FEBRUARY 10, 2013 11:27AM

Annuit Coeptis: "He has Approved of the Undertakings"

Rate: 11 Flag


                  “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli...”


Has anyone ever given any thought to why “the shores of Tripoli...”  Ok, one might reasonably know that the “halls of Montezuma...” refers to the Aztec emperors Moctezuma I and II.  The Aztec empire was located in the area which one might now know as Southern Mexico or Panama.  This Meso-American empire of the 16th century is relatively local.  


So, yeah, from Moctezuma’s (Montezuma's) crib, to the shores of Tripoli?  Why Tripoli?



On February 6, 1802, the United States declared war against The Regency of Tripoli and the Tripolitan Cruisers.  These were the Barbary Pirates.  The first war fought by the United States on foreign soil commenced with the Battle of Derne at Derne Cyrenaica, April 27, 1805.  


Being a relatively young nation on the world scene, the United States has come late into conflicts which have existed for centuries, even millennia, before its inception.  Modern wars like Afghanistan and Iraq, and this seemingly borderless, ill-defined war against terrorism, have roots in the struggle between European merchant powers, and imperial powers in 1801.  That stage has roots in the same region, predating the U.S., as far back as the 13th and 14th centuries.  Corsairs from Tunis are recorded as having become a threat to shipping and trade as far back as the late 14th century, which prompted attacks by the Kingdom of France and the Republic of Genoa.  


Those conflicts have roots which can be traced back to the first Crusade in 1080 to liberate the “Holy Land.”  If one does a cursory study of history, no doubt one would find that the First Crusade has roots back in antiquity, with the elements which include but are not limited to, Rome, Jesus, Christianity, and even the split between Judaism and Islam with (Haajar) Hagar and Ishmael, the wife and son of Abraham, and step mother and half brother of Isaac.


The roots of these conflicts extend into the bodies of past conflicts, not yet settled.  This is the body of the history of Western Civilization...in part.  This is not to find blame and assign it for the challenges that plague us in the Western world today.  In fact, I find that effort impossible, disingenuous, and/or ill-informed.  These conflicts are wide.  These conflicts are deep.  These conflicts go back a very long way.  Unless you are new to the Earth, and no earthly ancestors, and have avoided all involvement with global capitalism during your short vacation here on Earth, you are also complicit.  This is not to judge you specifically.  We are all playing with matches in the hay barn when it comes to global capitalism.      We are either supplying the matches, or supplying the hay, or striking the matches, or warming ourselves by the fire, or watching it.  


Do you oppose the security measures that the U.S. uses to protect markets?  Find another country.  Renounce your citizenship of the nations with roots in this struggle.  That includes you too, Canada.  Renounce your religion which condones it, or actively encourages it.  Get rid of those denim jeans made in Mexico, or Malaysia, or wherever they seek out the cheapest laborers with no rights.  Better grow your own food since that spinach came from one of only a couple of factory farms in the country, owned by corporations which run this whole process.  Better be working your own farm.  


Oops, that land where your farm is now located once existed in a culture where the indigenous people were nomadic, and opposed the personal ownership of nature.  Those cultures had to be eradicated and corralled onto “reservations” so that land could be divided up, so that you could grow your own spinach.  


Are you reading this on a computer?  Do you own one, or perhaps a “smart phone?"  This is likely to be the case.  You might like to know that 90 percent of the minerals used in the production of these and many other widely consumed products come from mineral deposits in China; most specifically Inner Mongolia.  (Better scratch those countries off of your new homeland list.)  If you own a car made since 2000, if you ride a bus or a train as part of mass transit, if you own a television or a programmable coffee maker, you are plugged in to this global economy.  


None of this is to justify war.  War is among the worst things that humanity does to itself on a continuing basis.  It should be noted for emphasis that this is and has been done on a continuing basis since pre-history.  War is the rule, not the exception.  Again, that is not a justification, but rather a very important matter of fact.  


Is Barack Hussein Obama complicit in this waging of war in order that some may have a profit?  Hell yes.  No question about that.  The question you need to be asking yourself is, are you?  If your answer to that question is anything other than yes, you are lying.   

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Checkmate! Humdinger, this.
Just read the wiki page on the battle of Derne . . . protecting commerce.

I agree that we are all complicit. Mostly we would be more comfortable NOT knowing all the bloody details of how it gets done.
Still think the drone strike thing is too much and should be curtailed.
Ever watch the showtime series Homeland?
First, I agree with you about drone strikes. We are making enemies. We are running across the border with a deadly slap to the face, and then running back. And then they do it. And then we do it. and then they do it. And then we do it...and so on. This has been going on since before anyone kept track of it.

Again, and again, that is not to excuse it. What it does say is, Obama did not invent it. Is democracy being turned into despotism? Nope. All of that other hyperbiolic horseshit is just hyperbolic horseshit which presumes to imply purity on the part of the accuser unless they express their involvement. The O.I.E. never, ever express involvement. I have the theory that that is because they don't seek a reasonable discussion. They seek to only draw attention to themselves.

If they said, as I did, we are all complicit, then that removes a whole lot of heat from the discussion. All you are left with are reasonable solutions to a problem as big as human history. That is a worthy discussion. If you say, they are wrong and I am, by comparison, pure, you dishonest or deluded. That does not proceed toward any useful solution.

Jimmy Carter is the closest thing we have in this country to a President who opted out of this madness, to whatever degree a President can. Ever since, Jimmy Carter is called everything but a success. I happen to think fondly of Jimmy Carter, and defend him when I can, but Carter lost to Reagan. Were another President to take the same approach, he would lose to the next Reagan. Is it a solution to the problem to guarantee infinite Reagans? The O.I.E. never suggest a likely alternative to that, or their own involvement.

"Green Party?" Not realistic. That gets you George W. Bush.
Oh, re: "Homeland." I have never seen it. I hear it is excellent.
Incidentally, the drones use "Hellfire" missiles. We have used Hellfire missiles for quite some time. They were designed to be fired from attack helicopters. Drones change the equation by not being piloted. That is a change in warfare, but warfare constantly changes. We have rockets which have global range. We had armor plated tanks in the 1970's to speed across the plains of Europe at one time. Those are practically useless now. We once used horses. Those are only used in parades now. Rifles updated muskets. If you wait until you see the "whites of their eyes...", you're a dead guy. Gun powder increased range. Nobel invented dynamite to help miners. We quickly used it to blow one another up.

Methods of war are always advancing. We adjust to render the last innovation obsolete. Drones are not new to killing, killing of non combatants, etc. We fought the barbary pirates before we declared war against them.
The OIEsters have simply found that "Drones" elicits the most drama and attention in their never-ending litany of the evil awfulness of Pres. Obama.
When I see yet another screed about Pres. Obama and his many attempts at destroying the constitution in his bid for Dictator I look at the intent of the writer. It's always the same: They "know" Obama is evil and the only intention I see is to convince everyone else. It's not about drones.
I have mixed feelings about drones. I accept fully what you posted. We are all complicit. This has been going on since the dawn of time. I have participated in a few events to raise awareness (and money) for the Wounded Warriors Project. When you spend time with men and their spouses living with the aftermath of brain and other injuries, post traumatic stress, depression, and destroyed relationships unmanned drones make sense.
I get it, but I also "get it".
The question has never been whether the US can exercise the power- it can. ( Should is a different question) The problem is the president arrogating that power as a sole responsibility for himself .

