Is Obama a Terrorist?

If so, it’s not because he has associated with Bill Ayers.  He did, however, order a terrorist attack on Pakistan that resulted in the deaths of civilians. That is a hard statement because we have been conditioned to believe that governments don’t commit acts of terrorism, terrorists do. Well, we probably all learned in school that during the French Revolution, the government’s Committee of Public Safety carried out what was called the Reign of Terror. I know I did, but never thought about it until I was recently reading The War on Terror: How Should Christians Respond?, by Nick Megoran (IVP, 2008). Says Megoran: “Richard Falk, a professor of law at Princeton University, observes that the word terrorism first emerged as applied to the activities of the French revolutionary government, which used violence against civilian society to terrorize the population into acquiescing to the new government.” How could I have forgotten this? But even worse, how can so many Americans believe that a terrorist is anyone who detonates a bomb but doesn’t wear a U.S. Air Force uniform?

Author: Laurence Vance

Laurence Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics. He has written and published twelve books and regularly contributes articles and book reviews to both secular and religious periodicals.

7 thoughts on “Is Obama a Terrorist?”

    1. Thanks for mentioning the “Committee of Public Safety,” we in America could sure use a government that terrifies the elites instead of helpless peasant foreigners.

      Off with their heads!

  1. While I understand the point trying to be made here, I think it is perhaps going overboard at this point to apply the label of terrorist to Barack Obama. Terrorism, as we all know, is commonly understood as the deliberate targeting of civilians\non-combatants for attack to elicit political response. Now, as egregious as I think these attacks inside Pakistan are, I believe the line of reasoning used is that they are targeting specific terrorists and that civilians are killed as a result of collateral damage. Now if Obama were to continue the Bush policy in Afghanistan of bombing whole villages just a get a few alleged Taliban fighters then I think the epitaph of terrorist would be applicable to Obama, but lets not get ahead of ourselves just yet.

    1. I would agree with you that Obama did not intend to kill innocent civilians. He just did not care if innocent civilians died as a result of his attack. A bomb or hellfire missle cannot make the critical distinction between a combatant and a noncombatant, and thus by there very nature are indisciminant. The wreckless use of force, without any consideration on how the use of such force might impact the lives of civilians, is no different than deliberately targeting innocent civilians. Obama is guilty as charged.

    2. the Taliban are the resistance to the US’s illegal occupation and are no more a terrorist organization than the French resistance.

      1. On this occasion I will have to disagree with u, presently there controlled by Pakistani ISI officials to cause destruction and and squeeze more money out of america, they have this policy where they act on both sides. solution= deal with ISI and their agents who pose as T

  2. Well, good question. He is now a murderer, but did he do it to send a message or fight a war? If he were fighting this “war” to drive off an enemy from our shores he would be justified. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you (the Mackinaw is going cheap). This was obviously a calculated strike with the intention of sending a message that he will continue the war and occupation. No matter that we have no hope of “winning”, whatever that is supposed to be, the occupation will continue. So, here we are again another god, king, ruler that brings us all closer to destruction.

    Good job Obama! I HOPE you puked all over your shoes when you hear the news. Oh wait, that particular revulsion is limited to the poor souls that get to pick up the pieces and smell the stentch of your destuction.


  3. Heaven’s forbid our acts of state terrorism, namely the bombing of numerous wedding parties, schools and civilian homes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, would constitute war crimes. Hell, we give our war criminals medals and some more fortunate architects of mass murder such as Kissenger get Nobel peace prizes!

    Obama using state terrorism? But isn’t ‘our terrorism’ justified as those dispossessed from rational thought believe?

    Here’s another piece of interesting information. Zbigniew Brzezinski (self-professed organiser of providing military arms, training and funding to Osama bin Laden’s Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 70’s and 80’s) was also a director of Amnesty International. What a humanitarian!

    Maybe he should have also been awarded a Nobel peace prize. Kissenger got one and he killed more people in Vietnam and Chile through his policies. And lets not forget Morton Abramowitz and Warren Zimmermann who should also get awards for their previous board positions in Human Rights Watch, despite organising arms shipments and to the Afghan Mujahideen and KLA,….. oh, and that little incident relating to the bombing of Serbia.

