Is this President really this ignorant? ISIS=The Crusades

[RickD]

I know he doesn't write his speeches, but does he realize what he's saying?

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/02/05/o ... 0298802988

[B. W.]

Your link about the Prez reveals his true colors - besides Marxist - pro-Islam...

That is the real him. It shows his world view - leftist and anti-american

Islam was directly threatening the West and that was the reason for the Crusades - stop the invasion in Spain and in Balkans. The peaceful Musilm invaders were beheading and burning alive infidels and killing folks in mass - like ISIS is today - which is the true face of Islam as all Muslims must submit to the real teaching of its founder - world dominion under a man made theocracy.

The Prez does not in the least get the facts right and neither does the leftist revisionist historian's out there attempting to make equivalency arguments to keep folks inactive and feeling guilty about even opposing reckless evil.

Our Country, the USA is in a world of hurt due this and other imbeciles in the halls of Government...

The facts of the Islamic invasion that provided the catalyst for the Crusades abound in the battles fought - Military History and cannot be deigned as occurring.

https://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/02/ ... -crusades/
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

Yes, the man is an idiot.
You'd think that by now it would be clear that the only thing that stopped Islamic expansion in the past WAS the Crusades !

[Silvertusk]

I have just listened to the broadcast and I don't really have a problem with anything he said. All he was implying was that A lot of people in history have done some awful things in the name of Christ - which is absolutely true. The issue here is whether they were a true reflection of the religion in question. Obviously with Christianity the answer is categorically no. With Islam - I would be more unsure. So I think there is an slight overreaction here.

[PaulSacramento]

I have just listened to the broadcast and I don't really have a problem with anything he said. All he was implying was that A lot of people in history have done some awful things in the name of Christ - which is absolutely true. The issue here is whether they were a true reflection of the religion in question. Obviously with Christianity the answer is categorically no. With Islam - I would be more unsure. So I think there is an slight overreaction here.

The issue is simple:
Nothing bad or violent can be done in the name of Christ and be reconciled with anything that Christ said or any of the apostles.
Islam on the other hand, openly preaches violence and killing in their sacred texts.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

You'd think Harvard would teach the historical fact that the crusades were launched in response to the caliphate's barbarism.

[B. W.]

What a person loves the most, they defend the most. In this manner one can rightly judge motives.

The prz loves to act like an emperor, loves to class republican, tea party, conservative, Christians and all who disagree with him as terrorist and lower life forms. He loves abortion and policies that promote promiscuty and death of the human species. In his immgration act is offered the kindness of abortion to all illegals. He then sides with those aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and decries that the islamic call to prayer as the sweetest of sounds! He loved to ruin health heath care and now the internet. He loved to fundamentally transform America from a once exceptional nation into a third or forth world countries in order to pay back for the sins of the world. His brain washed minions have forgotten as America dies - they will too.

You can tell a lot about a person by what the love the most by their actions and the prz patriotism is a love bent to destroy this country.

People - we are in a world of hurt right now. Time to wake up - Eccl 3:1-8
-
-
-

[Philip]

Sometimes I think the Prez is taking his marching orders straight from Lucifer.

Contrast the strategies of Christianity with Islam: Love your enemies into personal change and submission vs. use violence to make them change or receive death! Love conquered Rome, it didn't need a sword!

[Danieltwotwenty]

I have just listened to the broadcast and I don't really have a problem with anything he said. All he was implying was that A lot of people in history have done some awful things in the name of Christ - which is absolutely true. The issue here is whether they were a true reflection of the religion in question. Obviously with Christianity the answer is categorically no. With Islam - I would be more unsure. So I think there is an slight overreaction here.

The issue is simple:
Nothing bad or violent can be done in the name of Christ and be reconciled with anything that Christ said or any of the apostles.
Islam on the other hand, openly preaches violence and killing in their sacred texts.

Sorry Paul this is blatantly false, the problem we have is that there is no internal context to the Koran from which we can decide on how to interpret passages, the Bible is just as violent and bloody, but we have internal context that gives us a grounding for correct interpretation. I would suggest a book called "The Eternal Message of the Prophet Muhammed", it is a book written by a lay Muslim just after WW11 for new Muslims to the faith, very interesting and eye opening book into the world of the Muslim faith.

[B. W.]

I have just listened to the broadcast and I don't really have a problem with anything he said. All he was implying was that A lot of people in history have done some awful things in the name of Christ - which is absolutely true. The issue here is whether they were a true reflection of the religion in question. Obviously with Christianity the answer is categorically no. With Islam - I would be more unsure. So I think there is an slight overreaction here.