I just heard McCain- witth whom I agree in this instance - Drones are wonderful. They are not something you let the CIA or the president use to target vitims as they see fit from a set of flash cards on boring Tuesday afternoons- With oversight, they are properly part of the dept of defense To which, the president may make suggestions, but in which, the military commanders CAN, DO and MUST say, "Sir, with respect, that is an illegal order."
I agree. What makes you think that would not happen as currently constituted?

You see, Rude, you make circular arguments in order to support yourself. You dont care about the actual facts. The quote that you use is false. You reference the actual quote to the wrong context to make it appear different. You practice being misleading.

You are correct when you say that the power exists, and the question is, should we? That is always true. I do not have the full answer to that on a case by case basis. Neither do you. I have to presume that this is being done in a reasonable fashion. All evidence seems to indicate that.

The point I make is, this is not the end of democracy. This is not despotism. This is not any of the extreme rhetoric nonsense that composes the Obama is evil arguments. The conflict is at least as old as civilization, with only changes in heads of state, and weaponry. Evil did not sudenly commence in 2008.

Are there questions and concerns regarding the use of such power? Absolutely. You'd search far and wide to find someone with the position that it just does not matter. Calling me "Emily", or "sycophant" does not make a point. The name calling only renders your substance to invective. And loose use of quotes which trample over rerasonable interpretation, and misrepresent facts just turns your statement into noise. Facts, matter. Facts will always matter.
There COULD AND SHOULD be a paradigm shift to humanism, to cooperation and to partnership and to empathy from our status-quo and since forever violent patriarchy and power and control and greed paradigm. We as the human race could be progressing, in fact we need to shift fast or the patriarchal war- and greed-addicts will end the planet, literally. But hyper-macho winner take all and killing is such a rush, besides, patriarchs and their vast patriarchal (authoritarian-following) minions of macho-over-identification or simply the burned out, learned helpless and Stockholm Syndromed ones or the too-cool-for-school analysts who simply philosophize cynically and don't ever walk the walk for serious peace and planet and people or those hypnotized too easily by the BOOB tube of disinformation and distraction, dismiss such a paradigm shift as impossible and wrong-headed and sissy, girlie, weak, unpragmatic, and purist, whatever ... and the VAST killing and exploitation continues and we all collude and compromise to our own degrees. When the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer ... everything appears a nail to our leaders. No moral compass in said toolbox. We are regressing, not progressing as human beings. We are in a spiritual dark age and we and/or our descendants may not survive it.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, does anyone remember the Nuremberg Trials and the precedent that "I was just following orders" is not a defense for immoral conduct?

I 'm looking forward to the time when a drone operator is tried for war crimes in international court and puts forth the defense that "The President ordered me to fire missiles on that terrorist wedding party- I was just following orders" -

There's a reason for not allowing such power to rest with any one person or group.
the path through "lesser evilism" was not the one for progress. because evil is a slippery slope downward. anti-evilism would have been the way to go.

The simple truth is that if Obama were following the chain of command and doing such strikes "By the Book", We would have heard about them long before now, he would have proudlyu presented his new weapon in the war on terror instaed of reacting to links and especially not stressing how much he PERSONALLY decided who would be killed. The program is being run by the CIA at his personal direction. He was trying to get away with it. He got caught.

That's what makes me think not only that that isn't what's happening, but also judge him as an untrustworthy and immoral man.
sorry- reacting to LEAKS
Rude, your comparison to Nazi war crimes is not apt. Americans have been killing foreigners since the nation began. Other countries have been doing it since long before that. I'll say this over and over becaue some are fond of splicing quotes to misuse them. War is not a good thing. I'd love to stop all of it, but not all acts of war are "war crimes" like those addressed at Nuremberg. This is not an issue of unlawful orders.

You said yourself that you agree with McCain on Drone use. Now you are implying that Drone use is a war crime. You're sputtering.
Lead by example, Libby. Let me suggest that blaming the entire problem on "men" is the wrong angle. But if you have a plan that can actually be put into action, I'd love to see it.
I appreciate your points here, Bill. So true -- there's a long history for most conflicts, a history no one seems to know or care about, too often. A history that *might* provide some wisdom for today if only the dot-to-dots were linked....

By the way, I'd never have clicked on this title : )

I found it through tr ig's link he posted in the Opium Den over at OurS....thanks, tr ig !
Rude, you are being circular again. "If it had been ......blah blah....we would have heard...blah blah..."

That makes no sense actually. Absence of evidence is nt evidence of absence. You do not know what you do not know, and therefore cannot construct a proof as to its non existence. That is illogical. Now, I know you have reacted badly to use of the term "logic" before, but that is how reality works. It is of logic.

You condemn things you are certain about, you twist things that are known so that you can condemn them, and you presume the absence of things that you do not know about so that you can say that their absence indicates something.

One thing we all can do is track history. We can also stick to facts, and logic. Facts and logic are fair becasue they are immutable. Facts and logic and democractic (small "d") because they belong to everyone. If it takes a lie to make the case, or a twist of the truth, let it alone. That is the immoral act. Reality is t be respected, not manipulated to your own purpose.
Bill, as always, stick to the point made instead of doing your Emily

Any fighter pilot who, on his own, saw a wedding party, and seeing one military target/soldier, ( in uniform? armed?) NOT engaged in any enemy action, but rather simply part of the general celebration-
and then decided that the presence of one "legitimate" target - NOT ENGAGED IN ANY IMMINENT ACT OF WAR- justified the killing of 50 non- combatants, would undoubtedly and LEGITIMATELY be court martialed for "War Crimes" ( especially if the Liberal press ( Salon?) got wind of it)

Imagine the sympathy generated for him by the Nuremberg precedent, when he claimed that "I was just following Orders?"
Oh, Rude, look up "chain of command." The President does not follow a "chain of command." You said "chain of command" in one sentence, and then in the very next sentence, 3 or 4 lines down, you say that he is directing the CIA. Those two statements conflict absolutely. In the chain of command in such matters, the President is at the top. It is hard to make an absolute statement accurately, but that is one. The President never "follows" a chain of command.
Oh Bill, quit playing Emily Litella and answer the question posed as to responsibility for the war crime described above:

The president ordered this exact war crime.

The point is that Obama DOESN"T follow the authority of the Government, or of man , or of morality.

The answer is the House getting the balls together to Impeach him.
Again, and Again and Again.

After 2014, if the country lasts that long, maybe they will.
Rude, your credibility is rather low. You stoop to "Emily" often, and it makes it even worse. Try to gather yourself.

1)The Nuremberg trials were not about accidental killings. They were about deliberate killings.

2) The media, liberal or otherwise, do not hand out the indictments for war crimes.