    Drone attacks are indiscriminate assassinations, illegal under International Law. The claimed targets are assumed but not verified. The ever growing number of civilian casualties however are identifiable.

    Children are not militants.

    1. AC writes: “Children are not militants.”

      I could not agree more! In fact I will go further and say that all children are innocent and deserve to be protected and shielded from the horrors of war. But sometimes innocent people do get killed. If President Obama killed high-value terrorists, how many children did he actually save in the future? How many children might these evil men have been planning to kill in future attacks? No one wants to see children or any innocent people killed. And I will agree that our government and all governments have not gone far enough to minimize the loss of innocent life. I for one hate the term “collateral damage.” All life is sacred. But with that being said, I do believe in self defense and I’m not a pacifist. We have every right to defend ourselves from these radical Muslim Nazis. We have every right to incapacitate them to the best of our ability and by doing so we will be saving innocent lives in the long run.

      1. Tim R, as long as you advocate the killing of people, even your so-called ‘terrorists’, you do not belong to an antiwar movement. We represent adherence to law, not extrajudicial killings that violate law.

        You repeat your claims that ‘radical’ Islam wants to destroy western civilization, again I ask, if ‘radical’ Islam is such a threat as you propose, why did we arm, train and fund them? They couldn’t have been as dangerous as you suggest if we worked so closely with them.

        It is the basis of neoconservative political strategy to use fear to generate support for violent actions. The entire rhetoric of Norman Podhoretz relates to absurd allegations of the threat of ‘Islamofascism’. Justify violence somewhere else.

        Fundamentalism is not a monopoly of Islam. Christian, Jewish, Hindu, even Buddhist religions have fundamentalists. Is western civilization under threat from them?

        Non-state terrorism is a law enforcement issue. Not an excuse for invasions, occupations, drone attacks and bombings, killing a countless number of unidentified people in civilian areas.

        Whether your intentions are pure or malicious is irrelevant to me. Your promotion of extrajudicial killings speaks for itself.

      2. You’re slipping, Tim R.Oll. I believe the proper term is “radical extremist Muslim Nazi jihadist totalitarian fanatics.”

      3. I don’t wish anyone to die because of a government’s abstractions and assumptions like the one’s you’ve presented and are assuming to be the motivation for murder.

        But I am convinced the only way those who accept such detached reasoning will ever understand the stupidity, immorality, and barbarism of such acts is to be on the receiving end of such “justification”.

      4. ~”To make omlets you must crack eggs” Joseph Stalin

        ~”But sometimes innocent people do get killed. If President Obama killed high-value terrorists, how many children did he actually save in the future? How many children might these evil men have been planning to kill in future attacks” Tim R.


      5. Innocent people do die in war, and that is one very good reason that war should only be a last resort. When innocent people die in war because of the use force in such a manner that shows a wreckless disregard for innocent human life then such a use of force is equal to murder. If I drive a car at 100 MPH through a crowded market place and kill several innocent people it does not matter if I intended to kill innocent people or not. Such behavior shows a wreckless disregard for human life which can be considered the samething as if I intentionally set out to kill innocent people. The use of WP by the IDF in the most densly populated area on earth shows the same wreckless disregard for innocent human life. It simply does not matter if the IDF planned to kill innocent people or not. Obama knew or should have known that his use of a hellfire missle would likely cause the death of innocent human life. He chose to proceed with the attack anyhow. Such a decision indicates a wreckless disregard for human which can be considered the samething as if he deliberately set out to kill innocent people. He is a murdering terrorist.

      6. Tim,
        When are you going to bring something new, original,and stop repeating ad infinitum, ad nauseum the same arguments you bring from anti-muslim ,anti-arab extremists web-sites that you consult so often.

        You should really study the concepet of Nazism ,you might very well be shoked to find who really share much of traits of Nazism .It might be very close to home.

      7. “If President Obama killed high-value terrorists, how many children did he actually save in the future?”

