If you reset your paradigm and accept that President Obama doesn’t necessarily want to see authentic Islam (ISIS) defeated – every contradiction reconciles. It’s called Occam’s Razor:
“The simplest explanation is usually the right one”.
The simplest explanation is that Obama doesn’t want to see authentic Islam defeated.
If you re-purpose your frame of reference, and accept that President Obama is not invested in the defeat of ISIS, but rather sympathetic to the sentiments contained in their misunderstood expressions of Islam, every action taken by President Obama reconciles so neatly it cannot be mere happenstance.
Now, the central element in applying ‘Occam’s Razor’, and determining if the perspective is indeed worthy of merit, is to use the Scientific Method of analysis to attack the hypothesis.
It works like this – the hypothesis is:
President Obama wants to allow ISIS to exist, he essentially supports the expression of their views on Islam; however, he faces a problem where he must hide his intent because his viewpoint is antithetical to the rest of the world.
To test the merit of the thesis – apply the Scientific Method, reverse the hypothesis and look for examples of specific behavior that would contradict the thesis. See if you can identify behavior that proves:
♦ President Obama doesn’t want ISIS to exist and is not hiding his intents.
Can you identify specific action, that means “behavior”, that supports President Obama wanting to eliminate ISIS?
Read the rest here...