-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.

If a person is on death row...

...who is the murderer? The judge? The person who injects the deadly poison? Or the person being killed for his horrible crime? Would all three be responsible for this action being taken? What if the person was later found innocent of the crime? Who would be the murderer of this innocent man? What about 9/11? Didn't the government go after Bin Laden? Was he the one that murdered all those people? Was it because he supposedly gave the orders that the government made him to be the murderer because of those alleged orders? Oh, and Obama took the credit for getting Bin Laden. Did he go over there and kill him? Yet all his supporters say he did. They made him responsible for the murder of Bin Laden, yet he isn't the murderer of those children? =/ Okay.(FYI...just an example I'm using...I'm not saying I agree with these events as the media has put them out).

Forgive me kron, I truly

Forgive me kron, I truly don't mean to be a dick; but hell yes the judge is complicit and the person who injects the deadly poison is a murderer if the executed person is found innocent! That is too easy a question.

"Following orders" is a defense long ago put to rest, most thoroughly in the Nuremberg Trials. That would hold true even in the scenario you offer. One should never put themselves in a position where killing someone is merely a matter of protocol, without respect to the facts and to moral calculation. In the end, if you kill someone, and they are innocent, you've nobody to blame but yourself. And yes I realize it's not easy as pie when the order comes... But that's precisely the point. We are talking life and death. If one is so confident as to assume the awesome role of arbiter of it, one should also bear the responsibility that comes with the territory.

No big deal.=)

There is always someone out there willing to do the dirty work because of fear or money...it would take guts for someone to say "NO" and that person is to be commended!

We all see things in a different light. That is the beauty of the DP! I love all of you!=)

it would take guts for

it would take guts for someone to say "NO" and that person is to be commended!

On this, my friend, we couldn't agree more.

Cheers! :-)

sorry jay.. you are reaching

sorry jay.. you are reaching for straws on this one. You have no legal grounds to stand on. Franky I can't believe you would stand up for that jerk in the white house. seriously. If I told someone to go murder another person. I am just as guilty as the guy pulling the trigger.

LOL! Big indication someone

LOL!

Big indication someone doesn't understand what I'm saying is when they think I'm offering a defense of Obama.

We're missing each other on semantics; I'm not speaking in legal terms. I strictly mean, in a literal sense, Obama did not commit the act of murder. He directed it. The commission came at the hands of someone else.

The point I'm aiming for is that the term "murderer" (in a literal sense, not letting legalese cloud semantics) should be reserved strictly for the person who commits the act. I think the fact that we don't, leads to exactly this confusion, and nobody can actually hold the murder- the actual act - in a negative light. Instead, the leader, directing the murders, consumes all the blame and those who actually commit the act are effectively pardoned.

Words are very important. This is all Animal Farm stuff, in real life, right now.

sharkhearted's picture

Your forum is a steaming pile of bull manure.

True, Obama's predecessor (who I am ashamed to day I voted for twice)...is responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS of thousands....while Obama's predecessor's demon-possessed father is responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS of more thousands....when you compare the scale of this president....you have a point.

But only to a certain extent.

Obama is the Commander in Chief. He could have stopped this.

He could have ended the wars in 2008 and brought the troops home. He did not do this.

He could have closed Guantanamo Bay...like he promised. He did not do this.

He could have put a stop to these pretador drone attacks in countries that we are NOT at war with and REFUSED, as president, to go along with a secret kill list. He did not do this.

Instead...he chose to continue the terrorist strikes on innocent Pakistanis (and their children)...unabated...and if anything...increased and expanded!

Yeah Bush and his father are traitors and warmongerers....and the most severe sentence should be applied to them. But Barack Hussein Obama...is ALSO a traitor.....and yes by extension because he is the CIC...a cold-blooded MURDERER.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Yes, he could have stopped at

Yes, he could have stopped at all. Yes, he's horrible because he didn't.

But he is not the murderer. He is the solicitor for murder, and is culpable as such. But the murderer is the one carrying out the act.