3) You are being circular again when you say "not involved in any imminent act of war." The administrations argument is that they are posing an imminent threat. "Imminent" is a term that eas EASILY fudged, no question about that. But you stack the deck when you say that they were not doing that, when you have no way of knowing, and you have no examples of drone strikes where war crimes charges were brought.

"...would undoubtedly and LEGITIMATELY be court martialed for "War Crimes..."

Name one. If the charges don't exist, then MAYBE it is not a war crime. You say yourself that they would "UNDOUBTEDLY...." etc. The fact that is has not happened should be a clue to you.

You prefer to say, I am right over there....and I am right way over there....and I am the connection. How about this? If those things were true, there would be court martials and war crimes charges. How about reality for a change?
Wow Rude, just because you can't make your point does not make me "Emily." Try to stick to the facts.

"Government of man..." Not sure what that means.

Morality. That I understand. That is a term that is a fudgeable as "imminent." The law, the chain of command, and morality are all very different concepts. We can leave out chain of command since you agree it does not belong.

Morality is complex. We hope that all people are moral. We certainly hope that the President is. But to say that the act is immoral because you disagree with it is...just not valid. The job has special responsibilities. Walking away from it (war in progress) would not necessarily be "moral." Your name calling is not strictly moral. (I dont see how you place yourself as a moral authority, but I digress.) Chamberlain's turning the other cheek to Hitler was not necessarily a moral act, given what transpired. One can't know in advance what someone, or some group may do, but the terrorists attacking this country did drop the World Trade Center. They have pledged to kill Americans, etc.

It is ok to say that you dont have the solution. I dont think any one person does. But it is not ok to say that the solution in progress is "immoral" becasue you say so, with no ability, or even an idea of a plan to execute as an alternative. Sorry, Nuremberg, it ain't.
lets be clear her bill

Are you saying that if an F-16 pilot was cruising over Yemen ( a country with which we are not at war- but even if) or Pakistan ( ditto) and saw a wedding party taking place in a village, nowhere near any war zone, no where near a battlefield No threat to him or any American forces or citizens whatsoever,

But- He did see a "Soldier" of (? can't think of a legitimate target? we aren't at war with anyone? ) Ok, lets just say he recognized Osama Bin Ladin ( Before Obama bitch slapped him to death) in the group, just chilln out, smokin some dope not pointing a skeet gun at anyone or anything.

So the pilot Hellfire missles the group and kills 50 other people. (obviously, bin laden escapes to die at the end of Obamas skeet gun)

NOT a "War Crime"? Just so we have our definitions straight.....

If you don't consider that a war crime, a lot of the way you think clarifies itself.
In my judgement, that would be a war crime, yes. I am not the authority on that, but firing on a wedding party with intent, and killing 50 would be a war crime.
Let me put it this way, I would not pull that trigger.
I thought you had a superior sense of language, Bill. Misogyny and patriarchy are sensibilities not biological, granted the power brokers on the planet are primarily male. So my response re the patriarchy was not gender-based though the oppressive boot or gucci often fits the MALE patriarch and the word comes from pater or father. But Hillary Clinton is a patriarchal leader, power and control and competition oriented. Not seriously big on empathy cuz that ain't a big part of the leadership power game.

Martin Luther King was a humanist. A MALE!!! Not a lesser evil pragmatic kind of guy.

Wow. You dismissed my analysis with a knee-jerk patriarchal "this isn't about blaming the men, libby" creepiness and condescension though now that you mention it, Bill, again look at the percentage of men in power who have destroyed so much.

So again my response re the patriarchy was not gender-based though the oppressive boot or gucci often fits the patriarch. And the women they let climb the ladder better sell out the humanism in their souls if they want to be games"men" in the war games.

I am glad I came back. I didn't expect much from you, but I got even less than I expected.

People dismissed the Green New Deal of Jill Stein which offered jobs, ways to save the planet and end the wars.

Too girlie for you?

Yeah, she couldn't win because of all your fellow partriarch-lapper-upper faux progressives on Team Dem were just so cynical about us purists talking recovery and humanism. Well look at what's happened. Obama is playing dictator droning Americans without due process. Mr. Lesser Evil puts another stab deep deep deep into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So play your little we are all guilty or just being human rhetorical spin. And be chauvinistic and limited in linguistic awareness when a woman asks about humanism as opposed to patriarchy. I'm hearing grandiosity more than sincerity and real serious concern for humanity. Keep on spinning, Bill. And condescending.


Because in the event what happened was some airman first class in north dakota ( ? have no idea) is cruiing his drone over a Yemeny wedding party and recognizes the presence of a "Suspected Al Queda Terrorist" ( Just hangin out, smokin dope)

Passes the identification up the line, gets a "Go" from the president, and wipes out the wedding party-?

THAT"S NOT a war crime?
Libby, I am not going to argue your comment. But as for my "sensibility for the language."

You said this..."But hyper-macho winner take all and killing is such a rush, besides, patriarchs and their vast patriarchal (authoritarian-following)"

"...patriarchs and THEIR vast patriarchal"....blase...bullshit, blah blah

I could be wrong. That is always a possibility. But one must be male to be a patriarch. I am fairly certain of that. Yes, "patriarchal" is a sensibility. Patriarch is a dude.

Take care.
Wait, I'm a chauvinist and such for addressing a woman asking about humanism, and that is not about being male?

I said, "Green Party." I did not say woman. I have never heard of the woman who ran on the Green ticket. That is part of the point. I never heard of her. That is not to say that her ideas do not have merit. They may. "Girlie?" You're just taking swings now. I say woman can do any role that men do on this planet. Why do you presume otherwise? That is your issue, not mine.

Saying that we are all complicit is not spin. It is taking reponsibility. I stand in stark contrast to you, Libby. You point fingers of blame and claim innocence. That's a bullshit position, frankly. The extreme stance of calling those who disagree with you philosophically "evil" is just junk. You can't compromise with evil. You can't work with it. You can't negotiate with it. It is an absolute. If you say it is "wrong", sure, you can correct that. Evil is different.

One more thing on "patriarchy." You invoked Martin Luther King Jr. He was named after his father, and his first son was named after him. That is a practice that comes from a partiarchal tradition. He was also a humanist, as you noted. The same is the case for a lot of dudes, and a lot of patriarchs that you paint with a broad brush.
Rude, in your scenario, it could be. The question is, why isn't it? There are a whole lot of steps to go through before "war crime." As far as I know, none of those has been taken. Why not?

Even in the comment, you said you dont know who it was. You dont know the rank, the process...really anything. All you do know...I think...is that someone was killed at a wedding. That is not enough. There must be some exculpating factors. What are they? Do you know? Most cases have exculpating factors. This technology, and the new way it is being used presents many exculpating factors. You and I can sit where we are and proclaim this to be a war crime. Nothing happens. There are reasons for that. What are they? If you say that there are exculpating factors, I am likely to agree with you. If you say this is a grand scheme which has despotism and dictatorship as its goal....not so much.
Very thought-provoking and a good read, Bill.

