White House REFUSES To Call 21 Beheading Victims CHRISTIANS In Statement Against ISIS Attack

originally posted by: semperfortis
Has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, the Whitehouse left out the Christian component in order to NOT play into the religious aspect the terrorists so love to propagate?

I'm no fan of Obama, but in this instance his press people got it right.

No need to further fan the flames and cause even more separation in the religious community.

It is enough that the people died.

Semper

Wouldn't that be "liberal" shennanigans?

And yes, a lot of us most certainly have "considered" this. Anyone with an ounce of logic or sanity would.

Perceptions on both sides being what they are, taking the religion out of this equation is nothing but a win for everyone.

a reply to: deadeyedick

And I see your point deadeye and I don't want to take away anything from this persecution of Christians...


I just think there is a time and a place for it to be labelled so...


Media, yep...
A world leaders admin, depends on the current civil situation of the respective nation...

& I think it's fair to say that in the U.S., it's not long before the straw will break the Camels back and people start targetting Muslims for ISISs activity...

& the Admin shouldn't be adding straws...






As to being United...

We need to look at the closest comparison we have to ISIS...

The Nazis...

The Western World put old differences aside to destroy the common enemy...

I think the same could and should be applied to fighting ISIS.



imo!

originally posted by: semperfortis
Has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, the Whitehouse left out the Christian component in order to NOT play into the religious aspect the terrorists so love to propagate?

I'm no fan of Obama, but in this instance his press people got it right.

No need to further fan the flames and cause even more separation in the religious community.

It is enough that the people died.

Semper

Then why use a major televised presidential statement; reaching back 800 years to the Crusades, in order to create a moral equivalency between ISIS and Christianity...at a national prayer breakfast?

from what I recall reading from an earlier article on the web today///
was that the 21 Egyptian workers in Libya were held prisoner for some weeks because it was discovered that the persons-of-interest, i.e. the Egyptians, ... were discovered to be Coptic Christians.... which singles the group out for special 'handling'

... all Øbama is trying to do is murk-up-the-waters with his idea that there was NO Discrimination involved in first questioning, then detaining and later prosecuting these 21 foreign workers with a Death-Penalty for no commission of any crime or activity against the public of Libya....

the Coptic Christian Egyptians, all 21, were murdered because of their religious upbringing rather than any insurgency or crime or plan to sabotage/evangelize/hold prayer vigils to the peaceful populations of Libya

Mr. EO-Øbama needs to vet his responses better or there will be serious doubt as to his mental stability to act as a commander-in-chief in the rest of the legal, authorized term-in-office




ADD: from metro news; The Coptic Christians (the same 21 people beheaded on a beach) were captured in December and January from Sirte, Libya, which is now largely under Isis control.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

If americans did not target muslims in the us much after 911 then it is safe to say that calling isis islamic terrorist and saying christians got heads chopped off for being christian will not break a camel

One thing i know for sure is that truth is best.

As far as the nazis go that is a good example of how the pres at the time did not spin words to hide the fact it was mainly jews targeted and showed the world domination goals. All the countries involved owned their responsibility of stepping up and coming together to protect their own as they reported the deathh specific to the different countries.


The kind of wording coming from the whitehouse would be acceptable if it were coming from nato or some world group.

Christians all consider themselves to be a big family with some sketchy reletives.

The statement also said:

ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.

My guess is the intent might be to minimize the "Muslim versus Christian" angle on this and put the emphasis on the fact that ISIS is also killing Muslims so as to keep the mainstream Muslims in the region engaged in the fight.

It's not as if the administration completely avoids any references to Christianity:

Michelle and I wish Coptic Orthodox Christians in the United States and around the world a joyous Christmas. On this special day, we celebrate the messages of peace and hope that continue to inspire congregations more than 2,000 years after Jesus’ birth. During this season, we reaffirm the commitment of the United States to work for the protection of Christians and other people of faith in Egypt and around the world.

LINK.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: IAMTAT

White House REFUSES To Call 21 Beheading Victims CHRISTIANS In Statement Against ISIS Attack

Why should it matter if the latest victims shown in the irresponsible media hype around "ISIS" are Christians or anything else?

Because if you're a Christian who fears getting your head sawn off, you just might convert to Islam?
Because the motives of murderers are usually important to know?
Because high-lighting the killing of folks who aren't actively at war with you (like Shia v Sunni) is particularly heinous?

a reply to: DelMarvel

Yet he sits by as they are murdered.

Maybe you would like to answer the question of how many deaths will it take before he gets really involved?

There is a very long list of things he can do other than a ground invasion.

Everything done so far amounts to just the bare minimum in order to keep his position.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
The statement also said:

ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.

My guess is the intent might be to minimize the "Muslim versus Christian" angle on this and put the emphasis on the fact that ISIS is also killing Muslims so as to keep the mainstream Muslims in the region engaged in the fight.

