They were not targted because they were Easter worshipers. It wouldn’t have mattered whether they were Easter worshipers now or Christmas worshipers earlier in the year.
They were targeted because they were Christians.
M
And the Anti-Christian-Islamic-Sympathizer in the White House refused to say Christians!
No. He didn’t identify them.
I have no problem with not identifying them. I have a big problem with identifying them as “Easter worshipers” when what they were killed for was being Christians - not for being Easter worshipers.
M
Which was actually known - a few hours after the attacks?
You know, when Clinton and Obama sent out their tweets that have you so fired up.
It’s been a few days now, and we still don’t know the whole story. You’re making assumptions.
This doesn’t make any sense.
And everyone KNOWS Easter worshippers are Christians. But using Easter worshippers makes the terrorist attack even more heinous as they are being killed while peacefully celebrating their high holiday.
Islam extends way past the Middle East. what shouldn’t be ignored is the spread of Wahhabism/Salafism. Chechnya in the mid 90’s is a good example of what happens when that strain of Islam moves into a region like it did during the first Chechen war.
Obama bad, Trump good. The rest sorts itself out.
dizzy yet?
Are you saying that somehow Clinton and Obama and Castro didn’t KNOW they were Christians in those churches; that all they could know was they were “Easter worshippers”?
The assumption I’m making is they didn’t want to SAY that this was an attack on Christians.
M
No, I’m saying that Obama, Clinton and Castro chose not to make the same assumptions about the intent of the attackers that you feel is somehow required.
So you’re mad that they didn’t express your assumptions and feelings?
Trump didn’t say this was an attack on Christians, either.
It makes perfect sense.
If you’re going to identify them then tell the important thing that identifies them and not the more poltically palatable thing that identifies them.
M
Oh, nonsense.
It is NOT more heinous because they had a reason to be in the church that day. They have a reason to be in church every sabbath.
What makes it heinous is that they were killed BECAUSE they were Christians.
M
So it’s ok not to say that the victims were Christian, as long as you don’t mention the victims at all - but if you do mention the victims, they have to be identified by their religious beliefs?
If you have the choice to identify them for the reason they were targeted OR for the reason they were at the place they were targeted then the important thing is the reason they were targeted.
Obama, Clinton and Castro decided NOT to mention the reason why they were targeted. They did that because they hate to tell the story of Muslims targeting Christians - even when they know full stop that was what happened.
They would have been far better off not to identify them at all, because they look incapable of vocalizing the real truth, in order to be poltically correct to the left. They look duplicitous.
M
Trump had the choice to identify them for the reason they were targeted.
Just like Obama, Clinton and Castro - he chose not to.
Everything else in this post is just stuff you made up.
You appear to be really big on assuming intention with minimal information - as long as it makes the left look bad.
1 Like
He chose not to identify them AT ALL.
They chose to identify them and they chose to use an identifier that doesn’t make it abundandtly CLEAR that this was Muslims killing Christians because they were Christians - full stop.
You can give them all the leeway you want to. I have seen this game too many times before.
M
I understand your argument. It still doesn’t make any sense.
Why is failing to identify the victims better than identifying them in the wrong way?
Yes, we know they were killed because they were Christian. Do you think Americans don’t know Easter worshippers are Christian?
But to attack them on their highest of holy days IS especially heinous. Everyone except you sees that.
This thread did not disappoint.
