-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.

The drones fly at Obama's will, and on his orders.

The Commander-in-Chief is accountable for all actions of his troops.

If there had been a single drone strike killing 'terrorists' and/or innocent civilians and Obama had halted this form of political assassination after a single incident, then you would have an argument. The fact that hundreds of people have been killed by drones, some of them innocent bystanders, during numerous drone missions and often on direct orders from the White House, Pentagon and CIA, directly splashes blood all over Obama's own hands. Not to mention all American citizens culpability. The fact we are not demanding an end to these atrocities means we, the people of this country, are guilty also. It's going to be hard to get anyone to listen to us once the drones are directed at ourselves. As has been threatened.

Would the drone operator's have sent the drones to assassinate without receiving orders to do so? The operators are probably not allowed to use the drones for personal errands. They, like the drones, follow orders.

They, like the drones, follow

They, like the drones, follow orders.

The Nuremberg Trials dealt with this poor reasoning.

The fact that hundreds of people have been killed by drones, some of them innocent bystanders, during numerous drone missions and often on direct orders from the White House, Pentagon and CIA, directly splashes blood all over Obama's own hands.

I never said he wasn't complicit. In fact, quite the contrary. I am speaking specifically about the literal application of the adjective "murderer." Obama is not the one committing the act; therefore, the literal adjectives that should be applied are "director of murder" or "solicitor of murder." Likewise, it cannot be said that Obama 'killed' anyone, in the literal sense. Thus, more accurately, it should be said that he is directing the killing.

Semantics are important. Propaganda 101.

SteveMT's picture

In a 'literal sense' none of these people are guilty either.

Charles Manson never killed anyone.
Janet Reno never killed anyone.
Dick Cheney never killed anyone.
Adolph Hitler never killed anyone.

You forgot

to add Bill and Hillary to your list!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

In a 'literal sense' none of

In a 'literal sense' none of these people are guilty either.

False. They are, indeed, literally guilty. Nowhere in my words can you construe that I've said they are not. In fact, I explicitly addressed exactly this in my original post: I am not talking legalese.

But you are right to point out none of these people personally killed someone, in a literal sense. They are, literally, not the murderer of their victims. They ordered, organized, enabled, etc. So, in a literal description, they are organizors; solicitors; directors of murder. NOT murderers.

Once again, to be clear, they are complicit and guilty. But they did not commit the actual act, and I am suggesting we apply the adjective murderer more judiciously.

Bull$#it

He's an accomplice. He has the power to stop the killings and he hasn't done so. In fact, there is a federal law that makes it a crime to not report a crime that you know is being committed by a government agent. And these drone strikes are unconstitutional ritualistic mass murder, in a war theater act ginned up by a bunch of psychopaths who laugh in unison when the subject of accidental "collateral damage" is raised at one of their black tie social events.

Dis-gusting.

None of what you've said

None of what you've said contradicts what I posted, so I'm not sure what you're calling "bullsh!t" on.

Cyril's picture

+1. Yes, Vince.

+1. Yes, Vince.

Undeclared war is unconstitutional.

On that topic alone, I have always been touched ... by a breath.

Yes, a breath.

Anyone who needs a refresher. Listen carefully HOW Ron Paul would breathe/take his breath when uttering these words of warnings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlNqgvez-q0

He was upset. Though amazingly relatively calm before that sort of infamy.

He was caring about what almost nobody else would. The true meaning of the Constitution, that is. That they, "Democrats" and "Republicans" (same look-alike rent-seeking gangs in Congress anyway) were treading upon - by letting the Executive TEAR IT OFF. As almost everybody else was fed with the "Monica L." affair - the distraction curtain to help them feed the gullible, useful idiots, and voyeurs.

Bread and Circuses. And the Moral Hazard it fuels.

Let's just look at WHERE we are today, now.

Predictable. Predicted. Obtained.

"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

Cyril's picture

Chain of Command? Always hazardous. But there's more worrisome.

(It's as reply to SheldonFromDownUnder's thorough comment below, just in case he'd want to edit it)

The Chain of Command's extent of power has in all times throughout History been worrisome. When it gets corrupt from the very top, that is.

However, there may as well be another one "Chain of-" ... EVEN MORE WORRISOME, in such times.

Few have ever really focused or exposed it at lengths, except for the Ancients of course, that sadly almost nobody reads any longer these days.

