ISIS chops off heads, incinerates hostages, kills gays, enslaves girls. Obama: Blame the Crusades.

I don't have to rape or behead you to think that you're inferior

 

As long as Christians are ok with changing Crusaders to "Radical Christians", the IRA ="Christian terrorists", in Africa = "gay hating Christian murderers", I am fine with the term radical Islam

 

I'm OK with all three examples you mentioned because their actions are at least to a non-negligible extent motivated by what they believe is mandated by their interpretation of Christianity.

But radical Islam would be radical Islam regardless of what you call these three types of Christian fundamentalists.

 

The point I was trying to make was, atrocities that were made by certain Christians were not labeled based on their religious beliefs. If you were to ask a a 10 yr old what they think about the Nazis, the last thing they will think of is that Christianity was used to promote their agenda.

 

Did you just said that Islam is always radical Islam or did I not understand you?

 

The Nazis were not motivated by Christianity at the core.

You did not understand me.

 

But this cartoon is so deceptive. Obama IS condemning radical Islam.

 

Sure they were not. Since you are German, please explain to everybody what "Gott Mit Uns" means and the Christian crosses in their unforms, badges, belts, etc.

 

That's what he may as well be saying... And if you (or him) can't get the point that women shouldn't be raped at all than either you both are brain dead or you have an agenda.

'We're not as bad as they are' is a dumb azz argument because we're still bad. The pot and kettle may be different but they're both black.

 

You are arguing a complete straw man. Nobody disputed that women shouldn't be raped at all. To even have the idea - as you did - is completely ridiculous.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

It's something that had been used in the German military since about the year 1200. Has nothing to do with the Nazis.

If you need more education in history, I recommend reading some Wikipedia articles first, if you then have specific questions, I will try to help educate you.

 

The core problem here is that you have no idea the context of anything Obama is saying. You made that very clear when you said:

On the contrary we should speak out and condemn terrorist actions.

In his speech, he did exactly that:

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

It's hard to take your interpretation of his speech seriously when you're complaining that he's arguing the opposite of what he's actually saying. It sounds like you just ran with the interpretation of the OP based on a few sentences and have no interest in actually understanding the real context or real purpose of the speech.

 

TY for making it clearer for everybody.

Those are all Christians states who committed atrocities. LOL.

 

Jindal gets it right:

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,” Jindal said. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...christian-threat-under-control-eliana-johnson

 

And your point is, exactly?

Exactly.

 

For the millionth time, certain Christians leaders were historically barbaric and they used their holy book to justify their actions. Just like the current Islam leaders. Get it, got it? Good!

 

He's the one that brought up how they treat their women... And I pointed out how we treat ours (which may be better treatment but still not the treatment it should be considering the advanced society we live in). You jumped into the conversation and now you're screaming 'straw man'. And if you and others consider the treatment of women as a straw man argument than you and others shouldn't single out how a particular group treats their women.

 

Jindal also completely missed the point of the speech. Obama is not concerned about runaway Christians. His speech wasn't a strategy speech on how to deal with ISIS or terrorism or anything else. It was about things like faith and about reconciling the good and evil within it - you know, the types of things one might discuss at a prayer breakfast.

 

This explains a lot about our resident bigot.