Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: George W Obama the war criminal

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 2, 2012, 4:14 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Thanks for the freedom in Libya Obama. You and NATO should have done more research about the monsters you were helping. Sometimes your enemy's enemies cannot be your friends.

Impeach George W Obama for war crimes. Barack and George W should be in prison.

In the United States manslaughter is illegal. When you're a president, it's just a lot of casualties.

Al Jezeera reports a story you won't see on the news here in the states - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNA8z5G-Xmk&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=2&feature=plpp_video

NATO commander admits that "flickers" of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists among the Libyan rebels. This officially classifies them as "associated forces" under the provisions in the NDAA. Which would also mean that the Obama administration, NATO, and the CIA should also be classified as associated forces. Right? That's how the provisions in the NDAA are supposed to work, right? A story you won't see on the news here in the states - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtGe6zk52Cw

Dennis Kucinich against the war in Libya. "Civilian casualties mounted up in Libya after the NATO attack." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b-VaxqZuvo



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 6 years ago

Bush=Obama: imperialistic twins. Republicans=democrats=NATO: imperialist organizations. Democracy at gunpoint. Bankrupt America with global wars, 1000+ military bases. We spend almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined. We need 2000 nukes? 11 aircraft carrier task forces? New nuclear missile subs? Our last threat, Russia, died over 20 years ago. Nobody can conquer us. Use the money instead to save our homes, lower taxes, create jobs, rebuild crumbling America.


[-] 0 points by Renaye (522) 6 years ago

Thank you! Now we're getting to the nuts and bolts of it.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

The video and your conclusions have virtually nothing to do with each other.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

How so? Have you read the provisions in the NDAA?

Taliban, Al Qaeda, or associated forces.

Pretty sure the rebels containing members of Al Qaeda makes them an associated force. And aiding them would classify you under section 1021 in the NDAA.

Not to mention the Libyan rebel leader was a top member of the LIFG which was considered a terrorist organization.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich calls out Obama for the war in Libya.



Here's an article with Ralph Nader on the unconstitutional actions by Obama and his administration against Libya,

"Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."


Another good article on the topic.


Louie Gohmert's hour long presentation about Al Qaeda and the Libyan rebels in front of the congress. Gohmert is a cunt 90% of the time, but he's presenting facts to credible sources in this video.


[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

What does the NDAA have to do with your Al Jazeera video? Nothing.

Good job amending your OP AFTER I posted a response, by the way.

The allegation of Al Qaeda leadership in the popular uprising in Libya against a brutal dictator is a rumor that the dictator started. That Al Qaeda has come in ( in tiny numbers, by all accounts) in the wake of a power vacuum is not surprising in the region. By itself, it does nothing to discredit the causes of the rebellion.

You mention "the" Libyan rebel leader. There was no single leader. It was a mass popular uprising. Leaders (multiple) emerged much later.

As to Gohmert, don't look now, but his agenda is showing. Had the President been Repelican he would have hailed support of Libyan rebels. Instead he uses an article, filled with distortions and unsupported opinion, written by a hard right-wing xenophobic columnist for a right wing paper to make his case. What a surprise! Who could have guessed that a Texas right wing douche bag would try to discredit a Democratic president? Will wonders never cease?

Kucinich and Nader are another story. While I admire them both on a number of issues I also think they're loons on a number of others.

The NDAAA is a bad piece of legislation, and should never never have been passed by congress, let alone by a veto-proof 93 strong vote in the Senate. Why not blame the president for signing it? It's certainly expedient. After all he could have vetoed it to have it overturned the next day and lost his ability to shut down GITMO in the process. Gee, that would have been a smart move - NOT.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Look up Abdel Hakim Belhadj

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

And when Obama closes down gitmo... let me know. lulz

I seem to remember that promise from 2008

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

Who cares if Gitmo closes? They will just house the people there some where else.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

People that like Civil liberties care.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

But like I said, they will just get housed somewhere else.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

They should come up with a better plan which involves some kind of trial to present evidence of their crimes. If they're criminals or terrorists, there will be evidence.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Here's a great read on the topic, better than what I could tell you about it. http://www.aclu.org/close-guantanamo


[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

You do realize that the NDAA had provisions in it that prevented any transfer of any prisoners, don't you? And that knowing the legislation was veto proof, Obama agreed to sign it on condition of those provisions being removed?

It would have prevented the dozens of prisoners whom Obama had successfully negotiated to be released to other countries from being released to them.

By law, they can't be transferred to US soil. Transferring them to another country takes negotiation with other countries. Those that are left in Gitmo are the ones no one wanted to take.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

It was not veto proof.

Let me know when you're done riding Obama's dick.

Like I said, when Obama closes down GITMO, let me know.


