The Manchurian Marxist Moslem can’t seem to square reality with his skewed view of the world… An excerpt from James Taranto:
The president kept his promise of clarity only for a few sentences: “They have rampaged across cities and villages–killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims–both Sunni and Shia–by the thousands. They have murdered Muslims–both Sunni and Shia–by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.”
But then he descended into sophistry: “So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day.”
Hmm. ISIS both “speaks for no religion” and targets “Christians and religious minorities” because “they practice a different religion.” Different from what? Then the categorical statement: “No faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” Then the curiously qualified statement: “No just God would stand for” ISIS’s actions.
On its own, Obama’s claim about “No just God” would appear to be a denial of God’s existence (or a denial that God is just)–that is, a statement of the problem of evil from the point of view of a religious skeptic. But in context, the statement is surely meant to be understood as another way of denying that ISIS is motivated by religion–that no true believer would commit such atrocities.