Thursday, January 15, 2015

You Can't Have It Both Ways President Obama

Obama and his administration have gone out of their way to tell us that the terrorist attacks are not done by Muslims.   He says they couldn't be done by Muslims because Islam is a peaceful religion and no real Muslim would commit such an act.

Okay, then why the hell should we close Gitmo?   If those terrorists held in Gitmo are not Muslims, how the hell can that be a recruiting tool for other Muslims to commit acts of terror, since acts of terror are not being done by Muslims?

Also, president Obama, how can you say that defaming the prophet of Islam, in a satirical cartoon or in a You Tube video, inflames Muslims to commit acts of terror that you are also saying they don't commit?

"The future does not belong to those who defame [my] the prophet of Islam."
Also, think about this.  If the terrorists aren't Muslims, like you say Mr. President, then how would demeaning the prophet of Islam inflame terrorists to commit acts of terror, because we would be "demeaning" the prophet of a religion that they don't hold?  [according to you]

From Red Flag News, In a speech in Washington, D.C., on November 17, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "terror will ultimately be rejected because it is at odds with Islam."   What?

Wait a second, if the terrorists aren't Islamic like the Obama administration says, then what does it matter if terror is ultimately rejected by Islam?  Kerry might have well have said "terror will ultimately be rejected because it is at odds with Judaism or because it is at odds with Christianity."

If Secretary of State and president Obama actually believe that terrorists are not Muslims, then the fact that terror is rejected by Islam would have nothing to do whether in the future there are terrorist attacks or not.  Because, as you would say president Obama, it wouldn't be Muslims who would be doing those acts of terror.

Also, another point.  Why did Secretary Kerry say that terror will ultimately be rejected by Islam?  I thought according to you and the Obama administration, it already is rejected by the "peaceful" religion of Islam [and Muslims].

"Terror will be ultimately rejected by Islam" -Wait, I thought it already was.
Also, on the beheading of the American journalist, James Foley, by [ISIS] the Islamic state, according to Red Flag News  Secretary of State said: "ISIS is an ugly insult to the peaceful religion of Islam."  So, by implication, the members of ISIS could not possibly be Muslims because the religion that real Muslims follow is a peaceful one.  

You can't have it both ways  Mr. Obama.  You can't say that Muslims aren't the ones committing the terrorist attacks, but on the other hand, if we do something to offend Muslims it could spark terrorism.

Those are mutually exclusive propositions.
There would be nothing wrong if president Obama were to say that "not all Muslims are terrorists".  No clear headed thinking person could believe otherwise. 

But that is not what the president is doing.  What president Obama is doing by his rhetoric is implying that NO MUSLIMS are terrorists.

And no clear headed thinking person could believe that, either.

Now if the president had said "these terrorists have as much to do with the religion of Islam as I do", I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the truth of that statement. 

No comments: