Lupe Fiasco Calls Pres. Obama A Child Killer

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Doesn't matter what the grievances are when the defensive tactics devolve to "If you don't like it leave the country" or the idiotic "Trust the president because he is privy to info we don't get to see" line of thought.

It's a very complicated issue to tackle and there are very legitimate reasons as to why this secretive, open-ended drone bombing in various countries that kills civilians should trouble us as citizens.

But it gets tedious debating it here when reasonable dialogue gets drowned in a chorus of not only emotional platitudes about how if you don't stand boldly in 100% opposition to it, you are an Obama dikkrider and how the U.S. government is evil devoid of rational framing and context which isn't even worthy of a response, but also the disingenuous garbage people like you and OGC163 throw around every time, accusing people of hypocrisy if they didn't like Bush.

People like myself were outraged over THE IRAQ WAR for obvious reasons. Bush did drone bombings too. I didn't get all upset over it. I actually thought it was an efficient tactic to kill Al Qaeda members. Obama has tripled the amount of drone bombings and killed far more civilians than Bush did, and there seems to be no end in sight, so Obama's drone bombing is more severe and more ethically and legally dubious than Bush.

I don't know why y'all keep acting as if somehow you were against Bush's Iraq War somehow, you have to be some kind of isolationist or peacenik. World policing and internationally intervention is a traditionally been a plank of the Democratic party since Woodrow Wilson before the neocons went crazy with it. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, hello? These weren't pacifists or isolationists.

It would be nice to debate the merits of the policy alone without all these snarky ass remarks, accusing people of falling in lockstep with Obama or strawman arguments about fake hypocrisy. If you want to keep playing this "But you were against Bush" card maybe you should start naming names because you can check my posting history. I was arguing with conspiracy types about how I agreed with Bush Sr. policy toward Iraq and how they handled the war (but not the ensuing sanctions) back in like 2008. I was not only for the Gulf War, but also the Kosovo NATO campaign, and going into Afghanistan after 9/11 (I don't like some of the tactics, but that's a different story). And I think we should've intervened in Rwanda. And if we weren't tied up in Iraq, I would've been for intervening in Sudan too.

Props for giving a legitimate answer to the questions I proposed in my initial post in the thread, but keep the extra shyt. And props to Spatial Paradox and everyone else who presented a rational case for their position whatever it may be without all the emotional hyperbolic rhetoric and bullshyt.

Again, check out the podcast in my sig starting at 34:20 for a good rational discussion on the matter...try to deal with the audio issues.

 

[ogc163]

It's a very complicated issue to tackle and there are very legitimate reasons as to why this secretive, open-ended drone bombing in various countries that kills civilians should trouble us as citizens.

But it gets tedious debating it here when reasonable dialogue gets drowned in a chorus of not only emotional platitudes about how if you don't stand boldly in 100% opposition to it, you are an Obama dikkrider and how the U.S. government is evil devoid of rational framing and context which isn't even worthy of a response, but also the disingenuous garbage people like you and OGC163 throw around every time, accusing people of hypocrisy if they didn't like Bush.

People like myself were outraged over THE IRAQ WAR for obvious reasons. Bush did drone bombings too. I didn't get all upset over it. I actually thought it was an efficient tactic to kill Al Qaeda members. Obama has tripled the amount of drone bombings and killed far more civilians than Bush did, and there seems to be no end in sight, so Obama's drone bombing is more severe and more ethically and legally dubious than Bush.

I don't know why y'all keep acting as if somehow you were against Bush's Iraq War somehow, you have to be some kind of isolationist or peacenik. World policing and internationally intervention is a traditionally been a plank of the Democratic party since Woodrow Wilson before the neocons went crazy with it. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, hello? These weren't pacifists or isolationists.

It would be nice to debate the merits of the policy alone without all these snarky ass remarks, accusing people of falling in lockstep with Obama or strawman arguments about fake hypocrisy. If you want to keep playing this "But you were against Bush" card maybe you should start naming names because you can check my posting history. I was arguing with conspiracy types about how I agreed with Bush Sr. policy toward Iraq and how they handled the war (but not the ensuing sanctions) back in like 2008. I was not only for the Gulf War, but also the Kosovo NATO campaign, and going into Afghanistan after 9/11 (I don't like some of the tactics, but that's a different story). And I think we should've intervened in Rwanda. And if we weren't tied up in Iraq, I would've been for intervening in Sudan too.

