Obama still claiming that the shootings in Paris were “random” and not the work of muslim extremists.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Obama still claiming that the shootings in Paris were “random” and not the work of muslim extremists.
He actually stated that “violent, vicious zealots” were responsible for “beheadings” and " the random shooting of a Paris Deli." He then said U.S. couterterrorism should be “vigilant and aggressive”. The only error he made was referring to the attack at the Kosher grocery store as random, which it wasn’t.
Conversation on February 10, 2015:
Sasha: Dad, Malia punched me in the face.
Obama: Sasha, let’s not forget that on 21 March 2006, you stepped on Malia’s toe.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Conversation on February 10, 2015:
Sasha: Dad, Malia punched me in the face.
Obama: Sasha, let’s not forget that on 21 March 1284, one of your ancestors fought in the Aragonese Crusades injuring one of your mothers ancestors.[/quote]
I made a little adjustment…
[quote]Bismark wrote:
“the random shooting of a Paris Deli.” [/quote]
He knew it was an act of muslim extremists…killing Jews in a Kosher deli.
And yet he refused to call it out as such.
Also refused to go to Paris with the 40+ other world leaders to denounce muslim extremism.
Why do you suppose that is?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
“the random shooting of a Paris Deli.” [/quote]
He knew it was an act of muslim extremists…killing Jews in a Kosher deli.
And yet he refused to call it out as such.
Also refused to go to Paris with the 40+ other world leaders to denounce muslim extremism.
Why do you suppose that is?
[/quote]
Dude, it wasn’t “Jews” it was “a bunch of folks” in a deli at “random”. Get it right.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
“the random shooting of a Paris Deli.” [/quote]
He knew it was an act of muslim extremists…killing Jews in a Kosher deli.
And yet he refused to call it out as such.
Also refused to go to Paris with the 40+ other world leaders to denounce muslim extremism.
Why do you suppose that is?
[/quote]
Dude, it wasn’t “Jews” it was “a bunch of folks” in a deli at “random”. Get it right.[/quote]
It just boggles the mind…Does ISIS have some nooods of him and Hillary stashed someplace?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The only error he made was referring to the attack at the Kosher grocery store as random, which it wasn’t. [/quote]
If by “error” you mean, Calculated Political Newspeak, then, yes I agree.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Conversation on February 10, 2015:
Sasha: Dad, Malia punched me in the face.
Obama: Sasha, let’s not forget that on 21 March 2006, you stepped on Malia’s toe.[/quote]
It’s just as moronic in this context too, lol.
He is literally the King of Assholes. fuck
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Why do you suppose that is?
[/quote]
Because he is the most divisive pres. of all time, and generally speaking a complete fucking asshole.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Muslim thought regarding Christ was taken largely from the Gnostic texts since a lot of them did not believe Christ was a real being and he did not actually die on the cross (see the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter for example).
also see this: it explains Gnostic duality and also some of what you said Muslims believe above:
You might consider Gnostics Christians but they had a different cosmology and do not believe the same as Christians today.
For example, how many Christians today do you know who believe in Barbelo? How many even know who Barbelo is?
All I can say is Christianity went through a lot of changes in 700 years. Muslims have been fighting the same war for over 1300.[/quote]
Christianity went through a lot of changes due to the secularisation of society following the Enlightenment, which resulted in a diminishment of political power for the clergy.
One might congratulate an eighty-year-old rapist for not having raped a woman in the last three decades, but one should consider that one reason for this may just be that he’s been impotent for at least that long.
The odds against Islam ever undergoing a similar secularisation and Enlightenment are at least as slim as they were for Christianity in the 14th century, but if it ever happens, then I think that Islam will evolve into a faith very much like another Abrahamic religion that was birthed in blood and iron and conquest and intolerance and meticulous adherence to a multitude of what we might now consider barbaric, misogynistic and ridiculous laws, but is now all about peace and understanding and social justice.
[/quote]
Eh, not really. The basic tenets of the Christianity haven’t changed since apostolic times. Does that mean that people haven’t done wrong, but it’s core beliefs haven’t changed. Practices may have, but core beliefs no.
…
Here’s what bothers me about mein furor’s prayer breakfast speech. He doesn’t consider the action of Muslim extremists to even be mulsim at all, therefore his call out of the Crusades and the Spanish inquisition indicts the violence of Christians in the name of Christ, but the jihadists aren’t islamic.
His history is lacking.
Somehow this myth got started that the Muslims of yore were all peaceful and enlightened, while barbarically taking over lands and enslaving the people. Ironically the fight of the Crusades is the same then as it is now, to release people from enlightened, kind hearted Muslim oppression in the Holy Land?