        The moral equation does not automatically balance if 3 kids are killed today and a 1000 are saved in the future. One, because the 1000 kids saved have no right to sacrifice the 3 to save their lives. Second, no human being has a superior right to preside over who gets to live and who gets to die, leave alone a politician. All life is sacred, but it’s individually sacred not collectively.

      8. The Muslim restaurant owner around the corner from me is not a terrorist. My Muslim students are not terrorists. Nearly all of the Muslims in the world are not terrorists. Smearing them as “”Nazis,” “terrorists,” etc., reflects very badly on you, Tim R. You seem awfully eager to kill.

        Lester Ness

  4. On defining terrorism: semantics. Terror is (a white phosphorous bomb dropped) in the eye of the beholder. If the “state” parses definitions, to support such a vacuous generalization as “terrorist/ism”, and we accept it, then we’ve truly fallen asunder. Terrorism is the weapon of the poor, much as War is the terrorism of the rich. Plain and simple.

    On Obama: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. He wears the same striped suit. Strikes and expansion: all the better to secure pipelines and bridge northeastwards through the ‘Stans. Emanuel, Hillary, and Holbrook reconstitute the PNAC in paternalistic “Democratic” guises. Expect worse outcomes than that which we’ve already had.

  5. Of one thing there can be no debate: Obama ordered the murder of those people. Some of them may have been militants, others no doubt were entirely innocent. But there was no trial, no evidence, no impartial judge or jury. There isn’t even a war declaration, or even a coherent strategy that defines what it means to “win.” It’s just a bunch a imperialist warmongers doing whatever they think they can get away with.

    How do these people sleep at night? Have they no conscience at all?

  6. ” we have been conditioned to believe that governments don’t commit acts of terrorism…”

    That depands on which governments we are talking about.Certain governments are exmpet from rules applied to others.

  7. Once again, the slippery path to unending war, the ugliest spawn of the State. Why be surprised? Anyone who wants the presidency enough to run the gauntlet of the modern day political campaign is someone in love with the very idea of the State. (The only exception I am willing to make is Ron Paul!) Obama’s stimulus package is no different than his expanded war package for the hapless civilians of Afghanistan. It assumes that the State can solve the problems of terrorism or the State can rectify the ravaging and inevitable effects of a debt-based fiat money system, although both institutions were caused BY the actions of the State apparatus itself. Don’t expect a Statist to view the idea of the State with disdain. They love the State with their whole heart and sould. They love its predations because they have an unconscious drive for power over others, a power they have not earned through production and voluntary exchange but by the usurpation of the privileges offered by the State siren to its favorite paramours.

    1. Right on, our rulers love the state and the power that comes with it. The state has always been the problem, government isn’t the answer but the problem. It will NEVER solve problems only cause more.


  8. Terrorists target innocent civilians, but more specifically, they WILLFULLY and PURPOSEFULLY target innocent civilians. Under the Engish Common Law it might be described as killing with “malice aforethought.” In other words, your whole goal, your whole objective, was to kill an innocent person.

    Now how on Earth do equate that with what President Obama did? He did not want to kill any inncent civilians. And I give the President the benefit of the doubt that they did everything in their power to minimize loss of life to innocent people. And that is as it should be. Even one innocent civilian getting killed is one too many. But to call him a terrorist? Give me a break.

    And another thing, there is a concept of self-defense. If someone was out to kill your family and they had already made attempts on your family’s life, and they were plotting future attacks, wwhat would you do? What if you had a chance to kill these people ( and thus protect your family) even though you knew some innocent people might get killed? Would you not take action? And if you did take action, would you consider your actions to be those of a terrorist? Or a of a just man trying to save innocent people from ruthless killers?

    1. Tim R , you merely represent the latest incarnation of McCarthyism, or in other words ‘Witch Hunts’. Just as former witch hunts were motivated by irrational fear to remove imagined threats, your repeated accusations of ‘Witch!’….altered to ‘Radical Islam!’ for political purposes is appalling.

      Again I say, it is the basis of neoconservative political strategy to use fear to generate support for violent actions. Justify violence somewhere else.

      You really are a closet neocon. Go to the AEI. They’ll listen.