Props for giving a legitimate answer to the questions I proposed in my initial post in the thread, but keep the extra shyt. And props to Spatial Paradox and everyone else who presented a rational case for their position whatever it may be without all the emotional hyperbolic rhetoric and bullshyt.

Again, check out the podcast in my sig starting at 34:20 for a good rational discussion on the matter...try to deal with the audio issues.

Disingenuous garbage? Progressives and liberals strongly criticized all facets of the Bush foreign policy, that they were highly calculated and discerning in their criticisms is bullshyt.They called him out on the notion of "spreading" democracy, humanitarian interventionism, the flawed economic rationalization as it relates to energy/oil, the undermining of the constitution, increasing the chance of blowback,the flippant attitude towards civil liberties, and the reckless spending cost .

The Obama administration has continued to move in the same direction, and yet the criticisms on the left have been nowhere near the same. If the left/progressives had been indifferent or supportive of those policies and rationalizations, well then people like myself, Greenwald, Scahill,etc would not be able to call them out on their hypocrisy. But I've seen liberals come at their heads on some 'chill it's not that serious" tip when these dudes are writing on the same issues, using the same criticisms, and yet the reaction is different because they are no longer writing about a Republican president.

 

[Type Username Here]

I see what you're saying, but lets say tour Army does go all out, you know that Guerillas are like cockroaches, they find a way to make it back over and over, its a never ending cycle.

Nah breh, there are ways to break the will of the people. It just takes absolute destruction without regard for life and infrastructure.

That's the problem with Afghanistan and Iraq. We are over there trying to "win" and fight a war, and build a country at the same damn time.

See what the Japenese did to the Chinese, then see what we did to the Japanese. That's absolute submission.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Disingenuous garbage? Progressives and liberals strongly criticized all facets of the Bush foreign policy, that they were highly calculated and discerning in their criticisms is bullshyt.They called him out on the notion of "spreading" democracy, humanitarian interventionism, the flawed economic rationalization as it relates to energy/oil, the undermining of the constitution, increasing the chance of blowback,the flippant attitude towards civil liberties, and the reckless spending cost .

The Obama administration has continued to move in the same direction, and yet the criticisms on the left have been nowhere near the same. If the left/progressives had been indifferent or supportive of those policies and rationalizations, well then people like myself, Greenwald, Scahill,etc would not be able to call them out on their hypocrisy. But I've seen liberals come at their heads on some 'chill it's not that serious" tip when these dudes are writing on the same issues, using the same criticisms, and yet the reaction is different because they are no longer writing about a Republican president.

You're just speaking in generalities and lumping everything together. The crux of liberals and progressives, as well as almost everyone else's beef with Bush was the Iraq War and the Bush doctrine of preventive war to topple regimes they deem a threat, liberals were just out in front about it before it happened.

It's not like everyone on the left side of the aisle was an isolationist or pacifist. You have a stronger case for hypocrisy if you talk about the Patriot Act, extra rendition, indefinite detention, etc. Nobody had a problem with humanitarian intervention as long as it's done cleanly and efficiently and there's an ending point. That's why you didn't much outcry about the Kosovo mission, the Gulf War, or the NATO campaign in Libya.

And nobody but the far left fringe had any issue with going into Afghanistan, and there wasn't much of a big deal made about Bush's drone bombings either. Many thought it was right in line with Kerry's vision that anti-terrorism be primary law enforcement, surveillance, and pinpoint strikes as opposed to massive army deployments. There's probably been more blowback from the left over Obama's drone bombing than it has been for Bush, which is understandable considering Obama tripled it, killed far more civilians, and expanded it to Yemen and Somalia.

You are painting "liberals" with a pretty broad bush in a way that isn't totally accurate. Most liberals support going after Al Qaeda though there is dispute on the tactics, in fact a popular talking point on the left during the height of the Iraq War was "Bush took his eye off the real enemy in Afghanistan." And Obama ran on it. He talked about how he wanted to increase drone bombings in Pakistan before he even beat Hillary in the primary and even had Bush like "chill." Just like he ran on ramping up the Afghanistan war.

