Jump to content
Islamic Forum
SaracenSoldier

Women And Children Murdered On The Orders Of President Obama

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds

You linked to a far left political commentator with an agenda to press who, as you did, offered a provocative title about the president ordering the murders of women and children. That’s false, obviously.

Despite the commentators allegation that targeted killings of those who present a national security threat are illegal, they are not.

 

There’s a detailed analysis here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sam/targeted_killings_machon.pdf

 

 

If a state can justify the targeted killing of a terrorist under Article 51, then it is legal under both U.S. domestic and International law.”

 

 

It’s odd (well, not really odd just self serving), that you decry the U.S. killing of those who have issued specific threats to mass murder Americans. Yet, your comments are completely lacking in any “outrage” over the continued intentional mass murder of moslems by other moslems, such as this:

 

 

Bomb Attacks Around Iraq Target Shiites, Killing Dozens

 

BAGHDAD — In the deadliest day in Iraq since the withdrawal of the United States military in December, a series of explosions that mostly targeted Shiite Muslims amounted to an emphatic demonstration of the still-potent capabilities of the Sunni insurgency and a reminder of the instability left behind by American forces.

 

Shortly after midnight Wednesday, a homemade bomb exploded here in the capital, a harbinger of mayhem. Around 5 a.m., a truck bomb exploded in Kadhimiya, a Baghdad neighborhood where Shiite pilgrims had begun to gather to commemorate the life and death of a revered imam who was the Prophet Muhammad’s great-grandson. Then, reports of other attacks flooded in from around the country — Samarra, Kirkuk, Mosul, Falluja, Ramadi, Hilla — and by midday officials said more than 90 people were dead and at least 260 were wounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this video is sadly true. Obama is unconcerned about any type of collateral damage, in fact ordering the Dept. of Defense to revise numbers to include any males over the age of puberty as enemy combatants. The fact that he is as you say on the political left is even more of an indictment as guess what Obama is politically? That's right, his base is the political left!

 

This is yet another reason I am a libertarian who supports Ron Paul. These kinds of things only damage the reputation of the US and put my family members (who are US military personnel) in greater danger. Obama, despite winning a Nobel Peace Prize, has done more targeting of people within countries the United States is supposedly friendly with, which includes the killing of innocent civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post does not prove that innocent Muslims are not being murdered by the United States.

 

It appears that you realize the claims made in the infomercial you posted are fraudulent, thus you are forced to abandon them when confronted with the truth. There is no reason to believe that Obama ordered the targeted killing of women and children.

 

Unfortunately for you, comments such as you have tossed around spiral into the ground in flames when you cannot counter the irrefutable argument that the United States has demonstrated restraint in its use of force. You have no counter to the fact that the US has spent billions upon billions of dollars to develop LESS cost effective weapons for the sole purpose of reducing civilian casualties.

 

You cannot reconcile the fact that you argue we wish to murder civilians with the truth being that you cannot conjure up a reason for such action, much less an explanation for precision munitions development, reduced use of particularly effective cluster, mine and incendiary munitions, and extremely tight Rules of Engagement for US forces in battle zones.

 

And when someone brings up these irreconcilable faults in your arguments, you deflect any real accounting of who, in fact, is actually targeting civilians. It hasn't gone unnoticed that you avoided any comment regarding the latest mass murder of innocent civilians.

 

Reconcile these issues please or stop posting these nonsensical messages.

 

Answer now, how you can say that we WISH to have civilian casualties when we have spent many times the GDP of nations such as Pakistan on weapons that limit such casualties.

 

Answer now, why is it that you excuse the Taliban's wanton murder of men, women and schoolchildren (which is, in fact, calculated and indiscriminate), yet you rattle on about how the "Great Satan" is to be vilified for eliminating the very terrorists who commit such calculated mass murder.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you first prove how the claims in the video are fraudulent?

 

As for your "detailed analysis" well I can't believe you just posted that. Just proves how bloodthirsty your government is. Are the laws more important than the life of a person? That now we are supposed to accept and be happy just because the "law" says you can kill innocent people just because there might be a "terrorist" amongst them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you first prove how the claims in the video are fraudulent?

 

As for your "detailed analysis" well I can't believe you just posted that. Just proves how bloodthirsty your government is. Are the laws more important than the life of a person? That now we are supposed to accept and be happy just because the "law" says you can kill innocent people just because there might be a "terrorist" amongst them?

 

Believe me, we are not all like this. However, President Obama has been pushing to take rights away even here in the United States. The NDAA of 2012 allowed for detaining a person, even a US citizen, indefinitely without any proof of wrongdoing, rather just a suspicion that they might be a danger to the country. Needless to say, every court that the NDAA has been challenged in has overturned that policy for being unconstitutional.

