Of course you realize the real purpose of Obama’s “Violent Extremist Conference and Distraction Event” has nothing to do with dealing with real violent extremism. Its real purpose is to promote Obama’s view that there’s no such thing as Islamist Violence, and anyway, other faiths are also guilty of the same violence (You know, as if Christians and Buddhists are going around burning people alive, selling children into sex slavery, and beheading non-believers) that Mohammedans totally aren’t committing, and, anyway, the Mohammedans are entitled to violence because they have “legitimate grievances” (unlike the Tea Party and others who oppose his policies but don’t kill people about it) and Mohammedans only commit the violent terrorism they don’t commit because they can’t find jobs.
Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.Those efforts must be matched by economic, educational and entrepreneurial development so people have hope for a life of dignity.
WWII would have been totes unnecessary if only FDR had gotten the Nazis jobs.
Also…
And lest 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. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
Pure bullsheet. The Crusades were defensive wars fought against ISIS’s Mohammedan forefathers as they raged through the Middle East and Asia Minor committing exactly the same sorts of atrocities ISIS commits today. And the Abolitionist movement that ended slavery was expressly Christian in nature.
If ignorance ever goes to $90 a barrel, demand drilling rights on Obama’s head.
Pres. Obama certainly isn’t Sir Winston Churchill.
He reminds me more of those 1920s and 1930s American Soviet-apologists who just could not see that facts of Stalin’s horrors, even when it was right on front of them. What purges? What artificial famines? What gulags and work-camps? “…Just a few malcontents, every society has them.”
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
The sad thing is if you really look at the countries that breed terrorism and the types of people leading the terrorist groups it becomes clear that poverty isn’t even why they are terrorists. Most of the terrorist leadership attended schools in the west or come from wealthy families.
Jobs programs aren’t going to fix this and the administration just looks stupid for saying so. Shoot the US isn’t even in a position to create or implement a terrorist jobs program at the moment.
V the K
Point of clarification; the crusades were nopt defensive wars but offensive. The crusade was called for by Pope Urban II in 1095, calling on the Catholic kings (there were no Protestants, unless you want to put the Eastern Orthodox, which earlier reject3d papel authority) to liberate the biblical sites in Jerusalem occupied by the muslims for about four hundred years. A second was called for by St. Bernard of Clairvaux in 1146. Athird was called for by Pope Gregory VIII, in which Frederic Barbarosa, Richard the Lionhearted and Phillip, King of France participated. There were several more to fight in the Middle East and in Europe, called by popes. If onlyh Pope Francis would consult papal archives, maybe he’d get some cajones to find a way in these modern times to stimulate todays leaders, some who have different religions, to act. In the days of feudalism popes had clout. Francis, in is condemnation of violence, has shown his ecumenical concern. If he could do it with political leaders, then through the Pope a coalition can be formed. If Obama refuses to lead (except from behind), thenFrancis can be the leader.
The Atlantic is more a progressive rag than a journal, but somehow, they have managed to err and print a fantastic piece of journalism which can be found by clicking the link below. This is the lead hook for the analysis:
Read the whole thing is in order here.
Graeme Wood takes on the enigma wrapped up in Muslims judging Muslims:
And Wood’s treatment of where Obama and our government fit into the world of ISIS is exquisite:
In reading this research, I began to get an insight into why Obama is (wrongly and bullheadedly) playing his semantics game. He must somehow think that shooting “generic terrorists” will shield him from being blamed for taking up a religious war.
There is a great deal to learn from this article, not the least of which is that Obama is most likely kicking the can down the road in order to escape any brush with acting presidential. Harf, Psaki, Earnest, Obambi, Kerry, Axelrod and typical progressive psychobabble and doublespeak are all we can expect until leadership returns to the Oval Office.
Live with it.
*takfir = In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer (Arabic: تكفير takfīr) refers to the practice of excommunication, one Muslim declaring a non-Muslim or an apostate, an unbeliever or kafir (pl. kuffār). The act which precipitates takfir is termed the mukaffir. An ill-founded takfir accusation is a major haram. [Wiki]
@ Roberto: A counter-clarification. While, yes, the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban, it was at the request of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Saracen forces were threatening to overwhelm the Byzantine Empire, the most powerful Christian nation in the world. Given that the call went out not too long after the Western and Eastern Churches had excommunicated each other over the Great Schism, this was unprecedented, and the Pope realized how grave the threat had to be.