So, for the OP, in case he missed it, a recent contemporary update on the nature of the thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcLNoxiPBk

A terse, but great, expose I recommend to anyone who wishes to grasp/be recalled about the FULL EXTENT OF HARMFUL POTENTIAL of moral hazard, once it has got to poison broadly THE PEOPLE, THEMSELVES.

Remember: it's like fish; the head starts rotting the first. But you just DON'T want the rotting generalizing to the rest of the body too quick/at all. Ever. Or else, then, it's usually time to leave for one's own safety.

"God Forbid."

(also linked from here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/267298/the-chain-of-obedience-is-th...

)

"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

Intriguing.

Chain of obedience... related to tyranny of the majority?

Heh, too late, you commented on my comment to the OP. But I have no intention of changing anything. What I have demonstrated still stands as my opinion: Obama is a murderer, and he's used the system as a monolithic weapon to carry out murder. I will still use "Chain of Command" to describe the varied system of generals and commanders leading down from the president to the pilot: "Chain of Obedience" is best used to describe the relationship between the different parties involved.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

Cyril's picture

HELL IN YOUR COUNTRY, ALL AROUND YOU

"Chain of obedience... related to tyranny of the majority?"

Even more than that. "Tyranny of the majority", as found in full-blown Democracies is already disgusting, even in peace times, including civil peace.

But ... Chain of Obedience, serving perversion?...

Well, I refer people to, for just 3 recent examples, the following oneliner summaries:

Hitler - in office: 1933 to 1945

Stalin - in office: 1922 to 1952

Pol Pot - in office: 1963 to 1981

Although it's only "years" (decades), THAT is when living in your country feels like AN ETERNITY OF HELL "AT HOME".

...

AS YOUR OWN COUNTRY'S PEOPLE (OR EVEN, YOUR RELATIVES) HAVE BECOME THE ENEMIES OF YOUR OWN INDIVIDUALITY.

24 / 7,

365 DAYS A YEAR.

By then, you have only THREE OPTIONS LEFT:

1. BECOME ONE OF THEM

2. BE ELIMINATED

3. ESCAPE

Guess which is the toughest to try at.

Just ask the survivors.

"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

What if you called the SYSTEM as a whole,

a weapon?

What if you took the following system:

---> Chain-of-command
---> Pilot
---> Drone controls
---> Drone weapons platform
---> Drone missiles/cannons

—and called it a single, lethal weapon? Let's call it [Drone System].

By doing this, we could say in the following case (let's call this [ObombaChain]):

Obama -orders-> [Drone System] -to kill-> Civilian in the Middle East

—that Obama killed a civilian in the Middle East using a lethal weapon called [Drone System]: that Obama commited homicide.

Now, you'd say that there are people within Drone system. You might say that they have enough of a conscience to bear a responsibility by actively choosing to pass on the order, and carrying out the order. But what if they don't have a free choice in that matter; what if they face grave military disciplinary action if they disobeyed their role in the system --- court martialling, leading to such severe penalties as discharge (loss of a secure job), imprisonment or even execution?

(Of course, if they DID disobey, it could be the opportunity for a "just" revolution. But what if they are not prepared enough to win in such a revolution, which could be years away? How do they intend to bear responsibility for such heavy things as a revolutionary war that may or may not end badly, leading to loss of life and liberties? But back on topic...)

Now, what if you replaced all human participants in [Drone System] with non-sentient robots? You could unequivocally say that [Drone System] is one very large weapon that is composed entirely of a chain of non-human components. If so, then in [ObombaChain], Obama would indeed have committed homicide.

Going back to the original [ObombaChain] with human components. The human element makes it unclear where the responsibilty lies, as you can see here:

Obama
-orders-> [Chain-of-command
-who then orders-> Pilot
-to use-> Drone controls
-to order-> Drone weapons platform
-to arm-> Drone missiles/cannons]
-to kill-> Civilian in the Middle East

Think of it this way: if the pilots never received the order to kill, then they would never have had any imperative to fire upon the targets. The only reason they would have used the drones otherwise is if they are at the controls, AND the target is an imminent threat to their own safety, the safety of their friends or family or 'tribe', or their property: i.e. self-interest. But by receiving and carrying out the order to kill, they are processing the intent of another person to kill another person, and converting it into actions they will carry out. Once they have carried out the order and killed that person, they have had a hand in the homicide of another person.