 

However, the NDAA of 2013 that is being discussed now is just as bad. While the President and leaders of Congress took out those offending parts of the previous bill, due to Habeus Corpus issues, there has been major concern that the new bill is allowing the government to start stockpiling funds necessary in case of further new wars in the Middle East. This is without any formal declaration of war or even an executive order for military action. Which means it amounts to a blank check for the possibility of starting a war because the US government wants to. Specifically I point to this:

 

So as to not have the Act run into the same legal trouble the 2012 version did, the US House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirm the right of "Habeus Corpus" and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Within those sections include references to a federal appeals court decision and a Supreme Court ruling that affirm the Constitutional rights of American citizens. However, there are already criticisms of the Act, especially with regard to a "readiness" and funding for an attack on Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me, we are not all like this. However, President Obama has been pushing to take rights away even here in the United States. The NDAA of 2012 allowed for detaining a person, even a US citizen, indefinitely without any proof of wrongdoing, rather just a suspicion that they might be a danger to the country. Needless to say, every court that the NDAA has been challenged in has overturned that policy for being unconstitutional.

 

However, the NDAA of 2013 that is being discussed now is just as bad. While the President and leaders of Congress took out those offending parts of the previous bill, due to Habeus Corpus issues, there has been major concern that the new bill is allowing the government to start stockpiling funds necessary in case of further new wars in the Middle East. This is without any formal declaration of war or even an executive order for military action. Which means it amounts to a blank check for the possibility of starting a war because the US government wants to. Specifically I point to this:

 

So as to not have the Act run into the same legal trouble the 2012 version did, the US House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirm the right of "Habeus Corpus" and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Within those sections include references to a federal appeals court decision and a Supreme Court ruling that affirm the Constitutional rights of American citizens. However, there are already criticisms of the Act, especially with regard to a "readiness" and funding for an attack on Iran.

 

Oh absolutely. My post was only directed at the US government and its supporters such as JaneDoe. I know that the US govt. is breaking its own laws and going against its own constitution and a lot of Americans, such as Ron Paul, are against it.

 

 

Believe me, we are not all like this.

 

Haha, funny thing is I would not actually view you as part of "them", since now that you are a Muslim you are part of the "us" crowd. I don't know if that made sense..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, I know, but I still do have hopes that the US would return to the freedom-loving place it was founded as. Where people could worship how they wanted and live how they wanted. And I am aware of being one of "us" now, still getting used to it but happy about it as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, I know, but I still do have hopes that the US would return to the freedom-loving place it was founded as. Where people could worship how they wanted and live how they wanted. And I am aware of being one of "us" now, still getting used to it but happy about it as well.

 

Yea and just to clarify, I don't mean you are not American any more or any less American but just that you are also part of a global 'family'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea and just to clarify, I don't mean you are not American any more or any less American but just that you are also part of a global 'family'.

 

Them and us. I've heard that before somewhere. A global family? I've heard that before too. As long as you're Muslim of course - in this case.

 

But a quick and probably stupid question: who started this war?

 

regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant as in the Muslims are one 'brotherhood' so thats what I meant when I said 'us'. As in it doesn't matter what race or country you are from. If you are a Muslim you are one of "us".

 

As for who started this war?

 

[media=]

[/media]
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want the true answer? The US had quite a lot to do with starting it. Why? Well, back in 1952, the US decided to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran to install a dictator who was beholden to the 'West' namely the US, Britain and France. Did the US have the right to do that? No, but they did it anyways, like the US tends to do. So that started the whole Iran situation.

 

Later, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we sent CIA operatives in to train and arm Afghan fighters. So we trained them. Also, during the Iraq-Iran war, we armed and supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Then, the reason Bin Laden gave for his attacks against the US were US troops being stationed in the 'holy land' of Saudi Arabia.

 

Now understand, I am not condoning in any way terrorism. In fact, I never have and never will condone it. However, it isn't a black and white determination of who started what. The US has a long history (in the 20th Century) of propping up dictators who will give us resources and yet we still proclaim to be the wonderful beacon of freedom. We also have no problem sending young men and women overseas to die for what? What does the US get out of it? I can tell you that most of the troops I've spoken with at any time hate us being over there in the first place. One of my cousins has nightmares thinking about things he's been ordered to do and not knowing for certain who got killed by the ordnance he dropped.

 

As for the "us" vs. "them" concept, that's a constant in human memory. It wasn't meant in any bad way I assure you on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want the true answer? The US had quite a lot to do with starting it. Why? Well, back in 1952, the US decided to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran to install a dictator who was beholden to the 'West' namely the US, Britain and France. Did the US have the right to do that? No, but they did it anyways, like the US tends to do. So that started the whole Iran situation.