Was it a religious war? You bet. Was it bloody? Sure as shit was. But the fight was the same then as it is now.
Who has changed and grown? It sure as shit ain’t the muslims.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Muslim thought regarding Christ was taken largely from the Gnostic texts since a lot of them did not believe Christ was a real being and he did not actually die on the cross (see the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter for example).
also see this: it explains Gnostic duality and also some of what you said Muslims believe above:
You might consider Gnostics Christians but they had a different cosmology and do not believe the same as Christians today.
For example, how many Christians today do you know who believe in Barbelo? How many even know who Barbelo is?
All I can say is Christianity went through a lot of changes in 700 years. Muslims have been fighting the same war for over 1300.[/quote]
Christianity went through a lot of changes due to the secularisation of society following the Enlightenment, which resulted in a diminishment of political power for the clergy.
One might congratulate an eighty-year-old rapist for not having raped a woman in the last three decades, but one should consider that one reason for this may just be that he’s been impotent for at least that long.
The odds against Islam ever undergoing a similar secularisation and Enlightenment are at least as slim as they were for Christianity in the 14th century, but if it ever happens, then I think that Islam will evolve into a faith very much like another Abrahamic religion that was birthed in blood and iron and conquest and intolerance and meticulous adherence to a multitude of what we might now consider barbaric, misogynistic and ridiculous laws, but is now all about peace and understanding and social justice.
[/quote]
Eh, not really. The basic tenets of the Christianity haven’t changed since apostolic times. Does that mean that people haven’t done wrong, but it’s core beliefs haven’t changed. Practices may have, but core beliefs no.
…
Here’s what bothers me about mein furor’s prayer breakfast speech. He doesn’t consider the action of Muslim extremists to even be mulsim at all, therefore his call out of the Crusades and the Spanish inquisition indicts the violence of Christians in the name of Christ, but the jihadists aren’t islamic.
His history is lacking.
Somehow this myth got started that the Muslims of yore were all peaceful and enlightened, while barbarically taking over lands and enslaving the people. Ironically the fight of the Crusades is the same then as it is now, to release people from enlightened, kind hearted Muslim oppression in the Holy Land?
Was it a religious war? You bet. Was it bloody? Sure as shit was. But the fight was the same then as it is now.
Who has changed and grown? It sure as shit ain’t the muslims. [/quote]
Again, I was referring to the practice of Christianity that has changed in the last 700 years, not its basic tenets. One behaves differently when one commands international military might and political power than when one does not. The Swiss Guards may be tough and all, but I don’t see them parachuting into Baghdad anytime soon.
[quote]pat wrote:
Somehow this myth got started that the Muslims of yore were all peaceful and enlightened, while barbarically taking over lands and enslaving the people.[/quote]
Once they did conquer most of the Middle East and North Africa, they most certainly became more accepting of other cultures than Christians were.
Power is what matters, not the core tenets or the ideals. Those only matter for the fanatics, but how many of those are there to begin with?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Interesting comments Varq, the last time the Russians marched against the Muslims with the goal of taking back Constantinople & reuniting the Orthodox, the West stopped them. That’s pretty much why Russia had places like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan under it’s rule at one time. To do what you are saying, they would have to re-take all of these areas and are doing it with negotiations and treaties instead of force like they are using in Ukraine. Not saying it’s not possible though. Interesting thoughts.
Can you imagine if they had taken Turkey or the Ottoman Empire which was their goal at the time. This would have given them a vast empire and several warm water ports. Come the Communist Revolution and they would have ruled the world. There would have been no stopping them. What do you think Varq? [/quote]
I had a chill upon reading these posts, which started as an idle musing that the Crimean War was in many ways a dress rehearsal for the first World War…
And then it hit me. If Russia had won in the Crimean War and taken Constantinople, there likely would have been no First World War, because no Ottoman Empire to oppress the Serbs in Herzegovina, which means no administration of Sarajevo by Austria-Hungary, so no Archduke Ferdinand being assassinated.
No First World War means no Communist Revolution, meaning no disaffected German corporal seizing power in reaction to a communist takeover in his own country. Meaning no World War II, and ergo no Holocaust. So no mass exodus of the European Jewry, just maybe a trickle to Jerusalem, which would be under the jurisdiction and protection of the Russian Orthodox Church.
No World War I also means no Lawrence of Arabia, which means no shady back-room deals between Britain and the Hashemite Bedouins for the spoils of the defunct Ottoman Empire… which would be owned by Russia anyway! No Wahhabis controlling Mecca.
