Congratulations, Obama Supporters!

Congratulations, Obama Supporters! November 12, 2012

Own this:

To all those now hailing the re-election of Barack Obama as a triumph of decent, humane, liberal values over the oozing-postule perfidy of the Republicans, a simple question:

Is this child dead enough for you?

This little boy was named Naeemullah. He was in his house — maybe playing, maybe sleeping, maybe having a meal — when an American drone missile was fired into the residential area where he lived and blew up the house next door.

“As we all know, these drone missiles are, like the president who wields them, super-smart, a triumph of technology and technocratic expertise. We know, for the president and his aides have repeatedly told us, that these weapons — launched only after careful consultation of the just-war strictures of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas — strike nothing but their intended targets and kill no one but “bad guys.” Indeed, the president’s top aides have testified under oath that not a single innocent person has been among the thousands of Pakistani civilians — that is, civilians of a sovereign nation that is not at war with the United States — who have been killed by the drone missile campaign of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Yet somehow, by some miracle, the missile that roared into the residential area where Naeemullah lived did not confine itself neatly to the house it struck. Somehow, inexplicably, the hunk of metal and wire and computer processors failed — in this one instance — to look into the souls of all the people in the village and ascertain, by magic, which ones were “bad guys” and then kill only them. Somehow — perhaps the missile had been infected with Romney cooties? — this supercharged hunk of high explosives simply, well, exploded with tremendous destructive power when it struck the residential area, blowing the neighborhood to smithereens.

And before you lie to yourself about “collateral damage” and “unintended consequences” and all the rest of it, go here.  You didn’t like Romney?  Fine.  You didn’t have to vote for Obama.  But you did. Next time, don’t vote for somebody who supports grave intrinsic evil.

"As is often noted, they are not pro life, but pro birth."

Fasting Friday: George Soros and the ..."
"I don’t stop making them. I was slightly, very slightly miffed, and couldn’t resist."

Almsgiving Monday: Who Killed the Knapp ..."
"It was a column mark wrote a few days ago."

Fasting Friday: George Soros and the ..."
"It would help if you put a link..."

Fasting Friday: George Soros and the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Confederate Papist


    Clearly you are too emotional about this. You should take a chill pill, maybe a sojourn into Colorado and smoke a little of their, now legal, home-grown product and just be happy the God-King was once again immaculated. After all, we all know that George Bush and Mitt Romney were at the controls in these drone because we all know they hate swarthy and darker skinned individuals….I mean, the New York Times said it, so it has to be true.
    /sarcasm off/

  • ivan_the_mad

    Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in piece.

    • Nate

      I should have just said what you said.

      • Nate

        Peace, you mean, though.

        • ivan_the_mad

          Yeah, I mixed up my homophones.

          • Ben

            There you are: I suspected you were homophonic.

            • Chris M

              keep this up and we’ll all be hooked on homophonics.

              • Peggy R

                THis poor little guy. The sad irony is that “piece” is what happened to the little boy.

                May he rest in peace. May his family find peace and consolation. Mother Mary, pray for him.

  • Nate

    This was my argument for voting for Romney. While Romney’s foreign policy would have been just as murderous, at least the liberal media would have started criticizing it once their Light Worker was defeated by the Republican. Sunlight and disinfectant and all.

    Because when a conservative does this stuff, the media notices.
    When the Light Worker does this stuff, well, as Joe Klein says, it’s ok. Move along, nothing to see here. And anyway, conservatives are bigots, doncha know. Let’s talk about THAT.

  • A heartbreaking picture. It is a hard world for little things. Peace to him and his loved ones.

  • Chris M

    I think anyone who supports this murderous insanity should have to wear this picture around their necks until the day they die or until they repent and do penance.

    • Yes, yes, yes. How can anyone look at that face and fail to see his or her own son, or brother, or father? How can we not see Naeemullah’s kinship with the dead of 9/11 and the others in whose names we claim to be waging war? Indeed, how can a Christian look at Naeemullah in his death and fail to see Christ crucified? And how can those of us who live comfortably in the USA deny that we had some part in this killing? It’s all of us who are stained with the guilt of these murders, not just Obama voters or Romney voters or others who have actively supported the War Party and its candidates. May God have mercy on us all, now and at the hour of our death.

      • Chris M

        Amen. I was thinking how much he looks like one of my nephews. Christ have mercy.

      • Beccolina

        He does look like MY son, a great deal. I would have had no trouble passing them as brothers. He wasn’t a black youth shot by a non-black, though, so Obama must not be able to identify.


      • David Collins

        “It’s all of us who are stained with the guilt of these murders…” What? That, sir, is completely silly.

