-72 votes

Obama Hasn't Killed Anyone

What's with the stuff about how many kids Obama has killed? Is he a drone pilot now?

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names."

Obama's not a murderer, not of children or anyone else. Place the stigma and the responsibility on the individuals committing the acts, and you will see change like never before.

Insulate and pardon them by blaming the King and you will merely get a new King.

Over and out.

EDIT: This edit comes after 38 downvotes and countless comments.

To be clear:

1) This was NOT a defense of Obama, in any way shape or form.

2) When I say Obama hasn't killed anyone, or that he is not a murderer, I do NOT mean it in a legal sense. I mean it in a literal sense; i.e. he did not commit the act personally.

3) If Obama did not commit the actual act, someone else must have. I propose that the literal term "murderer" should be applied to the person who committed the act. This does NOT mean Obama should not be held LEGALLY accountable. I merely propose that labels should be attributed with care. In a literal sense, Obama is the director of murder; or solicitor; or any equivalent thereto. Again, that's LITERAL sense, NOT LEGAL sense.

4) I think this is important because otherwise, the actual act itself is effectively pardoned when the murders are viewed collectively as Obama's, and Obama's alone. This has the effect of subsidizing the act of murder, since the label "murderer" is not attributed properly to the person committing the act.

5) One more time- when I talk about who has murdered, I mean it in a literal sense! Not a legal sense!

6) One more time- I am not defending Obama for his complicity in these murders!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ytc's picture

Ok, we are just as culpable. And WE are about to let a heroic

whistleblower of the century, Bradley Manning, perish in a USA imperial dungeon as well. Obama and WE.

the strangerr's picture

Patriotic Intentions

Although you make some accurate statements, I disagree with your overall premise; Universal Soldier notwithstanding (in which case the point is made that without the last link, the chain is broken). And the title seems a carnival-barker line, which I would neither agree nor disagree.

Regarding Obombya being guilty or innocent, isn't this simply the personification of a larger concept, e.g. evil as devil, etc. Focusing on Clinton, Bush, or Obama is focusing on the facade, a distraction that keeps the light off the actual machinery.

As far as the general condemnation individual soldiers, I disagree here as well. There was plenty of that after the Vietnam War. The problem is a complex web of deception; the institutions, indoctrination, and propaganda – the lies and the powerful tides of history that inundate the ready and unprepared alike.

The young soldier that signs up often does so with the noblest of intentions; patriotic intentions; with selflessness and courage. Soldiers, to the degree that their station is misused, are themselves victims. Don't blame the young soldiers, work to save them from being swept away by the current of events. And keep in mind the presumption of assuming oneself to be fully aware.

Also remember - Occam's Razor is edgy and dull; it can't even cut an onion and would convict on circumstantial evidence.

The problem is a complex web

The problem is a complex web of deception; the institutions, indoctrination, and propaganda – the lies and the powerful tides of history that inundate the ready and unprepared alike.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, further down, I wrote:

"I do sympathize with the circumstances which bring many to join in the first place.

I think we all know someone who is a good person who signs up, not knowing any better. They are encapsulated in a cocoon of propaganda from the womb until signing day. In so many cases, their parents didn't know any better; their friends didn't know any better; and hell, maybe we didn't even know any better to be able to advise them until it was too late, and they were already signed up.

So, I don't propose it's so simple as to how they end up there, or even how they get out...

And yet, at the same time, we all know that we are each responsible for our own choices and the consequences therefrom...

And the overarching point of my post is... We cannot pin murder on Obama on the one hand, and on the other hand say that the person who is actually committing the act did not also commit murder. It just doesn't follow logically.

As uncomfortable as it is, I think the best thing for all, is to admit that it is murder, and apply that term judiciously, in its literal sense, upon the one who commits it.

It is the only way to stigmatize and deter others from committing the same act on behalf of the state in the future.

Otherwise, if we say they are Obama's murders, then we are insulating and pardoning -- and in effect, subsidizing -- the actual act of murder. It will never end."

So I am sympathetic to the plight of soldiers, in some cases (but most certainly not all), whereas Obama has no excuse at all. I just think that continuing to cushion them from responsibility for the lives they are taking, in favor of focusing on the King, fails completely as it relates to seeking change. The proof is in the pudding.

the strangerr's picture

so many trees

Jay, you're missing the point, as reprinting your own words serves to illustrate. It's a point that may well be exemplified by the many down votes. Readers instinctively understand what they may not be able to articulate – though many comments in this thread have done a fine job.

The dichotomy of your equation reminds me of Dem vs. Rep; a time wasting shell game.

Your focus on the King, whether he's killed or not, misses the point. Your focus on the soldier, whether he's right or wrong, misses the point. If a bee hive looses its queen, the hive will make a new one. And the new queen will do what it was built to do; same with the drones. Can't see the apiary for bees.

