Tag Archives: Isis

Obama responds to Islamic State terrorism by saying Christians are just as bad

In the past I blogged about four myths about the Crusades, but for our purposes, the most important is that the Crusades at least started out as defensive reactions to the conquest of Western lands by Islam.

Anyway, here’s a reaction to Obama’s moral equivalence from Investors Business Daily.

First, what Obama did:

In remarks at a prayer meeting Thursday, President Obama implied Christianity, just like Islam, is filled with people who “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.” This is the progressive disease of moral equivalence at its worst.

In recent days and weeks, the world has watched grimly as the horrific barbarity of fundamentalist Islam has been put on full display.

With routine beheadings, crucifixions, tortures, mass killings of civilians, burying children alive, and, most recently, burning a prisoner alive and filming his death agony to the approving yells of onlookers, it’s clear something is horribly wrong within Islam.

And yet, apart from rather routine denunciations of the savagery, Obama used his appearance at a National Prayer Breakfast to upbraid Christians for their sins.

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

They write:

The remarks aren’t merely insulting. They betray a deep ignorance of Western Judeo-Christian culture and its history.

No one claims Christians haven’t done terrible things, some in the name of religion. But this is a straw-man argument.

Obama, for instance, talks of the Crusades. But far from being about conquest, the Crusades were a counter-reaction to the Muslim jihad that swept Christian lands in the Mideast, North Africa, Spain and Balkans.

Nothing less than Western civilization was at stake. Not much has changed today.

According to Open Doors USA’s World Watch List for 2015, “Approximately 100 million Christians are persecuted worldwide, making them one of the most persecuted religious groups in the world.”

And who are the persecutors? “Islamic extremism is the main source of persecution in 40 of the 50 countries” that make up Open Doors USA’s watch list, the report says.

Meanwhile, how are Muslims in the West treated? With visas, welfare, legal protection, even special speech codes to protect their religious sensibilities, along with copious apologies by people such as Obama. Even terrorists at Gitmo are given Halal meals, prayer mats and Qurans.

Obama’s done this before. In a speech in Cairo in 2009, he also suggested the Christian West had much to answer for.

In point of fact, the West’s Judeo-Christian heritage has led to tolerance, justice, women’s rights and the abolition of slavery.

Neither slavery nor Jim Crow laws were “justified” by the U.S. Christian mainstream. Indeed, as history shows, Christians were the driving force behind the anti-slavery movement in the U.S. But slavery is still found in the Muslim Mideast and Africa.

Terrorist murderers won’t be appeased by Obama’s cringe-worthy remarks. They’ll be encouraged. As such, they aren’t merely wrong — they’re dangerous.

I’ve noticed this “reasoning” that Obama is employing before when discussing social issues with feminists. I produce facts showing that children are least likely to be abused when they grow up with their own parents in a married home. And they say that there exists some child who was abused by his married parents. As if the existence of one counterexample negates the probabilities or the relative frequencies in different situations. What Obama is really saying is this “because you defended yourself from Muslim conquerors 900 years ago, that justifies kidnapping underage girls into sex slavery after you murder their parents in front of them”. Should we have elected a President who is incapable of basic reasoning about history and about ethics? Well, we did.

Is Obama’s portrait of the state of the world realistic or delusional?

CNS News compares Obama’s words to reality.

Excerpt:

President Obama is “living in a dream world” if he believes the U.S. is “stopping ISIL’s advance” in Iraq and Syria, says former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Obama said: “In Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping ISIL’s advance.  Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism.”

[…]”I think the ISIS threat is growing,” Bolton continued. “They have consolidated control over the territory. They have seized, going back a year now, a year since they took Fallujah, seven months since they took Mosul. And they see weakness on the American side. They think it’s winning support among colleagues in the region.”

Bolton disagreed with Obama’s assertion that the U.S.-led coalition is stopping ISIL’s advance with air strikes.

“No,” he said. “The president is living in a dream world. The fact is, we have no effective way of containing ISIS.”

Bolton said terrorist groups in North Africa, the Middle East, and as far away as Afghanistan and Pakistan are beginning to declare loyalty to ISIS.

“I think moderate Arab regimes in the region, the king of Jordan, the oil-producing monarchies of the Iranians Peninsula, are in fear of what ISIS will do. The president’s notion that we have got opportunities is belied by the continued Iranian progress towards a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. The Middle East is descending into chaos and we are watching.”