So, by your

reasoning, Charles Manson should be set free?

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

What "reasoning" of mine do

What "reasoning" of mine do you allude to, which could possibly lead you to conclude that?

sharkhearted's picture

When you are the one ordering the attacks....

....you are the murderer.

Sort of like a person who hires a hitman to kill off his intended target.

The courts treat this with much gravity...and HELL HATH NO FURY for slimeballs like this.

Obama...BUSH....BUSH SR.....Nixon.....Johnson....Truman....FDR....Wilson....Teddy Rooosevelt.......doesn't matter...they are all complete PSYCHOPATHS.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

I'm not speaking in legal

I'm not speaking in legal terms. I'm talking about who actually commits the act.

Does Obama commit the actual act? No.

Thus, there is a murderer who is left unattended to, in each and every single instance of murder for which Obama is being condemned.

True or false?

And to be clear, once again, I am NOT defending Obama. I aim to point out that since everyone agrees it is murder, it is time to be equally passionate about holding accountable those who TAKE HIS SOLICITATION FOR MURDER and who ACTUALLY COMMIT THE ACT.

Hope that clarifies it.

And definitely, I agree. Presidents tend to be sociopaths.

sharkhearted's picture

DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH

I never used the "sociopath" word.

I said PSYCHOPATH.

And yes...as CIC...he is ultimately responsible for EVERY death..

Legally...he is the murderer...even in the case of negligent homicide.

Perhaps even more so because his SORRY ARSE COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.

CHRIS

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

You ignore my question. If

You ignore my question.

If these are murders, I will accept your argument that Obama is guilty of murder. Irrelevant to me at this point.

Now. If it is murder, someone was killed.

Did Obama actually kill each of his victims? I will clue you in on the answer: No.

Thus, either Obama's words really are lethal, literally, or else there was another human involved in carrying out these murders. If another human is involved in these murders, are they not also guilty of murder?

sharkhearted's picture

YOU ignore my answer

YEs... Obama actually DID kill his victims..much like the person paying the hired hit man did in a normal "offing.

Who do you work for? Can you not answer??

Oh, you can't?

F-U-C-K you....and yours....and for many generations into the future you F-U-C-K-I-N-G prik.

CHRIS

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Thanks. You're a real

Thanks. You're a real sweetheart! Virginia is a lucky state.

Surprise you claim it in your sig, since the line right under it would basically mean it's null and void.

sharkhearted's picture

UH HUH...and you are a psychopath.

We are on to you. You WILL be defeated.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Who's "we"? You there with

Who's "we"? You there with your cat? Or is it the voice in your head?

"We", huh? That's quite a collectivist term for such an independent tough guy.

Cheers.

sharkhearted's picture

Fuck you.

FUCK you...and yours.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Yeah you said that already.

Yeah you said that already. In fact, you wished those blessings on me and mine "for generations to come."

Very eloquent and thoughtful of you, and I appreciate it.

Obama is Commander in Chief

so if he orders a murder, he is in fact, a murderer.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

Cyril's picture

... and a TRAITOR.

... and a TRAITOR.

For, as a Commander in Chief, he isn't supposed to break the laws. Any law. Yet, he doesn't just break them, he is, with others, treading upon what is the SUPREME LAW, UNTOUCHABLE:

the Constitution.

And as a TRAITOR, the People ought to charge, prosecute him as such, and request the corresponding punishment. Guess which.

I'm no citizen, I'm no historian, yet out of mere common sense intuition, I guess it's not randomly the "Supreme Court" was named like so. I'm going to check right after this on the origin and rationale for the naming CHOICE, if it's well-known and on historians record.

"Supreme Court" - I'd have put it that way if only because there indeed is, without being too far fetched, a set of "supreme laws" to be followed BY EVERYBODY:

the recognition, obedience to, respect of the VERY rights and THE TEXT which founded this country, for its People.

The Supreme Court judges have nothing "supreme" as persons. But what they supposedly upheld to defend and protect IS SUPREME.