It's a point that may well be

It's a point that may well be exemplified by the many down votes.

Votes don't exemplify anything for me, but especially in this post. You'll have to be more specific.

Readers instinctively understand what they may not be able to articulate – though many comments in this thread have done a fine job.

Please do point to one or a few of them, that I may understand better what you are trying to convey. Your ambiguity leaves much to be desired here.

Your focus on the King, whether he's killed or not, misses the point.

Whether he's killed or not? I'm not sure if that's a typo, but I never suggested anything about a King being killed... ?

If a bee hive looses its queen, the hive will make a new one.

Is this nihilism I detect manifesting itself in your argument? You're being cryptic. My post articulates the importance of clarity, particularly in labels.

Yours quite clearly takes another approach entirely; if not in its intent, most certainly in its delivery.

this thread is sinking faster than the yen :)

just saying...

Pointless comment.

Well, then, neither was Hitler, or John Gotti for that matter, if you want to re-define murder as only involving the trigger-puller. But that definition would be incorrect in a moral, legal or even literal sense. Just ask the Nuremberg judges. Or the jurors in the Southern District of New York.

Individuals are responsible for their actions. You can start prosecuting from the bottom up, if you want, and maybe that's the best strategy (although I'm not so certain.) But making this illusory distinction doesn't help. Quite the contrary.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Literally Speaking

He didn't "get" Bin Laden either.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Cyril's picture

What?!!! But he officially said they did, on national TV!!!

What?!!! But he officially said they did, on national TV!!!

Yet, that isn't true?!

*semi colon, closing parenthesis*

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Great Post....put the

Great Post....put the blowtorch on the Drone operators and watch them come out defending themselves as only following orders from there generals and the generals defending themselves as only following orders from the President...worth a crack! Another way to try and get to Obama....

“The final forming of a person's character lies in their own hands.”

Cyril's picture

OP, I've already said everything I had to say on your post

OP,

I've already said everything I had to say on your post (and more, in fact. lol :), but here's someone else -for your curiosity- who cares about language usage, not-so-unrelated. Look at who else is standing with us against the betrayal against the texts (and, thus, language):

http://www.youtu.be/yfHWChrsYfk

(all improvised)

Enjoy. :)

THAT is America standing for her TEXTS.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

This argument is so obtuse that I almost didn't respond ...

.. but:

Responsibility for State crimes in a military chain originates with the leaders who set the policy and give the orders.

- There is a chain of command

- There are those who originate policy and orders

- There are those who are hired / employed to execute those orders

- If they don't execute the orders, those 'employees' will no longer be employed

- Then the disobeyers will be replaced with others who *will* execute the orders.

Psychopathic leadership use the chain of command to insulate themselves from accusations of wrongdoing.

So of course their hands are not directly responsible for the crimes.

This is by design.

This is what makes your argument obtuse.

all they have is the perception

of authority. but all it actually is is perception. Obama doesn't actually have divine power. His authority only comes from your mind.

If I command you to go kill someone, and you do it, who is the murderer? the only difference between me saying it and Obama is that Obama has the perception of authority.

Seems to me my argument isn't

Seems to me my argument isn't obtuse at all, given that you were able to articulate its framework so well.

If Obama is so easily and widely labeled a murderer, and yet his "hands are not directly responsible for the crimes", as you aptly described, then it must be that someone else's hands are directly responsible for the crimes.

My aim, as I've articulated a number of times, is to sharpen the understanding and use of adjectives which are too carelessly thrown around. Obama is not the murderer; nor has he killed anyone. More accurately, he is the director of murder. The murderers are those who commit the murders. This is not a trivial distinction.

The sooner we grasp the wordplay, the sooner we progress toward change.

yeah sure

he has not committed the act personally, but you would think he would do everything in his power to prevent the deaths of innocent people around the world. yah know being commander in chief of the most powerful country n' all.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

Indeed. Nobody here is

Indeed. Nobody here is arguing differently, to my knowledge.

Precisely

That is what Presidential apologists fail to acknowledge: if he had any moral conscience or courage as a leader, he would have stood alone to end the wars etc long ago.

This also measures the difference between what kind of men Dr. Paul and the current Executive are: the first a hero; the latter a shallow opportunist

Michael Nystrom's picture

Yes, I understand what you're saying perfectly.

It is a shame you got -65 downvotes, including mine. It was a reflex. A spontaneous, non conscious reaction to your headline.

However, after I read your post, I saw immediately that what you're expressing is what is in the song, "The Universal Soldier."

Ron Paul loves that song. In fact, he had Aimee Allen sing that song for him at the big party in '08.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x9pb6U7zAU

It all comes down to the individual. The very last one. The ones on the front lines. We, we universal soldiers.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

I appreciate your willingness

I appreciate your willingness to follow up, Michael, truly.