Not sure about your opposition to drone strikes, though.

Um, what are your current GPS coordinates? No reason. Just curious. :)
@Man Talk Now

uh- jist a sec - lemme zero in on billss cell phone.... "I'm at ......(Kapow!!!!!!)
Like many of your posts Bill, this will take a second reading to absorb. not because it isn't written well, but because it takes one to a higher cliff for a viewpoint when I thought I was seeing enough from the valley floor.

Your point about complicity however is well stated and I think the great conundrum of the times. Truly, how would you tell me today and how would I hear you otherwise without our complicity?
I dont know my coordinates, but my iPhone is usually on. Not only can they find my house, they can find what part of the house I am in. I'm not sweating the missle thing.

Let's see, my position on drone strikes is...a work in progress. No, that's not really true. On the legality or the ethics of the strikes, I am not opposed.

SBA famously misquoted me on the question. the OISters are fond of posting lists of children killed by drones. This is supposed to have dramatic effect. About the list, I said...I see the list as a success rather than a failure BECAUSE children always have died in war, and bombing by conventional means would have killed many more. LIMITING the deaths to the number that could be contained on a list is an improvement over carpet bombing style bombing. SBA claimed that I was saying "murdering a 3 year old" was a success. That is an absurd twist of what I said...and meant.

Now, why is that a success? I presume one thing. I presume that this means fewer are dying, and not an increased amount due to the simplicity of the process. I admit that this drone process has that potential. It is a scary potential. Do I have reason to believe that this is goin on now? No. To my knowledge, that case has not been made. Short of that, surgical strikes are better than carpet bombing because fewer are being killed.

Then there is killing American citizen combatants without due process. We have done that forever. Other nations have as well. When Americans renounce the U.S. and pledge to its destruction, the U.S. is justified in defending itself against them. That is not unique to the U.S. That has been done for centuries.

One aspect that is almost never discussed with the drone question is the pressing situation of loose nukes. This is speculation on my part, but so is much of the accusation. The situation today globally involves loose nuclear material, and weapons form the former Soviet Union. Obama's graduate thesis was about loose nukes. It is plausible to surmise that one concern vis a vis drone striking declared enemies of the U.S. is the effort to keep them from getting to loose nukes and making that nightmare happen. Short of that, it is reasonable to conclude that we do not know all of the strategic decision involved, nor should we.
I have a theory on why humans are so violent, and it has to do with our history. If you consider natural selection to be an aspect of evolution, you have to consider that the warlike humans are the humans who were left alive at then end of all of the fights, skirmishes, and battles that humans have engaged in since time began, to procreate. Thus our DNA has been coded for violence. As I said, it's a theory.

As to the drones, I don't like them. But, it seems that most of America does. The latest results for Ed Schultz's poll from shows that 73.4% of almost 5000 screaming progressives/ liberals (since those are the people that watch his show) approve of "the policy of targeted killing of American citizens" with drones. Sad, isn't it.

The link doesn't work.

I don't buy the evolution argument as determinative. We do have the capacity for violence, but we have the capacity to not be violent as well.

Also, what exactly is violent? Is a drone strike from a computer screen violent? Yes, and no.

This is not to gross you out, but only to make a point. Hand to hand combat training in the Marine Corps is violent. It is very, very violent. Why do I say that? I can remember the feeling of having the switch flipped in my head to go from regular guy, to guy capable of killing under certain situations. Most assume that this is there inside, and it is to some degree in most. But it is also covered with all sorts of social behaviors which mollify them. If you were standing on a street, and you saw a ten year old boy get hit by a speeding car, and blasted into bits, you would tense up, squint, blink, maybe even turn your head. We abhor violence. It is in us, yet we hate it. Civilization has done that.

In this hand to hand training, there was a lot of verbal instruction. It is too complex to relate in a few paragraphs, but it involves feces, and cracking bones, and blood and guts and other body fluids. It involved testimonies about guts, and screams, and all sorts of stuff. And it most significantly involved how to keep from turning your head, blinking your eyes, and taking your focus off of what you are doing at that particular moment...killing the other guy. It is stuff like being without a weapon and biting the throat out of an attacker. not hesitating to snatch eyes out. You get the idea.

Violence is many things. Violence at a computer terminal is not the violence that we were coded with early in evolution. That computer screen thing is much more like the lack of compassion and indifference of trolls than primordial violence.

nice dodge. Question on the table- blowing up the wedding.
We agree it's a war crime when the F-16 pilot does it. What changes when the president orders an airman first class to do it?

nother nice dodge. i've een a judoka since I was 6.I Played bouncer in a company bar at camp lejeune one summer ('85). i've broken more bones than I remember. i've never had one of mine broken. Lots of strains, bumps and bruises.

Yes, I get "combat". I had one this past Friday. I was aware and making decisions the whole episode. Not eager too do it again. Your point?
Rude, I dont dodge anything. You project like crazy. I state my case in my name. You use anonymity. Not only do I not dodge, anyone can walk up on the street and differ with me if they read my opinion.

Ok, as for the incident, in concept, it has te merits of what might be a war crime. It also has confounding factors. You are making this more simplistic than it is. First of all, your Nuremberg standard is way off. It is probably also outdated. Killing prisoners in extermination camps does not compare to killing enemy combatants, even if killing the combatant is deemed wrongful. I have sat in on lectures about war crimes and signed documents saying that I have been warned as to the consequences. I dont claim to be an expert on the question, but I see lots of problems with your scenario.

This is not shooting a person trying to surrender. This is not napalming a village. The people you accuse in your scenario have no record of crime, much less war crime. The only acceptable answer you allow is that you are right. My question to you is, of that is all I am allowed, WHERE is the case? There is not CASE. There must be a REASON that there is no case. How can you be so completely RIGHT....yet there is no case?

I think there is a simple reason for that. The reason is, you dont have a case. That is no dodge, Rude. I am open to the possibility that there may be one in the future, but I doubt it. I think we are watching an evolution in warfare, not an excess that will be reigned in international war crimes prosecution.
he is protecting commerce done with a gun. the marines went to tripoli in response to piracy. they visited various carribean and central american nations in defense of banks and corporations whose terms were dictated at gunpoint.

it is possible to do business without threat of immediate military action, but the usa avoids it, presumably because when you translate taxes into munitions, people complain if the munitions seem unnecessary..
It is killing non-combatants outside a war zone. period
I think onislandtime (inadvertently) hit the nail on the head. There are two conversations going on. One is about drone strikes, the other is about Obama's drone strikes. Seems some people feel the person issuing the orders makes a difference, i.e. "drone strikes are good/bad because Obama is good/bad."

Just to be clear, if McCain had been elected four years ago I would not change my stance one iota on drone strikes. It's a self destructive act regardless who pulls the trigger.
When the World Trade Center was attacked, trading was stifled for weeks. The underpinnings of a global market were shaken and re-evaluated. If we had been attacked by Canada, or France, or Germany, we would have been over it long ago. The fact that 19 dudes set world trade and "World Trade Center" on its ass scared the hell out of the U.S., and by extension the rest of the world.

