8 thoughts on “Obama’s Drones”

  1. So our pope Obama has killed more people without giving them a trial. As compared to 350 years worth
    of Popes who did provide a trial [though trials may have been less fair and rational than a modern trial- though not by much. Or biggest difference with modern justice is people stay in prison longer and less likely to execute people like Charlie Mason {no possible doubt of their guilt of many deliberate and hideous crimes}] So even if they lacked modern jet travel they manage deliver swifter justice whereas
    killing people with drone strikes is not swifter justice, just a much quicker execution without a trial.

  2. That’s a largely irrelevant comparison. Obama’s point at the prayer breakfast was that religion has been and continues to be used to rationalize violence of all kinds. The Inquisition is a perfect example of violence executed in the name of religious purity. Drone strikes are executed in the name of national security. Most liberals I know won’t argue with the stated objective — national security — though they may argue that, pragmatically, drone strikes are counter-productive, and morally objectionable because they are not as precise as advertised by their proponents.

    1. The Crusades were a response to Muslim invasion. They ended over 700 years ago. The Inquisition ended over 300 years ago. Compare and contrast that to what is happening today. Obama is the president of the present, not the past. His job is to deal with what is happening today, not what happened centuries ago.

    2. Obama’s point…

      Dave, Obama’s point was clear and you don’t get to redefine it.

      His point is muslims and christians are the same.
      His point is wrong.
      His point is idiotic.
      His point is insulting and was meant to be.
      His point comes direct from the muslim pulpit.

    3. Obama can’t even say radical Islam. He keeps telling people that ISIS isn’t Islamic. That the Muslim Brotherhood is secular. That religion has nothing to do with what we are seeing in the Middle East. Obama never says Mohammed is the inspiration.

      Is he lying? And is he doing so because he has a stereotype of the great white masses that live between the two coasts where he thinks they will kill all their local Muslims? I don’t know but I do know that Democrats have a lot of racist stereotypes, especially Democrats with Obama’s background of activism and academia.

      Notice though how quick he was to say that Christ was the motivation behind the Crusades. The intent was as you noted, to remind the Christians at the prayer breakfast that they bear the responsibility for what Obama views as a historical sin. This isn’t the only issue where Obama thinks the people alive today are responsible for things they had nothing to do with.

      1. lying or deluded, I don’t see it making all that much difference. Either way king Barrycade is dangerous.

    4. Is the Islamic State just terrorist or Islamic terrorist? If the former, why is the Inquisition even mentioned? If the latter, then I understand perhaps why it is mentioned, but unless the Islamic State is now the de facto authority for Islam, how is the Inquisition relevant?

Comments are closed.