Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 Jun '14 18:35
    When Obama took office, the Islamists were on the run. Under Obama's watch Islamists have increased in power.

    With Obama's approval they took over Egypt, but the Egyptian military put an end to that.

    Due to Obama's policy it looks like Islamists will be taking over Iraq and in the not so distant future Afghanistan.

    I don't know if it is because Obama is actually an Islamist sympathizer or if it is a natural result of weakness. In either case, the outcome is the same.
  2. 12 Jun '14 18:48
    What's your measure for "Islamist power"?
  3. 12 Jun '14 19:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's your measure for "Islamist power"?
    Countries that they control or dominate.
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    12 Jun '14 23:37
    There are quite a lot of Muslims in many countries, not least in Egypt and Iraq. I think these countries are quite likely to have an Islamic flavour to them. Why are you so intent on pissing in the wind?
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Jun '14 00:14
    Originally posted by Eladar
    When Obama took office, the Islamists were on the run. Under Obama's watch Islamists have increased in power.

    With Obama's approval they took over Egypt, but the Egyptian military put an end to that.

    Due to Obama's policy it looks like Islamists will be taking over Iraq and in the not so distant future Afghanistan.

    I don't know if it is because Ob ...[text shortened]... sympathizer or if it is a natural result of weakness. In either case, the outcome is the same.
    IF the People in Middle Eastern countries want to be ruled by Islamists, that is what will eventually happen. The US could keep meddling in these matters and die and kill by the thousands, tens of thousands or more, but that will not alter that reality (indeed American intervention has made an Islamist victory in Iraq much more likely).
  6. 13 Jun '14 05:27
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Countries that they control or dominate.
    Okay. Can you show me the historical tally of "Islamists" (who?) "dominating" countries?
  7. 13 Jun '14 19:38
    Originally posted by finnegan
    There are quite a lot of Muslims in many countries, not least in Egypt and Iraq. I think these countries are quite likely to have an Islamic flavour to them. Why are you so intent on pissing in the wind?
    If by Islamic flavor you mean Jihadists, then yes I agree. As in Egypt those people should be dealt with in a hard line fashion.

    Obama has chosen to turn a blind eye to them at the very least and at worst appears to support the Jihadists.
  8. 13 Jun '14 19:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Okay. Can you show me the historical tally of "Islamists" (who?) "dominating" countries?
    Just look at Iraq.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Jun '14 19:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If by Islamic flavor you mean Jihadists, then yes I agree. As in Egypt those people should be dealt with in a hard line fashion.

    Obama has chosen to turn a blind eye to them at the very least and at worst appears to support the Jihadists.
    Your ignorance is astonishing. The Muslim Brotherhood weren't Jihadists and were the elected government. They were "dealt with harshly" by a military overthrow of a freely elected government. Surely you don't support that.

    The "Obama supports the Jihadists" fantasy you have is surreal. If he starts bombing the ISIL, will still keep peddling that BS?
  10. 13 Jun '14 19:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your ignorance is astonishing. The Muslim Brotherhood weren't Jihadists and were the elected government. They were "dealt with harshly" by a military overthrow of a freely elected government. Surely you don't support that.

    The "Obama supports the Jihadists" fantasy you have is surreal. If he starts bombing the ISIL, will still keep peddling that BS?
    Would KKK members who were elected to office in the South no longer be racists if they were elected by the local population?
  11. 13 Jun '14 19:52
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Just look at Iraq.
    How's that a tally?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Jun '14 20:02
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Would KKK members who were elected to office in the South no longer be racists if they were elected by the local population?
    There were two parts of that sentence concerning the Muslim Brotherhood:

    Part 1 - They are not Jihadists.

    Part 2 - They were the elected government.

    IF members of the KKK were elected to offices in the South should the US military overthrow them and put generals in said offices?
  13. 13 Jun '14 20:15
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There were two parts of that sentence concerning the Muslim Brotherhood:

    Part 1 - They are not Jihadists.

    Part 2 - They were the elected government.

    IF members of the KKK were elected to offices in the South should the US military overthrow them and put generals in said offices?
    Yes, I saw the two parts. You are simply wrong about them not being Jihadists.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Jun '14 20:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yes, I saw the two parts. You are simply wrong about them not being Jihadists.
    Have fun "Holding your breath until you turn blue". In fact:

    The Muslim Brotherhood is the world's oldest, largest, and most influential Islamist organization. It is also the most controversial, condemned by both conventional opinion in the West and radical opinion in the Middle East. American commentators have called the Muslim Brothers "radical Islamists" and "a vital component of the enemy's assault force ... deeply hostile to the United States." Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri sneers at them for "lur[ing] thousands of young Muslim men into lines for elections ... instead of into the lines of jihad."

    Jihadists loathe the Muslim Brotherhood (known in Arabic as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen) for rejecting global jihad and embracing democracy.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Brotherhood is a collection of national groups with differing outlooks, and the various factions disagree about how best to advance its mission. But all reject global jihad while embracing elections and other features of democracy.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62453/robert-s-leiken-and-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood
  15. 14 Jun '14 15:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Have fun "Holding your breath until you turn blue". In fact:

    The Muslim Brotherhood is the world's oldest, largest, and most influential Islamist organization. It is also the most controversial, condemned by both conventional opinion in the West and radical opinion in the Middle East. American commentators have called the Muslim Brothers "radical Isla ...[text shortened]... eignaffairs.com/articles/62453/robert-s-leiken-and-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood
    It is obvious to me that you too are a Jihadist sympathizer who wants to place as positive a spin as possible on people who butcher Christians. Even if it is only in the country of Egypt, Jihadist can't be allowed to carry out their killings unchecked.

    You have no problem with it, which just goes to show that you, like Obama, are on the Jihadists' side.