Why did Obama compare Crusades to Islamic State at prayer breakfast?..... Maybe he needs a history lesson.. And comparing ISIS to slavery and Jim Crow laws in the U.S. is even more ridiculous..

It's all about making sure the US (and the rest of the world) knows that the US is bad. No matter how bad ISIS is, he wants to make sure everyone knows the US is just as bad, even if he has to go back 1,000 years. This guy just amazes me more and more every day.

It's all about making sure the US (and the rest of the world) knows that the US is bad. No matter how bad ISIS is, he wants to make sure everyone knows the US is just as bad, even if he has to go back 1,000 years. This guy just amazes me more and more every day.

 

Don't forget that Christianity was drug through this as well as the U.S.A.

This was such an over the top comment and a reach for a moral equivalancy. So not to offend Muslims you have to go back 7 or 8 hundred years to attack Christianity. Let's not forget also most historians would agree the Crusades were reaction to Muslims invading and conquering Christian lands for 200 years prior to the Crusades starting. Even if we forget that little fact , how can you try and paint this picture to create a comparison between Christian extremists and Islamic extremists in this present day world.

 

This was one of the more shocking and telling speeches of the Obama presidency.

The president was absolutely correct. Killing people on the basis of religious intolerance is as old as mankind and is not restricted to present-day nut-case Islamists. For fun, google "Sack of Constantinople 1204."

I think his comments can be read to say that before we rush to condemn all of Islam for the actions of the jihadists we might remember that the Bible has been used as a justification for all types of evil as well. Christians surely feel that those who have distorted their religion are not their representatives. Should jihadists, then, characterize Islam as a whole?

 

Outside of the Outrage Industry this is a fairly common and uncontroversial thing to say.

I think his comments can be read to say that before we rush to condemn all of Islam for the actions of the jihadists we might remember that the Bible has been used as a justification for all types of evil as well. Christians surely feel that those who have distorted their religion are not their representatives. Should jihadists, then, characterize Islam as a whole?

 

Outside of the Outrage Industry this is a fairly common and uncontroversial thing to say.

 

It's uncontroversial to those who want to paint a false moral equivalency . His speech was ridiculous. There was no equivalency to be had. If you want me to say going to war in the name of Religion during the Crusade was insane I will agree. I just wish those on the left would admit we have a problem with Muslim Extremist. This isn't some really small minority. There is a huge problem in doctrine across the Middle East and now spreading through Europe.

 

Acting like painting this picture isn't a big deal really does drive me insane. This is a president who wants me to believe he is an intellectual then he gives this speech that lacks basic reasoning skills and draws extreme comparisons.

 

As I said in my earlier post the other part of this story on the Crusade leaves out the fact why they started, Muslims were invading and conquering Christian lands in the name of their Religion for a couple hundred years before the Christians launched a counter attack with the Crusade. It was all crazy , to fight a war over religion. But his speech leaves out the fact the comparison he is trying to make was also started by Muslim violence.

The president was absolutely correct. Killing people on the basis of religious intolerance is as old as mankind and is not restricted to present-day nut-case Islamists. For fun, google "Sack of Constantinople 1204."

 

You don't see the irony in having to go back over 800 years to find a comparison to another religion?

I just wish those on the left would admit we have a problem Muslim Extremist.

 

This is - literally - what he said.

The president was absolutely correct. Killing people on the basis of religious intolerance is as old as mankind and is not restricted to present-day nut-case Islamists. For fun, google "Sack of Constantinople 1204."

 

Wasn't that a Christian on Christian battle? Not really based on Religious Intolerance was it...seems like more of a political disagreement than religious.

It never ceases to amaze me to what depths the Obama sycophants will go to to defend everything he says. Obama so badly needs a moral equivalency to defend his undefendable position on not calling the Islamic terrorists what they are that he has to dig back 80 years.

This is - literally - what he said.

 

Except we are afraid to call them Muslim extremist. We are also afraid to admit that while not all are willing to kill in the name of religion, a very large population of Muslims have very extreme views and intolerance that most on the left would normally be angry with.

 

What is it that one poll said "70% of muslims in Egypt believe the proper punishment for leaving the religion is death". So while not all are terrorists, there is an ideology and a scary one at that and we refuse to acknowledge a problem and breeding ground for all this violence.

This is - literally - what he said.

 

We have different definition of literally by the way.

Funny how the left defends Islam, yet it goes against everything they stand for... But no problem attacking Christianity..

Funny how the left defends Islam, yet it goes against everything they stand for... But no problem attacking Christianity..

 

When Christians act "un-Christian".