      1. AC,

        You say I am a “closet neocon” using “fear” to generate support for violent actions? Let me tell you something buddy, I was getting off a subway train at about 9am on a sunny Tuesday morning in lower manhattan. After what I saw I think I am entitled to some well placed fear. I know who was in those planes. They were not Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, athiests, or Hindus. We all know who were in those planes. And yes, I do have fear radical Muslims and I believe that fear is well-founded.

        1. Tim R.

          The Oklahoma city bombers were American. They were Christian. They made their intentions very clear. They are hiding in a cowardly way behind children and women and men that they call sons and daughters and wives and mothers and fathers. Is the reason that you are not advocating bombing of American homes, is that you did not get off a subway train in Oklahoma City some blocks away from the scene of the bombing?

        2. Tim R , I am not your Buddy. I repeat my statement. Your position of using fear to justify violent illegal actions reflects Neoconservative ideology.

          You propose our rejection of civilized conduct and respect for law in preference to indiscriminate bombings. Bombs don’t kill a person. They kill people. If your children were in an apartment block that another government bombed to kill a ‘suspected’ opponent, would you find that acceptable? The bombing of countless wedding parties, schools and civilian homes, killing countless children and other innocents is criminal, yet you try to justify these crimes. Two wrongs do not make a right.

          If there is a criminal you want, you do not kill lots of civilians merely to get to them.

          I am fed up with the right-wing Israel lobby using people like you to lobby criminal policies for their political purposes. Look at yourself in the mirror. Do you see your irrational hatred and your rejection of civilized conduct?

        3. You are not motivated by justice but by revenge, and happy to justify the large number of innocents who die to achieve satisfisfaction.

    2. Wasn’t the indiscriminate carpet bombing of German cities terrorism? What about the firebombing of Tokyo? What about the British blockade of Germany in WW1? A million civilians, mostly children, starved to death. How about Sherman’s “march to the sea”? If the U.S. had lost the war for independence wouldn’t all the founding fathers have been hanged for treason against the British crown. Weren’t countless generations of Irish freedom fighters considered ‘terrorists” by the ruling classes? Wasn’t the “pacification” of the Highlands after Culloden terrorism? You seem to shape facts at will to suit your agenda.

      1. Andy,

        Yes, I think you have a point there. The indiscriminate carpet bombing of Dresden and the fire bombing of Tokyo and things of that nature were terrorist acts. We were trying to win the war by terrorizing the people into submission. We were recklessly and willfully killing innocent people to win the war ( although keep in mind the Germans and the Japs were doing the exact same thing) We were on the side of goodness, we were on the side of justice and of all that is right. However, in our zeal we went too far. We became like our enemies. Even though our objectives were just, our means were not. No, the ends don’t justify the means.

    3. I would not kill the innocent and try to sell it as “self defense”. Your “concept of self defense” is neither morally nor legally defensible. I am not God and don’t get to decide that an innocent person’s life is worth less than mine or my family’s.

      And if that innocent person killed was a member of your family? Would you regard me as “a just man trying to save innocent people from ruthless killers”? Come on, don’t even try it. You know damn well you wouldn’t.

    4. If I were to open fire with a submachine gun in a crowded mall and kill several people, and then later claim as my defense that I did not intend to kill anyone that defense would be dismissed as absurd. Even if it were true that I did not intend to kill anyone, my actions in shooting a submachine gun in a crowded mall show such a reckless disregard for innocent human life that it can be considered the same as if I set out to deliberately kill those same people. When the Israeli government through its armed wing the IDF confines 1.3 million people in an area of about 145 square miles, and then proceeds to launch a massive bombing campaign against the people of that area, the claim that they intended to kill no innocent people can be dismissed as absurd. Even if the claim were true, it would make no difference because the actions of the IDf and the Israeli government show such a reckless disregard for human life that it can be considered the same as if they decided to set out to deliberately kill those same people. You are trying to make a moral distinction between the actions of Hamas and the actions of the Israeli government. I say you are making a distinction without a difference. Everything you say about the actions of Hamas also apply to the actions of the IDF and the Israeli government only to a larger degree.

