4 ms·

> Obama administration basically stopped trying to capture people alive to interrogate them and instead just sent drone based missiles to just kill anyone susp

by rdtsc 9y ago

> Obama administration basically stopped trying to capture people alive to interrogate them and instead just sent drone based missiles to just kill anyone suspected of terrorism. Not only that but after receiving a Nobel Peace Prize he proceeded to engage in drone warfare. Just in 2016 he dropped more then 20k bombs, in countries which we were not even at war with. Many in Africa. It was surprising how little flak he got for it. Indeed when he was elected in 2008 he got the best marketer of year award http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/ http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market... and he presented a great image. > Which is worse: torture or killing? It is kind of a false choice. But let's go with it, Obama effectively picked both. Anyone remember how he promised to close Guantanamo? Well it is still open. He picked both killing and continued torture. Yet people still idolize him and think he was so great. Again, that's the power of propaganda and marketing at work, AdAge's award was very much on point, better then Coke, Nike and Apple.

afjl 9y ago
I think both of your statements can apply to any President. For instance, Trump has called for "fire and fury" against NK and "bombing the hell" out of our enemies. He's embraced torture as a mechanism for obtaining information and a cursory Google search shows that Gitmo conditions have gotten significantly worse over the past year. Frankly, this seems like a misdirected personal crusade of yours against Obama when virtually every administration has blood on its hands.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  > this seems like a misdirected personal crusade of yours against Obama I took it more as him pointing out that while Trump, right or wrong, is crucified in the press on a daily basis Obama was able to successfully spin a benevolent image to the point that he was absolutely held to a different standard. All presidents have blood on their hands, but there is a certain irony in Obama being the first Nobel peace price winner to bomb another peace prize winner.
  - afjl 9y ago
    That's fairly true, although I suspect the reason for the press' attitude towards Trump lies in the ratings/advertisement-driven nature of media. I don't think they're necessarily being held to different standards. Trump's daily tweets are cannonfodder to any (faux)journalist whereas Obama rarely gave anything for the media to criticize, which is why they harped so much on his birth certificate. To your second point, I think the sheen of Obama's Presidency is definitely beginning to fade a bit. His failure to truly effect change in the Arab Spring showed amateurism in foreign policy. If there's any irony, it's in the Nobel laureate selection process (at least for the Peace prize); Kissinger won the damn thing in 73, which should tell anyone that the whole award is a farce.
jonnybgood 9y ago
> Just in 2016 he dropped more then 20k bombs, in countries which we were not even at war with. Many in Africa. It was surprising how little flak he got for it Do you know who he dropped bombs on and why? You make it sound like he dropped bombs for the fun of it.
- berdario 9y ago
  I'm not sure about the parent's stats and all the factions that would've been the targets... But those who actually got bombs dropped on them... could be literally anyone http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list-this-is-what-it-feels-like-to-be-hunted-by-drones-a6980141.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-strike-mosul-200-civilians-killed-isis-northern-iraq-pentagon-central-command-islamic-state-a7651451.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-stri...
- afjl 9y ago
  I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in the thread, much less my comment.
- ionised 9y ago
  Estimations are that 28 unknown individuals were killed for every 1 targeted 'suspected' militant. https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_kill_28_each_target/ https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_ki... Not a good track record no matter how you try to spin it.
dandare 9y ago
> Anyone remember how he promised to close Guantanamo? A European here, I was under the impression he sincerely tried to close Guantanamo but failed because of GOP controlled house and senate. Could he have done more?
- baud147258 9y ago
  European here too. I thought another problem with closing Guantanamo was what to do with the prisoners.
  - lightbyte 9y ago
    If I'm remembering correctly, that was actually the main problem. Most, if not all, are being held based on evidence or intelligence that would not fly in a typical American trial. If they closed Gitmo and brought the detainees to the US for trial, almost all would have to be released. I'm not necessarily saying that is a bad things, surely some (or even all) do not deserve to be held and should be released, but all it takes is one coming back and committing a terrorist act (could you even blame them after being illegally held and tortured for years?) for the worst PR nightmare a politician could even imagine rains down on them.
    - dandare 9y ago
      Exactly this. Let's torture people (or drone their families) to make sure they don't commit terrorist attacks. What could go wrong?
jVinc 9y ago
"It was surprising how little flak he got for it." Indeed. The very same democrats who mock Trump supporters for not denouncing him when he said "Grab them by the pussy" did not denounce Obama when he literally sent automated killer robots to kill people in foreign countries not even at war with the united states. In a two party system, you ignore bad things and back your guy, because what is the alternative? Backing the other side? Just Look at all the obvious horrors they are willfully ignoring!
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > In a two party system, you ignore bad things and back your guy, True, agreed. They could still stand up for what's right. Criticizing your party doesn't mean automatically endorsing the other party. But I was also talking about the mainstream media and the coverage it got there as well. > The very same democrats who mock Trump supporters for not denouncing him when he said "Grab them by the pussy" did not denounce Obama Or look at the recent "shithole" controversy. Trump said "shithole" (which was terrible, of course) and they talked about it for weeks. Forgot which reporter was even crying on screen about it. That's fine, it's good to be critical and scrutinize those in power. But Obama was dropping bombs on pretty much the same countries and everything was relatively quiet, not many tears from reporters there. Democracy Now was covering and other articles here and there. It's because Obama was polite, composed and projected a professional image.
- jordigh 9y ago
  > The very same democrats who mock Trump supporters for not denouncing him when he said "Grab them by the pussy" What does that have to do with Obama? Trump wasn't in the picture when Obama did any of this. This whole "what about you?" kind of rhetoric is utterly useless and pointless. All it does is reinforce football team politics. Look at each case without trying to diminish one case by saying someone else did something worse. Obama messed up or deliberately did awful things and his actions have got nothing to do with anything anyone said or did about Trump later.