  • victor

    Here you go, Mark! This whimsical profile on our very own Darth Sidious should restore your faith in the Republic.

  • Mark Windsor

    Not that it lessens the tragedy of this at all, but if you drill down to the original story you’ll find something odd in the date line: October 18, 2010. The comments that are still visible are 11 months old.

    I’m all for stopping the drone strikes.

    [Razdelisha rizy Moya sebye]

    Divide my garments into four,
    Those are the human clothes I wore,
    But in my vesture make no tear,
    That is eternity I wear

    My flesh the clothing of my birth,
    I dressed myself with it on Earth,
    And if with blood you stripe and score,
    That is the human cloth I wore

    But when the helpless child you beat
    You pierce my hands and stab my feet,
    And when the small ones you strike down
    That is My sharp and vicious crown

    And if they beg for pity’s sake
    Then to the tomb My corpse they take,
    And if they die they are with Me
    When I am taken from the tree

    November 1, 2012

    • victor

      Thank you for posting this, Pavel. As always, your poetry pierces the veil and is a beacon of meaning and beauty.

    • kmk

      Thank you, Pavel. Lord, Have Mercy.

  • I lined to this on the Coalition for Clarity blog, Mark. I suggest we employ the word “dronicide” to refer to these murders. I didn’t coin the term–have just seen it crop up in discussions of drone warfare, and think it’s a good way to start conversations.

    • victor

      I suggest we call it “murder”.

    • Seamus

      Wouldn’t “dronicide” mean the killing of drones?

  • Mercury

    I think the drone campaign is disgusting, and not only that, it has been the greatest recruitment tool Al-Qaeda could have asked for – it seems nothing makes people want to kill Americans more than random death from robots in the skies. Also, we are not at war with Pakistan. I do not see what is happening here as in any way justified.

    But I do have a question about ‘jus in bello’ – how war is to be conducted. And please, I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me as trying to find out “how much can we kill before it’s a sin?” My question is – in a real, legitimate war, would the risk of unintended civilian deaths *always* mean that the particular operation cannot be carried out? For example, leaving aside any bombings that intentionally targeted civilians for terror effect – was the US justified in bombing munitions factories and military installations in World War II, or in house-to-house fighting in places like Eindhoven and Aachen? Would the risk of civilian deaths mean we could never legitimately bomb military targets or attempt to besiege or capture cities in a war?

    My grandfather was an engineer who calibrated the Norton bomb sights – the idea was to make bombing more accurate, but everyone knew it wasn’t accurate – sometimes bombers just had to release their payload blind, as they’d have never made it out alive otherwise.

    And in the case of these drones and stuff – what other options do we have? Obviously picking off mourners at funerals, even funerals of terrorists, is an atrocious crime; but in cases where there really are legitimate targets – how should we proceed? Are there other options on the table? Would special forces raids lead to more or less carnage?

    Finally, are there moral theologians who have considered how Just War doctrine applies in cases of asymmetrical warfare, where there is no actual nation one is fighting against, where combatants are never in uniform, where they keenly use human shields (I have seen images from the ground where these guys will literally grab children off the streets and drag them to the scene of fighting, just so they can maximize civilian deaths for the media – that is not what is happening here, but it does happen), or use hospitals, schools, etc. to protect their command centers and munitions stores?

    Clearly the amount of civilian deaths, in a country we have not ever been at war with, is unacceptable, and this little boy died for nothing. But I am asking serious questions here – how can we fight al-Qaeda and avoid this kind of thing? Certainly “just let them do their thing” is also an unacceptable option.

    I hope I didn’t ingnite anyone’s rage here.

  • Marthe Lépine

    By the way, my memory might be wrong, but it seems to me that I have seen somewhere at some time that there were some war-mongering Republicans who approved of, and even celebrated, that drone campaign… After all, the War on Terror did start during the Bush years, did it not? To my knowledge nobody so far, on either side, has declared that it was over, and the drone technology is seen, if I am correct, as an important tool in this so-called war that increasingly seems to me, at least, to be partly imaginary and partly supporting other interests than protecting the US population from terrorists by eliminating them in advance of their growing up to become radicalized.

