This 12-yo kid definitely has no "strategic patience" (the alleged reason for Obama's limp foreign-policy). LOL. I have no idea if he writes his own material, but he really nailed Obama.

The public knows there is something odd about Obama. He loves protecting the feelings of moderate Muslims, and the image of Islam, more than he loves protecting America.

This is what happens when you elect someone with a part-Muslim identity to president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUtirCf-RfU

Didn't you mean to post this under Comedy?

So.... remember that I'm looking at this from the outside... what did Obama do?
Apparently, he failed to negotiate with terrorists to ransom american citizens... That's sort of common policy, seeing as some 25% of ISIS income is in the form of ransoms from countries or families which are willing to pay... curiously, it seems, most of those are from "fellow" middle-eastern nations[1].

[1].http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-d...82607.html


Why is it standard practice not to negotiate with terrorists? If you do, you'll give them an incentive to actively kidnap your citizens. And more terrorists will crop up everywhere someone senses they're close to someone they know will be ransomed.

Like Spock said

We get it stoner. You don't have to make a hundred threads about how Obama is a Muslim and you're a gullible conspiracy nut.

(February 23, 2015 at 7:22 am)pocaracas Wrote: So.... remember that I'm looking at this from the outside... what did Obama do?

The criticism of Obama stems from a failed policy with the Muslim world generally. He egged-on the Arab Spring, with the stupid belief that mythical moderate Islam would finally rise up. He bombed Gaddafi out of the way too.

Net result? Terrorists everywhere. When you pull out of the Middle East, the vacuum is filled by one of two forces (a) Islamic fundamentalists or (b) secular dictators.

Regarding ISIS, Obama won't identify the root cause of the violence i.e. Islamic fundamentalism, and so he dances around the problem, with a little bombing here and there, and no permanent solution in sight. Meanwhile he distracts us with talk of Crusades and the universality of violence.

The core of Obama's problem is that he believes in moderate Islam, and believes in supporting the moderate Muslims against the radicals. But there is no moderate Islam, and hence moderate Muslims are thin on the ground, and it's the fate of Muslim countries to be forever in turmoil. We should get out and leave them alone, except for bombing the bejesus out of any groups that get big enough to threaten us.

(February 23, 2015 at 7:23 am)Nestor Wrote: We get it stoner. You don't have to make a hundred threads about how Obama is a Muslim and you're a gullible conspiracy nut.

Obama is not a Muslim, but he has a strong affinity with Muslims.

Because Obama does not want to offend moderate Muslims, he cannot make an honest and rational analysis of Islamic doctrine, which is necessary to defend America from the existential threat of Islam.

No conspiracy, Obama just has divided loyalties, and American national security is paying the price for it.

(February 23, 2015 at 9:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: Obama is not a Muslim, but he has a strong affinity with Muslims.

Because Obama does not want to offend moderate Muslims, he cannot make an honest and rational analysis of Islamic doctrine, which is necessary to defend America from the existential threat of Islam.

No conspiracy, Obama just has divided loyalties, and American national security is paying the price for it.

Yeah, I feel so endangered by all the Muslim terrorists Obama is letting cross over the border with their Ebola grenades.

Well, you know... foreign policy is a big deal for the US.
It's important to have a MacDonnald's in each and every major city in the world, that includes the middle east.
So america has to stick its finger in there and westernize those muslims.
Sure, you get a few terrorist groups running amok, but was it so different under their previous dictatorships?
Moderate muslims vs fundamentalists can only end in blood from one side... the side of the minority, even if the majority aren't particularly fond of killing and the minority draws first blood, which they have.

This turmoil will only make it easier for the US to implant a friendly ruler of those countries after it has passed... think of Afghanistan and how it's not in the news any more.

The US has been in a long war that has lasted over ten years. Nothing we have done seems to work and so far, has even made things worse.

Why wouldn't encouraging moderate Islam be a smart thing to do? I don't get why that is a problem. Part of the reason why some hate the US is because of our failed policies. We support dictators, like the Saudis because we want their oil and we bomb people like Saddam because they are dictators. Innocent people end up dead regardless.

We do not want the region to be destabilized because ultimately that will be bad for us.

---

(February 23, 2015 at 9:58 am)pocaracas Wrote: Well, you know... foreign policy is a big deal for the US.
It's important to have a MacDonnald's in each and every major city in the world, that includes the middle east.
So america has to stick its finger in there and westernize those muslims.
Sure, you get a few terrorist groups running amok, but was it so different under their previous dictatorships?
Moderate muslims vs fundamentalists can only end in blood from one side... the side of the minority, even if the majority aren't particularly fond of killing and the minority draws first blood, which they have.

This turmoil will only make it easier for the US to implant a friendly ruler of those countries after it has passed... think of Afghanistan and how it's not in the news any more.

I wish I could argue with your points but I can't. War and blind patriotism fueled by fear and anger has become a source of income for some people.