I think what happened to the people is tragic. Don't get me wrong. But the thing that frightens nations is the interruption of trade. We lose more than the number that died on 9/11 to lots of fixable problems all the time. People care about the people. The countries and their power structures care about trade. That is why we go to war. We defend the Straits of Hormuz because the world's most important mineral resource passes through it. It is the aorta of the world.

We ignored the vulnerability of world commerce to radicals until two 100 story buildings were dropped. At that point, we could not deny the vulnerability.
Rude, the concept of inside or outside of a war zone has changed. During the American Civil war, a person could sit on a hillside with a picnic and watch the war in the distance. During WWI, you could do that too, if you could survive the wafting clouds of chemical weapons. By World War II, the globe became the war zone. That has become more that way, not less. No nation would allow someone listed as a target on this kill list to claim sanctuary by going into some special location, short of surrender to authorities. It is naive to presume otherwise. The planet is the war zone. You'd better get used to that fact.
It is killing non-combatants outside a war zone. period
Gotta take the trash out- back later
So was Dresden, Cambodia, North America, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and so many other wars and countries. War moved beyond battlefields a long, long, long time ago. And if that is the lynch pin to your "war crimes" case, you'll be waiting a long time. You are better off with a wedding in a war zone with combatants than non combatants outside of a war zone.
Also, Rude, if you want to lecture on lawful or unlawful orders, orders are not "illegal." You spend a great deal of time talking about the Constitution, you should know that there is no thought crime. The order itself is not "illegal." The order, if you were correct, would be unlawful. The order would represent an act which would be illegal to perform. That is an unlawful order. I know you think things like who said what, what they actually said, terminology, and facts are "boring", but they do matter.

This is a recording of Pete Seeger's Last Train to Nuremburg.
He makes the same point you do: that everyone is ultimately culpable.

Both the post and your comments in the thread are excellent.

Regarding SBA's misinterpretation of what you said, I said that to her directly on HRdR's blog on a recent post.

Your points are well taken. If we are looking at war crimes, such as the wedding party, that's up to Congress to determine. If you think it should be prosecuted - not that we necessarily know enough - write your Congressman. The President is not our only elected Federal official.

Your point on nukes was a great one and one that hadn't occurred to me.

There is one parameter about national sovereignty that is left out of this argument for some reason: Control over one's own territory. If a terrorist were found in Great Britain, Germany, Russia, China, even Egypt, there would be an arrest. Pakistan is a different case because the Pakistani government doesn't have full military control over all of its own territory. People cross the Pakistani border to kill Americans in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan and, given that we were paying the Pakistanis a fortune to find him, they were unlikely to tell us where he was even if they knew because that will kill a cash cow. Pakistan has, realistically, three choices:

1. Be responsible for their own territory
2. Status quo - scream a lot but accept that there are consequences to not being responsible for their own territory
3. Take offense and fight us directly. Because American lives are on the line in Afghanistan and we're currently there at the behest of the current Afghan government, that is a legitimate American concern.

The United States is not responsible for the vacuum in Pakistan.

This comes about because not only is war zone redefined, so are the parties involved in war. We aren't fighting countries any more, we're fighting trans-national organizations. What country attacked the WTC? None, really. That doesn't mean we don't strike back. You don't get a free pass to attack the United States just because you're not a country.

There's too much in this argument about combatant organizations having their cake and eating it. To use an example from a different conflict: If you launch a missile at another country from the roof of a hospital, does that mean you now have immunity from any kind of retaliation? It can't. There have to be limits on how effective human shields are or human shields will be the norm for warfare, resulting in more non-combatant casualties, not fewer. This argument is ultimately about human shields. At what point do we say: "There is someone actively involved in attempting to kill us but he isn't completely alone so we can't touch him"? As you've pointed out, in the old days we'd just drop a bomb on the village and be done with it.
Exactly. I stipulate that I do not have the answers. But I know the questions are not based upon the world before 1945. We can reasonably know that the world does not see it that way. Also, this "trans-national" enemy is attacking the world of nations and ID cards. That world is not going to throw out civilization in support of a principle that does not support its own existence.
although i heartily agree on some form of oversight and/or system of checks and balances.....
if you openly declare yourself to be an enemy of America......you need a missle up your ass......even if your sitting in the queen of englands lap....period.
One would have to completely drop out of society, literally live off the land and trap edible beasts in order to NOT be complicit in this mess. I'm still waiting to hear an OIEster proffer a realistic alternative to the tactics the President is using. BTW, I am in complete agreement that the President should not have the sole power to launch drone attacks on American citizens. And the President has said he is open to discussing the creation of an overseeing entity. As of this moment, he is acting within the law as it was interpreted by his predecessor and all their collective legal advisers. It really is time for everybody to start dealing with reality and not the Utopian model we'd all love to create...and never will.

Another thing that I have not heard form the OIEsters is that Congress gave the President this authority. The Congress is elected. That is "by consent of the governed."

The dramatic theory of despotism sells a lot of clicks on websites, and detergent ads on television, but this is very much within the normal operation of the government. There are some questions yet to be answered, and some smooth edges to rub out. But this story has been billed as a massive power grab. It is not that. This was given by congress. You dont see that mentioned once in the sensational posts.
You don't see much answered at all in the sensational posts. That's why they're sensational. They're what you call graffiti and what I call human billboards. There is no real input, the conclusion is drawn, and no one is listening.

The problem, of course, is that in the long run you have to listen in order to be listened to. That's really the problem I have with the OIEsters, most of them personally: As a group, they're mostly really crappy listeners. "This is obvious - accept it or be unreasonable!" just doesn't work.

It's not like this is a secret. I've said this directly to some of them. For the most part - actually, no, for the whole part - they're past analysis and into the visceral.

The problem with this is that Visceral Isn't Persuasive. If it's important to you and being persuasive isn't a priority, you're being irresponsible. Period.
And in addition to that, they say that if ou don't agree, you are also evil in one of many ways. That is an intimidation tactic. Rude calls you Emily if you dont accpt his point. If the point is made, it is made. If it isn't, it isn't. And if he quotes Biden and attributes it to Obama, he says you are "picking nits.". Quotes apply to the person who said them, not just whomever you feel like attributing the saying to.

They also make up things that you dont argue to them. He said something nutty about referring to the night as blue because if he said black it would be taken a certain way. That is an astonishing level of ignorance about something that does not matter. No one gives a crap what color anyone calls the night. But attributing a quote to the wrong person, or attributing the wrong wording to make the meaning different...well, that matters. It is hard to believe that it even needs to be said.
The stupid thing about all this is that I'm not looking to defuse them or their viewpoint, I'm just looking for a good conversation about it. I can't find one. They degenerate. HRdR's recent post had the potential to be a reasonable forum but that sure isn't where it ended up. We hit assertions and that's it. "It's perfectly obvious he's the antiChrist." Well, no, it's not. If it were, thre wouldn't be an argument about it. Maybe I think too much of myself but I don't think of myself as stupid and it isn't obvious to me, not remotely. It isn't to Bill, or Lezlie, or Myriad, or Tom Cordle, or Jonathan, or Frank, or Oahusurfer, or Paul O'Rourke, or OIT, or alsoknownas, or Abra, or Cranky, or Matt, or Tr ig, or Steel Breeze, or Rw005g, or Alan Milner/Sagemerlin, or any of a bunch of others I know. This is not a list of stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. You want to tell us that Obama Is Evil? Make your case. But actually make it, listen to our responses, answer them specifically, acknowledge which of our responses you can't answer, why you can't answer them, and why that doesn't wreck your case.

