Friday, September 12, 2008

Another Obama Moment in America

I run across: the bitches latest take on Barack Obama. The post discusses a program encouraging families to bring their daughters to support Barack Obama's candidacy.

I reply briefly, in essence suggesting an irony in pairing the innocence of America's young children with Barack's brutal rise to power.

I am then censored; my comment is deleted. I am scolded to not be "obnoxious." Apparently, "obnoxious" does not mean supporting murder. Rather, it is "obnoxious" and unthinkable to be sarcastic.

So, I comment anew. Text follows.

Okay, I am going to be as direct as possible in pointing something out:

1) Barack Obama intends to escalate the killing in Pakistan. Countless innocent little girls there--many peoples' daughters; their hopes and dreams--will have their lives shattered into black nothingness. 

2) Barack Obama intends to escalate the killing in Afghanistan. Countless innocent little girls there will have their flesh torn apart by cluster bombs. They will have their brains liquified three blocks over by MOABs dropped from the clouds. They will step on land mines and spend the next fifty years of their lives in terrible pain, hobbling on stumps that never got proper medical treatment. 

3) Barack Obama intends to keep mercenaries, bases and advisers in Iraq. Countless innocent little girls there will be shot to death when their father doesn't brake the car quickly enough when a Blackwater Hummer goes by. They will be raped at ten years old behind a crumbled mosque, by three eighteen-year-old US marines with AR-15 rifles. They will go home to find that their fathers have been taken for questioning, and will not be back ever again. 

4) Barack Obama threatens that he is willing to use all options against Iran. Countless innocent little girls lie awake in their beds at night, wondering when the American planes will come turn them into Iraq. 

It is abysmally sad to dirty the hands of America's little girls by bringing them to support this murderer--this horrid man who has sent billions of dollars to pay for the bullets, tires, bombs and fuel that grind away so many of the lives of their fellow human beings. He keeps voting for the resolutions and the money. He called Bush's troop surge a great success. He claims Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, even though his own intelligence agencies say it is not true. 

How can you even begin to condone this horrid warmongering? Obama plots his murders in public; he stares into the camera and tells the country exactly where he is going to send his soldiers to kill and maim. And yet, you would support him because you think he might kill slightly fewer people than McCain would? 

What a terrible thing to teach a child--support Murderer Number Two, because he is a little bit nicer than Murderer Number One. 

I pity the children who have their open minds warped into believing that it is acceptable to cheer on violence and brutality, as long as there is someone "worse" out there to justify it. 

3 comments:

Media Ghost said...

Bravo! Like Hillary said, (and I paraphrase) it takes a village to raise the next generation of mindless, oblivious, emotionally stunted voters.

Manitor said...

For chronology's sake, my two successive comments on the bitches' thread follow.

Post 1:

So let me get this straight: you are supporting Barack Obama, who speaks proudly of all the killing he intends, but you are not supporting him BECAUSE of that killing? And that makes it all right?

It seems to me that you are still supporting his killing.

Post 2:

Hm...more thought. So, you cheer on Obama, who supports violence and brutality, but you're not cheering...no, that's the same quandary I had before.

Let me try again. Obama is going to keep killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Iran, and you support him, but you only support him because he's going to kill fewer people than McCain, even though he is planning to expand the military and military action...because McCain is going to expand things even more.

So, by choosing to support the killing of, say, 1,000,000 human beings during Obama's presidency, you are actually doing a moral, right thing, because otherwise John McCain would kill, say, 1,200,000 human beings?

So, your support of the terrible butchery of innocents is actually a good thing, because you are sacrificing them to save 20% of their number? Is that how you justify it?

That's horrific. No one is forcing you to help condemn those however-many-hundred-thousand people to awful deaths in wartime. No one has a gun to your head. You have the ability to refuse to support the killing, to refuse to make a bargain with the devil, and to refuse to validate the murderous empire. You could vote for yourself, or a third-party candidate, or simply abstain in the name of decency.

Have some humanity. My god, please have some humanity! Those money-soaked murderers do not need any more of your validation!

Manitor said...

Update on the biches: after a couple more censorings, I am accused of being morally superior, and the head bitch postulates on how she does not wish to explain her Gobama. Another response from me, for posterity, in the event it is deleted elsewhere:

I apologize for offending you. I did not mean to come across as "morally superior." I tried to avoid mentioning myself, or my own qualities, a single time in my posts. If I have somehow implied that I am infallible and/or morally superior, I apologize.

Let me try to explain my loaded terms. When I say "Obama's plans for mass murder," here is why:

"Obama's plans": check his website and speeches. He is planning on using mercenaries in Iraq, "keeping all options on the table" with regards to Iran, and using our military in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Mass": a lot of people are going to die. I assume you are familiar with how the U.S. military deals with people in countries it has invaded. If not, I am happy to provide you with links.

"Murder": Obama and his advisers know that their plan for vicious military intervention are going to kill a lot of innocent people. Again, if you are not familiar with how the U.S. military treats people in countries it has invaded, I can provide you with some references.

Secondly, these killings are not justified. They are deliberately planned killings for reasons other than self defense.

If you believe in the clash of civilizations, and feel that the killing in the middle/far east is justified, why not just say so?

I asked you earlier for your answer to why all the killing was acceptable. Would you be so kind as to tell me why? Is it because we have to kill all those people in order to, by doing so, stop al Qaeda? To stop bin Laden? What reason do you offer for all the death? Or is it obnoxious to even ask an American to justify state killing?