Obama calls French shooting 'cowardly evil attacks'

[arjunadawn]

"Obama calls French shooting "cowardly evil attack" Really?? Remember when Obama said, "The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam." The terrorist who murdered these people in France also believed "the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."

There are those who rightly point out that Obama's UN speech actually contained further commentary which provides greater context; it does. However, his above statement stands out either singularly or as part of the larger context, and is outrageous. The context of the larger speech does not change this fact. If we are told we require the rest of his speech to add context then why not look at the body of speeches for context, starting with Egypt, where the president groveled and minimized America to his audience while demanding of Mubarak special accommodation and front row seating to the Muslim Brotherhood, then an illegal and banned terrorist organization in Egypt. Yes, context is important but somethings are not clarified by context.

This president, just like many muslim leaders, speaks to two audiences- the west and the islamic world. It is emphatically clear that the statement the "future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam" cannot be mitigated by additional context. No context can clarify it. This is an utterly outrageous statement because concurrent with the speech is the background blasphemy laws being pushed in Europe and the UN by the Islamic Conference. This statement is a direct assault on free speech. This statement singularly sets the islamic prophet apart from other religious icons as deserving special consideration and deferment. This statement indirectly adds ammo to the weaponry of those who plot massacres such as the one in France. This statement, in alone or as part of a speech, is teased out by the jihadists in any event and provides succor to those who see divine support as they choose. It is hardly a stretch to connect such a speech to such an act- they are simply "tagged" as the same topic.

This statement indirectly adds ammo to the weaponry of those who plot massacres such as the one in France. This statement, in alone or as part of a speech, is teased out by the jihadists in any event and provides succor to those who see divine support as they choose. It is hardly a stretch to connect such a speech to such an act- they are simply "tagged" as the same topic.

One can't quite be confident as to which might concern you more, the jihadists or the people of your own society, culture, civilization, of whom you disapprove and with whom you might disagree. Or perhaps the two groups might be equally objectionable to you.

You mean you are not confident which concerns me more? I dot believe I am unclear; verbose perhaps, but consistent. There are people in the western culture who, for the purpose of this point, can be put in two camps: multiculturalist/cultural relativists and those who are more conservative, preferring a nation first policy (the second group doesn't rule out immigration, per se; it just wants the nation state to be what comes first- loyalty and assimilation).

One group has opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration basically reducing borders to... no borders at all while in leadership positions for many years. Multicultural supra courts have impeded states to define their own self interests. Both groups have nearly run the coffers dry and the economies are collapsing are being floated everywhere; the infrastructure of the west in tatters as it searches for a 21st century identity secondary to the massive population shifts changing their demographics, and sadly, values. It is in this weakness, it is within this emptiness that islamic jihad expands; it simply finds its enemy does most of its work for them. It does not of its own accord have supernatural powers, divine mandate, or great tactics. While there is a detailed, unambiguous blueprint for overthrowing countries and installing shar'ia, this alone is not what elevates the threat. It makes its inroads because western cultures are paralyzed to act in their self interest. Years of self loathing and multiculturalism rubbish pushed down the throats of a few generations has the citizens of the west scratching their heads- because what is found on inspection is not fraternity rather it is unbridled hatred and contempt, and now war upon their host, wherever they are.

I do not find the liberal multiculturalists as objectionable as islamic jihad. One predicates their ignorance on a naive desire to help, to serve, to improve life, whereas the other acts their malfeasance to impair, disrupt, sponge, and destroy life. I clearly object to the ideology of hate. I object to books of hate with "cover for status" to protect their contents. I object to intellectual subterfuge where arguments are hijacked by innuendo or ad hominem attacks rather than a hearing on the merit. The west could fumble, stumble, fail, and rise again if left to its own polity. This is not what is happening. There is a third player in the mix now and it has nothing less than the destruction of everything as its aim.

[arjunadawn]

Dear arjun,

It is emphatically clear that the statement the "future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam" cannot be mitigated by additional context.

It is emphatically clear to me that the exact opposite is true. He was making a point about all prejudice and bigotry. Your commentary appears to make valid, rational points. But it comes from your own prejudice of fanatical christianity. You and your ilk hold irrational, medieval and nonsensical views that are a threat to all sensible and peace loving people. If you are offended by this then so be it.