None of this "It's obvious."
None of this "Your nose is up this other guy's ass as shown by the fact that you agree with him."
None of this "Your loyalty is obviously extreme and blind and may even be racially motivated."

Demonizing us and insulting us doesn't exactly win us over. If that's what you're doing to us, the only thing it actively persuades us is that you may be an asshole. Well, not the only thing: It also persuades us that you must not have a decent case if this is the best you can do. I don't know about you but if someone says to me that I'm obviously just following someone else, that says to me: "Guilt by association. You're trying to discredit me with that because you don't have an actual argument in your pocket with which to do it right. I'm not fooled."

If we're not listening, you fail. Transmitting the message isn't enough - you have to make sure it's been received.
"Has anyone ever given any thought to why “the shores of Tripoli...” "

Yes I have. Thank you for the edification and also for the highly interesting historical background showing how interconnected and interdependent humanity is. And why we ought to be more mindful of that fact.

"Emily" is my designation for someone who purposely dodges understanding and insists on going on at length about their own spin interpretation, so as to avoid annswering a question

So, let's get this all at once. One answer at a time.
You've agreed that if an fF-16 pilot dropped a missile into a wedding party under the circumstances i described above, that would be a war crime.
What you have so far dodged around answering is the question of why you justify it NOT a war crime when an airman first class does it at the order of the president? we're waiting bill.

May seem off the wall right here, but do you at least UNDERSTAND that/how some people might feel very strongly that killing their pet dog ( had it since childhood, best friend) is MURDER? yes/no

UNDERSTAND that/how some people might feel very strongly that killing their new born baby is MURDER? yes/no

UNDERSTAND that/how some people might feel very strongly that killing ANY new born baby is MURDER? yes/no

UNDERSTAND that/how some people might feel very strongly that killing their full term unborn born baby is MURDER? yes/no
sorry hit the post too soon

UNDERSTAND that/how some people might feel very strongly that killing ANY full term pre baby is MURDER? yes/no

At what point do you have to answer "Know, I don't understand that" in order to keep your integrity and still be "Pro Abortion?"

Personally, my position is that after quickening, it is a child, and abortion is the killing of a child, and it is the mothers choice and she will have to live with that choice, and will need all the help we can give her to be able to livbew with it.

Guys like Bill would rather wrap himself up in elaborately worded mind puzzles and deny what is happening, rather than admit the process and deal with it.

Case in point. killing a wedding party of 50 innocents to kill bin ladin is a war crime. Period. You can't deny that without showing yourself a vicious subhuman monster. So you disemble by talking about all the other really great monster in history and how many times they got away with the monstrosities.

And you're still left trying to explain the dead robin you shot with your bb gun.

As for trig, pj, and too many others to name in the circle of OS jerk offs, They are simple shit processing devices that show up every so often and if I'm seeking some amusement, I feed them some shit and watch them go to town. They can be endlessly amusing, but so long as they don't attempt to show up in my real life, simply winfd up toys pestering the electrons.

So, BIll, which are you - wind up toy, or reasonable?
The question on the table:
President orders strike on wedding party to kill one suspected terrorist and 50 other people, no war zone in sight.

War crime?

Kosher? War Crime?
Rude, as I have said repeatedly, and as anyone can read if they followed the thread, I am not dodging anything. You're the one with the pseudonym and the kitty cat avatar.

I dont use word puzzles. Perhaps your medication is interrupting your ability to comprehend. For example, you misquoted the President, changing his meaning and context, and you attributed another quote which belonged to Biden, and not him. Those are not word puzzles. If words puzzle you, perhaps it is just you.

Regarding the notion that the elements meet the war crime level, I have answered it several times. Maybe you'll just have to go to hell and hunt for it. That's my "designation" for people who call others "Emily" when they are losing an argument.
Rude, you must be losing it. You are the one who brought up "Nuremberg." You seem to have lost track of your own failed argument. You introduced it as an explanation of what you called "illegal" orders.
Simple question Bill

Yes or no

The question on the table:
President orders a strike on wedding party to kill one suspected terrorist and 50 other people, no war zone in sight.

War crime? Yes or no?- Not a complicated question for anyone with any morals
For the last time, the hypothetical that you outlined, yes. It seems like a war crime to me. But given the fact that 1) you can't be relied upon to quote accurately, 2) you intentionally misinterpret, 3) there has been no case made about this incident as a war crime, given these facts, I dont think the real incident that you may be referring to is a war crime. I said, YES, firing on a wedding the way you described it seems over the line. But you can't be relied upon to use my name properly. It is only 4 letters. I seriously doubt that you have done a proper analysis on the REAL incident given how you fail on much simpler tasks. But YES, YES, YES to your hypothetical. I said that yesterday.
Excellent- finally a straight answer

To be clear

So, in the case wherein the president had ordered a drone strike on a wedding party outside of any war zone, because there was intelligence that a suspected terrorist was present, killing 50 innocent non combatants, then the president WOULD be guilty of a war crime? Is that correct?
Obviously not. Also answered yesterday, the "war zone" concept is dated. Maybe you need to go back and read the thread. We covered all of this, and a thread is not good for the socratic method. No. I reject the "war zone" notion. I suspect that is part of the evolution of the concept.

Like I said, no such case exists. If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, we are going over ground already covered, and I await the news of war crimes being leveled at the administration. We are not going anywhere new. So far, I think you are way off.

I'm not playing twenty questions, I'm giving Bill the chance to clarify his position.

While you're here why don't you clarify YOURr position on the president's ordering a drone strike under the above named circumstances.? War Crime, yes or no?
So bill, your position is that when an f-16 pilot murders a wedding party, It's a war crime, but if the President orders the strike, it's "Obviously Not" a war crime? That it?
Nope. That is not my position. You are kind of chasing your own tail. We are not addressing murder. Murder has nothing to do with it. Irrational people like to inject "murder" into a discussion like this to have emotional sway. Murder is a special condition. I do not agree that this involves "murder."

Look, you want to reword your hypothetical to please yourself. Have at it. Just find another place to do it. I ain't buyin'.
Bill answered your question. He had already answered your question. I remembered his answering your question.

It's still not that simple. We don't know why. So I'll ask you a question:

Why isn't Congress all over him on this? The President isn't the only elected Federal official. It's not like there isn't any oversight in Washington or attempts to provide oversight of different branches when it's insufficient. Ask Bill Clinton. We know from experience that there are guys in Congress who actively hate Obama, so where are they in this?Why aren't they on the Capitol steps saying "The President abused power and murdered civilians"? This sure looks like a golden opportunity. If you're right, it's a slam dunk. I'm hearing more criticism of this out of Jon Stewart on the Daily Show than I am from Congress. Why?

