He's a Muslim He's not a Muslim

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mapuc

But the main question is what can he do as president of USA if he's a Muslim

It's not much
Markus

Sadly, you are incorrect. While I do NOT believe Obama is a Muslim (if anything he is an athiest), he has proven to be very machiavellian and he does see modern Judea-Xtianity as a threat to the power of his party and of government, as well as a threat to his (stated) goals to make the US "just another country".

Thus, he has islamic sympathies simply because the more success islam has in the world, the weaker the US and Judeao-Xtianity appears to be. He isn't muslim - but radical islam presents itself as a tool which he has used. Take the overthrow of Mubarek and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This stripped the US of a reliable ally in the region, weakening the US globally. Libyan power is more and more being controlled by Islamic hardliners like Abdel Hakim Belhaj. When radical islamists were poised to take control, the US decided to "help" them - and the governments (however horrible they were) toppled. Yet when a radical islamic government was threatened - the US stood idly by while they slaughtered their own people - in Iran.

The President has direct control over the majority of international relations. He decides where, how and when the US becomes involved in any situation - whether a crisis or a natural disaster, whether a good or bad situation. The State Department falls directly under the Executive.

Thus - the person (or people) in the office of the President can - and in the last decade and a half - have done significant harm to the long term prospects of the country in the global arena.

The question of Obama's "religiousity" (or lack thereof) can - as the last few years have shown - have a significant impact on how they handle global issues.

Then you have the internal issues....
The President sets the scene for internal change. Look at Obamacar, his push for green energy, or Tarp (which his predecessor is just as guilty of). There are so many ways the President can - either through ineptitude or intent - screw the nation.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Sadly, you are incorrect. While I do NOT believe Obama is a Muslim (if anything he is an athiest), he has proven to be very machiavellian and he does see modern Judea-Xtianity as a threat to the power of his party and of government, as well as a threat to his (stated) goals to make the US "just another country".

Stated? Really? Strange that you think he's an atheist, given the almost (to me) nauseating level of God-grovelling US politics seems to require these days, and of which we have plenty of proof in Obama's case.

Thus, he has islamic sympathies simply because the more success islam has in the world, the weaker the US and Judeao-Xtianity appears to be. He isn't muslim - but radical islam presents itself as a tool which he has used. Take the overthrow of Mubarek and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This stripped the US of a reliable ally in the region, weakening the US globally.

So Obama has used the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak in order to further reduce US and "judeo-Xtian" (whatever that is) power? I'm reminded of that old canard about extraordinary claims.

Libyan power is more and more being controlled by Islamic hardliners like Abdel Hakim Belhaj. When radical islamists were poised to take control, the US decided to "help" them - and the governments (however horrible they were) toppled. Yet when a radical islamic government was threatened - the US stood idly by while they slaughtered their own people - in Iran.

I think there's a definite difference to be drawn between the Libyan situation and the one in Iran. The Iranian government was never severely threatened by the Green movement.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Stated? Really? Strange that you think he's an atheist, given the almost (to me) nauseating level of God-grovelling US politics seems to require these days, and of which we have plenty of proof in Obama's case.

Read his books - he makes it clear he has an anti-colonial view - so yes - stated. As for "plenty of proof" regarding God and Obama - where do you find that? He showed up to Rev. Wright's church? Sorry - that simply continues to prove his anti-colonial views since the good "rev" doesn't preach about the love of the Almighty, but instead preaches hate for the greatness of America. The only time he says "God" is when its expected protocol.

So Obama has used the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak in order to further reduce US and "judeo-Xtian" (whatever that is) power? I'm reminded of that old canard about extraordinary claims.

Judea-Xtianity is the modern form of Protestanism (in its many flavors) that is most prevalent in the US. It is not an extraordinary claim - the outcome of his actions and inactions globally show either a total ineptitude to understand geopolitics in relation to US interests, or they indicate an agenda that is not in keeping with protecting US interests. Given that the majority of the "religious right" is strongly supportive of Israel - his actions allowed him to "tweak" his political "enemies" while weakening the US globally. Proof? Its merely circumstantial evidence - unless you buy that he is totally inept.