The issue is simple:
Nothing bad or violent can be done in the name of Christ and be reconciled with anything that Christ said or any of the apostles.
Islam on the other hand, openly preaches violence and killing in their sacred texts.

Sorry Paul this is blatantly false, the problem we have is that there is no internal context to the Koran from which we can decide on how to interpret passages, the Bible is just as violent and bloody, but we have internal context that gives us a grounding for correct interpretation. I would suggest a book called "The Eternal Message of the Prophet Muhammed", it is a book written by a lay Muslim just after WW11 for new Muslims to the faith, very interesting and eye opening book into the world of the Muslim faith.

Propaganda is still propaganda and an equivalency strawman is still a strawman.

Islam seeks world domination - Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world - big difference.

Christianity has God's unseen hand of correction at work since Jesus arose from the dead and the Holy Spirit's outpouring. Anyone who hijacks Christianity for geopolitical purposes suffers correction.

Islam has none of this. It cannot. It's roots are from the ancient Assyrian and Babylonian Moon God religion ie moon snake religion. Lesser light takes over all light. ISIS is a new manifestation of this and why the ancient Assyrian empire was so feared. They were brutal butchers, sadist, no other word for it and now it is back on stage.

Islam is not about peace but rather deception, war, anything to gain world submission and dominion.
-
-
-

[RickD]

I have just listened to the broadcast and I don't really have a problem with anything he said. All he was implying was that A lot of people in history have done some awful things in the name of Christ - which is absolutely true. The issue here is whether they were a true reflection of the religion in question. Obviously with Christianity the answer is categorically no. With Islam - I would be more unsure. So I think there is an slight overreaction here.

The issue is simple:
Nothing bad or violent can be done in the name of Christ and be reconciled with anything that Christ said or any of the apostles.
Islam on the other hand, openly preaches violence and killing in their sacred texts.

Sorry Paul this is blatantly false, the problem we have is that there is no internal context to the Koran from which we can decide on how to interpret passages, the Bible is just as violent and bloody, but we have internal context that gives us a grounding for correct interpretation. I would suggest a book called "The Eternal Message of the Prophet Muhammed", it is a book written by a lay Muslim just after WW11 for new Muslims to the faith, very interesting and eye opening book into the world of the Muslim faith.

No internal context?!?!?!?

How about its founder, Muhammad?

Contrast his life, with the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

A man who consummated a marriage with a 9 year old girl. A man who used violence to further his beliefs.
Sounds like you've found your internal context.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I have just listened to the broadcast and I don't really have a problem with anything he said. All he was implying was that A lot of people in history have done some awful things in the name of Christ - which is absolutely true. The issue here is whether they were a true reflection of the religion in question. Obviously with Christianity the answer is categorically no. With Islam - I would be more unsure. So I think there is an slight overreaction here.

The issue is simple:
Nothing bad or violent can be done in the name of Christ and be reconciled with anything that Christ said or any of the apostles.
Islam on the other hand, openly preaches violence and killing in their sacred texts.

Sorry Paul this is blatantly false, the problem we have is that there is no internal context to the Koran from which we can decide on how to interpret passages, the Bible is just as violent and bloody, but we have internal context that gives us a grounding for correct interpretation. I would suggest a book called "The Eternal Message of the Prophet Muhammed", it is a book written by a lay Muslim just after WW11 for new Muslims to the faith, very interesting and eye opening book into the world of the Muslim faith.

No internal context?!?!?!?

How about its founder, Muhammad?

Contrast his life, with the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

A man who consummated a marriage with a 9 year old girl. A man who used violence to further his beliefs.
Sounds like you've found your internal context.

Consummated in the cultural context does necessarily mean sex, I actually went to a Muslim forum and asked this exact question and like all the misinformation about the Bible, you are misinformed about the Koran.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 2116)




Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I think her age is quite in dispute, well at least according to Muslims. Don't forget a lot of old Muslim texts were burn't, we have very little information about the actual facts, the Koran in it's current form could possibly be very wrong indeed.

[RickD]

I think her age is quite in dispute, well at least according to Muslims. Don't forget a lot of old Muslim texts were burn't, we have very little information about the actual facts, the Koran in it's current form could possibly be very wrong indeed.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:
The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 2116)




Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

Dan wrote:
What is it in it's original language.

Is that from the Koran>?

See for yourself:
http://sunnah.com/abudawud/12/76
Oops, it looks like you deleted this response I quoted. Nevertheless, there's the link.