Obama Hasn't Killed Anyone
Submitted by LapHog on Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:31What'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!
- Login to post comments
Ordering the murder of
I appreciate that you at least addressed the actual substance of my post; and yes, we do disagree.
I think the act itself is more reprehensible, because it is the ultimate and final end. Furthermore, it enables the incitement. Were no one willing to commit the act, it would force the one who wanted it committed to act himself. I don't think that every act that one would incite would be one he would also commit; hence, the commission of the act itself, to me, is more deserving of the murderer label.
Even if not deserving, it is certainly more accurate.
Exactly...
"...the commission of the act itself, to me, is more deserving of the murderer label."
Perhaps it is more deserving, but you are acknowledging that the label also can apply to the commander, just to a lesser degree. So, I can make the claim that Obama has murdered people, it is just a matter of scale. Just as there are degrees of murder in most state justice systems. Third Degree Murder is used when there was malice, but not a planned intent to kill - but it is still murder.
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain
Insulate and pardon the king
Insulate and pardon the king by blaming his footsoldiers and you will get a new king.
Out.
To be clear, are you
To be clear, are you suggesting that we should not blame his footsoldiers? Specifically, what are your thoughts about those who didn't justorder the murder of innocent people, but those who actually carried out the act; i.e. the "footsoldiers"?
No. I agree the footsoldiers
No. I agree the footsoldiers should be held accountable.
I have more sympathy for them. But I do not think they are blameless. More importantly I think it's a moral hazard to hold them blameless. They swore to uphold the Constitution. In following orders, they forswore their oath.
But so did those that issued the illegal orders. No one should be held blameless because it causes harm to do so and no one is in fact blameless between the issuer of an unconstitutional order and the executor of that order.
If I order my platoon to rape a village and they comply, am I less guilty of rape? Are they?
No. In issuing the order I am guilty even if I never participate. In obeying they are guilty even if, especially if, they knew it was wrong.
You're either a troll or smoking some crack
Obama is responsible for killing hundreds, actually thousands of people around the world. He has authorized killing of innocent children. He will burn in eternal Hell for his evil doing, and so will everyone who worships him.
"Obama is responsible for
When did this happen? I don't recall reading about Obama killing anyone. I figure that would have been big news.
Please read additional comments below. I think you are arguing against what you think I said, rather than what I actually said.
So, Hitler didn't kill anyone either?
Because he didn't personally pick up a gun and do the killing himself?
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
Um.... yes. Your logic is
Um.... yes. Your logic is correct.
I can't verify at the moment whether or not Hitler actually killed anyone, though.
How am I supposed to respond to this kind of lunacy?
You are beyond help.
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
What lunacy? You asked if
What lunacy?
You asked if your logic was correct. It was.
If you thought your logic at all presented a contradiction to something I said, therein lies the lunacy.
Problem solved.
Thought experiment
Let's say I have a machine that can autonomously seek out and kill a target which I have named.
All I have to say is "Machine, kill John Doe".
If I give this order to the machine, am I not guilty of murder?
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
You'd be guilty. This doesn't
You'd be guilty. This doesn't contradict what I've said in the least bit.
Your pretenses are flawed for the argument you're trying to present. A machine in your example is actually the weapon. It would be the equivalent of wielding a drone. You've merely restated my position.
You playing word games with word Kill.
When people say Obama killed... they mean it in a figurative sense, in that he is morally culpable for someones death, not that he literally killed them with his own hands.
In my example I wouldn't have personally killed the target, I just ordered it, the machine performed the deed.
But, I was still morally culpable.
You know exactly what people mean when they say "Obama killed...", they are suggesting moral responsibility for death he ordered, not that he physically performed the killings himself.
Whether the president ordered a killing or physically did the killing himself is irrelevant, he took part in it.
Why are you trolling?
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
I think you're beginning to
I think you're beginning to highlight my point...
Everyone is playing word games. Language is critical. By calling Obama a murderer, rather than solicitor of murder or something more accurate, nobody then looks any further for the actual murder or murderer; we've already found him! There's only 1. That is the implication of continuing to call him a murderer.
Why so much outrage directed at Obama, and none against "drone pilots", for example? Because rather than calling them "joystick murderers," to stigmatize the actual act, most are content with focusing on Obama as the murderer.
As I've said elsewhere, I think this is counterproductive. Most will couch what the troops do in euphemisms because it's uncomfortable to call them murderers. So I was subtly suggesting that the only way to change the thought paradigm around foreign policy is to attach the murder label to its rightful individual, whoever it may be.