But now the Afghanistan War seems endless and nobody seems to know what the mission is, and Obama is going ham with the drone bombings and using a bullshyt definition of the "militants" they kill. This something crucial to debate, but whenever these conversations come up, you guys seem to be more intent on trying to make these snarky decontextualized, generalized comments about liberals being hypocrites instead of actually trying to discuss it in a meaningful way.

 

[OsO]

Progressives and liberals strongly criticized all facets of the Bush foreign policy, that they were highly calculated and discerning in their criticisms is bullshyt.They called him out on the notion of "spreading" democracy, humanitarian interventionism, the flawed economic rationalization as it relates to energy/oil, the undermining of the constitution, increasing the chance of blowback,the flippant attitude towards civil liberties, and the reckless spending cost.

but yet people are condoning these wars despite all these negative effects they are having on our social fabric... and despite the fact there is not one good reason to be in these wars in the first place.

iraq is not a threat to us.

afghanistan is not a threat to us.

why are we invading these countries?

we are not fighting a war on terror because WE ARE THE TERRORISTS. we topple foreign governments. we assassinate world leaders. we engineer foreign revolutions. we extort the fukk outta foreign economies. we invade countries and set up shop. dont you simple mufukkas know imperialism when you see it?

so the larger point is---------> we should not be condoning these wars AT ALL.

we have such a huge, highly trained army because physical violence is our MO, and we resort to war if you dont meet our demands. no different than the bully on the block. there is nothing "defensive" about the department of defense.

i keep saying it in different ways hoping it will finally sink in, because our moral compass is fukked up on this. real human lives are being lost. real human lives are being destroyed. FAMILIES are being destroyed. and thats just on the american side imagine whats happening in iraq and afghanistan as a result of our invasion... nothing short of complete economic, political, and social devastation.

so why are we in these wars again? why are we causing all this destruction to ourselves and these other countries?

we gotta grow some balls and stand up for whats right, pointblankperiod.

i dont see how people are so apathetic about what is happening to other human beings on the earth... acting like those no-soul having ... classic case of imitating the oppressor

i think some of yall need to spend some time around war vets and the families of the people fighting in these wars... it might paint a better picture for you.

its easy for us discuss the logistics of war if we are not really being affected. i think we should institute a new law that the people who agree we should be at war are the ones who fight in the war, what do you guys think?

 

[Insensitive]

war is hell. when will it end. when will people start gettin' together again

MARVIN DA GAWWD

This topic is really interesting, I can't really contribute just yet I'm still reading through but this is definitely interesting.

 

[Jello Biafra]

It's a very complicated issue to tackle and there are very legitimate reasons as to why this secretive, open-ended drone bombing in various countries that kills civilians should trouble us as citizens.

But it gets tedious debating it here when reasonable dialogue gets drowned in a chorus of not only emotional platitudes about how if you don't stand boldly in 100% opposition to it, you are an Obama dikkrider and how the U.S. government is evil devoid of rational framing and context which isn't even worthy of a response, but also the disingenuous garbage people like you and OGC163 throw around every time, accusing people of hypocrisy if they didn't like Bush.

People like myself were outraged over THE IRAQ WAR for obvious reasons. Bush did drone bombings too. I didn't get all upset over it. I actually thought it was an efficient tactic to kill Al Qaeda members. Obama has tripled the amount of drone bombings and killed far more civilians than Bush did, and there seems to be no end in sight, so Obama's drone bombing is more severe and more ethically and legally dubious than Bush.

I don't know why y'all keep acting as if somehow you were against Bush's Iraq War somehow, you have to be some kind of isolationist or peacenik. World policing and internationally intervention is a traditionally been a plank of the Democratic party since Woodrow Wilson before the neocons went crazy with it. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, hello? These weren't pacifists or isolationists.

It would be nice to debate the merits of the policy alone without all these snarky ass remarks, accusing people of falling in lockstep with Obama or strawman arguments about fake hypocrisy. If you want to keep playing this "But you were against Bush" card maybe you should start naming names because you can check my posting history. I was arguing with conspiracy types about how I agreed with Bush Sr. policy toward Iraq and how they handled the war (but not the ensuing sanctions) back in like 2008. I was not only for the Gulf War, but also the Kosovo NATO campaign, and going into Afghanistan after 9/11 (I don't like some of the tactics, but that's a different story). And I think we should've intervened in Rwanda. And if we weren't tied up in Iraq, I would've been for intervening in Sudan too.