And then I thought of all that petroleum that Russia would have, and all of those ports on the Mediterranean and the Arabian Gulf…
Yeah, they’d rule the world. And no world wars means no American war machine to oppose them.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is a butterfly-effect alternate history of a magnitude I haven’t considered since I hypothetically asked “what if the Greeks had had gunpowder during the Persian Wars?” those many years ago.
Let me think about this some more. Intriguing!
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Obama still claiming that the shootings in Paris were “random” and not the work of muslim extremists.
[/quote]
He actually stated that “violent, vicious zealots” were responsible for “beheadings” and " the random shooting of a Paris Deli." He then said U.S. couterterrorism should be “vigilant and aggressive”. The only error he made was referring to the attack at the Kosher grocery store as random, which it wasn’t. [/quote]
This is a transcript of reporters questioning Jen Psaki at the State Department and Obama’s spokesperson Jay Carney:
Reporter: Does this administration really think that the victims of this attack were not singled out because of their faith?
Psaki: Well, I believe if I remember the victims were specifically - they were not of victims of one background or one nationality.
Yes, they were. They were all Jews and the killer has since stated he was specifically looking for Jews to kill. That’s why he went to a kosher deli. Let’s continue…
Reporter: Does the administration believe this was an anti-Jewish attack; an attack on the Jewish community in Paris?
Psaki: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe the situation was…
Reporter: But if someone targets a kosher supermarket and starts shooting it up he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?
Psaki: Well again, I think it’s relevant that the people shopping there and working in the store…
Reporter: Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher store? I mean an attacker going into a store that’s identified with one particular faith…I’m just not sure how you can say this wasn’t a targeted attack…
Psaki: I just don’t have more for you Matt it’s an issue for the French government…
And Josh Earnest:
Reporter: This was not a “random” shooting of a “bunch of folks” in a deli in Paris. This was an attack on a kosher deli. Does the President have any doubt that they attacked that deli because there would be Jews in that deli?
Earnest: Well it’s clear from the writings that they put out afterwards what their motivation was. The adverb that the President chose was used to indicate that the individuals who were killed in that terrible, tragic incident were killed not because of who they were but because of where they randomly happened to be.
Reporter: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli? A kosher deli?
Earnest: These individuals were not targeted by name.
Reporter: They weren’t targeted by name but they were targeted by religion were they not?
Earnest: Well John, there were people other than just Jews who were at that deli…
Reporter: But weren’t they targeting a kosher…
Earnest: No, John. No. I answered that question once.
Are you really going to defend this? How about you smh? Seriously, are you going to defend this shit? Is there any doubt in your mind whatsoever that Obama’s spokesperson and Kerry’s spokesperson were instructed not to say this was an attack on Jews and not to say who the perpetrators were?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No First World War means no Communist Revolution, meaning no disaffected German corporal seizing power in reaction to a communist takeover in his own country.
[/quote]
You don’t think a communist revolution could have occurred in Russia through other means or events?
Perhaps taking Constantinople and the Black Sea basin would have overextended Russia greatly and just accelerate the collapse? Or perhaps Germany and Austria would have seen Russia as a threat and find a reason to fight a war, leading roughly to the same issues that toppled Russia in the first place.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Obama still claiming that the shootings in Paris were “random” and not the work of muslim extremists.
[/quote]
He actually stated that “violent, vicious zealots” were responsible for “beheadings” and " the random shooting of a Paris Deli." He then said U.S. couterterrorism should be “vigilant and aggressive”. The only error he made was referring to the attack at the Kosher grocery store as random, which it wasn’t. [/quote]
This is a transcript of reporters questioning Jen Psaki at the State Department and Obama’s spokesperson Jay Carney:
Reporter: Does this administration really think that the victims of this attack were not singled out because of their faith?
Psaki: Well, I believe if I remember the victims were specifically - they were not of victims of one background or one nationality.
Yes, they were. They were all Jews and the killer has since stated he was specifically looking for Jews to kill. That’s why he went to a kosher deli. Let’s continue…
Reporter: Does the administration believe this was an anti-Jewish attack; an attack on the Jewish community in Paris?
Psaki: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe the situation was…
Reporter: But if someone targets a kosher supermarket and starts shooting it up he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?
Psaki: Well again, I think it’s relevant that the people shopping there and working in the store…
Reporter: Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher store? I mean an attacker going into a store that’s identified with one particular faith…I’m just not sure how you can say this wasn’t a targeted attack…
Psaki: I just don’t have more for you Matt it’s an issue for the French government…
And Josh Earnest:
Reporter: This was not a “random” shooting of a “bunch of folks” in a deli in Paris. This was an attack on a kosher deli. Does the President have any doubt that they attacked that deli because there would be Jews in that deli?