    • Peggy R

      I don’t think Bush was pursuing drones as broadly as O is. He was more judicious. Whether innocents were never killed, I cannot say. Also, there has been much criticism of O’s broad and unjust use of drones in conservative media–just before the election, I read a good many pieces on that. Google and ye shall find.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Maybe, just maybe, Bush was not pursuing drones as broadly, just because the technology was not quite ready then… Just a thought! Not an accusation, just wondering… And as well, the drones did not just appear out of nowhere: such technology requires years of research and planning. Was it already being planned during the Bush years, and/or was its development commissioned during the Bush years? Someone, somewhere, had the idea of those drones, submitted it to whoever was in authority wherever, then got the design and planning started, then began manufacture, and, most importantly, probably made a lot of money selling them. It seems to me that the responsibility needs to be spread a little wider, even if the President is officially the final authority about where and when to actually use the new technique.

      • Mercury

        Marthe – any “celebration” of drones I have ever read has been related to the fact that they purportedly *save* lives and result in less civilians deaths than previous methods would have. Whether this is true is certainly debatable (I’d say they’re probably more accurate than traditional bombing) – but it does seem to me that they could be used in a manner that DID only kill terrorists ; I seriously doubt we do not have the technology to hit these guys with pinpoint accuracy. In that light, this seems to be deliberate overkill.

        However, I have never read any source that actually celebrated drones *because* they killed non-combatants, or *because* they “nip the problem” in the bud by killing “baby terrorists.” Sure, I’m sure there are dumbasses who say such things in comboxes and the like, but never have I seen anyone seriously advocate that point of view. And if we’re going by what rank and file partisan idiots say, I also know a gay activist who posts his Facebook fantasies about what he would like to do to Christians – point is, I’d need to see a real, documented source of someone celebrating this barbarism before believing it, in which case I will be full of contempt for whoever said that.

      • Mercury

        And remember, it’s not drones per se that are the problem – if these things could be used to accurately kill enemy combatants while reducing civilian causalities to zero or right around that, we’d be calling them a marvel. That is purportedly what they were designed for, at least.

        Instead it seems what we are doing is loading them with ordnance and then bombing the crap out of dudes with no regard to who else may be in the neighborhood (or to whether the dudes in question are US citizens, which is another matter). It’s the callous USE of the weapon that is the problem, not the weapon per se.

        I read some piece somewhere that said that while it may be licit to accept civilian casualties in some cases, we need to ask ourselves if we’d be so willing to do so if the civilians in question were in Zurich or Dublin – i.e., are we less careful about “brown people” on the other side of the globe than we would be about “civilized folk.” I think it’s a pertinent question – let’s say there was a known violent terrorist in a mosque in Paris – would we drone-strike him and be willing to accept civilian deaths, and if not, then why?

        • Marthe Lépine

          I think that I have seen somewhere in some Encyclical letter that the mere continued development of more “perfect” deadly weapon might be immoral (maybe it was even in the Catechism). And certainly it would not have been politically correct, therefore politically unprofitable for any candidate of either side, to “celebrate” the work done by drones or to promote their use to kill children because they won’t grow up to become terrorists. However such conclusions can easily be implied, since drones happen to kill children, who are afterwards called “collateral damage” or if they are a little older, called by such euphemisms as “enemy combatants”. And there was at least one “celebration” of a killing at the time it was announced (I kind of remember Mark pointing it out at the time) and this leaves the door open on assuming that there are other instances of such celebration. Everything does not need to have been openly said or written in black on white in order to be rather clearly understood…

          • Mercury

            Why would the Church forbid the development of weapons that would minimize non-combatant deaths?

            I’m not saying that this is what drones actually do, but if weapons are designed to be ever more accurate, why would this be a problem? If a weapon was really designed that could kill enemy combatants but minimize civilian casualties, would that not be a good thing? So you think the church ha something against bomb sights? I guess “hail of arrows” is okay, but not smart bombs?

            I believe the Church has something about weapons being designed to be “ever more destructive” – so “more perfect” in that sense, but I cannot fr the life of me think of why they’d be against “ever more accurate”.

            If you believe there are people who actually believe that killing children kills future terrorists and that the whole drone system is designed to do that, okay. I personally think it is callous disregard for life and sloppiness because after all they’re not “like us” that is the true culprit here. You seem to be suggesting there is a deliberate campaign to *target* children, which is a whole ‘nother can of worms.

            I wish someone would address the issues I raised above, however. What DO we do? : a.) manned raids b.) let terrorists do their thing

            I seriously would like to know what the other options are?

            • Ted Seeber

              The other option is isolation. Which comes in two flavors:
              1. Cutting of an area from outside contact to allow a violent society to burn itself out.
              2. Cutting off your own country from accepting communication, commerce, and tourism from a given country or set of countries.

              The 2nd is harder than the first, but I believe BOTH are way more moral than engaging the terrorists directly.