If you want an abortion discussion, even though it's irrelevant to this discussion, I can give you one; however, if you're going to refer to people who answer you coherently (which both of the people you named do) as "shit-processing devices" and "wind-up toys" (or make cracks about how one of them tried to mug you in a Kroger parking lot) I'm not even going to bother. Past that, you've got to earn the right to refer to someone as Emily Letella, which is to say you can't be guilty of a shred of the same thing. Here and elsewhere you're getting answers but I don't see you addressing them, so let's say I have my doubts about that.
wow- how quickly an Emily like you jumps on a small change in terminology!

Ahem- let's try again

So bill, your position is that when an f-16 pilot "FIRES A HELLFIRE MISSLE INTO " a wedding party, It's a war crime, but if the President orders the strike, it's "Obviously Not" a war crime? That it?

Please explain your reasoning, since I understood you to agree that the f-16 would be guilty of war crime- if you are in fact changing your mind, please elucidate ( that means explain)

This started with trig over in the chat at OS- he took it to my blog and then deleted his initial comment. I'd prefer you stayed out of the line of fire here, I respect you, Bill is basically tring to avoid cross examination on his morals. Trig is essentially an amusement devise.

So, Bill?
Rude, my morals? My morals are not in question. A discussion of what may or may not happen in a war has no bearing whatsoever on my morals. And even if it could, you are not the arbiter of such a qualification.

Secondly, murder is not a small incidental. Firing a missile at an enemy is not a war cime. Murder can easily be a war crime. No one has stipulated to murder, and I wont now. "Murder" has a specific legal weight/meaning. Your point is going nowhere, so you are putting a thumb on the scale.

Murder must first be at issue, and whether it is or not, this has zero to do with my morals. At least now I see why you persist in this nonsense. You see yourself as "cross examining" as if I am on trial. You're dreaming.

Twisting in the wind, are we?

Once again bill, no war zone, no imminent attack. War crime? Yes/no

Your morals are precisely what I'm trying to discover. I've already uncovered the fact that Trig has no more than a pit bull. What is your MORAL take on the situation I've described so often, and you've avoided so often?
In this post, I said that we are all complicit in what happens in the world by participating in a variety of ways. We literally and figuratively buy into the global market which sets these things in motion. As far as moral involvement goes, that is it.

As for the specific incident, my morals are no more in question than yours or anyone else's. If you imagine that this is somehow a reflection of my personal morals, you have gone around the bend.
Jimmy Carter is the closest thing we have in this country to a President who opted out of this madness, to whatever degree a President can. Ever since, Jimmy Carter is called everything but a success.

An insightful, appropriate, and meaningful observation if ever there was one, Bill

That is something that ought be repeated over and over again...because there is a world of information that flows from that insight.

And the Obama haters ought to consider it carefully...although I doubt it will impact meaningfully on their nonsense.
If you want to focus on personal morals, you might concern yourself with yourself, and your insistence on calling people names, etc. Open disrespect is a moral issue. Take that step first before presuming to be my judge, or anyone else's
To the contrary, Bill, the fact that you equivocate so beautifully about such a clear cut hypothetical reveals your morals pretty clearly.

Have a nice day
PS- I make a point of mirroring the attitude I encounter- What does that say about your insulting attitude to anyone who disagrees with you. ( I do admit that playing with Trig is like teasing a bad tempered dog for barking), I probably should be ashamed of myself
That Rude dude never fails to surprise.

If discussions of events like this impinged upon the morals of the people discussing the events, no concepts would ever be discussed. That is among the most manipulative things I have ever heard in a discussion. How could someone teach or learn about horrible things like murder, or war, or war crimes, or rape, or any awful concept if one person discussing could apply a moral judgement from a hypothetical on another? Sorry, dude. That is not how discussions work, and that is not how morality applies. That is beyond absurd.
Not sure if you noticed, but Trig is not here, I am not Trig, you keep mentioning Trig. Trig has nothing to do with this. You seem confused. You are conflating identities, quotes, morality, legality, a variety of other things.

We are discussion an incident in war, and you place my personal morals in the discussion? I was not there, Rude. I think the cheese has slipped off of your cracker. Even if this were an isue of my personal morals, you are not the moral authority. You are experiencing a delusion of grandeur.
So, you find that a drone strikes that kill innocents ( as above) - morally wrong, yet you support it- Or don't try to prevent it? ? Seems to me that's exactly how morality is supposed to keep government in line, and then doesn't .
Wasted enough time with you Bill, have a good life- you're welcome to fantasize and play with yourself over what you should have said, that's what you and the rest of the OS circle jerk do best.
Do you exist? Did you stop it? How would I stop it if I only find out about it after the fact...as that applies to any crime? Do you exist? Do YOU exist? Why would I be required to stop it....and you are not?

Please go rest, Rude.
That last disrespectful statement reflects directly on your morals, Rude. Not that I care, but it makes the point. That is an action taken by you, not some position on a hypothetical regarding an event half a world away.
one last
pitiful bill- so now you know about it

What are you doing to stop it?
I dont want you "wasting your time", Rude.
How rude of rude, talking behind my back, and I have what-- the morality of a pit bull? (from memory after just reading the lower thread) . . some comparison to a pit bull at least.

I know I can be an asshole in these 'discussions' sometimes. I do it on purpose as a service to individuals that say (type) ignorant things so as to (hopefully) make them think twice next time they might want to post idiocy to the internet for the whole wide world to read.

Sorry Bill, for what I said to rude at his spot spilling over to here. You sir are a gentleman and a fine debater with much higher scruples and patience than myself. Much enjoyed this 'discussion' and believe it is, will be in the future for sure, a topic which will be argued over at much length. As I said before ^^ I agree that we in America, home of "the exceptional" are all complicit in defending our right to a profit... to a certain lifestyle. It certainly does present (the drone attack thing) a moral dilemma for us all.

That said, I also agree that the cheese has indeed slipped off rude's cracker!
It seems like Rude has turned into a profane soldier for the lord. The more he attacks another person's morals, the closer he is to salvation. That morality angle threw me for a loop.

Its funny, a crowd about to stone a woman tried to trick/trap Jesus into some sort of admission, just like Rude was doung, as if I had something to do with drone strikes. 2000 years later, people still try that tired old trick. "let the one without sin cast the first stone." Barney and Betty Rubble played by Rude and Libby. Dino has already left the building.
Dino.. come back Dino!

just one final question Bill, Annuit Coeptis was taken as "GOD" approves of our undertakings. You sure he approves of killing children? Or is Obama god?
from my new post:

So trig, glad you agree- you absolutely are just as smart as a pit bull

What's your point?
Herr Rudolphus der Rude
February 11, 2013 01:37 PM

wrong picture trig, picture me laughing my ass off as you and bill try to argue LEGALLY that you have morals, all the while demonstrating how immoral you are- as you are demonstrating here

Thanks for making my point so well in your last comment. You delight in savaging the infirm and the helpless. Killing children is as nothing to you. You are demonstrating your true inner self.