First negative-voted post for me, let alone in the overwhelming fashion that it came. It definitely caught me off-guard, but I hold fast to what I said. I hope people begin to see how important words are, and how their application can greatly distort the context in which we consider things.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Don't take it personally

Mobs are dangerous things to mess with. As demonstrated here, you never know when they're going to turn on you.

I watched a documentary with Buckminster Fuller the other day, and he was talking about how outdated our language is, how far behind it lags our understanding of science. The example he used was the words "up" and "down." We have had the understanding that the earth is not flat for over 400 years, and yet still we point to the sky and say it is "up," when in fact, it is "out." There is no up and down, only in and out.

When I first heard it, I thought he was nitpicking and it really wasn't that important. But after a while I realized he's right. We're using false labels. And as long as we continue to use false labels, we will continue to fail to see the truth. In fact we will be blinded to the issue at hand.

To say "Obama kills children" is to absolve all the joystick drone operators in the Nevada desert of their responsibility as humans.

Thank you for the courage to stand your ground. We've all seen Ron Paul do it - being in a stadium full of people booing and hissing him. It is one thing to see that map; it is another thing entirely to walk that road. Kudos to you Jay.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.
the strangerr's picture

Did a mob turn on jay6783?

Or did a lot of people simply disagree with the topic as it was presented and/or disagree with the shifting of blame to the lowest level?

Reprimanding opposing views as lame-ass doesn't gain my respect. On that sour note, murder is not synonymous killing and dieing; murder is in fact a legal term. Self defense isn't murder and killing an enemy may not be considered murder (again, in legal terms).

The comments in this thread that agree with the forum post tend to restate the premise - with their own agreement that all soldiers should stop killing and wars will end – as if this may spontaneously appear. This is as far from understanding the problem as you can possibly get.

I watched a documentary with

I watched a documentary with Buckminster Fuller the other day, and he was talking about how outdated our language is, how far behind it lags our understanding of science. The example he used was the words "up" and "down." We have had the understanding that the earth is not flat for over 400 years, and yet still we point to the sky and say it is "up," when in fact, it is "out." There is no up and down, only in and out.

When I first heard it, I thought he was nitpicking and it really wasn't that important. But after a while I realized he's right. We're using false labels. And as long as we continue to use false labels, we will continue to fail to see the truth. In fact we will be blinded to the issue at hand.

Perfectly said. I had never considered this perspective as it pertains to "up" vs "out", but you can be sure it is -- now -- exactly how I will teach my children.

And you are perfectly accurate in observing that this drives at what my point is.

...

He's the commander in chief aka #1 in command of the military, but no he hasn't personally murdered anyone.

Hitler and Stalin didn't physically murder anyone either.

Hitler and Stalin didn't

Hitler and Stalin didn't physically murder anyone either.

You're literally about the 7th or 8th person who's offered that lame-ass response, as though it contradicts anything I've said.

To your credit, at least you understood and acknowledged that what I was talking about was murdering someone personally. Others didn't grasp that.

Though how you grasped that, and still found it necessary to add the part about Hitler and Stalin, is bewildering.

It's not a fucking lame ass

It's not a fucking lame ass response, and you shouldn't be bewildered. It's the same fucking thing.

That lunatic

Who shot people up in Sandy Hook has killed fewer people than Obama.

Are you suggesting Obama has

Are you suggesting Obama has wielded a gun? Or operated the joystick of a drone?

No

Yet he has sway over it.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Of course not

You are correct.

The ones who did, did so of their own volition. No one held a gun to their heads. It was just a job. just a paycheck. A mindless assignment - who the f- cares what we're doing? We're #1!!! And therefore, we are justified.

Those are the guys. The weak ones. With no moral fortitude. To stand up for what is right. But instead, just took the FRNs instead.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

In a sense, yes... But I

In a sense, yes... But I wouldn't put it in terms so unforgiving. I do sympathize with the circumstances which bring many to join in the first place.

I think we all know someone who is a good person who signs up, not knowing any better. They are encapsulated in a cocoon of propaganda from the womb until signing day. In so many cases, their parents didn't know any better; their friends didn't know any better; and hell, maybe we didn't even know any better to be able to advise them until it was too late, and they were already signed up.

So, I don't propose it's so simple as to how they end up there, or even how they get out...

And yet, at the same time, we all know that we are each responsible for our own choices and the consequences therefrom...

And the overarching point of my post is... We cannot pin murder on Obama on the one hand, and on the other hand say that the person who is actually committing the act did not also commit murder. It just doesn't follow logically.

As uncomfortable as it is, I think the best thing for all, is to admit that it is murder, and apply that term judiciously, in its literal sense, upon the one who commits it.

It is the only way to stigmatize and deter others from committing the same act on behalf of the state in the future.

Otherwise, if we say they are Obama's murders, then we are insulating and pardoning -- and in effect, subsidizing -- the actual act of murder. It will never end.