Discussion for article #233403
Bingo Mr. President. He always seems to be the only grownup in the room. Maybe because he is
ISIL is to Islam as Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.
Gee, youâd almost think the President is a brilliant man who weighs his words with tremendous care, rather than a mouth-shooting yahoo only interested in showing cowboy cred.
Sorry, but the POTUS, while I understand his reasoning, is wrong both in the most foundational sense on this one, but strategically wrong as well. The Atlantic had a very long (but very worthwhile) piece on this very issue the other day:
What ISIS Really Wants
Again, it is a long read, but very, very important for someone to put the effort into reading if they want to understand ISIL and what it is (and is not).
YES! He is right. We do not want this to become a religious war. He must choose his words âvery carefullyâ because he is the leader of the free world. He is not a cable news pundit trying to get ratings for being the most outrageous. Thank you, Mr. President.
âAl Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam. Thatâs why ISIL presumes to declare itself the 'Islamic State.â
Like I said this morning in response ot Bill-Oâs âHoly Warâ nonsense: itâs remarkable how aligned the Faux News/Teatroll narrative is with ISILâs, eh? They are, in fact, telling the same exact story in order to give each other legitimacyâŚitâs symbiotic.
That reminds me of something that occurred very early in his presidency. Some reporter was asking him about the scandal du jour( I wish I could remember what the issue was exactly) and he said he had no comment yet. The reporter pressed, and he told them he had no comment because he actually liked to know what he was talking about before he gave his opinion.
But we donât want to step into the trap of making their quest Islam vs. Christianity. In that regard, it doesnât ,matter what ISIL/ISIS wants, they donât get to have it.
This sounds reasonable and logical, but Iâm going to reserve judgement until Bill Maher weighs in with his opinion on how this issue affects Bill Maherâs ego and sense of identity.
You really need to read The Atlantic piece.
And then after reading The Atlantic piece people should read criticisms of The Atlantic piece, just for the sake of a broader understanding of this complex issue.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/18/3624121/atlantic-gets-dangerously-wrong-isis-islam/
(As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an âuncircumcised geezer.â)
But what about Kerryâs dick? Whoâs gonna check that fact? Funny how the Tea People and ISIL are both pelvis-obsessed.
Does the rhetoric of this bumper sticker bother people, or do we all understand the point of denying the âreligious rightâ or âchristian rightâ the term they claim for themselves? I understand why this type of rhetorical device would offend those that practice fundamentalism or literalism. Iâm just shocked when people that purportedly reject fundamentalism or literalism, seem to take issue when people refuse to take ISILâs fundamentalism (or the âreligious rightâ) literally.
Reading it now.
But we donât have to accept their visions/definitions as reality. The fundie Christianists want end times too and their support of Israel is totally based on that, but that is not what US foreign policy should be about.
Not everybody agrees with The Atlantic
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/18/3624121/atlantic-gets-dangerously-wrong-isis-islam/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&elq=eloquaâŚtypeâemailfieldâŚsyntaxârecipientid&elqCampaignId=eloquaâŚtypeâcampaignâŚcampaignidâ0âŚfieldnameâid
You beat me too it. And since when is The Atlantic the last word
Letâs face it. Our Media/Press whatever they are, are idiots. They arenât used to such a brilliant president. They were used to dealing with GWB for 8 years
Also, one is not ignorant of the situation because one hasnât read an article in the Atlantic.
This paragraph makes no sense:
But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with
theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops
directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops
aloneâunless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which
case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.
OK, I read the article and donât see where your statement holds up. Fanatic Islamic scholars who cloak themselves in theological postulates 1,500 years old. As a Christian analogy, if a modern group of Ultra-Orthodox Christians started spewing Arianism from pre-First Council of Nicaea and began beheading everyone who wasnât them (like the original Arians did), that wouldnât make them Christians. No more than Il Duce was the secessor to Rome, regardless of what he wanted to cloak himself in.