Does the responsibility stop with them, or does the responsibility pass back to the origin of the order: Commander-in-chief President Obama? If it does not pass back to the origin of the order, then we can not hold the order-maker responsible for homicide: Obama then has a free reign in ordering new attacks without ever being held accountable to homicide, leading to the deaths of more people.

For me, [ObombaChain]:

Obama -orders-> [Drone System] -to kill-> Civilian in the Middle East

—demonstrates that Obomba is a murderer. Replace [Drone System] with any other weapon, and that fact becomes very clear.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

Cyril's picture

+1

.

"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

Why Does Everyone Assume

that drone operators are "over there"? I saw an article about one drone operator who actually controlled the plane from a base in New Mexico. They pick guys that have played video games for years to be drone pilots. They put them in small very isolated capsule like trailers with no windows out in the middle of nowhere and have them blow up stuff by screen. It has a video game affect and they don't really associate what they are doing with the reality so much. This particular kid said that at one time he was told to blow up a building and that just as he was firing he saw what kind of looked like a kid walk around the building right before it blew up. He asked the command center if that was a kid and was told it was a dog. A two legged dog. Anyway after several years of this the kid ended up mentally messed up and now just sits in his parents' house in a daze. Or so the article said. Is this the fault of the kid? I think not.

skippy

When one is a commander

When one is a commander of an army everything at one's disposal is a weapon. It doesn't matter if it's human, machine, or propaganda, they are equally just pieces on a chess board to accomplish an objective. Obama approves the CIA's request to use drone tactics. He knows kids are getting killed yet continues to approve. When he signs the order he's pulling the trigger. If a patriotic soldier refuses to participate as part of the bomb release mechanism, well that's just a slight malfunction of the weapon and easily fixed.

Once the soldiers are on the

Once the soldiers are on the battlefield, they don't have a full picture of what's going on. They are never given the order to, for example, "Go slaughter these innocent women in the village." It's never as obvious as that, and the soldiers are never sure whether they're putting their team at risk by not following orders. That's how they get you.

But one problem is the troops are so brainwashed that they believe that they're being sent over there to do good. The military attracts the type of person who completely buys into the system and trusts their govt and the media to tell them what's right, not just to the degree of following a programmed everyday life, but to such an extreme degree that they will go around killing people en masse because the govt tells them to. You can't get more brainwashed than that. They think being a perfect pawn to the system is the highest honor a person can be bestowed with.

Pat Tilman

was such a soldier and was murdered by his own troops!

It was covered up ( so they thought ) and tried to make another hero story out of his death, until the truth came out!
|
He was going to be speaking out against the war when he got home.

Our so called "leaders" made sure he neve got home!

Who exactly gave that order?

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

the strangerr's picture

of his honor & his glory the people would sing

Holbrook, you make an important point with Tilman; a great guy killed by the machine - certainly relevant to this discussion. The position soldiers can find themselves can be sheer hell.

Quote from the movie Edge of Darkness
"There's a point when anybody can become an activist. I mean, you see something happen that's so wrong you have to act... even if it means the end of you."

All very true. I'm very

All very true. I'm very familiar with all of what you describe, and in many instances I'm sympathetic to the plight of those who happen to have been cultivated in a cocoon of propaganda all the way through to enlistment day. Even on that day, most are still too young to understand what's going on. Never had a chance.

And yet, at the same time, we expect people to be accountable for their decisions.

It's a very complicated problem, and I certainly wouldn't propose there's a simple answer.

But I do think language is important, and if you want to deter this problem in the future, the acts- and actors- need to be called by rightful names.

It won't happen though. Too uncomfortable in a liberty forum, let alone among the general population.

I've always wanted to post this clip

and this seems like the appropriate thread.

Game of Thrones - Tyrion & Varys Discuss Power (Seriously, watch it, it's less than 2 minutes long)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw
And btw, I suggest everyone watch the series. It's one of the most amazing shows I've ever seen and it shows the true stripes of political corruption.

Obama IS the one at fault because he was the one who passed the order. Had Ron Paul been President these people would, without a faintest doubt in my mind, still be alive today.

If military personnel disobey orders they can be court martialed for insubordination. It's a wee bit different criticizing them when you've never been in their position before. I have no doubt many nazi troops joined the army for fear of what would happen to their families if they didn't.

Excellent clip, thanks for

Excellent clip, thanks for posting it.