Uphill battle, to say the least, this I realize.
But nowhere did I say Obama is not morally culpable, or even legally culpable. He is both, in many ways.
But the language is so critical to what is discussed or what isn't discussed; to what is stigmatized, or what is insulated. The act of murder itself, when it comes to the state, is insulated... It is, in effect, subsidized by a lack of criticism and/or stigma as it pertains to those who actually commit it.
Instead, we blame the King, whose hands haven't committed the actual acts for which he is held in such high contempt (deservedly so).
I think you misunderstand me.
When I say I believe Obama to be a murderer I am not assigning to him the sole blame, I believe the soldier pulling the trigger is a murderer too.
I don't just blame the king, I blame his soldiers.
I also wish people would focus as much blame on the soldiers committing the acts as they do the president ordering them.
Even in the Ron Paul movement many people are unable to shake the "support the troops" mentality.
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
Forgive my last reply, I see
Forgive my last reply, I see now that it wasn't as clear as I hoped and some of it may have come across as attributing certain arguments to you, when I meant only to explain where I was coming from generally.
In any case, we are in full agreement then so far as I can tell.
My post was intended to be a more subtle attempt at saying, hey, Obama is being called a murderer, but if it's murder, why are you not looking at who is actually committing the act and calling them murderers?
In any case, people mistook it as a defense of Obama. I'm not sure I've ever offered one of those.
I see the point you were
I see the point you were trying to make, and I agree wholeheartedly that the trigger pullers deserve just as much if not more of the blame for killing.
I think maybe you could have made the original post a little clearer.
I think most of the confusion was over conflicting uses of the word kill, being used literally and figuratively by different people.
Most of the responders including myself at first, thought you were absolving the president of blame.
I too am very frustrated by the glorification of US soldiers in aggressive wars, and frustrated by people's refusal to acknowledge that they are acting as killers for the state.
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
To say I could have been
To say I could have been clearer is an understatement! LOL. 35 downvotes. Never had a single thread I started in the negative vote area before this one, so that was a sign... So, for sure...
In any case, here's to the importance of words...
Cheers.
So, according
So, according to your line of reasoning, if I hired a hit-man to kill someone and the murder was committed and the trigger man is caught and fesses up and fingers me, I should not be prosecuted?
Well, that line of reasoning goes against about 500 years of western civilization's jurisprudence.
Mark
I'm not sure where you're
I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that anything you've just said contradicts anything I've said.
But please carry on against your strawman, it's quite convincing.
I was speaking...
I was speaking legally, as in guilty or culpable while you are speaking about one blob of human tissue performing specific acts against another blob of human tissue, not morally, ethically or humanly.
Okay, I get it, so what's your point?
My point is that everyone is
My point is that everyone is calling Obama a murderer, but won't actually call the actual murderers, well, murderers.
Language is important (as we can all plainly see now).
By focusing on Obama as the "murderer", we are insulating and pardoning the act itself; it is, in effect, a subsidy for murder that will ensure its continuation. Rather than focusing on Obama as the murderer, I think it is more accurate, suitable, and lastly effective to the ends of liberty to label the rightful murderers, murderers.
No more "drone pilot."
"Joystick murderer."
Etc.
I don't know...
I don't know what you read but there are plenty of us here who do consider those US troops who are actually pulling triggers and piloting drones to be murders. Actually all participants who voluntarily without coercion support our illegal overseas killing are guilty in my book.
he wasn't saying obomba was innocent of all crimes, was he?
but how can speaking any combination of words be worse, or on par with, committing an actual act of violence against another?
Thank you! Refreshing to see
Thank you! Refreshing to see someone who doesn't insert their own strawman in place of my words, which are perfectly in place and untouched in the OP.
In this thread your type will be easy to spot. They will be downvoted.
:-)
no worries
people obviously think this was some sort of defense of obama.
all you were doing is raising a simple, logical point. but it appears having a level headed discussion is out of the question.
if that's worth down voting (especially in place of refutation) I'll consider each one a point of pride.
Indeed. I appreciate you
Indeed.
I appreciate you stepping into the (unexpected, unnecessary) mud here when you didn't have to.
Commander in Chief
knows exactly what is going on. He authorized it. It is HIS responsibility, not only to rein back, but also to provide full and truthful transparency to the American people, of who he works for.
Over and out.
"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul
He authorized it. Agreed.
Agreed. Authorizing and killing are two different things.
Do you allege that HE killed anyone? You know, with a drone or a gun? Personally?
Cuz I haven't heard anyone allege this. It would be news to me.