Obama ‘Reaches Out’ by Naming ‘Devout’ Muslims to Security Posts

[Armed-N-Ready]

You are not paying attention.

What were you expecting? Are you seriously expecting him to appoint someone that makes sense. Give me one example of someone he has appointed that is qualified. America is getting exactly what he promised and what they voted for last November. We have given the White House to someone that is trying to destroy the USA.

 

[Panama]

Denny347, Being a Muslim does not make you a Jihadist. I think we can find something better to worry about than this.

Please list, any of the "Devout Muslims" that have come out publicly and spoken against, or even suggested, that these Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadi Terrorists attacks should stop.


There is no "intelligent" man woman or child that thinks these appointments are a good thing for the country. Especially in light of the recent TERRORIST attack at Ft Hood.

Now my turn to get off topic, if there is an empty house next door and "I" get to pick my new neighbor and my choices are, an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Muslim and a Christian!
1. I have a brother-in-law that is an Atheist.........NO THANKS!
2. I worked with an Agnostic...........NO THANKS!
3. The only Muslims I have known were barely casual acquaintances, but.........NO THANKS!
4. I, and most everyone I know, (that I willingly associate with), are Christians...........I PICK THE CHRISTIANS for my new neighbors!

Now mind you I am not judging, just stating my preferences.

 

[4sarge]

Please list, any of the "Devout Muslims" that have come out publicly and spoken against, or even suggested, that these Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadi Terrorists attacks should stop.


There is no "intelligent" man woman or child that thinks these appointments are a good thing for the country. Especially in light of the recent TERRORIST attack at Ft Hood.

Now my turn to get off topic, if there is an empty house next door and "I" get to pick my new neighbor and my choices are, an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Muslim and a Christian!
1. I have a brother-in-law that is an Atheist.........NO THANKS!
2. I worked with an Agnostic...........NO THANKS!
3. The only Muslims I have known were barely casual acquaintances, but.........NO THANKS!
4. I, and most everyone I know, (that I willingly associate with), are Christians...........I PICK THE CHRISTIANS for my new neighbors!

Now mind you I am not judging, just stating my preferences.

Repped

 

[GetA2J]

It's certainly no worse than some of the fundamentalist christians that have been appointed in the past. As with all things, this too shall pass.

It's relevant, whether you like it or not. You and others are slamming these people for their religion only. Not that they are likely to be progressives. The fact is that these people have better than a 99.999% chance of never having done anything criminal based on their religion. Have they utilised their religious beliefs to use political power to obtain goals? Doubtful. Will they? Also doubtful. You don't want me to slam "religious" people and yet that's exactly what you're doing. Remove the plank from your own eye first.

Actually there are many "liberals" that love guns and the second amendment but that is another topic. I did not sense any hate nor ignorance in his post.


Muslims=religious folks. We are talking about a particular religion being looked down upon for security posts. I do not see that comparing one religion to another for the same security positions as off-topic.


Now this IS a bit off-topic and more of a jab than what mrjarrell had posted. I cannot speak for him but I do not get the impression he is agnostic (believing in a higher being/force), I could be mistaken. Maybe you meant to say "atheist". Lack of a religion IS NOT a religion. Being a skeptic of religion does not mean that the person believes they are perfect. Now we are wandering off-topic. Back to topic. I don't think these Muslims are any more "dangerous" than any other religious person doing the same job. Being a Muslim does not make you a Jihadist. I think we can find something better to worry about than this.

You two must be decendants of the same ignorant monkey.
Panama has it completely right. as I have said before and will say again.
The muslim or "islamic" religious community will continue to be suspect unless and until they come forward themselves condemning the violent acts made in the name of allah. but the only opinions we hear from that part of the religious community are those of support for the "terrorists" and praise for their violent acts. Then in the midst of all this controversey our illustrious unbelieveably arrogant and opressive president assigns members of the very religious community that support "terrorism" into national security postions. That in and of itself should be viewed as treason.

Remember after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Asian Americans all over the country were segregated for observation and national security purposes.

I have heard some people claim that we have gone back into the complacent outlook of the days and weeks before the attacks of the World Trade Center in 2001. I fear we may have gone further into a dangerous mentality than that.

 

[Denny347]

You two must be decendants of the same ignorant monkey.

Yes, a little over simplified but you get the picture.

Remember after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Asian Americans all over the country were segregated for observation and national security purposes.

I hope that we NEVER repeat such a terrible travesty under the guise of National Security. I hope you are not suggesting we do something similar now?

 

[mrjarrell]

the plank? That not what 'I' am doing. I don't like the favoritism, the hidden agenda, the media slant, the leftist approach of making these people victims whereever they go, whatever they do. THAT is what I am referring to.

I also responded to the fact that you are just like a gun hating liberal... you just can't wait to put a 'plug' in every thread, slanting 'those Christians', 'religious folks' etc. Your fingers ITCH for every chance to subvertly plant 'Christians are just like them'. Hate and ignorance, like the anti-gun crowd; it's what I seen in your last post. 'No difference from them and a fundamentalist Christian'. You could have left that out, not that you would, b/c it wasn't even on topic.

The thread is about Muslims being placed in key positions, when in a time that extremist Muslim actions are killing Americans abroad and here at home; and, these decisions are being by the PRESIDENT. The thread is not about how 'Christians' aren't any better or worse. Your post was slanted, not needed and off topic.

Sorry if it steps on your toes; but, you agnostics pretend you don't have a religion (but you do)and you also pretend you have no weakness or would NEVER fail, fall, be somehow misdirected in life etc. etc.
Snobbery.

