. These beliefs are underpinned by the religion of Christian Identity, which claim white sovereigns are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, who on their long trek out of the Middle East made their way up through Scotland and Ireland over to the United States.

Different facets of the nativist movement have enjoyed periodic heydeys in 20th-century America first in the 1910s and 20s, when anti-immigrant sentiments were rife and membership in the Ku Klux Klan reached more than 2m. In the 1930s and 1940s, they penetrated the edges of the political mainstream through figures like Father Charles Coughlin, who was the Glenn Beck of his day. A Catholic priest and radio personality, Coughlin was at once enormously popular and virulently antisemitic and anti-New Deal. His ally Gerald LK Smith, leader of the Share Our Wealth campaign, was evocative of some of today's more extreme Tea Party candidates.

The Klans and related groups had another resurgence in response to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In the 1980s, groups like the Posse, which drew together white supremacy and Christian Identity with anti-government "patriot" sentiments, found particularly fertile ground for recruitment among dispossessed Midwestern farmers. While figures like David Duke ran for political office, others, like the violent group The Order, carried out bombings, bank robberies and murders, and engaged in blazing shootouts with federal agents, all in service of their plan to build a white homeland.

After the Oklahoma City bombing, with its perpetrators' ties to the militia movement (and, most likely, to other far right groups as well), the movement tended to dig in further underground. Just as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were deemed to be acting alone, the periodic bursts of far right violence whether they be an attempted bombing, the murder of an abortion doctor, attacks on undocumented immigrants or on Muslims, or the shooting of a congresswoman are attributed to "lone wolves" rather than to organised plots by any particular group. Yet the distinction belies the reality of a movement that has long encouraged its adherents to act in "leaderless resistance" cells or carry out one-man guerrilla attacks (and become celebrated as "Phineas Priests", named for the Bible story of a man who executed an interracial couple).

The alleged MLK Day parade bomber, Kevin William Harpham, may or may not have consider himself a lone wolf if, as he is accused, he put together a backpack bomb laden with shrapnel dipped in rat poison to induce bleeding and placed it on the route of the parade. But there can be little doubt as to where his inspiration came from. Bill Morlin, formerly a reporter for the Spokane Spokesman-Review and now an independent investigator, traced Harpham's background in a comprehensive report for the publication Hatewatch. In the military, Harpham was stationed at Fort Lewis in Washington, home base for 320 far right wingers. He was once a member of the racist far right National Alliance, and had left various postings on extremist websites suggesting he had had enough of the "international Jewish conspiracy", which, among other things, he held responsible for 9/11.

Leonard Zeskind, a leading expert on the radical far right and author, says that today, "the main tendency of organisations is mainstreaming The movement imperative is towards the Tea Parties, running for office, anti-immigrant mongering not roadside bombs." None of this, of course, prevents people from being "recruited" to their ideas and choosing to act on them. One far right leader said much the same in an interview following the attempted bombing in Spokane. "There are many aspects to the white supremacist movement," Shaun Winkler, Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the KKK in Idaho, told a local television station. "There are those of us that are on the political side, and there are those of us that are revolutionary. It sounds as if this individual was on the revolutionary end rather than the political. And there are a lot of lone wolves out there. People that are sympathetic to us, but people that we don't know."

Historically, federal law enforcement has given little credence to the power of the nativist current in American society, and has paid relatively little attention to the activities of nativist groups. That has perhaps changed since the election of Barack Obama, whose presidency has so focused and emboldened the racist far right. Yet, despite their obvious threat, there are no competitors to Peter King, holding congressional hearings on the recruitment of homegrown jihadist terrorists."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ight-terrorism
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes, but let's leave the terrorism discussion for another thread.

Not even clever. Childish and like most things on this board really tired ( as in " Nya, nya, nya " ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yeah Obamas a fucking terrorist? Are you fucking serious?

That's quite the rant, though not really worth quoting.

Could you please show me where I said this?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yeah Obamas a fucking terrorist? Are you fucking serious?

I think a serious argument could be made for that claim. If Bush was, then so is Obama. Here's a man (Obama) that only a few days after taking the oath signed an executive order for predator drone attacks in Pakistan (a country we're allegedly not even at war with) that ended up killing innocent civilians. Ooops. Maybe we should just call him the accidental terrorist.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That's quite the rant, though not really worth quoting...