Just wanted you to spell it out for everyone.
Thanks, and you have a nice day. ;-)
How about the parable of the Philistine and the Tax Collecter then? The story of self righteousness.

"He told this parable to some who trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt." (Luke 18:9)
Rude, I am so surprised to see you back here after yet another flounce. You have wished me a "nice life", and declared that you were wasting time more times than I can count. I thought the last would surely be your last. But alas, your last did not last. It was not your last. So, since you're back again, let's indulge some of your questions.

"Does god approve of killing children?" I hope not. I would not think so. But to answer you accurately, we need to know my definition of god.

First, toss out the word "belief." I dont like it, and try not to use it. There are things that I know, things about which I speculate, things I hope for, and notions I subscribe to. For me, god fits into the notion I subscribe to category. God fits into one or several of the others categories for everyone else, except for knowing. That much I rule out with certainty. God is a faith issue, by definition, and faith and knowledge are not the same thing. Knowledge supplants faith where they overlap. On the question of god, they have not overlapped yet. So, no knowledge.

The notion of god that I subscribe to is the Emersonian notion of god. So, in further answer to your question, "does god approve..."? No. In my view, god does not function in that way. That is not how god is composed. I differ with the common western notion of god as a judge, jury, and voyeur on all that is happening. I do not subscribe to the notion of a god who intervenes in the lives of people.

The Emersonian notion is god is more like a connection of all souls. He called it the "oversoul." He referred to it as one giant lake, and every living thing is an inlet on that same lake. It is one giant ethereal body, as it were. This "oversoul" is the collective consciousness of all things living, and all things that have ever lived. The oversoul is a goant repository of all experience, knowledge, wisdom, creativity, and all potential of all things living or past. It is connected in a stream of consciousness. That is my notion of god. This god is you.

So, does god approve...the real answer to that question is yes, no, and it does not matter. It is likely that all conceivable answers exist within the collective consciousness of all things that have lived. The real question is, do you approve. That is all that matters in a spiritual question. Spiritualism is a look inside yourself. All that matters is that you manage that authentically. How someone else feels about your spiritual instrospection is entirely irrelevant. That is one of the main flaws of religion.
Oh, as for the quote, and its meaning in the context established by the author, if you read the post, gave it a tiny bit of thought, and if you are familiar with the image, it should all come together for you.

The meaning of "he" in the quote means, as determined by the author's context, all who take part in the global economy...approve it. All are complicit. That is the theme. Given that all are complicit, one man did not come along at the end of this historical period and create the evil within it. The evil within it has roots as old as history.
so bill, what you're saying is, you don't understand Latin either?
as if it mattered, you want me to post all the comments you've deleted here, or you want to explain them?
"we" approve would be annuimus
Rude, the point is that it is a dollar bill. From that, the loose interpretation is what I said it was. I was not defining it as it is meant on the bank note. I defined it in the context of this post.

I have to say, Rude, you are an obnoxious, annoying personality. No wonder you stay anonymous. I'd be ashamed too. Now, since you only want to act like that, your comments wont be entertained anymore...unless you get back to decent discussion.

As for pimping your argument with Trig from your comment thread here, I don't give a fuck about that. Don't be surprised that I remove some comment directing others to your argument in your other comment thread. I dont want to see it here. It means nothing to me. I can't imagine why you would think that I would.
Haven't read all the comments yet, BUT gotta say that your post is terrific. It pains me to say that, but what you say is the truth.

But also I agree with Libby that we should as a species, and probably need to, have a paradigm shift to humanism. I do, however, think there has been some progress made over the eons. I'm thinking of a time of the Crusades when Europeans slaughtered Muslims for something understandable to them in their time, but incomprehensible to us. At least we are (more or less) fighting for something concrete (oil, or security, or even empire). Drones are terrible and evil in their targeted killing...yet they seem to me to be an improvement over the Crusaders going into Jerusalem and slaughtering everyone, everyone, until the streets ran with blood, and where the saying "Let God sort them out" came from.

All of life struggles with itself. It's a closed system and life devours life. Plants may use non-living water and minerals and sunlight, but they then struggle with each other for territory and supremacy. Then nature invented animals and it's been dog-eat-dog ever since. We MAY have the brains and hearts to opt out, at least vis a vis each other, but it's going against the very fabric of ourselves and the world. At least there's widespread conversation about the possibility today and a world council of nations that may someday, haha, invade the U.S. and take away the guns and force everyone to ride bicycles, or whatever the U.N. -paranoid crowd fears.
Hi Myriad, I followed you over. Libby might have a message, but it is lost on me. Her devaluation of anyone that doesn't agree with her leaves zero room to explore thoughts or find commonalities. The swings from crying victimization to grandiosity give me motion sickness. I just can't read her. I used to try.
I mentioned the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector with her and Rude in mind. I'm not "religious" but always liked the message that the "holy-minded" Pharisee was lost due to his self-righteousness and self-exaltation , while the "bad" Tax Collector was blessed because he approached with a humble heart.
Humility is underrated.
To be accurate about Libby's comments, she does not stop with saying we should be humanist. Libby herself is not humanist. Libby casts judgement. Libby stalks and points fingers and judges. Libby says people are wrong in their essence becasue they disagree with her views. That sort of thinking is part of the problem that makes conflict in the word what it is. Eric Hoffer called them "True Believers." In his book of the same name, he said, "the ultimate conflict is not right versus wrong, but right versus right." If you judge those who disagree with you are being wrong in essence, no compromise or resolution can be reached. That Obama is Evil crap is true believer crap. They judge him, and anyone who supports him. Freakin' Rude just spent the last hour telling me that I am immoral for supporting Obama. It is bullshit.
SBA is another one. She continues to say that I said killing children is a success. It is clear for all to see that that is not what I said. She even copies the quote which says otherwise, then says that. She's either insane, or trying to make herself look that way for a laugh.

Just to be clear:
refute the logic of this as your position:

As commander in chief:

it is acceptable to use the military to kill international terrorists who have killed non combatants in time of peace and not in a war zone.

it is acceptable to kill an average of 30 non combatants as "collateral damage"

It is acceptable to do this without warning or attempting to warn non combatants away

It is acceptable to do this without consulting any other person but on the your own personal authority and responsibility, by your own examination of evidence.

the killing of children is acceptable,

true or false?

congrats bill, you've just accepted the reasoning of Booth, Oswald, and anyone who might sneak a "child Bomb" into the presence of Obama and detonate it.

My position is that that would be morally wrong

Your position is?

( sorry couldn't sleep- go on back to playing with yourself, I'm going back to bed)
Indeed! The *true believers* and the war between Right and Right. (And harking back to Kosh's post about purity...)
ah what the hell

"What's all this fuss i hear about Waterboarding? I LIKE to surf!"

Night Emily