Islamic Radical Terrorism

Islamic Radical Terrorism

Islamic Radical Terrorism
By David Cox

Islamic Radical TerrorismI have dealt with this and Obama before, but I just wanted to make a point, and I feel that it is valid for a complete post all on its own.

Obama doesn’t want to associate the terrorism we are seeing by certain muslims today with “Islamic Radical Terrorism”. Is that valid? Let’s examine that. Is his premise valid? No it is not.

What we are seeing is Islamic Radical Terrorism, and we should call it for what it is.

They are at war with us, but we don’t seem to be at war with them. Obama and the Democratics have ham-strung the US forces (both the military as well as the CIA and FBI) into not doing anything detrimental against Islam, and he has made sure the Muslims have the upper hand. Undoubtedly he is passing US intelligence over to them. He says he knows the leaders well, but we never see who these Muslim leaders are so that we can tell whether they are moderates or extremists.

Obama should be fully investigated for his relationship with Islam, and he should be prosecuted for what he has done to America.

Is it terrorism?

Is “Islamic Radical Terrorism” really terrorism? By anybody’s definition it is terrorism. The muslim religion as seen by their leaders call what they are doing “a war” against the west. They refer to this with the arabic term “jihad”.  They understand very well that when some individuals in their religion kills a bunch of people, that it is jihad. They do not accept some crazies that are not muslim (like the killer in South Carolina). That is not jihad. Jihad is terrorism. Simple war where two armies gather on a battlefield is not what they want. They want terrorism, where innocent people are the causalties, and the military and the US government are the ones to blame.

Why don’t we call them Muslim Radical Terrorists?

Obama’s position is that these people do not accurately represent all Muslims. If that is so (but see below), and it probably is, then separating them from the mass of Muslims is a good thing. Calling them terrorists is exactly what Obama SHOULD BE DOING! But he doesn’t. This is because Obama wants to identify with them. He wants to say that what these jihadists are doing is normal for all muslims. It is Obama that refuses to separate them from all Muslims, so he is affirming that they are just normal muslim, and their reasons for killing people is something else. The San Bernadino killers, it was workplace violence. Orlando, it was homosexual on homosexual crime.

Obama is just a Muslim

So what gives here? Obama is a typical muslim. What you say? Yes. Where Muslims gather in other countries, they impose Shira law, and that takes precedent over any laws of the land typically. In England they killed a fellow for eating a hot dog in a Muslim neighborhood during Ramadan. The English authorities would not pursue the case even though there were video and the killers were shop owners where this guy stopped to eat his hot dog. Shira law takes precedent over English law.

So Obama understands that all these terrorists are just normal muslims, don’t separate them out with some “radical” term. In muslim countries, this is how the law works. Your neighbor scratches your car, you don’t go and talk to him, and get his insurance information, and he pays you for the property damage he did (or you go to court to get the money), rather you just get your gun and kill him.

This is an eye for eye, a tooth for tooth mentality. Actually it is a step on my toe, and I will kill you mentality. But Obama is thinking that every terror attack is something that those people deserve to receive. If you don’t have a big guy on your side to beat the guy doing that bad stuff to you, you shut up and take it (like the majority of the 1.7 billion muslims have to do). You bow down and submit to the aggressor.

Obviously the American people no longer have a strong military to be our “big guy” to defend us. Obama has seen to it that both they are decapacitated and that they have no legal right (no orders) to avenge wrong doing nor to prevent anything.

Obama hates Christianity and is an Enabler for Islamic Terrorism

Go get them Judge Jeanine! Love her opinion here!

“Mr. Obama. You identify terrible deeds in the name of Christ (in the prayer breakfast he spoke at). Why not identify terrible deeds in the name of Mohamed?”

He cannot do it because he is pro-Islam, and TO HIM HIS RELIGION NEVER DOES ANYTHING WRONG!

What is Obama is right?

If Obama is right and there is no such thing as Islamic Radical Terrorists, then why do these people identify their terrorism as just that? They point to their motive as being jihad. We should take them at their words. How is it that somebody can reinterpret a dead man’s last words as to why he is committing a terrorist act? If a Christian guy was to say he was killing people for Christ, would Obama come in and erase those words and refuse to let anybody hear them? No. He would broadcast them long and hard. That is because Obama is not Christian.

In reality, even if a Christian terrorist (clearly identifying himself as a Christian of some sort) was to come on the scene, what should we do about it? We (US government) would take absolutely no action against that Christian group that he came from, but would act against the individual. That is the way we have always “done it.” Why? That is because any group (even blacks, Mr. Obama) can have bad apples. It only becomes important to go against the group when the group itself promotes violence, teaches its people how to do violence, and are the providers and enablers of that violence. The black panthers and other black extremist groups have had the US government go against them. There was no racism in that at all, and nobody will raise that accusation. Why not? Because it is not against all blacks, but against the radical blacks (that kill blacks as well as others) that is doing violence. The US government goes against them, and they are killed in taking them under arrest or are in jail (or are in hiding). We could mention David Koresh and his gang in his self made religion that abused children, but they were also preparing for violence. Jim Jones that turned violent on his on people rather than come to justice. The US government went after these radicals even though they were representing a religion. The US government tried to get plants into these groups to find out what were their plans.

But Obama wipes Muslims of any wrong doing, saying that the FBI cannot go after them. The only explanation that makes any sense is because Obama is one of them, and he is protecting his own. But what the “rules of the game” are and have always been are now changed by a pro-muslim President. We cannot identify these radical elements. We cannot isolate them and go after them. Their violence is not organized nor motived by their religious group.

This Presidential protection of all Islam is the most racist thing we have ever seen. –David Cox

Only in America could a muslim go so far in a free democratic country. In a Muslim country, a Christian that wants public office is going to be worried about being killed. The bottom line is that there are two ideologies at war here, true Democracy against Muslim terror reign (over their own people and trying to be over the rest of the world).

What right does a non-Christian have as President of the United States?

If Obama is pro-Islam, he should be open about it and say that when he was first candidating way back for his first public office. The fact that Muslims are also really good liars, because Obama has lied his way through a pre-president political life and 2 terms as president. He continues to pretend to be for America, but he has nothing good to say about it, and he takes glee when something bad happens. This is just wrong. He has deceived the American public, and more the Democrats in his own party. Obama is a shame from the beginning to the end.