              • Mercury

                That is an option, but it essentially means letting the Taliban do what they will and screw the people who live there. This includes massacring any non-Muslims. If the Church is not keen about the US embargo of Cuba, how would the Church react to “cut ’em off and let ’em sort it out themselves”? in places like Afghanistan?

                In the WWII analogy, if Hitler had not invaded Poland, but was content to massacre all the Jews in Germany – there would have been no other moral option than to let him do so? I’m not making an equivalence with Hitler here, just trying to understand this line of reasoning.

                Also, what should we have done in the wake of 9/11?

                • Ted Seeber

                  “That is an option, but it essentially means letting the Taliban do what they will and screw the people who live there. ”

                  Hint: The Taliban *ARE* the people who live there. We’re the invaders.

                  “This includes massacring any non-Muslims. ”

                  After the past 200 years of violence, there are very few of those left.

                  “If the Church is not keen about the US embargo of Cuba, how would the Church react to “cut ‘em off and let ‘em sort it out themselves”?”

                  One only need point out _City of God_ by St. Augustine of Hippo, and the just war theory contained therein.

                  “In the WWII analogy, if Hitler had not invaded Poland, but was content to massacre all the Jews in Germany – there would have been no other moral option than to let him do so? ”

                  The option would be to do what the Church did: Smuggle the jews out.

                  “Also, what should we have done in the wake of 9/11?”

                  End all oil shipments from middle eastern countries. Freeze the assets of *ALL* middle eastern countries. End arms shipments to them. Refuse entry to any jetliner or boat from there. Reinforce the border with Canada (15/19 terrorists from 9-11 came in through Canada). And start practicing solidarity, subsidiarity, and change our economy to an autarky.

                  Of course, that’s influenced by my readings of Augustine, Aquinas, Chesterton and Belloc…..taken to an extreme. But we weren’t the primary target in the war that 9/11 was a part of, and there was no need to join it. It’s 1392 by the Year of the Prophet- do you remember what happened right after 1392 A.D. to Christianity? Now add high explosives and nuclear weapons to the mix. This is not a fight we belong in.

                  • Mercury

                    Um, what happened *right after* 1392 AD? I’m really not sure. I know lots of important dates in the 15th century, but none so close as to be “right after”.

                    Augustine is the beginning of just war doctrine to be sure, but he is not the final word. Aquinas developed this much further, There was a lively and detailed consensus from about the sixteenth century onwards.

                    And just “spiriting the Jews out of all of Germany” would have been the solution, eh?

                    Again, if the Church condemns the embargo of Cuba, would she not condemn the cutting off of the entire Middle East?

          • Mercury

            I would like you to provide me with a source of someone who is not a combox idiot actually “celebrating” the death of children, not just denying or rationalizing it. Because that is a heavy accusation to make, and should not be leveled at anyone without sufficient proof.

            • Marthe Lépine

              The case I was referring to on the sixth line before the line of my comment was not “celebrating the death of a child”, but a case of cheering at the assassination of someone (who might have been some Iranian scientist believed to be involved in that country’s nuclear energy research, but I am not sure.) Sorry if that sentence was to close after the one about “enemy combatants”, this is a problem with small comment boxes…

              • ED

                Marthe: Sad to see that you could take the time to comment here on this thread and NOT comment on someone willing to pray for you (and answer your personal question) on an earlier thread???

                It’s a bit sad… but I’m sure you have a very good reason? ;(

                • Possibly.

                  But the only thing sadder than the guy with so little life outside the blogosphere that he obsessively checks for followups to his own comments is the guy who dings others for not obsessively checking for followups to theirs.

                  See, there are multiple perspectives on ‘commenter responsibility’?

                  • ED

                    And you are exactly *who* young man? A spokesman for who? Please, give me a break and just try to *grow-up* a bit. I don’t really have the patience to talk (or listen) to silly immature wannabees. BUT… please feel free to keep posting… we all need a laugh now and then. LOL

      • Peggy R

        I see you have a lot of fish to fry here, Marthe. In any case, here was the big NYT expose from May 12 on O’s expansion of the use of drones and his personal decision on the Kill List. The article is annoyingly fawning of O’s alleged legal mind (as if no lawyer’d been POTUS before) and the laughable claim that he read Augustine and Thomas on just war…Ok. Maybe he read them, but he clearly has no understanding of them.

        Such a morally superior man, I must say. (sarcasm)

  • Charles E Flynn
  • BHO

    Drones are not a foreign policy…the lack of a policy is leading to more deaths and destruction.

  • If we, as Christians, understood that we are called to be the light of the world, not the sword of the LORD, more of us would speak up about this and stop endorsing wars.