Kyle Kulinski, of Secular Talk Radio, comments on Obama's address to the Countering Violent Extremism summit.

My comments below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WW7ZTRHg0A

I agree with Kyle's suggestion of substituting the word "cult" for religion, to see how absurd Obama's claim is that "Religion doesn't kill, people kill". It's patently obvious that a cult/religion has a set of clear ideas that influence their followers.

But I disagree with his suggestion that liberals and moderate Muslims should call ISIS what they are i.e. Muslim fundamentalists or Islamic extremists.

Yes, liberals can and should do this.

But moderate Muslims, generally speaking, will not do so, for the simple reasons that (a) it immediately opens up Islam to a debate about "Who's interpretation is correct? i.e. Who are the true Muslims?" and then (b) there is way too much material in favour of the ISIS interpretation that makes it very hard for moderate Muslims to defend.

Generally speaking, you find moderate Muslims very evasive when it comes to these sensitive matters such as the mountain of violence committed by Mohammed. They won't debate, they avoid the topic. Only a few crazy moderate Muslims will debate.

For instance, in a BBC debate, Douglas Murray raised the fact that Mohammed sanctioned the killing of a poet, and immediately the moderate Muslim shut the debate down, and the BBC wiped the question from the broadcast:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenf...er-of-poet

And this gets back to Obama's motivation. I don't think it's only strategy that is motivating Obama. Obama's identity is partly Muslim, and he is acting like a moderate Muslim here i.e. shutting down debate for the reasons mentioned above.

The bottom line is: don't look to moderate Muslims, or Obama, for the solution, because they can't face the reality of looking honestly at Islamic doctrine, because the consequences are HUMILIATING for them i.e. the weight of evidence is in favour of the ISIS interpretation, which implies that moderate Muslims might be flag bearers for a truly repulsive head-chopping religion.

Forget moderate Muslims. Forget Islamic reform. It will never happen. No moderate or reformer would go anywhere near Islamic doctrine and the life of Mohammed. No moderate would base anything on the lineage of Mohammed.

Instead, Westerners must act to isolate and contain Muslim populations. That is the only sane solution to the existential threat of Islam. This doesn't involve containment camps, and it doesn't involve returning Muslims to their homelands, as some hysterical opportunists try to demonise me with, but it does involve a clear separation of Western and Muslim populations. Build them a freaking Disneyland state to live in, if you want to, but Islam and the West are inherently antagonistic and must be devolved into separate areas.

There are people attempting to reform Muhammad's religion, e.g. those at the Quilliam Foundation. However they aren't very popular or representative of the religion it's true. I would say that it's peaceful believers who are the radical/extreme ones because they are in denial about what the Quran says. They have to make lots of excuses because they don't want to admit that their religious texts say certain things.

Basically, most people would rather push things they don't like under a metaphorical carpet than have to deal with them. These so-called moderates need to go back to the Quranic Salad Bar from which they came a take a good hard look at what the Quran actually teaches instead of picking and choosing what they want to believe.

A big problem is that governments around the world, not just in the West, fail to understand Muhammad's religion. This isn't helped by the fact that Western governments are generally very hypocritical. In my opinion, the Saudi Royal family is as bad as Bashir al-Assad in terms of "human rights" but they don't get condemned. Also, Western governments could never decide whether they actually liked or disliked Maummar Gaddafi. One year they like him and he is a valuable ally in the "war on terror" (after the Lockerbie bombing I should add) and the next they don't. This kind of inconsistency is really problematic especially since during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the United States was actually helping the people that later formed the Taliban.

(February 21, 2015 at 12:52 am)mralstoner Wrote: Obama's identity is partly Muslim, and he is acting like a moderate Muslim here i.e. shutting down debate for the reasons mentioned above.

Just when I thought your posts couldn't get any weirder. Care to elaborate on Obama's partly muslim identity?

His dad being a lapsed alcoholic Muslim, apparently.

(February 22, 2015 at 1:21 pm)abaris Wrote: Just when I thought your posts couldn't get any weirder. Care to elaborate on Obama's partly muslim identity?

Obama's Kenyan grandfather was Muslim.
Obama's father was raised Muslim but lapsed into non-belief.
Obama has Muslim relatives.
Obama's middle name Hussein is Muslim/Arabic.
Obama spent 4 childhood years in Muslim Indonesia, his step-father was Muslim.
Obama had Pakistani friends/room-mates at college, and traveled to Pakistan.
These Pakistani friends had names similar to Hussein: Imad Husain, Hasan Chandoo.

Obama's identity is mixed and confused, that's his defining story. But part of that mixed identity is a strong affinity with Muslims.

Here are a couple of articles on Obama's Muslim background:

Cathleen Falsani
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thedudeabid...interview/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25...94882.html

Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/11952/obama-muslim-childhood

Interestingly, from the Falsani interview, Obama explains his attraction to the black church:

Quote:I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and it’s importance in the community.
And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply...

Nothing is more powerful than the black church experience. A good choir and a good sermon in the black church, it’s pretty hard not to be move and be transported.

... the Civil Rights movement has a powerful hold on me.

So, for Obama, church is more about black solidarity and community, and less about God.

The burning question that remains is: how much does Obama actually know about Islamic doctrine and the life of Mohammed? He comes across as a folksy buffoon, and is so "confident" that Islam is peaceful, which suggests he's an ignorant fool.

But yet perhaps he has studied Islam more than would appear, and is hiding the unpleasant truth about Mohammed. I tend to think he's an ignorant fool.

Either way, Obama's identity is partly Muslim, and this affinity prevents him from an honest and accurate analysis of Islamic doctrine, and the existential risk it poses for the Western world. He is a national security risk because he protects his Muslims buddies from the shame of an honest look into Islam. He is the president of sensitive moderate Muslims, not the president of America.

You know, I've heard this shit before:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Well, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

And in both cases, guns make it a fuckton easier to accomplish.

(February 22, 2015 at 10:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You know, I've heard this shit before:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Well, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

And in both cases, guns make it a fuckton easier to accomplish.

Well if that's the case then the only way to stop a bad guy with a bad religion is a good guy with a good religion.

Gee .. I thought the answer was going to be education and enlightenment.

A more accurate description of Obama is ...

He is the president for coddling moderate Muslims with sweet, comforting fairy tales about their religion, at the cost of blinding America to the existential threat of true Islam.