      As to your claim that there is such a thing as self defense, I would agree with that claim as a general principle. In the context of the dispute between Israel and the Palistinains I would have to agree with a previos poster who wrote there is no such thing as a right to self defense for an occupier. If someone were trying to murder my family, yes, I would do something about it. The thing I would not do, however, is to bomb the niegborhood in which those people who are planning to murder my family live, and kill not only those who are planning the murder of my family, but also about 100 other innocent persons who had nothing to do with the plot to murder my family.

      In the case of the dispute between the Israeli government and the people of the Gaza Strip, however, the Israeli government had a humane and reasonable option other than the murderous rampage they unleashed on the people of Gaza. It is now known that Hamas wanted to extend the ceasefire. It is also known that Hamas did everything it could to make sure no rockets were fired on Israel during the period of the ceasefire including the apprehension and disarment of those who fired rockets at Israel during the ceasefire. This fact was confirmed by a think tank that is very close to the Israeli government. It is also known that even before the ink was dry on the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, the Israeli government was planning a military assault on the people of Gaza. Lets discuss malice aforethought. We also know that part of the ceasefire agreement was for Israel to end the starvation blockade of Gaza during the period of the ceasefire. This is a condition the Israeli government never implemented, and further never intended to implement. Now going back to Hamas wanting to extend the ceasefire with these known facts in mind. As a condition for extending the ceasefire, Hamas demanded that the Israeli government once and for all end the starvation blockade of Gaza. The Israeli government refused this just demand. In other words, the Israeli government in order to maintain a murderous starvation blockade on the people of Gaza, launched a murderous bombing campaign against the people of Gaza in order to maintain its murderous starvation blockade. These are the actions of the government you are defending. I do not know how you have the stomach to do such a thing.

  9. Mr.Obama is not a terrorist.

    He is a Terrorist and Extermination enabler in Chief of Nazi Anglo-American Terrorist Organization, a.k.a. NATO

    Mankind defeated Rome, Hitler, USSR etc. new Evil Empire will meet the same fate.

    There is no weapon and there never will be to defeat desire to be FREE!

  10. Do we as a country have any logical plan for ceasing hostilities with the world in general? I think not. America is no longer a sane country; instead we are a collection of mentally disturbed groups:
    We have the paranoiacs (like our own Tim R); they fear and hate anyone they don’t understand and they understand little. Fear is their master, violence is their servant. Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez – these are all boogeymen who want nothing more (in their minds) but to hurt us. This is the dumbass Bush crowd.
    Then we have the narcissts who think that America is the true center of the World. They feel that we must touch everyone in the World either with affection or with punishment. This is the Clinton crowd and probably Obama’s too. They will have us attacking other countries, like Pakistan, “for their own good”.
    Then we have the sociopaths who believe in taking what they want. If we need foreign oil – take it. This is the Cheney and neocon crowd. Zionism is sociopathic.
    What this country needs is some self-reflection and competent analysis. I suggest that some of this tremendous bailout effort include a Czar of Psychiatric Restoration. America needs mental rehabilitation as much as economic rehabilitation.

    1. When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail. The only tool America has in its foreign policy toolbox is the U.S. military.

  11. “The wreckless use of force, without any consideration on how the use of such force might impact the lives of civilians, is no different than deliberately targeting innocent civilians.”

    Pilots attack with a weapon that does not allow them to discriminate among those in the target area. Compare this to soldiers in a force occupying conquered territory, who are in a position to observe and discriminate among the inhabitants and fulfill his military functions without shooting babies. If this soldier is ordered to do such a thing, it can be terrorism if it is designed to have the effect of intimidating other residents of the conquered territory. (However, airplane attacks can be indiscriminate enough to constitute collective punishment, which is always illegal.)

    The U.S. is not fighting a war in Pakistan against the people (as they were in Vietnam, and as Israel is in the Palestinians Occupied Territories). It then has little reason to use terrorism, which has a concrete definition and isn’t just “semantics.”

  12. Those who keep harping on the “self defense” line (like poor Israel with those rockets from Hamas) are doing what Ayn Rand referred to as “context dropping.” Leave out big portions of the overall picture, zero in on one portion of it and build your case from there.