Obama is one of the fairest presidents in history. His inaugural address was the first to recognise the views of atheists. It us to be hope that one day an incumbent if the White House will be elected who is just that, an atheist.

I am not a christian, nor jew, nor muslim, nor have I ever been. It would seem a convenient place for your redoubt, in presuming I am a christian, but it is simply incorrect. In fact, were this point true your remaining comments might have traction, but they don't. Isn't it just possible I really find the issue of vast swarms of people threatening my way of life under the banner of god threatening? Isn't it possible that I too read the scriptures they refer to and find they are correct, they are devout, and that is frightening to me?

How could I possibly be offended by anything you say, especially when we have already established your mistaken in your premise? In any event, to associate my views as a threat to all sensible and peace loving people is just ridiculous; I never espouse violence for a very good reason- its pointless! I accept your point you find my observations primitive but generally, I don't think that is a fair statement. I try to be open minded and when invited to consider a point with evidence or merit modify my position, even if it is painful. Perhaps a few would concur I do this; I do. No, when you associate a man who opposes medieval barbarism with himself being irrational and primitive then this is simply ad hominem. You cannot demonstrate one place where I am irrational. You cannot truly connect any dots that show me nonsensical.

Obama has enabled more islamic jihad than any single entity in the world today; just ask the Egyptians, or Emirates, or perhaps Libyans, or Tunisians, or even Nigerians. Fair? Oh yes, he is quite fair but it depends on which side of the wadi you stand on.

The idea that my fear of what amounts to a daily global war is itself irrational says more about you then me. If you want to offend me let me make it easy:

I respond poorly to my weakness that I talk too much, I am verbose, I lose people in my commentary, or a woman rejects me in bed. If you bring those things to the table, I might be offended. So, now you are armed. But christian? The only reason I don't equally slam them is they are not killing everyone.

[Publicus]

"Obama calls French shooting "cowardly evil attack" Really?? Remember when Obama said, "The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam." The terrorist who murdered these people in France also believed "the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."

There are those who rightly point out that Obama's UN speech actually contained further commentary which provides greater context; it does. However, his above statement stands out either singularly or as part of the larger context, and is outrageous. The context of the larger speech does not change this fact. If we are told we require the rest of his speech to add context then why not look at the body of speeches for context, starting with Egypt, where the president groveled and minimized America to his audience while demanding of Mubarak special accommodation and front row seating to the Muslim Brotherhood, then an illegal and banned terrorist organization in Egypt. Yes, context is important but somethings are not clarified by context.

This president, just like many muslim leaders, speaks to two audiences- the west and the islamic world. It is emphatically clear that the statement the "future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam" cannot be mitigated by additional context. No context can clarify it. This is an utterly outrageous statement because concurrent with the speech is the background blasphemy laws being pushed in Europe and the UN by the Islamic Conference. This statement is a direct assault on free speech. This statement singularly sets the islamic prophet apart from other religious icons as deserving special consideration and deferment. This statement indirectly adds ammo to the weaponry of those who plot massacres such as the one in France. This statement, in alone or as part of a speech, is teased out by the jihadists in any event and provides succor to those who see divine support as they choose. It is hardly a stretch to connect such a speech to such an act- they are simply "tagged" as the same topic.

This statement indirectly adds ammo to the weaponry of those who plot massacres such as the one in France. This statement, in alone or as part of a speech, is teased out by the jihadists in any event and provides succor to those who see divine support as they choose. It is hardly a stretch to connect such a speech to such an act- they are simply "tagged" as the same topic.

One can't quite be confident as to which might concern you more, the jihadists or the people of your own society, culture, civilization, of whom you disapprove and with whom you might disagree. Or perhaps the two groups might be equally objectionable to you.

You mean you are not confident which concerns me more? I dot believe I am unclear; verbose perhaps, but consistent. There are people in the western culture who, for the purpose of this point, can be put in two camps: multiculturalist/cultural relativists and those who are more conservative, preferring a nation first policy (the second group doesn't rule out immigration, per se; it just wants the nation state to be what comes first- loyalty and assimilation).