So, please forgive me stating it like it is. And, I'm sorry I'm also a guy you love to slant as well. You want respect from Christians? Stop disrespecting them with your ANTI-Christian statements. The end.

You threw an awful lot out there hoping something would stick. It didn't. I dare you to find any post by me on this site that matches your ranting. You're not going to find one. You're talking out of your...hat. I have never stated a religious or spiritual preference on INGO. Ever. You're reading crud that isn't there. There's no slant here at all, from me.
Your contention that Obama has some hidden agenda is ludicrous on its face. These people were appointed in the light of day. I don't have to like that he appointed some progressives to these posts, rather than libertarians, but it's certainly no worse than the Bush's appointments of christian fundamentalists. Those were people who actually promoted an anti-liberty agenda. These advisers haven't done anything yet and if/when they do, I doubt they'll be basing it upon their religious beliefs. It will be much more likely to be based on their progressive beliefs.

 

[mrjarrell]

You two must be decendants of the same ignorant monkey.
Panama has it completely right. as I have said before and will say again.
The muslim or "islamic" religious community will continue to be suspect unless and until they come forward themselves condemning the violent acts made in the name of allah. but the only opinions we hear from that part of the religious community are those of support for the "terrorists" and praise for their violent acts. Then in the midst of all this controversey our illustrious unbelieveably arrogant and opressive president assigns members of the very religious community that support "terrorism" into national security postions. That in and of itself should be viewed as treason.

Remember after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Asian Americans all over the country were segregated for observation and national security purposes.

I have heard some people claim that we have gone back into the complacent outlook of the days and weeks before the attacks of the World Trade Center in 2001. I fear we may have gone further into a dangerous mentality than that.

Well, I am sure that Denny and I share some genetic similarities and heritage. I rather think granma Lucy would be proud of some of us. Others, not so much.
As Denny asked. Are you favouring rounding up Americans and putting them in camps? It certainly won't be as easy as it was last time. There are plenty of people who'll be willing to man the barricades to stop that sort of unConstitutional act.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Do the words FOX, HENHOUSE and CHICKEN have any meaning to him?

I believe so.....

FOX = The news organization that he hates.

HENHOUSE = The house he bought for his wife.

CHICKEN = Not only a nutricious meal, but also a statement about his character.

 

[Phil502]

You threw an awful lot out there hoping something would stick. It didn't. I dare you to find any post by me on this site that matches your ranting. You're not going to find one. You're talking out of your...hat. I have never stated a religious or spiritual preference on INGO. Ever. You're reading crud that isn't there. There's no slant here at all, from me.
Your contention that Obama has some hidden agenda is ludicrous on its face. These people were appointed in the light of day. I don't have to like that he appointed some progressives to these posts, rather than libertarians, but it's certainly no worse than the Bush's appointments of christian fundamentalists. Those were people who actually promoted an anti-liberty agenda. These advisers haven't done anything yet and if/when they do, I doubt they'll be basing it upon their religious beliefs. It will be much more likely to be based on their progressive beliefs.

Oh okay if you say so, no hidden agenda and no stupid mistakes either while Obama denies that this country has been attacked by Muslims repeatedly. Go ahead and name the Christian attacks on America while they screamed God is Great. Apologists are always comparing apples to oranges. Why do we owe Muslims an apology, they worship freely here and much more freely then Christians do in their countries, they owe us the apology since they never speak out loudly about the attacks that we endure here. I have never heard of a Muslim attack based on progressive beliefs, in fact most Muslims are more conservative then progressive, so much to the point of intolerence of others, especially when they have a free hand to rule.

 

[GetA2J]

Yes, a little over simplified but you get the picture.

I hope that we NEVER repeat such a terrible travesty under the guise of National Security. I hope you are not suggesting we do something similar now?

No... denny I was NOT advocating another such travesty. I was merely pointing out to those of you less observant that our Great country has come a log way.
It stands though that if the muslim community wants to avoid this typcasting they need to publicly condemn these acts of violence done in the name of their religion. Otherwise we have no other logical observation than to see that their religion is NOT one of peace as they would have us to believe... unfounded.

 

[CulpeperMM]

I'd feel better if all security posts were filled with people with NO religious affiliations.

like this guy?:

 

[Panama]

I'd feel better if all security posts were filled with people with NO religious affiliations.

Which also means, "No moral compass" yeah, wouldn't that just be wonderful!

 

[Panama]

*

 

[BloodEclipse]

LENIN referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies as "useful idiots."

Same thing going or for Muslim terrorists now.

 

[CombatVet]

So is the problem that they are Muslim or because Obama gave them the jobs?

 

[mettle]

You threw an awful lot out there hoping something would stick. It didn't. I dare you to find any post by me on this site that matches your ranting. You're not going to find one. You're talking out of your...hat. I have never stated a religious or spiritual preference on INGO. Ever. You're reading crud that isn't there. There's no slant here at all, from me.
Your contention that Obama has some hidden agenda is ludicrous on its face. These people were appointed in the light of day. I don't have to like that he appointed some progressives to these posts, rather than libertarians, but it's certainly no worse than the Bush's appointments of christian fundamentalists. Those were people who actually promoted an anti-liberty agenda. These advisers haven't done anything yet and if/when they do, I doubt they'll be basing it upon their religious beliefs. It will be much more likely to be based on their progressive beliefs.

Your 'so are christians comment was not needed, and off topic. Forgive me if that looks like a plug for those like you who just can't stick to topic.
And a lot stuck, you responded. And EVERYONE has a 'spiritual preference', EVERYONE. So let's not play that game Obama. OK? Just a pot stirrer, just a pot stirrer.