    The US government can “protect” US citizens anytime by simply stopping the destructive foreign policy it has had in place at least since Wilson’s time if not before.

    Murder civilians in foreign lands (using money stolen from “your own people”). Sooner or later they’ll be pissed enough to strike back in whatever way they can — who wouldn’t? Then “forget” about the first part, cry the blues about the second part, keep the game going forever.

    Let’s look at the big picture before we draw conclusions. I’d be first in line to go kick their asses if someone did me harm with no provocation on my part. But if I did something first to provoke them, it’s just infantile to pretend otherwise.

    It’s hard to be objective when viewing “our team” and its actions since so many identify with it. Another good reason to grow up and see things clearly.

  13. I agree that Obama is a terrorist unless he does the following:

    1. Tell all our troops around the world to start packing.
    2. Issue an apology to the rest of the world for our medleing and murdering. Ask forgivness of Iraq and Afgahnistan for the distuction of their countries.
    3. Withdraw our troops as quickley as safety permits.
    4. Pledge to pay restitution for all the distruction we have caused.

    I am not holding my breath that this will happen anytime soon, though I am hopeful.

    1. Michael Ross,

      I suppose we should also issue an apology to all the millions of women in Afghanistan who for the first time in years are being treated like human beings, allowed to vote, allowed to be treated like human beings rather than property.

      1. Tim, again you are making up history.

        The Afghans already had a progressive government. We destroyed it through our support of Osama bin Laden’s Mujadideen, courtesy of our CIA operations in the 1970’s and 1980’s, long before the ‘evil’ Soviets intervened to assist the government under a treaty… which you obviously prefer to call an ‘invasion’. Thank us for what? Thank you for invading and occupying our country? Bombing wedding parties and civilian homes? Creating a horrific insurgent war against groups we previously supported? They have nothing to thank us for.

        As I posted earlier:
        Before the Afghanistan war, the progressive Afghanistan government, backed by the Soviet Union, had introduced policies including freedom of religion, advanced women’s rights, education for women….well, just read the following from wikipedia:

        “Once in power, the PDPA moved to permit freedom of religion and carried out an ambitious land reform, waiving farmers’ debts countrywide. They also made a number of statements on women’s rights and introduced women to political life. A prominent example was Anahita Ratebzad, who was a major Marxist leader and a member of the Revolutionary Council. Ratebzad wrote the famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial which declared: “Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country …. Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention.”

        The majority of people in the cities including Kabul either welcomed or were ambivalent to these policies. However, the secular nature of the government made it unpopular with religiously conservative Afghans in the villages and the countryside, who favoured traditionalist ‘Islamic’ restrictions on women’s rights and in daily life.

        The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter) began to covertly fund forces ranged against the pro-Soviet government, although warned that this might prompt a Soviet intervention, (according to National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski).

        In order to bolster the Parcham faction, the Soviet Union—citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries—intervened on December 24, 1979.
        (Wikipedia: Afghanistan)

        Stop making up ‘spin’ as you go to suit your flawed arguments.

      2. Tim R,
        You are about as worried about Afghan women as you are about the children in Gaza. I am impressed with your attemps to ceaselessly bullshit everyone – especially yourself.

  14. Obama is now an official “tyrant.”

    Not even one week into his new job, and he’s already killed 20 people, 3 of them children, according to reports.

    Some people would say that a killer of 20 people would qualify as a mass murderer. But in the realm of political power, it’s just an appetizer.

    I wonder if Obama is willing to exchange HIS 3 children for the 3 he murdered in Pakistan?

    Probably not. As we all know, FOREIGN lives aren’t worth as much as AMERICAN lives. They are dispensable to the “greater good.”

    So now we know; a black American president is just as murderous as a white one. And we were promised “change.”

    May God have mercy on the rest of us for the evil being committed by our government in our name.

    Don Hull
    Costa Mesa, CA

    1. And don’t you know that Black soldiers killed legions of red-skinned Americans, child, woman, and man, by order of their white president.