by rdtsc 9y ago

afjl 9y ago

I think both of your statements can apply to any President. For instance, Trump has called for "fire and fury" against NK and "bombing the hell" out of our enemies. He's embraced torture as a mechanism for obtaining information and a cursory Google search shows that Gitmo conditions have gotten significantly worse over the past year. Frankly, this seems like a misdirected personal crusade of yours against Obama when virtually every administration has blood on its hands.

mieseratte 9y ago
> this seems like a misdirected personal crusade of yours against Obama I took it more as him pointing out that while Trump, right or wrong, is crucified in the press on a daily basis Obama was able to successfully spin a benevolent image to the point that he was absolutely held to a different standard. All presidents have blood on their hands, but there is a certain irony in Obama being the first Nobel peace price winner to bomb another peace prize winner.
- afjl 9y ago
  That's fairly true, although I suspect the reason for the press' attitude towards Trump lies in the ratings/advertisement-driven nature of media. I don't think they're necessarily being held to different standards. Trump's daily tweets are cannonfodder to any (faux)journalist whereas Obama rarely gave anything for the media to criticize, which is why they harped so much on his birth certificate. To your second point, I think the sheen of Obama's Presidency is definitely beginning to fade a bit. His failure to truly effect change in the Arab Spring showed amateurism in foreign policy. If there's any irony, it's in the Nobel laureate selection process (at least for the Peace prize); Kissinger won the damn thing in 73, which should tell anyone that the whole award is a farce.

jonnybgood 9y ago

> Just in 2016 he dropped more then 20k bombs, in countries which we were not even at war with. Many in Africa. It was surprising how little flak he got for it Do you know who he dropped bombs on and why? You make it sound like he dropped bombs for the fun of it.

berdario 9y ago
I'm not sure about the parent's stats and all the factions that would've been the targets... But those who actually got bombs dropped on them... could be literally anyone http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list-this-is-what-it-feels-like-to-be-hunted-by-drones-a6980141.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-strike-mosul-200-civilians-killed-isis-northern-iraq-pentagon-central-command-islamic-state-a7651451.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-stri...
afjl 9y ago
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in the thread, much less my comment.
ionised 9y ago
Estimations are that 28 unknown individuals were killed for every 1 targeted 'suspected' militant. https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_kill_28_each_target/ https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_ki... Not a good track record no matter how you try to spin it.

dandare 9y ago

> Anyone remember how he promised to close Guantanamo? A European here, I was under the impression he sincerely tried to close Guantanamo but failed because of GOP controlled house and senate. Could he have done more?

baud147258 9y ago
European here too. I thought another problem with closing Guantanamo was what to do with the prisoners.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  If I'm remembering correctly, that was actually the main problem. Most, if not all, are being held based on evidence or intelligence that would not fly in a typical American trial. If they closed Gitmo and brought the detainees to the US for trial, almost all would have to be released. I'm not necessarily saying that is a bad things, surely some (or even all) do not deserve to be held and should be released, but all it takes is one coming back and committing a terrorist act (could you even blame them after being illegally held and tortured for years?) for the worst PR nightmare a politician could even imagine rains down on them.
  - dandare 9y ago
    Exactly this. Let's torture people (or drone their families) to make sure they don't commit terrorist attacks. What could go wrong?

jVinc 9y ago

"It was surprising how little flak he got for it." Indeed. The very same democrats who mock Trump supporters for not denouncing him when he said "Grab them by the pussy" did not denounce Obama when he literally sent automated killer robots to kill people in foreign countries not even at war with the united states. In a two party system, you ignore bad things and back your guy, because what is the alternative? Backing the other side? Just Look at all the obvious horrors they are willfully ignoring!

rdtsc 9y ago
> In a two party system, you ignore bad things and back your guy, True, agreed. They could still stand up for what's right. Criticizing your party doesn't mean automatically endorsing the other party. But I was also talking about the mainstream media and the coverage it got there as well. > The very same democrats who mock Trump supporters for not denouncing him when he said "Grab them by the pussy" did not denounce Obama Or look at the recent "shithole" controversy. Trump said "shithole" (which was terrible, of course) and they talked about it for weeks. Forgot which reporter was even crying on screen about it. That's fine, it's good to be critical and scrutinize those in power. But Obama was dropping bombs on pretty much the same countries and everything was relatively quiet, not many tears from reporters there. Democracy Now was covering and other articles here and there. It's because Obama was polite, composed and projected a professional image.
jordigh 9y ago
> The very same democrats who mock Trump supporters for not denouncing him when he said "Grab them by the pussy" What does that have to do with Obama? Trump wasn't in the picture when Obama did any of this. This whole "what about you?" kind of rhetoric is utterly useless and pointless. All it does is reinforce football team politics. Look at each case without trying to diminish one case by saying someone else did something worse. Obama messed up or deliberately did awful things and his actions have got nothing to do with anything anyone said or did about Trump later.