One group has opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration basically reducing borders to... no borders at all while in leadership positions for many years. Multicultural supra courts have impeded states to define their own self interests. Both groups have nearly run the coffers dry and the economies are collapsing are being floated everywhere; the infrastructure of the west in tatters as it searches for a 21st century identity secondary to the massive population shifts changing their demographics, and sadly, values. It is in this weakness, it is within this emptiness that islamic jihad expands; it simply finds its enemy does most of its work for them. It does not of its own accord have supernatural powers, divine mandate, or great tactics. While there is a detailed, unambiguous blueprint for overthrowing countries and installing shar'ia, this alone is not what elevates the threat. It makes its inroads because western cultures are paralyzed to act in their self interest. Years of self loathing and multiculturalism rubbish pushed down the throats of a few generations has the citizens of the west scratching their heads- because what is found on inspection is not fraternity rather it is unbridled hatred and contempt, and now war upon their host, wherever they are.

I do not find the liberal multiculturalists as objectionable as islamic jihad. One predicates their ignorance on a naive desire to help, to serve, to improve life, whereas the other acts their malfeasance to impair, disrupt, sponge, and destroy life. I clearly object to the ideology of hate. I object to books of hate with "cover for status" to protect their contents. I object to intellectual subterfuge where arguments are hijacked by innuendo or ad hominem attacks rather than a hearing on the merit. The west could fumble, stumble, fail, and rise again if left to its own polity. This is not what is happening. There is a third player in the mix now and it has nothing less than the destruction of everything as its aim.

There are no immigration "flood gates" as you allege and immigration is not uncontrolled. To think otherwise is a delusion. Congress has spent the past 40+ years rewriting immigration laws, and presidents from LBJ through Reagan and Bush the father, Bush the son, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama have taken measures to regulate and control immigration.

Multiculturalists are not motivated by "self loathing," so you might want to take that one off your list of artificial and manufactured terms. US immigration policy over the past few generations has as its goal a transforming of the United States to be more representative of the global population. The United States has necessarily and wisely been moving away from its northern European and British demographic origins to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Western society and civilization are vibrant and ongoing, ever revitalizing, as the instance and example of US inclusive immigration policy attests. Further, the West elevated the market to the level of the nation state and added technology to it. We have globalized the market and its principles and realities so that all of us are, on balance, the better for it.

The West has defeated every attempt to destroy it or to displace it during both war and peace. Jihadists are in fact more fanatical than the Nazis were, or were any of the 20th century fascist movements or governments. The Showa Japanese (1926-45) were the most fanatical 20th century foe of the West but they too were overcome due to their own weaknesses and bad judgements.

Totalitarian communism was repulsed by the West led by the United States, although dictatorship continues to exist in the CCP-PRChina and may continue to exist even after the CCP collapses in an even more spectacular fashion than did the USSR, along with its decrepit economy and state.

The West will continue to prevail. It will defeat Jihad because it we are superior to it. The West is assimilating Muslims, the US is assimilating Latinos, while Russia and China remain exclusive and covetous of their own traditions, culture, society, civilizations. Most Muslims, as with many Christians, read their book then they live their lives in the modern and contemporary world in a considerable peace with it, while moving forward in to the future.

In short, the West is confident as a matter of fact, the rest are not -- and the rest know it.

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory, troll posts and replies removed.

[Bakeman]

If it would have happened in America Obama would have called it work place violence. Go figure.

[arjunadawn]

There are those who rightly point out that Obama's UN speech actually contained further commentary which provides greater context; it does. However, his above statement stands out either singularly or as part of the larger context, and is outrageous. The context of the larger speech does not change this fact. If we are told we require the rest of his speech to add context then why not look at the body of speeches for context, starting with Egypt, where the president groveled and minimized America to his audience while demanding of Mubarak special accommodation and front row seating to the Muslim Brotherhood, then an illegal and banned terrorist organization in Egypt. Yes, context is important but somethings are not clarified by context.

This president, just like many muslim leaders, speaks to two audiences- the west and the islamic world. It is emphatically clear that the statement the "future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam" cannot be mitigated by additional context. No context can clarify it. This is an utterly outrageous statement because concurrent with the speech is the background blasphemy laws being pushed in Europe and the UN by the Islamic Conference. This statement is a direct assault on free speech. This statement singularly sets the islamic prophet apart from other religious icons as deserving special consideration and deferment. This statement indirectly adds ammo to the weaponry of those who plot massacres such as the one in France. This statement, in alone or as part of a speech, is teased out by the jihadists in any event and provides succor to those who see divine support as they choose. It is hardly a stretch to connect such a speech to such an act- they are simply "tagged" as the same topic.