I think there's a definite difference to be drawn between the Libyan situation and the one in Iran. The Iranian government was never severely threatened by the Green movement.

Had the US acted - the regime would have been severly threatened at the least. But does an anti-colonial view support a major power supporting regime change to a more pro-western power with the support of others in the region? Of course not.

[JU_88]

Remember some of the 2008 hysteria, "Obamas a muslim communist terrorist" etc, all the past 4 years really prove is that hes just abit of a lousy president like Bush was.

Read his books - he makes it clear he has an anti-colonial view - so yes - stated

Errrrr America is anti colonial

He showed up to Rev. Wright's church? Sorry - that simply continues to prove his anti-colonial views since the good "rev" doesn't preach about the love of the Almighty, but instead preaches hate for the greatness of America.

So the church isn't christian and when the preacher says politicians lie he means they tell the truth like good christians, and when he says they discriminate against people for the colour of their skin or their gender he means they treat all people equally as gods children and when he says America has screwed up a hell of a lot he really means god made the US superfantasticly the bestest bestest set of lines ever on a map which never did nothing wrong nosirree.

Sorry you deluded individual but loving some lines on a map and having red white and blue blindness while denying reality doesn't by magic make you a christian, in fact it would make you most certainly un christian and guilty of a cardinal sin young man. What would jesus say of your hubris?
the little son of a carpenter would put you on the naughty step to reflect on your views young man.

Judea-Xtianity is the modern form of Protestanism (in its many flavors) that is most prevalent in the US.

So its actually a nothing, a self contradicting neologism

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

anti-colonial

A few years back I wrote that the Right, particlarly the Republican Right, attempst to define and redefine language in their political efforts. I was ridiculed by a few members, of which Haplo was not one, for this assertion. I think that we can see the latest in the efforts of wordsmithing by the GOP thinkers here. This is a term that was reintroduced (and redefined) by Dinesh D'Souza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza) in an effort to negatively categorize Barack Obama. What is most interesting about this term is the implication that the United States is an imperial power, or neo-imperial to be precise. Prior to this, Republican mantra held that this was never the case. Is this to be the latest philisophical concession?

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

A few years back I wrote that the Right, particlarly the Republican Right, attempst to define and redefine language in their political efforts. I was ridiculed by a few members, of which Haplo was not one, for this assertion.

I am glad I was not one of them - because I agree with you - poltiicians of both sides often redefine words to suite their need.

Prior to this, Republican mantra held that this was never the case. Is this to be the latest philisophical concession?

In this case - I am refering to the "new" meaning of the word - not its classical meaning. The "current" meaning of anti-colonial refers to the prevalent third world view that countries that are successful are so at the expense of the countries that struggle. Obviously - the tie in is that the old "imperial" powers are those that are successful by exploiting others. So the "new" definitiion is simply a step away from the "old" one - it is not a total redefinition.

In this case - I am refering to the "new" meaning of the word - not its classical meaning.

yet you have a problem with the meaning of the word marriage and only will accept one fairly new meaning, which of course just recently provided a great example of why the "rev" Wright and any proper Christian can stand up and say "God damn America" and have it carry the authenticity which is unquestionable in those circumstances.

he "current" meaning of anti-colonial refers to the prevalent third world view that countries that are successful are so at the expense of the countries that struggle.

That is about the wierdest definition of colonialism I have ever heard. is it a new made up nonsense version?

[mapuc]

^I stand corrected, if I was wrong on some of my statements

So he can make a real mess of USA if he wants to

Obamacare is one of his own "child" so to say, but didn't it need some kind of approval from the Senate?

I know that he can without approval give an order to send some cruisemissile(Tomahawk) against some terroristcamp or facility in a country

But what I have learned about this, is that he can't declare war on his own
(If he order an attack on Russia, then it would be the same as he have declared war)A long story I once heard many years ago on a swedish news program)

Markus

Stated? Really? Strange that you think he's an atheist

I thought the real rightwingers were complaining about his christianity and how his former pastor at his christian church was holding views that were too christian.