  15. to marc linn
    nothing personal, but this kind of “our team” shows to the world clearly that their world
    is definded for them by their “leaders”-party, religion, trade, tribe etc. The “leaders”
    get their money from one and the same source, along with instructions to keep populus’ psychology on level of very progressive cave-people. So here you have it. What is not clear in this transparent situation? All, all, all debates, discussions, comments, publications,
    books, dvd, movies are done with only one purpose: to keep cave-folks where they are
    and have been since times indefinite.

  16. Thank you for writing the obvious, Mr. Vance. I am old enough that I remember when countries that indiscriminately killed were called terrorist, and yes, people of the world, Barack Obama is a terrorist. Join hands.

  17. “The root cause of suicide terrorism is occupation, not Islam, and not the other way around, as the War Party and its ill-informed adherents so righteously claim.

    “Don’t you remember Sept. 11? We were attacked!”

    As Harry Browne has pointed out, history does not begin on 9/11. In fact, American intervention in the Middle East dates back to 1919, when U.S. participation in World War I helped turn the entire region over to the British and the French, who then drew borders to their own liking for the states of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, what was Palestine, etc.”

  18. How many innocent people have died as a result of our thirst for revenge? And yet did we get Osama bin Laden? Never mind, we’ll just keep bombing ‘suspected’ targets.

    Obama’s continuance of the Bush administration’s wars continues to dig us further into this hole.

    At least the Russians are precise in who they assassinate. We’re like the keystone cops. Kill everyone but the person we’re after.

  19. We have become so accustomed to terrorism by the state that no-one recognises it as such any more.

    The US is assassinating terror suspects using pilotless drones.
    1. They are suspects – not confirmed criminals. No one had a chance to prove his innocence and the state has not proved the guilt of anyone.
    2. It is doing this by attacking civilians in another sovereign country (afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and if reports are true, via agents in Iran)

    How is it that so much can be spoken by so many people yet the basic principles of law which we all depend upon for our own safety is totally lost. We have no safety anymore because we can be killed by any government agency because it “suspects” one of acting against them. When you consider that most of the state agencies are acting outside the law, those who act against them are actually acting against an unlawful entity, and whould enjoy our support.

    When Obama continues where Bush left off, what does this say about him?

    All the election rhetoric was all a lot of hot gas.

  20. Supporters of Israel and their neo-cons and Christian fantics have advocated and welcomed the so called ‘war-on-terror’,war against Afghnistan,Iraq,Palestnians,Pakistan,and more to come muslim countrie,torture,Abu Ghrib which was not few bad apples as they said but an official policy,rounding innocent muslims and sendig them God only Knows where,etc in order for the hostilities between the US and the Muslim world to continue unabated.

  21. Many commentators here have remarked upon the apparent madness of American foreign policy, and it does seem to generate far more than its share of lunatics, yet it should not be forgotten that there is a method behind all of this. Central Asia and the Middle East appear to be slipping from America’s grasp, and can only be held by an expanded intervention, for control over the planet’s apparently dwindling oil reserves- and therewith the dollar hegemony, the cornerstone of the American dominance- is critical to the empire’s economic survival. The accumulating economic imbalances of an overvalued dollar (deindustrialization, chronic trade deficits, etc) cannot survive in the presence of a rival reserve currency which must of necessity be extirpated wherever it appears. So, when Saddam indicated that he might price his country’s oil in Euros, Iraq had to be brought to heel. Naturally, this is the extent of it; the oil supply of Iraq and central Asia is a potential pressure point for China, an incipient rival, an end in itself, and a means of minimizing dependency upon the Saudis who, it was hoped, might be induced into ending their funding of Islamist groups. American supremacy is therefore founded upon an insuperable contradiction- expanding costs weighing upon a diminishing economic and industrial base. It is built upon a foundation of paper money whose chief source of value at this stage is political circumstance. Inevitably, it will be displaced, and when this happens the massive economic dislocations that result will make the Great Depression look like a picnic.

    1. Generally, you are better off crediting stupidity than cunning plans, when trying to explain some historical or political event. Think of Baldric’s “cunning plans” in the “Blackadder” TV series.

