Obama wanted to get a couple things “perfectly clear,” in his atypically short speech on the eve of September 11.
The main thing he seemed intent on communicating to us is; 1) ISIS is not Islamic and 2) No religion condones the murder of innocents.
His meaning was, through his hugely flawed logic, that ISIS is not Islamic, ergo; so don’t blame Islam for the beheadings, rape, forced marriages, lies, theft and other generally rotten stuff ISIS practices constantly and routinely.
There are a few blatant problems with his assertion:
1. Since when is he a scholar of Islam? (A “scholar” as opposed to a “practitioner,” which seems unquestionable at this juncture in the “arc of history.”) We know of his allegations of being a “Constitutional scholar” even though he has never published any learned treatises on the topic. Nor have any of his “students” come forth to praise his erudition. They’re as scarce as his “old girlfriends.” OK…maybe not that scarce. But they have gone completely unnoticed to date. And how is it a President has enough time on his hands to be a scholar of anything? Especially considering his heavy golfing schedule.
2. Those ISIS creeps are always waving a black flag around emblazoned with the Moon and Crescent. They are frequently heard shouting “Allah Akbar” during what seem entirely inappropriate events; ie; beheadings of children and mass murders of former troops or policemen of Iraq. It may seem OK to you …or Obama…but I find it troubling. Although I am surprised they are literate enough to read or memorize any written material, they seem always ready to quote something from the Koran justifying the murder of those nasty “infidels.” There’s a lot of “duck walking and quacking” going on.
3. Other terror organizations do similar bad things and they proudly proclaim they are only doing “Allah’s work.” Obama has never denied they are also NOT Islamic. Shazaam! As Gomer Pyle (USMC) would say.
4. How does Obama know that “no religions condone murder?” Is he also a scholar of all hitherto unmentioned religions? Is he also a scholar of the history of “all religions?” Is he unaware that Richard the (Lion Hearted) king of England executed 1500 people he captured during the siege of Acre because it was getting pricey feeding these same prisoners of war (which included women and kids)? Has he never read of the Spanish Inquisition? These few lapses in his professorial and cool demeanor are enough to disqualify his credibility and knowledge about all “religions”. By mentioning “religions” and from which we are to infer “all religions,” he exculpates Islam…and its practitioners. His logic is flawed. It is safer to say “Islamic adherents are sometimes flawed, stupid, whacky and murderous.” This would have condemned ISIS and left Islam’s reputation pretty much intact. But he doesn’t do that. He is compelled to exonerate all Islam and its practitioners because…because…I can only think of one real explanation for this guy who claims to be a “devout Christian” even though he’s only rarely darkened a church door in recent years. Who bows to the Usurper King of Saud and thinks “nothing so beautiful as the Muslim morning call to prayer.” In attempting to exonerate all Islam methinks he doth protest too much.
5. Of course, his statement has its own internal and perfect logic if you define those who are not “innocent” as those who have not embraced Islam. The “infidels” cannot, by definition, be innocent. Perhaps this is what was in his mind during his short little speech and, if he had been hooked up to a lie detector device, which would have prevented him from registering even the tiniest “blip.” Think about that one for a while. Creepy, huh?
6. And remember he has been known to spout some whoppers.