My snark goes to 9/11.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think a serious argument could be made for that claim. If Bush was, then so is Obama. Here's a man (Obama) that only a few days after taking the oath signed an executive order for predator drone attacks in Pakistan (a country we're allegedly not even at war with) that ended up killing innocent civilians. Ooops. Maybe we should just call him the accidental terrorist.

Goes without saying..... this is a wake up call to people who believe things can really change. One last time:

If someone is serious about changing the status quo - from either the Left or Right - they will NEVER be allowed to be President and will most likely be neutralized.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

My snark goes to 9/11.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Ok...#1 is not about his being a Muslim. You should feel like that if he lied a lot about anything important.

I agree though about the lying. Leaders who lie are suspect. But what if he came out and said he was a Muslim from day one (I know he would not be elected but just for argument's sake)?

I think he would not have gotten elected. Whether you/I like it or not, Islam is not seen in a very positive light right now. More about that later.

Quote:

#2 He might have lied to get elected. Politicians do it all the time and no-one seems to mind. Why does lying about being a Muslim make it worse?

It doesn't necessarily. But it raises other questions that I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

#3 could apply that to every President who gets caught lying and the rest who don't.

OK.

Quote:

#4 Now we are getting somewhere..... Why would it? Why any more than - say - a Christian would
need to?

Why assume because there are Muslim terrorists that any Muslim might be one?

Seems kind of stupid. Or bigoted. Or both.

Yeah, I knew you'd be coming after this point. I don't think it's a question of assuming. It's not a question of believing. It's a question of knowing. I know you're very sensitive on this point, but I don't think it's hard to understand, nor should it be surprising. We are at war with radical MUSLIM groups, not radical Christian groups. Radical Christian groups (obviously they exist) are not part of a global terror network hellbent on destroying the West through the murder of civilians. No one would be thinking that the President himself was a terrorist or that he supported terrorists. However, I think that in these times, it would be understandable to at least question if any of his former or current associates were at least sympathetic to that cause.

Quote:

#5 How does one KNOW anything?

Imo - as you might guess - very few people KNOW anything at all. They might endlessly parrot newsbites or chirp the party line with not thought at all but KNOW??? I don't think so.

Really...we're really going to get into semantics here? Well, have fun. I'm not playing.

Quote:

Put another way - how do you know he is not sympathetic to a radical cause now? Answer: you don't. But that doesn't stop millions perhaps believing he is - and in the end that's all that matters.

How? Because I've seen no evidence of it. If somehow it emerged that he WAS a "secret Muslim," then yes, it would create a ton of suspicion. I can't speak for others and their beliefs.

Quote:
To them.

But it's interesting your points: other people might think it would be an ASSET in the 'war' on radical Islam to have a Muslim in the White House.

I don't think it would be an asset, if for no other reason than what the political consequences would be. His power would be cut off at the knees.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #57 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think he would not have gotten elected. Whether you/I like it or not, Islam is not seen in a very positive light right now. More about that later.

I don't like it - and I don't like the people who perpetuate it whether they are Osama bin Laden, Qur'an burning preachers or racist Tea Party thugs.

Quote:
It doesn't necessarily. But it raises other questions that I mentioned earlier.

Not really - if one buys into the anti-Islam BS it does but not in any objective sense.

Quote:
Yeah, I knew you'd be coming after this point. I don't think it's a question of assuming. It's not a question of believing. It's a question of knowing. I know you're very sensitive on this point, but I don't think it's hard to understand, nor should it be surprising. We are at war with radical MUSLIM groups, not radical Christian groups. Radical Christian groups (obviously they exist) are not part of a global terror network hellbent on destroying the West through the murder of civilians. No one would be thinking that the President himself was a terrorist or that he supported terrorists. However, I think that in these times, it would be understandable to at least question if any of his former or current associates were at least sympathetic to that cause.

Whay are you at war with radical MUSLIM groups? Why if others exist - as you admit - are you not at war with radical groups ?

I know the answer - do you?

Quote:
Really...we're really going to get into semantics here? Well, have fun. I'm not playing.

Aw go on...it's more fun than playing with yourself...give it a go....

Quote:
How? Because I've seen no evidence of it. If somehow it emerged that he WAS a "secret Muslim," then yes, it would create a ton of suspicion. I can't speak for others and their beliefs.

Ok...how about a "secret Jew"? Something for which I believe one could make a far more convincing case...not that I believe either is true.

Quote:
I don't think it would be an asset, if for no other reason than what the political consequences would be. His power would be cut off at the knees.

Sadly true....but then we are talking about America. It's important to remember that...special standards apply.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Obama Muslim?