      Lester Ness

      1. I think “stupidity” is a much too accommodating a hypothesis to explain the large and systematic variations in American foreign policy or its own persistence in the face of the evident costs.

  22. “Terrorists target innocent civilians, but more specifically, they WILLFULLY and PURPOSEFULLY target innocent civilians.” — Tim R.

    Everyone in the world but you knows that every bomber raid mostly kills civilians. Bomber Harris knew this 60+ years ago.

    In truth, all warfare is terrorism. The difference between what is commonly called “terrorism” and what is commonly considered “legitimate warfare” is scale. Legit warfare (like Dresden or Tokyo) kills far more innocent civilians than “terrorists.”

    It won’t stop, I fear. The US has too many Tim R.s.

    Lester Ness, alive in the bitter sea

    1. Mr. Ness,

      I will concede the point to you that Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings were terrorism and, even though our side was in the right and our goal was to end the war, it was nevertheless inexcusable to willfully fire bomb innocent civilians.

  23. It seems that as soon as a new US president take office one of his first rite of passage is to send missiles flying or send the marines .

  24. Obama and our military are mass murderers who deserve to be executed for their crimes against the natural rights of people around the world!

  25. he is a muslim isnt he.
    its a known fact that not all muslims are terrorist but it is also known that almost all terrorist are muslim.

    1. I know the 2 since of one person may not mean much but the fact that any government would willingly use terrorism to get what they wanted from the people is a frighting thought.

    2. He is a Freaking terrorist. He is going to destroy America as we know it! He wants to change our beautiful flag, our national anthem and our ways of living. He wants us to become civil with the middle eastern countries but they want to kill us no matter what! How do you make peace with countries that do not want peace? How can you love America when you attend ceremonies to burn our nations flag and have just plain passionate hatred towards our country that he does NOT deny??

  26. you guys are idiots. Did you even read the article that you're commenting on?

    @roland tibbs
    Barack Obama is not muslim.
    it is not true that almost all terrorists are muslim. There have been acts of terrorism perpetrated by adherents to every major religion as well as atheists and agnostics.

    you are seriously misinformed. Barack Obama has never publicly stated any intention to change the U.S. flag, national anthem or our "ways of living," whatever that means, nor is he known to have attended any flag burning "ceremonies," and I'm sure that if asked he would deny having "just plain passionate hatred toward our country." As for becoming "civil" with middle eastern countries, our government has in fact been quite cozy with many of those oppressive regimes for many years, which is a major cause of resentment toward the U.S. in the region.

    Having said all that however, I do in fact believe that Barack Obama is a terrorist, not because he "hates America," but because he has authorized and presided over numerous acts of terrorism including attacks on civilians, kidnappings, assassinations, torture and secret prisons. Thanks to Laurence Vance for pointing out that non-governmental groups don't hold a monopoly on terrorism, and shame on the ignorant right wing for muddying the waters with racist and patently false accusations against a president for whom there is a legitimate case for impeachment war crimes prosecution.

  27. Care to elaborate on that thesis, in regard to this particular incident, Blinds?

  28. i totaly agree with matt when he says that obama is a terrorist because he has given the go ahead on numerous acts of terrorism including attacks on civilians, kidnappings, assassinations, torture and secret prisons.

  29. Excellent post.The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept.

  30. It is a great and also beneficial part of data. I am just thankful that you discussed this helpful tips with us and intensely thrilled to notice the content,I will be quite definitely to just like and also trust the mindset.

  31. One of the biggest challenges that face anyone is justifying what one want to do and why it's going to disrupt the status quo — whether it be to give opinion or starting a converstaion. It really helps when reading your material insisted on the matter you have highlighted. Fine tunning the concept you discussed will surely bring new opportunities in this area of interest and brings will result something positive. I appreciate your efforts of taking notice of above discussed matter.

  32. Excellent post.The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post.

  33. i totaly agree with matt when he says that obama is a terrorist because he has given the go ahead on numerous acts of terrorism including attacks on civilians, kidnappings, assassinations, torture and secret prisons.

Comments are closed.