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told MSNBC on Wednesday morning that Obama “is living in a make-believe world when it comes to our national security.”

Cotton, like Bolton, disagrees that the U.S.-led coalition is stopping ISIS/ISIL’s advance: “That’s simply not the case,” Cotton told “Morning Joe.” “We may have arrested their progress somewhat in Iraq, but you don’t win the war on defense — you win on offense.”

Cotton also mentioned Yemen, cited by Obama just four months ago as an example of a successful counter-terrorism strategy. But Yemen’s government is now dealing with an apparently successful coup attempt.

Powerline blog describes a few more crises Obama failed to speak about accurately. We have problems with Iran continuing their progress towards nuclear weapons. Russia has occupied Crimea and continues to attack targets in Ukraine using regular Russian troops. In Yemen, Shia rebels are attempting a coup against the president, and the U.S. Navy is heading there to evacuate the U.S. embassy if necessary.

Meanwhile, Obama assures us that the real threat we should be worried about is global warming.

CNS News again:

Not radical Muslim terrorism, not an unsecured border, not an ever-growing federal debt that now exceeds $18 trillion, not the fact that 109 million live in households on federal welfare programs. These are not the greatest threats facing us today.

“No challenge–no challenge–poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night.

That’s the top priority of the Democrat party.

Are people on the left really concerned about the basic rights of women?

Feminists teach young women in the West a lot about all the evils of men and western society. Christianity is evil. Capitalism is evil. Men are all out to get women and take away their salaries and birth control and abortion rights. And Western men are all rapists. Feminists have defined rape so low now that even unwanted kisses are rape. It sure sounds like they are really concerned about women, right? The Western liberal media certainly talks a lot about the “War on Women” when it’s election time.

Well, consider this story from Newsbusters.

Excerpt: (links removed)

This is the real “War on Women.”

Iraqi News reported Nov. 3 on an ISIS document that supposedly listed the prices at which to sell Yazidi and Christian women and children abducted by the terrorist group. Citing economic reasons, ISIS listed the worth of a young woman at $85, of girl at $128, of a child – as young as a year old – at $171. Only a few media outlets covered the story. The feminist media didn’t , maybe because free contraceptives weren’t at issue.

Translating the ISIS document, the news site revealed, “The market to sell women and spoils of war has been experiencing a significant decrease, which has adversely affected ISIS revenue and financing of the Mujahideen.”

In response, the group determined specific prices for women and children, while “vowing to execute whoever violates those controls.” This is the worth of a human life, according to ISIS:

  • A woman, 40 to 50-years-old: 50,000 dinars. ($42.90)
  • A woman, 30 to 40-years-old: 75,000 dinars. ($64.35)
  • A woman, 20 to 30-years-old: 100,000 dinars. ($85.80)
  • A girl, 10 to 20-years-old: 150,000 dinars. ($128.70)
  • A child, 1 to 9-years-old: 200,000 dinars. ($171.60)

New York Post, Daily Mail, RT, International Business Times, Opposing Views and Christianity Today are among the few outlets to report on the story.

[…]In reaction, Tearfund’s Katie Harrison told Christianity Today about the “the hasty marriage ceremonies between buyer and the woman they’ve bought in order to justify his raping her.”

“And these are not just grown women,” Harrison said. “The youngest girl we heard of being taken for rape was three years old.”

This is the war on women the media don’t report on. Instead, feminist media prefer a “silly” war, where the goals are to ban the word “bossy,” demand free tampons and label abortion as “good” and “moral.”

You’d think, at the very least, they would find time for this too.

Slavery is only a problem for Democrats if it is being used to bash white people from hundreds of years ago. It’s not something that causes them concern today. They just bring up slavery because they want “reparations” for themselves today. They don’t care if slavery is actually going on now to other people. Not their problem.

Now I can’t prove this, but I am willing to bet that all of these Sandra Fluke feminists vote Democrat, which means that they were in favor of withdrawing from the Middle East and letting the Islamists win. So how do they work that together with their supposed concern for women? Oh, I know. They don’t have concern for women, they have a concern for getting as much stuff as possible from others as they can. They care more about getting free abortion drugs for themselves than they do about these Yazidis being protected from rape. Or even about unborn women children. (Oh yes, feminists favor sex-selection abortions). That’s feminism, I guess.