It's not as if the administration completely avoids any references to Christianity:

Michelle and I wish Coptic Orthodox Christians in the United States and around the world a joyous Christmas. On this special day, we celebrate the messages of peace and hope that continue to inspire congregations more than 2,000 years after Jesus’ birth. During this season, we reaffirm the commitment of the United States to work for the protection of Christians and other people of faith in Egypt and around the world.

LINK.

Thanks, but this Obama announcement is from January 7th...and is in reference to the Coptic Christmas.
Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the ISIS be-headings.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The Muslims in Jordan and Egypt have no problems wrapping their heads around the concept of 'good' muslims and 'bad' muslims Mr Hussein Obama however cannot seem to concieve of 'bad' muslims.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Fine, he's screwed the pooch. Let's go with that premise.

What is he supposed to do?

I can see the logic in avoiding mentioning religion in the statement. First of all, the perpetrators want it to be a message to Christians in that region. Not giving them that pleasure robs them of part of the incentive for doing such vile and stupid things.

Secondly the West has been so indoctrinated in religious intolerance and hatred of all things Islam for fourteen years now that trying to tone it down is rational and necessary.

On a final note - I worked, for many years, with Egyptian Christians who had been granted religous asylum in the US because their lives were very much in danger, so I am not totaly oblivious to the realities of that region and how viciously Christians and Jews are treated by Islam. My heart breaks for those 21 slaughtered people and their loved ones. Senseless death is the most stymying aspect of human behavior.

But here is the hard truth. There weren't any real terrorist organizations ( outside of Israel and Palestine) until the United States went in and created them.

Let the blood be on all the guilty hands.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DelMarvel

Yet he sits by as they are murdered.

Maybe you would like to answer the question of how many deaths will it take before he gets really involved?

If you don't like Obama, fine, I respect your opinion. If you don't like the strategy for dealing with this, ditto.

But to say he is sitting by or not really involved is ridiculous.

He's bombing the crap out of ISIS in Syria and Iraq and asking for authorization to send in ground troops.

a reply to: Hefficide

But here is the hard truth. There weren't any real terrorist organizations ( outside of Israel and ) until the United States went in and created them.

That's your opinion not hard truth.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

Thanks, but this Obama announcement is from January 7th...and is in reference to the Coptic Christmas.
Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the ISIS be-headings.

It has bearing on the implication that Obama is somehow anti-Christian or resistant to refer to the plight of Christians internationally.

In response to the OP alone, I don't understand the word refuse in the title. As far as I am aware, in order to refuse there has to be a request or an order right? Has there been such a request or order?
On to the main idea of removing the importance of the religious angle from official statements. It seems to be preferable from some quarters that we make the situation purely religious. How can that help?
If the agenda were to create an us versus them, known enemy, clear cut decision to define positions then I am sure that governments would do that. They aren't doing that, and it's pretty clear why.
A religious war, with all that that would entail is just horrific to even imagine. It would literally be a free for all, killing on the streets, trust no one human disaster. Do you REALLY think any person wants that?

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: IAMTAT

Thanks, but this Obama announcement is from January 7th...and is in reference to the Coptic Christmas.
Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the ISIS be-headings.

It has bearing on the implication that Obama is somehow anti-Christian or resistant to refer to the plight of Christians internationally.

I never said Obama was anti-Christian. I believe he actually says he IS Christian.

originally posted by: Tusks

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: IAMTAT

White House REFUSES To Call 21 Beheading Victims CHRISTIANS In Statement Against ISIS Attack

Why should it matter if the latest victims shown in the irresponsible media hype around "ISIS" are Christians or anything else?

Because if you're a Christian who fears getting your head sawn off, you just might convert to Islam?
Because the motives of murderers are usually important to know?
Because high-lighting the killing of folks who aren't actively at war with you (like Shia v Sunni) is particularly heinous?

The motives of these murderers is simply to kill anyone they can get a hold of. Then they will use whatever reason is handy to justify it. If you are a Muslim, then they say that you didn't go along with them. If you are anything other than a Muslim, then they say it was because you weren't a Muslim. Trust me, if they could get a hold of a group of Jews, or Hindus or Buddhists or atheists, they would jump at the chance to behead them too. It isn't about just targeting Christians. It's about targeting ANYONE who isn't them.

Our government and Obama know this. There is no reason to make this just about Christianity. Because it isn't just about Christianity.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I find this to be an odd thing not to mention considering that the whole reason they were chosen for the beheading was their faith. Would the reason have been brought up if it was 21 gays or women that didn't cover themselves properly being victimized?

Of course it would have.

Remember the threads about tossing gays off the rooftop, and how all of us talked about how horrible that was?

Remember the threads after the Charlie Hebdo attacks that dug up every Muslim victim of the incident just so we could point out how it wasn't really Islamic terrorism?

But see how it's no appropriate at all to call it out when it is Christians who are beheaded.

Oh yes, I even remember talking about how awfully the Yazidis were and are treated. You know the ones who haven't yet been massacred.

Nope it's only wrong if you talk about it happening to Christians.

Hard to believe isn't it?

How do some of you sleep at night?