This statement indirectly adds ammo to the weaponry of those who plot massacres such as the one in France. This statement, in alone or as part of a speech, is teased out by the jihadists in any event and provides succor to those who see divine support as they choose. It is hardly a stretch to connect such a speech to such an act- they are simply "tagged" as the same topic.

One can't quite be confident as to which might concern you more, the jihadists or the people of your own society, culture, civilization, of whom you disapprove and with whom you might disagree. Or perhaps the two groups might be equally objectionable to you.

You mean you are not confident which concerns me more? I dot believe I am unclear; verbose perhaps, but consistent. There are people in the western culture who, for the purpose of this point, can be put in two camps: multiculturalist/cultural relativists and those who are more conservative, preferring a nation first policy (the second group doesn't rule out immigration, per se; it just wants the nation state to be what comes first- loyalty and assimilation).

One group has opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration basically reducing borders to... no borders at all while in leadership positions for many years. Multicultural supra courts have impeded states to define their own self interests. Both groups have nearly run the coffers dry and the economies are collapsing are being floated everywhere; the infrastructure of the west in tatters as it searches for a 21st century identity secondary to the massive population shifts changing their demographics, and sadly, values. It is in this weakness, it is within this emptiness that islamic jihad expands; it simply finds its enemy does most of its work for them. It does not of its own accord have supernatural powers, divine mandate, or great tactics. While there is a detailed, unambiguous blueprint for overthrowing countries and installing shar'ia, this alone is not what elevates the threat. It makes its inroads because western cultures are paralyzed to act in their self interest. Years of self loathing and multiculturalism rubbish pushed down the throats of a few generations has the citizens of the west scratching their heads- because what is found on inspection is not fraternity rather it is unbridled hatred and contempt, and now war upon their host, wherever they are.

I do not find the liberal multiculturalists as objectionable as islamic jihad. One predicates their ignorance on a naive desire to help, to serve, to improve life, whereas the other acts their malfeasance to impair, disrupt, sponge, and destroy life. I clearly object to the ideology of hate. I object to books of hate with "cover for status" to protect their contents. I object to intellectual subterfuge where arguments are hijacked by innuendo or ad hominem attacks rather than a hearing on the merit. The west could fumble, stumble, fail, and rise again if left to its own polity. This is not what is happening. There is a third player in the mix now and it has nothing less than the destruction of everything as its aim.

There are no immigration "flood gates" as you allege and immigration is not uncontrolled. To think otherwise is a delusion. Congress has spent the past 40+ years rewriting immigration laws, and presidents from LBJ through Reagan and Bush the father, Bush the son, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama have taken measures to regulate and control immigration.

Multiculturalists are not motivated by "self loathing," so you might want to take that one off your list of artificial and manufactured terms. US immigration policy over the past few generations has as its goal a transforming of the United States to be more representative of the global population. The United States has necessarily and wisely been moving away from its northern European and British demographic origins to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Western society and civilization are vibrant and ongoing, ever revitalizing, as the instance and example of US inclusive immigration policy attests. Further, the West elevated the market to the level of the nation state and added technology to it. We have globalized the market and its principles and realities so that all of us are, on balance, the better for it.

The West has defeated every attempt to destroy it or to displace it during both war and peace. Jihadists are in fact more fanatical than the Nazis were, or were any of the 20th century fascist movements or governments. The Showa Japanese (1926-45) were the most fanatical 20th century foe of the West but they too were overcome due to their own weaknesses and bad judgements.

Totalitarian communism was repulsed by the West led by the United States, although dictatorship continues to exist in the CCP-PRChina and may continue to exist even after the CCP collapses in an even more spectacular fashion than did the USSR, along with its decrepit economy and state.

The West will continue to prevail. It will defeat Jihad because it we are superior to it. The West is assimilating Muslims, the US is assimilating Latinos, while Russia and China remain exclusive and covetous of their own traditions, culture, society, civilizations. Most Muslims, as with many Christians, read their book then they live their lives in the modern and contemporary world in a considerable peace with it, while moving forward in to the future.