Earnest: Well it’s clear from the writings that they put out afterwards what their motivation was. The adverb that the President chose was used to indicate that the individuals who were killed in that terrible, tragic incident were killed not because of who they were but because of where they randomly happened to be.
Reporter: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli? A kosher deli?
Earnest: These individuals were not targeted by name.
Reporter: They weren’t targeted by name but they were targeted by religion were they not?
Earnest: Well John, there were people other than just Jews who were at that deli…
Reporter: But weren’t they targeting a kosher…
Earnest: No, John. No. I answered that question once.
Are you really going to defend this? How about you smh? Seriously, are you going to defend this shit? Is there any doubt in your mind whatsoever that Obama’s spokesperson and Kerry’s spokesperson were instructed not to say this was an attack on Jews and not to say who the perpetrators were?[/quote]
Why does this matter, again? Are we just looking for another piece of evidence demonstrating that the president is a douchebag?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No First World War means no Communist Revolution, meaning no disaffected German corporal seizing power in reaction to a communist takeover in his own country.
[/quote]
You don’t think a communist revolution could have occurred in Russia through other means or events?[/quote]
Not for a moment.
Without the eight and a half MILLION casualties suffered by Russia in the First World War, there wouldn’t have been as great an impetus to revolt against the Tsar.
A threat to what? The Russians would be advancing south, away from the German and the Austrian-Hungarian empires, who had no legitimate claims on any of the lands held by the Turks at the time.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Obama still claiming that the shootings in Paris were “random” and not the work of muslim extremists.
[/quote]
He actually stated that “violent, vicious zealots” were responsible for “beheadings” and " the random shooting of a Paris Deli." He then said U.S. couterterrorism should be “vigilant and aggressive”. The only error he made was referring to the attack at the Kosher grocery store as random, which it wasn’t. [/quote]
This is a transcript of reporters questioning Jen Psaki at the State Department and Obama’s spokesperson Jay Carney:
Reporter: Does this administration really think that the victims of this attack were not singled out because of their faith?
Psaki: Well, I believe if I remember the victims were specifically - they were not of victims of one background or one nationality.
Yes, they were. They were all Jews and the killer has since stated he was specifically looking for Jews to kill. That’s why he went to a kosher deli. Let’s continue…
Reporter: Does the administration believe this was an anti-Jewish attack; an attack on the Jewish community in Paris?
Psaki: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe the situation was…
Reporter: But if someone targets a kosher supermarket and starts shooting it up he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?
Psaki: Well again, I think it’s relevant that the people shopping there and working in the store…
Reporter: Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher store? I mean an attacker going into a store that’s identified with one particular faith…I’m just not sure how you can say this wasn’t a targeted attack…
Psaki: I just don’t have more for you Matt it’s an issue for the French government…
And Josh Earnest:
Reporter: This was not a “random” shooting of a “bunch of folks” in a deli in Paris. This was an attack on a kosher deli. Does the President have any doubt that they attacked that deli because there would be Jews in that deli?
Earnest: Well it’s clear from the writings that they put out afterwards what their motivation was. The adverb that the President chose was used to indicate that the individuals who were killed in that terrible, tragic incident were killed not because of who they were but because of where they randomly happened to be.
Reporter: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli? A kosher deli?
Earnest: These individuals were not targeted by name.
Reporter: They weren’t targeted by name but they were targeted by religion were they not?
Earnest: Well John, there were people other than just Jews who were at that deli…
Reporter: But weren’t they targeting a kosher…
Earnest: No, John. No. I answered that question once.
Are you really going to defend this? How about you smh? Seriously, are you going to defend this shit? Is there any doubt in your mind whatsoever that Obama’s spokesperson and Kerry’s spokesperson were instructed not to say this was an attack on Jews and not to say who the perpetrators were?[/quote]
Why does this matter, again? Are we just looking for another piece of evidence demonstrating that the president is a douchebag?[/quote]
But he’s not just a “douchebag”. He’s a radical. He’s an extremist. Frankly, he’s the kind of guy who should be on an FBI watch list like his mentor Frank Marshall Davis. This is what I’ve been trying to explain to otherwise intelligent people like smh for yonks now. But they just don’t get it. They think he’s just a run of the mill, left of centre Democrat. He’s not. He’s a hardcore Commie for Christ’s sake!
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Not for a moment.
Without the eight and a half MILLION casualties suffered by Russia in the First World War, there wouldn’t have been as great an impetus to revolt against the Tsar.
[/quote]
You realise of course the Bolshevik revolution was set off by Ludendorff and the German General Staff right? After the failed Spring offensive of 1916 they put Lenin on a private train from Switzerland to St Petersburg to start an uprising.