 

Later, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we sent CIA operatives in to train and arm Afghan fighters. So we trained them. Also, during the Iraq-Iran war, we armed and supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Then, the reason Bin Laden gave for his attacks against the US were US troops being stationed in the 'holy land' of Saudi Arabia.

 

Now understand, I am not condoning in any way terrorism. In fact, I never have and never will condone it. However, it isn't a black and white determination of who started what. The US has a long history (in the 20th Century) of propping up dictators who will give us resources and yet we still proclaim to be the wonderful beacon of freedom. We also have no problem sending young men and women overseas to die for what? What does the US get out of it? I can tell you that most of the troops I've spoken with at any time hate us being over there in the first place. One of my cousins has nightmares thinking about things he's been ordered to do and not knowing for certain who got killed by the ordnance he dropped.

 

As for the "us" vs. "them" concept, that's a constant in human memory. It wasn't meant in any bad way I assure you on that.

 

Ok , Thanks, I understand most of this. So was it Iran or Iranians who were responsible for 9/11? Because I perhaps see this as the beginning of a lot of this stuff. I somehow think it was agrieved Muslims who think they owned half the world which to them was indistputably Muslim and who wanted revenge. Apart from the fear of world economic domination by the US. I don't think it was any chance co-incidence that it was the world trade centre which was the target, by the way.

 

I am no great supporter of the US in their foreign policy , believe me, but in a way I can see where they are coming from, especially after Pearl Harbour.

 

But I'll tell you something: there are many people on this forum (including so-called Forum Guardians) who will state that the US is one of the world's greatest 'terrorists', thus equalising that which you think you disagree with.

In fact I don't mind telling you that I have suspected and seen a great deal more. Take care.

 

regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not blaming the Iranians...I'm just pointing out that between that and the British mandate of Palestine which didn't take into consideration the people living there...those started the resentment.

 

There are times that the US does engage in what we would call terrorism. But it gets a different name here. No group is innocent and no group is ever perfect. The reason I am so behind Ron Paul and have been since 2007 is that he is the only person who actually admits what the US has done wrong and proposes a way to fix it. All the others act like it is their god-given right to do whatever they want as the "leader of the free world". That's frankly ##.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying you don't blame the Iranians as a whole (or whatever fragment of them started kicking off)?

I can't quite see the difficulty that Muslims seem to have with the use of the word terrorism - although of course I can see that it could be used against the Americans in the way they accept 'collateral damage', This has always been a problem with war, of course, much more worrying and unacceptable when civilians are deliberately targetted.

A relatively new tactic of war of course, so far as I know. en masse, is 'Suicide bombers', to my knowledge first (generally perhaps) came to being with Japanese Kamikasi bombers during world war 2. I don't know if that's where Muslims got the idea, but they certainly use that method of serious objection to things they don't like on many, many occaisions nowadays, often against each other. This is virtually never mentioned on the forum at all.

 

Regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the suicide bombers aren't showing Islam at all. Killing innocents is one of the worst sins you can commit in Islam, suicide is one of the worst sins you can commit as well. Two negatives don't make a positive in this, since it isn't math.

 

So classifying Muslims as suicide bombers is pretty laughable. The people who do that are extremists, make no mistake. Again, all groups have extremist offshoots. I don't have a problem with the word terrorism. But it isn't something that only Muslims do, is it? I mean, I can point out examples of most civilized groups committing acts of terrorism, from the British to the Americans to the Germans to the Arabs.

 

As I said, I don't condone what happened in Iran...on either side of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you first prove how the claims in the video are fraudulent?

 

 

If you take the time to look past the obvious agenda of the commentators, it’s clear the video is fraudulent propaganda. I understand you will wish to believe anything that appeals to your preconceptions but that is no excuse for accepting fraudulent claims.

 

 

 

As for your "detailed analysis" well I can't believe you just posted that. Just proves how bloodthirsty your government is. Are the laws more important than the life of a person? That now we are supposed to accept and be happy just because the "law" says you can kill innocent people just because there might be a "terrorist" amongst them?

I can’t say I’m surprised that you chose to shelter yourself behind sidestepping, denial and desperate attempts to avoid responding to any of the salient points.

 

It’s just a shame that you refuse to address the actions of those who mass murder in the name of their politico-religious ideology. That willingness to remain silent will passively assist the militant co-religionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the suicide bombers aren't showing Islam at all. Killing innocents is one of the worst sins you can commit in Islam, suicide is one of the worst sins you can commit as well. Two negatives don't make a positive in this, since it isn't math.

