Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Anyone at all? No? Just the usual unfocused dogwhistle Obama hate? OK.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did Obama have such a poor record regarding religious persecution in the world
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Might want to read your Bible to see what it says about people pretending to care about Christianity before making "well, at least" type statements. The phrase you're looking for is "lukewarm".
Last edited:
Augustus
…
If only there were a remarkable series of events that happened in the Middle East which would explain this...
I also often wonder why Obama didn't have the omnipotent ability to prevent anything negative from ever happening in foreign countries. The Dems also should have noticed he wasn't using his omnipotence to the fullest extent and said 'Hey, Barry! Why aren't you being omnipotent? People would really appreciate it if you put a greater focus on being all-powerful so make sure you do that, ok?"
If I were President I'd just tell everyone in the world to be kind and friendly and then they would do just that. Problem solved.
It was the Bush administration that is responsible for ISIS.
From: Did George W. Bush Create ISIS?
Did George W. Bush Create ISIS?
By Dexter Filkins
May 15, 2015
Photograph by James Glover/Reuters
The exchange started like this: at the end of Jeb Bush’s town-hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday, a college student named Ivy Ziedrich stood up and said that she had heard Bush blame the growth of isis on President Obama, in particular on his decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011. The origins of isis, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.
“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created isis,’’ she said.
“All right,’’ Bush said. “Is that a question?”
“You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir,” she said.
“Pedantic? Wow,” Bush said.
Ziedrich finally came forth with her query: “Why are you saying that isis was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars, where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”
Jeb replied by repeating his earlier criticism of President Obama: that Iraq had been stable until American troops had departed. “When we left Iraq, security had been arranged,” Bush said. The removal of American troops had created a security vacuum that isis exploited. “The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”
“Your brother created isis” is the kind of sound bite that grabs our attention, because it’s obviously false yet oddly rings true. Bush didn’t like it: he offered a retort and then left the stage. Meanwhile, Ziedrich had started a conversation that rippled across Twitter, Facebook, and any number of American dinner tables. Who is actually right?
Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.
This was probably the single most catastrophic decision of the American venture in Iraq. In a stroke, the Administration helped enable the creation of the Iraqi insurgency. Bush Administration officials involved in the decision—like Paul Bremer and Walter Slocombe—argued that they were effectively ratifying the reality that the Iraqi Army had already disintegrated.
This was manifestly not true. I talked to American military commanders who told me that leaders of entire Iraqi divisions (a division has roughly ten thousand troops) had come to them for instructions and expressed a willingness to coöperate. In fact, many American commanders argued vehemently at the time that the Iraqi military should be kept intact—that disbanding it would turn too many angry young men against the United States. But the Bush White House went ahead.
Moving of the goal post. The question was "What could Obama have done better".
Plus, it was the Obama's Spring Offensive that destabilized the whole of the Middle East to open the door to ISIS
Obama was handed a crock of sh*t when he took office, without the actions of Bush (and Blair) destabilising Iraq on false pretences there would have been no problem.
You want to blame Obama then look at history first
I had to ask. No other way of knowing.
Whether there will be a day when I will see some actual sense in all this fierce, fanatic dislike of Obama is an open question, and likely to remain so for many years still.
It just makes no sense.
Augustus
…
Why didn't he think of that? Just stop them. Simple with almost no downside.
That was Assad.
So you are proposing that BHO should have stopped ISIS while also toppling Assad?
Regime change has such a proven history of success that it's quite remarkable they didn't keep playing the same winning hand.
Again, regardless of what was handed him, if he had taken Trumps stand, it would have been over during his administration.
No, not really. It was his basic attitude of not doing anything or making a line and then letting the line be crossed. In other words, if he wasn't going to do anything about Assad, then don't put a line. Once he made a line and then did nothing, it set the stage world-wide that he was a pushover in international affairs.
And, yes, it was Assad. Forgive me for not making that distinction. It was the principle that I was referring to.
Ahh, fortune telling now? You yourself must be aware how intransigent religious beliefs are. Dropping a few bombs and saying do it our way has never worked.
It is still not over. Again you are neglecting the facts, and references that Bush's actions established ISIS as the strongest military power in Iraq.
Eh. As if.
Well yes, Trump not only selected Pence, but his entire cabinet is dominated by fundamentalist Christians as reward for electing him, and ah . . . FOX employesss. This has nothing to with the rate of persecution of Christinas in the world. I cited a reference that it has increased. You nor anyone else here can document any policy of the Trump administration that effects the persecution of Christians abroad, but nonetheless Trumps statements has resulted to increased violence against Jews, Moslems, and other minorities in the USA.
Augustus
…
And if he attacked Assad he'd have been criticised for helping ISIS.
Seriously, how much impact do you think that not enforcing a 'red line' had on the OP?
Also, given that in this mess in the ME there were no 'good' options, don't you think Obama would still be criticised by the same people regardless of what he had done?
How do you think he should have 'stopped' ISIS? Another trillion dollar war costing hundreds of American lives and only treats the symptom and not the cause?
Ah . . . you mean like Trump reducing the US Troops in the Middle East. The line in the sand drawn by Trump appears to be in the Atlantic Beach USA.
Augustus
…
Do you believe that if the Republicans had taken Obama's stand then they would have caught Osama bin Laden much sooner?
esmith
Veteran Member
You asked the question, accept the answers you get unless you want only the answers that agree with you.
Oh, it was a very very focused response.
FYI I did not hate Obama, I only disagreed with 97+% of his policies. I will leave the hate of Presidents to you and your ilk.
esmith
Veteran Member
I would ask the same question to you about the fierce, fanatic dislike of President Trump, since it makes no sense either. But I guess when it comes to ones own ideas one can not see past them.
Any man who gropes women simply because he is powerful and so can get away with it, then brags about to afterwards takes a lot of seeing past.