And ObaMARX, ON RECORD, in spoken English, DENIED, DISREGARDED THE PREROGATIVES OF THE SUPREME COURT'S VERY FUNCTION.

If it's no TREASON -and done IN PLAIN SIGHT, IN PUBLIC, which is just absolutely MIND BOGGLING to me- I really have no clue what is...

IMO, we tend to focus too much, the OP included, on the horrendous consequences of the traitors' "policies".

We also forget all too often to see things through much simpler lenses:

treason IS TREASON.

And THAT is the ULTIMATE, MOST SERIOUS CRIME a living person can do AGAINST their country.

"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

I say if he orders a murder,

I say if he orders a murder, he is a solicitor.

But the one who carries out the act is the murderer.

If all murders weren't attributed solely to the King, maybe the King would have less footsoldiers to solicit.

sharkhearted's picture

F-U-C-K the KING

The "Divine Right of Kings"is about as cogent as the concept of a Flat Earth.

There is NO DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS,,,NO "authority."

THE AGE OF AUTHORITARIANISM is DEAD.

GOOD RIDDANCE.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

There is no logic in that,

sorry. IF those people had not been ordered dead, they would be alive. The person ordering the death is just as responsible. Try taking out a hit on somebody and see if your a$$ doesn't end up in jail for murder.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

There is no logic in that,

There is no logic in that, sorry. IF those people had not been ordered dead, they would be alive.

Yes, and if the person who volunteered to murder had not committed the murder, they would be alive, too.

The person ordering the death is just as responsible. Try taking out a hit on somebody and see if your a$$ doesn't end up in jail for murder.

I'm sorry, you seem to think that this contradicts something I said. Moreover, when you say "just as responsible," it seems an admission that the murderer -- the one actually committing the act -- bears responsibility. If this is the case then we are in agreement, and your disagreement was merely one of semantics.

Right,

Yes, and if the person who volunteered to murder had not committed the murder, they would be alive, too.

*********************************************************

That means, two people are now murderers.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

Just as a Mafia boss has never killed anyone...

...

That is a valid point

although I'm sure you can see the reason for all the down votes. I didn’t down vote you. :)

During a valid conflict (if there can be one of those), the military must follow distasteful and confusing orders sometimes.

There is an historical example of what you suggest, Vietnam.

The nitty gritty of war hasn’t been seen on TV since. They did bath us in the tech of it, but not the guts.

If the MSM actually showed things like Manning’s cables and drone strikes on a daily basis, the war would have been over long ago, whether the public outcry was against the soldiers themselves or their leaders, where it should be squarely placed, IMO.

Just open the box and see

I appreciate your thoughtful

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

As for valid conflicts, I read an interview Rothbard gave one time about war and proportional response.. wish I had the link offhand. But to me, as you hedged, I am also skeptical if there can be a valid one. I'm much less generous, however, with regard to the (in)validity of those in which the state has entangled over the course of the last century.

In any case, more difficult, in my view, is overcoming the totality of system which ensnares youth in the war machine, and so I'm very sensitive to the gray area involved in what I am suggesting as it pertains to the critical nature of language and especially "murderer" with respect to troops. Young folk who are ensconced in state propaganda and indoctrinated from the womb until they are military-eligible... What real chance do they have to resist when all roads draw them in? And yet, at some point, everyone has to be accountable for the moral decisions they make.

Very very difficult.

But here is where language, to me, transforms from the weakness on this issue to the strength. If, in broad and nonspecific terms, people begin to find subtle- but accurate- ways to describe roles, etc, it can begin to stigmatize the act of murder again, even murder in uniform.

For example... No more drone pilot. It's "joystick murderer."

Ok, ok... That's not very subtle. In any case, I just mean to highlight that calling Obama a murderer will only continue to insulate an act which he does not commit, in the literal sense. In this way, murder is in effect subsidized by an unwillingness on the part of people to put the label in its rightful place.

Even if it's uncomfortable.