 

So classifying Muslims as suicide bombers is pretty laughable. The people who do that are extremists, make no mistake. Again, all groups have extremist offshoots. I don't have a problem with the word terrorism. But it isn't something that only Muslims do, is it? I mean, I can point out examples of most civilized groups committing acts of terrorism, from the British to the Americans to the Germans to the Arabs.

 

As I said, I don't condone what happened in Iran...on either side of the argument.

You seem a bit naive regarding the religion of your recent conversion so I'm glad to lend an assist.

 

To commit suicide in a fashion that also takes the lives of other innocents is, of course, abhorrent to all societies...except fundamental moslems. Palestinian Arab suicide bombers are regarded as heroes. Across the Islamist Middle East, there's an apparent waiting line to be next in line for the privlege (and carnal rewards), for suicide / mass murder.

 

While they certainly didn't invent suicide bombing as a tactic, moslems are the ones saying these heinous crimes are legitimate, even honorable and praiseworthy, simply because they have changed the definition of suicide to martyrdom. I think these martyr-murderers have squelched the issue of self-preservation (via their religion, which deceives them via a promise that cannot ever be proven to exist, i.e., paradise) and they are very much aware that being blown to bits pretty much snaps off the light switch with no time to register the fact that one is in pain or dead (academic argument, that last bit).

 

Perception is everything, of course, but I've always understood martyrdom to be based on dying for "the cause" at the hands of others...not the self-inflicted variety.

There's all sorts of honor accorded those who willingly lay down their lives in defense of (insert cause here)...the ultimate sacrifice.

I'd guess that's the mainstream opinion as well, at least in western societies.

 

Suicide on the other hand, is taught to be the "coward's way out" and, from the theists' points of view, the usurpation of god's role in taking something that isn't really "yours", except in the case of moslem suicide bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you I am not naive whatsoever. And so you are saying every Muslim here is approving of suicide bombers? Is that what you're actually saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you I am not naive whatsoever.

Do you proof-read your posts?

 

And so you are saying every Muslim here is approving of suicide bombers? Is that what you're actually saying?

If I had "said" that - or even if had written that out - you would read that in my post, right? Seems simple enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem a bit naive regarding the religion of your recent conversion so I'm glad to lend an assist.

 

Well, show us where in the RELIGION does it "legitimizes" heinous crimes? Where is the Quran and Sunnah does it allow to kill innocent people?! You said you will lend an assist regarding "the religion" yet after that all you have done is talk about what some Muslims(not moslems) might or might not have done. That is not "the religion". Show us from the Quran and Sunnah where Islam legitimizes "heinous crimes"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, show us where in the RELIGION does it "legitimizes" heinous crimes? Where is the Quran and Sunnah does it allow to kill innocent people?! You said you will lend an assist regarding "the religion" yet after that all you have done is talk about what some Muslims(not moslems) might or might not have done. That is not "the religion". Show us from the Quran and Sunnah where Islam legitimizes "heinous crimes"?

Why don’t you have that conversation with your co-religionists? I'm thinking that you, groups like CAIR and other professional Western Islamic apologetics groups should engage in some overseas outreach work to inform Moslems that Islam is peaceful and tolerant and not about armed conflict. I'd love to see you step in front of a pious, carbine-armed moslem and explain how misguided his understanding of the Religion of Peace is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why don’t you have that conversation with your co-religionists? I'm thinking that you, groups like CAIR and other professional Western Islamic apologetics groups should engage in some overseas outreach work to inform Moslems that Islam is peaceful and tolerant and not about armed conflict. I'd love to see you step in front of a pious, carbine-armed moslem and explain how misguided his understanding of the Religion of Peace is.

 

CAIR? Really? Trust me I am no apologetic nor am I a boot-licker (Alhumdulillah) like CAIR. But this is not about me or CAIR or armed Muslims. This is about you needing to do what you said you would

 

You wanted to "assist" regarding our religion. So go ahead. We are waiting. Please expose where in the Quran or Sunnah does it legitimizes heinous crimes? As you said you would. Where in Islam is killing innocent people allowed? This is not about what a Muslim does but what the RELIGION teaches. So as you said you would, go for it when you are ready. Assist us "naive mawzlems".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAIR? Really? Trust me I am no apologetic nor am I a boot-licker (Alhumdulillah) like CAIR. But this is not about me or CAIR or armed Muslims. This is about you needing to do what you said you would

 

You wanted to "assist" regarding our religion. So go ahead. We are waiting. Please expose where in the Quran or Sunnah does it legitimizes heinous crimes? As you said you would. Where in Islam is killing innocent people allowed? This is not about what a Muslim does but what the RELIGION teaches. So as you said you would, go for it when you are ready. Assist us "naive mawzlems".

Why do you falsely separate Islam from moslems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×