Additionally, another objective of the Crusades was to regain control of the Christian holy sites in the Levant, and to assure safe passage for pilgrims in the area, who were frequently robbed and harassed by Muslims; the Knights Templar actually started out as knights who escorted pilgrims to holy sites.
So, yes, while future Crusades were made with the intent of grabbing land, the first was declared out of genuine concern for the continued existence of Christendom.
Note that the land being “grabbed” was Christian until Mohammed’s Hordes showed up.
And the Orthodox didn’t “reject” Papal authority so much as say, “thanks, we’ve already got one”. The formal split had more to do with a papal envoy being dissed than disagreements over theology. The schism has since been set aside — there are some minor doctrinal and major differences in practice, but a Catholic can receive communion in an Orthodox church and vice-versa.
“But most Muslims aren’t susceptible to joining jihad.”
No — they just fund it, support it, block opposition to it, send their sons to fight it…
@ Rob Crawford: When Paul VI and Athengoras I lifted the mutual excommunications of the Great Schism, Paul VI commented, “If only we could sit down in a room and lock out the theologians, we would achieve ecumenism in one hour.”
The only thing that continues the schism between West and East are theological squabbles that only eggheaded theologians care about. Seriously, what does it matter if the Pope is elevated above the other bishops, or is a “first among equals” chosen by the other bishops to lead them? Ultimately, what divides many Christian denominations are theological squabbles so minor and unprovable as to be absurd.
“Ultimately, what divides many Christian denominations are theological squabbles so minor and unprovable as to be absurd.”
Alas, you are correct, Sean. I wish more of them would realize that.
@6 Sean L, You seem to be confusing your Alexius. Alexius I, the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church died in 1048. Alexius Comnenus was the emperor, althouygh he consisered himself the temporal head of the church, much in the same way, the king/queen of England is the temporal head of the Anglican Church. There was no landgrab. It was purging the Holy Land, analogous to the allies taking France from the Nazis. In 1099 the crusaders defeated the turks in in Antioch and Jerusalem, and established a Christian Empire with Godfrey of Boullion, who died a few years later and was succeeded by his brother, Baldwin.
As for the Great Schiism it is over an iota in the Nicene Creed.
Maybe Obama’s former spokesperson, Tommy Vietor, could explain it to him: “Dude, the Crusades and the Inquisition were, you know, like, more than 500 years ago.”
And I don’t know how well a jobs program will work with people whose idea of an occupation is “hijacker” or “suicide bomber.” And whose idea of job skills would be decapitation, burning prisoners alive, blowing up embassies, and kidnapping and raping children.
@ Roberto: Thank you for the clarification on the Patriarch and the Emperor.
I would debate the origin of the Great Schism. Yes, the theological basis was pretty minor. But the political side was the most important: whether the Pope still had political authority over the Emperor and the Patriarch, or whether Constantinople was independent from Rome.
I think the point of calling them “defensive” is that Islam had been invading and pillaging European/Christian countries for centuries, pirates taking slaves, etc. So yes, a war to “recapture the Holy Land” (as people say) counts as a defensive war. The point being to *defend* Europe, by moving Islam’s permanent war of world conquest (a.k.a. jihad) away from European/Christian lands and back into Muslim lands.
The Left rarely acknowledges it.
P.S. The Iraq/Afghanistan wars served a similar purpose (among their many other purposes – and though Bush rarely explained it). So, when al Qaeda referred to Bush as a “Crusader” (because of those wars), strangely enough they were halfway accurate.
In related news Nobel peace prize winner bath house Barry has killed more with drones than 350years of the inquisition. Moslems will never appreciate anything civilized people do for them because of their beliefs of diminitude and jizya combine to the ultimate entitlement mentality. This is why x-tians in Syria who gave charity to women & children whose men left them to jihad had the families point them out for convert or die when they got back.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/07/obamas-drones-have-killed-more-than-the-spanish-inquisition/