In short, the West is confident as a matter of fact, the rest are not -- and the rest know it.

Sweden: Example, the earlier arguments amongst Swedes in support of more and more immigration noted in dialogue the fact that Sweden had no worthy culture of its own... Therefore, your point fails. Various arguments have been used by others, and hidden by those who argue as you do. Had multiculuralists, generally, insisted on assimilation as much as they did on unlimited immigration I might suspect failed policy. But they often thwarted assimilation demands at ever turn- ex: speak same language, phone prompts in the vernacular, etc. Every turn the hosts were made to accommodate and empower the guests.

Obama has facilitated both sleight of hand and literal assault upon the american cultural fabric by deliberately watering down the populace with low income illegals, and migrants. The intention is fairly transparent as the rich and industrious rarely flee their home countries, or otherwise have access to visa mechanisms. These are the poor which then bath in the social fruit produced by other industrious workers, in this case Americans. These people are designed less to dilute a population and more to create a favored dependent voting block.

Your remaining post is unrelated history and conjecture with a few exceptions: "the West will defeat jihad" is an odd statement after an argument that there is no immigration issue as i describe; furthermore this statement concedes there is a war.

The fallacy of false analogy between christians and their book and muslims and their books of course misses the point- christians are not launching a war to reinstate the papacy as Holy Roman Emperor- islam is! Therefore attempting to tar another religious group by association is beneath any discussion I will have further. Good luck with the Rose Glasses.

[Publicus]

The point of view is subcultural to the prevailing global culture and it is extreme, not to mention harsh and uncompromising. Initiating discussion of Jihad and US immigration policies in the same sentence is an error of both logic and reason. I note the following in particular from the above post......

Obama has facilitated both sleight of hand and literal assault upon the american cultural fabric by deliberately watering down the populace with low income illegals, and migrants. The intention is fairly transparent as the rich and industrious rarely flee their home countries, or otherwise have access to visa mechanisms. These are the poor which then bath in the social fruit produced by other industrious workers, in this case Americans. These people are designed less to dilute a population and more to create a favored dependent voting block.

Current US immigration policy, which continues to favor hemispheric neighbors in Latin America over Europeans, originated with Pres Kennedy, was first enacted into law by LBJ, and has been developed by the Congress since the late 1960s. There is nothing Obama about the origins or the development of US Government immigration policy over the past 50 years, i.e., the previous half-century. There is nothing Obama about Jihad.

The real impact of the ongoing and long term immigration policies of the US Government began to manifest during the early 1980s. Present developments are a desired continuation of the policy, its demographic trends, its socio-cultural effects. Almost everyone agrees Jihad originated during the Reagan presidency after a fitful start during the Carter presidency.

As to immigration, people come to the United States to make money. A few make money illegally, the vast and overwhelming majority do it by legal means. The Congress 50 years ago was not counting votes when it determined its long term immigration policies and priorities, as no one knew their political or electoral impact. The immigration policies Congress established 50 years ago were economic in their nature.

The minority that have come to oppose the American pillar of immigration have social and cultural objections to it first and foremost, to include language. These antagonisms are also the basis their objections to the Obama presidency (despite the fact the Obama administration speaks excellent English ). Their fiscal and economic objections follow as only secondary considerations. The data are overwhelming that immigration has been a pillar of American Civilization and that it continues to be so right to this moment, yet the old guard of American society and culture now reject immigration as somehow being unseemly, crass, political.

One more thing in particular about the above post is.......

Your remaining post is unrelated history and conjecture with a few exceptions: "the West will defeat jihad" is an odd statement after an argument that there is no immigration issue as i describe; furthermore this statement concedes there is a war

.

There is a war and it is against Jihad.

So to refer to Jihad and immigration in the same sentence (as you impose on others to do) presents gross errors of both logic and reason. This would be true even if there were a domestic Jihad equivalent against ongoing and long term immigration policies.

If one wants to in a sense jihad against current trends in immigration, and the long term trend of US immigration policy, the question becomes why does one want to stop it, and what alternative does one offer in their place. What, return to primarily immigration from Europe? No immigration altogether? Build a wall across all of Texas and the US shores of the Gulf of Mexico?

Hopefully opponents of immigration would be glad that I asked.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Scott

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.