Obama joins the ranks of cold-blooded murderers Share This:





The first attack yesterday was on the village of Zharki, in Waziristan; three missiles destroyed two houses and killed 10 people. One villager told Reuters on the phone that of nine bodies pulled from the rubble of one house, six were its owner and his relatives; Reuters added that intelligence officials said some foreign militants were also killed. A second attack hours later also in Warizistan killed eight people.



It matters not one whit that the "relatives" were not the intended targets; how many children were killed 'by mistake' I wonder? If you or I fired repeatedly and with dubious accuracy into a crowd of people in order to kill one person, then the law would find us guilty of murdering those who were unintentionally slain. Their deaths would not even be declared accidental because it is/was entirely predictable that firing into a crowd would injure innocent people. In short, Obama (as commander-in-chief) not only ordered a strike that killed innocents but did so with the reasonable expectation that such deaths would occur. Why should he be judged by standards of law or morality that are different than those applied to you or me?



It matters not one whit that he was 'only doing his job as President.' Hit men, torturers, and child-sex traffickers are only doing their jobs. There are some jobs that cannot be done by a decent human being...not if he wishes to retain a claim to decency.



It matters not one whit that Obama was half-a-world away from where the murders occurred or that his fingers weren't physically on the weaponry. Anyone who wishes to exonerate Obama from the blood of the innocent on those grounds must also exonerate Hitler from the Holocaust. After all, I doubt that Hitler was physically present at mass executions or that he ever directly killed a Jew. What he (and Obama) did was to give orders that amounted to contract killings.



And why did Obama do it? There may be military reasons. There were certainly political ones. As The Guardian states, "The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action." In other words, the strike sent the right message; the murder of innocent people was an acceptable price to pay for that telegram. Obama is not a good man. He is not a decent man. He is a politician. And the only form of humanity worse than that is a politician in time of war. Back to category overview Back to news overview Older News Newer News



Printer Friendly Wendy McElroy - Saturday 24 January 2009 - 21:09:49 - Permalink There is now blood on Obama's hands, and nothing can make them clean again; he has joined the ranks of cold-blooded murderers who kill for profit...by which I do not necessarily mean money. Yesterday, Obama ordered a missile strike "against suspected militants" in Pakistan (with whom the U.S. is not at war), which killed at least 18 people. The Guardian reports It matters not one whit that the "relatives" were not the intended targets; how many children were killed 'by mistake' I wonder? If you or I fired repeatedly and with dubious accuracy into a crowd of people in order to killperson, then the law would find us guilty of murdering those who were unintentionally slain. Their deaths would not even be declared accidental because it is/was entirely predictable that firing into a crowd would injure innocent people. In short, Obama (as commander-in-chief) not only ordered a strike that killed innocents but did so with the reasonable expectation that such deaths would occur. Why should he be judged by standards of law or morality that are different than those applied to you or me?It matters not one whit that he was 'only doing his job as President.' Hit men, torturers, and child-sex traffickers are only doing their jobs. There are some jobs that cannot be done by a decent human being...not if he wishes to retain a claim to decency.It matters not one whit that Obama was half-a-world away from where the murders occurred or that his fingers weren't physically on the weaponry. Anyone who wishes to exonerate Obama from the blood of the innocent on those grounds must also exonerate Hitler from the Holocaust. After all, I doubt that Hitler was physically present at mass executions or that he ever directly killed a Jew. What he (and Obama) did was to give orders that amounted to contract killings.And why did Obama do it? There may be military reasons. There were certainly political ones. As The Guardian states, "The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action." In other words, the strike sent the right message; the murder of innocent people was an acceptable price to pay for that telegram. Obama is not a good man. He is not a decent man. He is a politician. And the only form of humanity worse than that is a politician in time of war.