In a brief exchange with SchrodingersCat below, we were actually alluding to some of the difficulties involved in the systemic entrapment, particularly of youth, as regards military service. I am keenly aware that it is not a black/white issue that is resolved by simply doing x or y or z.

Nonetheless, I don't think we can call the act murder on the one hand, and condemn a man for it, and not murder on the other, and pardon the one who actually commits the act. That is what I'm suggesting, along with the language applications which merely follow the logic.

I certainly wouldn't propose doing so is easy, or comfortable.

I'm open to a civil debate

I thought your thread was ridiculous, but it's clear you are genuinely making the claim and not being antagonistic. It's clear you are also open to a civil and rationalized debate. So, I withdraw my "ridiculous" comment.

I completely understand your point of view. I will attempt to negate your point using logic and reason only, unlike others who will demagogue the issue.

If you hire a hitman to kill someone are you to blame or is the hitman? Well, I'd say it's you.

Immoral men have always existed and will always exist. But they don't pull the trigger until you compromise your principles to have them do it for you. A hitman would have no business if men no longer had the desire to kill.

The basic level of the gun control argument is an excellent example. Is the person responsible for killing or is the gun? Well, I'd say it's the person, because the gun is only an ends to the means. If someone really wants to kill another person, they will find a way to do it.

So it is with the hitman hired by the employer, so it is with the soldier ordered by the President.

I appreciate your willingness

I appreciate your willingness to discuss, awl19. My apologies for the delay in replying.

I am of a different view. You blame the person who hires the hitman; I blame the hitman.

If the hitman were not willing to commit the act, I think few who would hire him to commit it would actually carry out the act on their own.

Thus, I think the ultimate sin is the actual commission of the act. Absent the commission of the act, we are dealing strictly in pre-crime; the thought of crime.

And we all know how tenuous that is.

That is my view. All are guilty; but specifically, for me, words are incredibly important. Obama is not a murderer; and he hasn't killed anyone. Literally. That is true.

If we fail to agree on that, we obfuscate the reality, and pardon those who are committing the act. They are free to continue murdering. That much is self-evident in the fact that "Obama's murders" continue to pile up.

Thus, my argument is that we should apply the adjective accurately, and in so doing, we would stigmatize the act and discourage others from undertaking it in the future. If we fail to do so, and instead attribute the 'murders' solely to the King, we are insulating and pardoning -- or, in effect, subsidizing -- the act, and will see more of it.

In perpetuity.

.

If the hitman were not willing to commit the act, I think few who would hire him to commit it would actually carry out the act on their own.

But this can easily disproved. If what you say were the case, then how is that people commit murder themselves?

I believe where we truly despair in our difference is that you believe the killer is solely responsible and I believe the one who orders the killer is mainly (not solely) responsible.

In regards to military, soldiers do not commit acts of murder until told to do so. If they'd never been given an order to do so, they'd never have committed murder. Does that absolve them from the crime of murder? Absolutely not, but again I say, the murder would never have taken place had they not been commanded to do so.

Soldiers undergo brainwashing or indoctrination while in the military. They're essentially cut off from friends, family, and the outside world.

If..

a private citizen contracts to kill someone and it is carried out, all involved parties would be responsible.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/18/local/la-me-fayed-de...

Obama ordered the killings so he's as guilty as sin. but, yes you are correct we should place the blame on those who pull the triggers as well, because it is first and foremost their job to follow and protect the constitution, followed by the orders of the president.

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

For sure. There is confusion

For sure.

There is confusion over the semantics of my post. When I say he hasn't murdered anyone, I don't mean it in a legal sense, I mean it in a literal sense; he hasn't carried out the act. I don't defend him in any way, shape or form in his complicity, legally or otherwise. But we should reserve the term murderer for the individual who carries out the act, and solicitor of murder or something to that effect for Obama.

Words are important.

I get what your saying...

Was just thrown off by the Title of your post.

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

Thanks, I appreciate your

Thanks, I appreciate your follow-up!

WHO GIVES THE ORDERS?

WHO GIVES THE ORDERS?

His spoken word kills

His spoken word kills people?

Or...

Is someone with a weapon involved at some point?

I'm merely suggesting that if these are murders, and Obama is a murderer (rather than solicitor, which I believe is the more accurate term), then perhaps it would be appropriate to use the label murderer judiciously and apply it to those who actually carry out the act.

Otherwise there is a gaping hole in your logic. Orders don't kill by themselves.