Props for giving a legitimate answer to the questions I proposed in my initial post in the thread, but keep the extra shyt. And props to Spatial Paradox and everyone else who presented a rational case for their position whatever it may be without all the emotional hyperbolic rhetoric and bullshyt.

Again, check out the podcast in my sig starting at 34:20 for a good rational discussion on the matter...try to deal with the audio issues.

I am no peacenik by any stretch of the imagination but it is hard to deny that a lot of the same defensive techniques that pro-Bush people used to defend him have been embraced by Obama supporters and it is even more startling because a lot of the most aggresively Bush like defense is coming from black folks.
To have a black man use the "if you don't like it leave the country" line is some crazy shyt that just boggles the mind.

 

[LastEmperor2k2]

To have a black man use the "if you don't like it leave the country" line is some crazy shyt that just boggles the mind.

Not even just black, but liberal people in general.

If you dont like it then leave is some backwards ass redneck, no education having type of material.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I am no peacenik by any stretch of the imagination but it is hard to deny that a lot of the same defensive techniques that pro-Bush people used to defend him have been embraced by Obama supporters and it is even more startling because a lot of the most aggresively Bush like defense is coming from black folks.
To have a black man use the "if you don't like it leave the country" line is some crazy shyt that just boggles the mind.

I definitely don't agree with if you don't like it leave the country or we should just unquestioningly trust the President.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

but yet people are condoning these wars despite all these negative effects they are having on our social fabric... and despite the fact there is not one good reason to be in these wars in the first place.

iraq is not a threat to us.

afghanistan is not a threat to us.

why are we invading these countries?

we are not fighting a war on terror because WE ARE THE TERRORISTS. we topple foreign governments. we assassinate world leaders. we engineer foreign revolutions. we extort the fukk outta foreign economies. we invade countries and set up shop. dont you simple mufukkas know imperialism when you see it?

so the larger point is---------> we should not be condoning these wars AT ALL.

we have such a huge, highly trained army because physical violence is our MO, and we resort to war if you dont meet our demands. no different than the bully on the block. there is nothing "defensive" about the department of defense.

i keep saying it in different ways hoping it will finally sink in, because our moral compass is fukked up on this. real human lives are being lost. real human lives are being destroyed. FAMILIES are being destroyed. and thats just on the american side imagine whats happening in iraq and afghanistan as a result of our invasion... nothing short of complete economic, political, and social devastation.

so why are we in these wars again? why are we causing all this destruction to ourselves and these other countries?

we gotta grow some balls and stand up for whats right, pointblankperiod.

i dont see how people are so apathetic about what is happening to other human beings on the earth... acting like those no-soul having ... classic case of imitating the oppressor

i think some of yall need to spend some time around war vets and the families of the people fighting in these wars... it might paint a better picture for you.

its easy for us discuss the logistics of war if we are not really being affected. i think we should institute a new law that the people who agree we should be at war are the ones who fight in the war, what do you guys think?

lol...other posters who are hardline against drone bombing are reading leyet's posts like " You're not helping."

 

[Stuntone]

Lupe's right. You c00ns sucking Obama dik bcuz he's partially black are disgusting.

 

[OsO]

lol...other posters who are hardline against drone bombing are reading leyet's posts like " You're not helping."

if you cannot comprehend the moral issue with unnecessarily bombing and killing innocent people then i feel sorry for you

 

[88m3]

I wonder how many children Lupe is responsible for murdering?

 

[OsO]

today..... nobody cares, but tomorrow, they will, they wiiiiiill...

today..... nobody caaaaares, but oh tomorrow... they will, they wiiiiill...

i get my energy,
from my inner g,
i be in outer space,
but i got inner peace,
so tell my enemies,
that they cant injure me,
i know that irritates,
you have my sympathies,
well you should protest,
yea you should picket me,
im on a losing strike,
im on a winning streak,
im out in left field,
im speakin mentally,
but thats a better place,
than where the benches be,
im feeling really good,
me and my different beat