[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

A 93-7 vote in the Senate is not veto proof? And a 283-to-136 in the House? Right, and I've got a bridge to sell.....

Your hatred renders you delusional.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

I voted for Obama in 2008. I've simply changed my mind because he just turned out to be a war monger monsanto and wall street loving fraud. And Veto proof? What are you talking about?

Also does my hatred for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich make me delusional too? I feel like my hatred for these frauds is justified.

This is how the veto process works by the way:


[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Amending my op? All I did was add the video with Kucinich because I linked it to you and felt it would be a good addition to the post. The video with the NATO commander talking about AL Qaeda was in there already. Do some research about Libya.

Gohmert being a cocksucker doesn't change facts.

How is Kucinich a loon for presenting facts?

Say no to war monger presidents.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

And I blame more than the president for the NDAA. I blame my congressmen who voted for it.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Kucinich did NOT present facts, he presented opinion. You really have to learn the difference.

And, btw, adding to your post after a response is indeed amending it. It is a retroactive addition to an original post. A legitimate response would have been to put those links into a new post.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

The NATO video is facts. It's not a fucking opinion. He knows who Abdel Hakim Belhadj is and he also knows the facts about what the rebels have done. He also knows about what the NATO commander said to the Armed Services Committee.

You really think you know more than Kucinich? You're dreaming.

I don't really care about amending my post. I'll do it again if I feel like. There are many videos on this subject presenting facts and sharing them changes nothing.

Go ahead and continue thinking Obama is infallible. Next you'll try and justify why he loves Monsanto.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

At what point, exactly, have I indicated I think Obama is infallible? Where have I written a glowing review of him? And WTF does Monsanto have to do with this?

I don't idolize Obama, not by a long shot. I simply object to your bullshit and your hyperbole. There is plenty to be critical about Obama for, but you are a one trick hate pony, posting the same shit over and over and over again.

Keep spouting hyperbole. It only weakens your position and credibility.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Says the guy calling facts and legitimate sources "opinions"

Thanks guy on the internet for your comments. My internet credibility of presenting facts is now no longer credible because I made a reference to Obama being a fraud in more than one instance.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Your hyperbole makes you non credible. Your ad nauseum repetition only makes you tiresome. And, despite your confusion about it, credibility is not a popularity contest. It's similar to the confusion between fact and opinion you demonstrate.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

So if I were to tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, would that no longer be credible?

My commentary does not change the facts and situations presented in the videos I posted.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Your assertion that 2 + 2 = 5 is what's incredible. But you're too filed with bile to even understand that's what you're doing.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

"Your hatred makes you delusional" - Quote epa1nter

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

And I stand by it.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Your comment below won't let me reply so this is the reply.

Actually you are making assertions now. I was never "laying blame at Obama's feet for anti-black actions in East Libya"

I just said Obama and NATO supported bad guys just to oust the Gaddafi regime and that the turn out is terrible.

Do you think Bush is a war criminal? So how isn't Obama?

Also congress is supposed to approve war with a declaration of war according to the constitution. The war against Libya therefore was unconstitutional. Article 1 section 8.

And if you want to get outside of the constitution Obama violated The War Powers Resolution. Which is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Gaddafi did not attack the US last year.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

We've gone over all this before on at least one other thread. I demonstrated to you precisely how the War Powers act was not violated. You seem to have a memory issue.

The only video you put up in your pre-amended OP was of danger to Blacks in Eastern Libya. The clear, unmistakable implication was that Obama was responsible, somehow, for this occurring.

We have also gone over how supporting the popular uprising was not supporting bad guys, but the people, and that many of those people were led by local tribal leaders. After America was well out of it, those leaders jockeyed (and are still jockeying) for control.

I am done with you. Your enmity is will not change, your rage will not abate, no matter what you are presented with. You may continue to stew in the juices of your indignation as long as you like. But it doesn't alter the fact that the truth is far less simplistic than you can admit.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

What assertion did I make?

My assertion that the NATO commander openly admits that the Libyan rebels have ties to Al Qaeda? Not an assertion. It's a fact. My assertion that the war was unconstitutional? Not an assertion. It's a fact. My assertion that blacks are being mistreated by the rebels? Not an assertion. It's a fact. Or am I supposed to trust you, the person who says the videos I posted are opinions and says they don't have leaders or commanders in the Libyan rebellion, despite the facts about who Abdel Hakim Belhadj is and what the National Transitional Council is.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Your assertion that Obama acted in violation of the constitution is opinion, not fact. Your laying blame at Obama's feet for anti-black actions in East Libya is unsupportable. The videos you posted with Kucinich yelling about impeachment presents his opinion about the constitution, not a fact of law. That you would, even now, distort what I have plainly written about rebel leadership, only shows that you are unwilling or unable to be objective in the least; that truth and accuracy, for you, is entirely subordinated by hatred.