The Khorasans: As Fake As the Kardashians Washington's Blog
Posted on September 25, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
New Boogeyman Has Already Been Debunked
Obama is now – after the fact – scrambling to justify bombing the sovereign nation of Syria without the permission of either the Syrian government or even the United States Congress by saying that we were going after the super-evil Khorasans, who were about to attack us.
My God! That sounds terrifying … like a cross between Genghis Khan, Klingons and the Kardashians!
The U.S. is saying that they’re even more dangerous than ISIS.
There’s just one wee little problem … the Khorasan threat is as as fake as the Kardashians’ physiques. (Admittedly, it’s confusing, given that the Kardashians have also inserted themselves right in the middleof the Syrian conflict.)
Agence France-Presse reports:
The US says it has hit a little-known group called “Khorasan” in Syria, but experts and activists argue it actually struck Al-Qaeda’s affiliate Al-Nusra Front, which fights alongside Syrian rebels.
In announcing its raids in the northern province of Aleppo on Tuesday, Washington described the group it targeted as Khorasan, a cell of Al-Qaeda veterans planning attacks against the West.
But experts and activists cast doubt on the distinction between Khorasan and Al-Nusra Front, which is Al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch.
“In Syria, no one had ever heard talk of Khorasan until the US media brought it up,” said Rami Abdel Rahman, director of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
“Rebels, activists and the whole world knows that these positions (hit Tuesday) were Al-Nusra positions, and the fighters killed were Al-Nusra fighters,” added Abdel Rahman, who has tracked the Syrian conflict since it erupted in 2011.
Experts were similarly dubious about the distinction.
“The name refers to Al-Qaeda fighters previously based in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran who have travelled to Syria to fight with… Al-Nusra,” said Matthew Henman, head of IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre.
“They… should not be considered a new or distinct group as such.”
Aron Lund, editor of the Syria in Crisis website run by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, raised similar doubts.
“The fact that news about this Al-Qaeda-run, anti-Western cell linked to Al-Nusra emerged just over a week ago, through US intelligence leaks — well, it’s certainly an interesting coincidence,” he told AFP.
***
Claims of a distinction are lost of many of Syria’s rebels, who have also often rejected the world community’s designation of Al-Nusra as a “terrorist” group.
When Washington added Al-Nusra to its list of “terrorist” organisations, even the internationally-backed Syrian opposition National Coalition criticised the decision.
***
On the ground, almost all rebel groups have been willing to cooperate with Al-Nusra, seeing them as distinct from the Islamic State group (IS), which espouses transnational goals and includes many non-Syrians among its ranks.
***
[The] history of cooperation [between the various crazies in Syria] has left some rebels and activists on the ground suspicious and even angry about the strikes on Al-Qaeda.
***
Some key members are believed to maintain channels of communication with Al-Nusra, including Qatar, which has helped negotiate the release of prisoners held by the group.
McClatchy adds:
Raad Alawi, the commander of a smaller group of fighters, the Squadrons of Al Haq, told McClatchy he was very angry.
“Starting the war with the bombing of Nusra is an indication that this is a war against the revolution and not [ISIS] … “Maybe next they will bomb the bases of the Free Syrian Army.”
Well, okay … experts and Syrian Islamic jihadis think there’s no distinction between the Khorasans and plain vanilla Al Nusra/Al Qaeda/Free Syrian Army fighters.
But surely America and our allies treat the moderate Syrian rebels … I mean Al Nusra … er, I mean theKhorasans … with a consistent iron fist?
Well, no … we’ve been – directly or indirectly – backing them. And – as we’ve been warning for some time – the boys we’re arming are threatening to attack us.
So – while I’d like to believe that I’m being shown the real deal as a justification for long-term, direct involvement – I’m just not buying it …
TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Bush’s “Axis of Evil” Becomes Obama’s “Network of Death” | Ben Swann Truth In Media
Bush’s “Axis of Evil” Becomes Obama’s “Network of Death” | Ben Swann Truth In Media
By: Rachel Blevins Sep 25, 2014
When Barack Obama ran for President of the United States in 2008, he was adamant about setting himself apart from President George W. Bush. However, given Obama’s recent announcements regarding the war in the Middle East, it has left many wondering just how different Obama is from his predecessor.
In his campaign for election in 2008, and in his campaign for re-election in 2012, Obama emphasized the fact that he intended to “end the war in Iraq.”
While Obama followed through on his promise, and all troops were removed from Iraq by December 2011, his recent decision to attack Islamic State militants in both Iraq and Syria via airstrike has left the country wondering whether ground troops returning to Iraq will be the next step.
Despite his attempt to set himself on the opposite end of the spectrum from Bush, Obama’s latest strategy has many looking back at when back at Bush’s actions prior to sending ground troops into Iraq in 2003.
In January 2002, President Bush gave a State of the Union Address, in which he warned the American people of the danger posed by the Iraqi regime, and insisted that the United States must take action.
“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.“
Bush vowed that the United State would work closely with their “coalition” to deny terrorists and their state sponsors “the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.”
Bush also highlighted the fact that Americans should fear the Iraqi regime, because of its hostility toward America, and its support for terror.
“This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children,” said Bush. “This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.”
On Wednesday, President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly, to garner support for his war against the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIL).
“There can be no reasoning – no negotiation – with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.”
Both Bush and Obama vowed that the United States would not be alone, but would instead work closely with a coalition. In the same way Bush used the tactic of fear, and described why Americans should be wary of the Iraqi regime, Obama highlighted the gruesome actions of the Islamic State.
“Innocent children have been gunned down. Bodies have been dumped in mass graves. Religious minorities have been starved to death,” said Obama. “In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded, with videos of the atrocity distributed to shock the conscience of the world.”
Obama also mirrored his predecessor, when he used the phrase “network of death,” which has a similar context to the “axis of evil” used by Bush.
However, a former White House speechwriter, Michael Gerson, who helped to coin Bush’s “axis of evil,” claimed that “When dealing with an ideology that inspires beheadings and mass murder, the English language only offers so many words that carry sufficient moral weight. ‘Evil’ and ‘death’ are two of them.”
By: Rachel Blevins Sep 25, 2014
When Barack Obama ran for President of the United States in 2008, he was adamant about setting himself apart from President George W. Bush. However, given Obama’s recent announcements regarding the war in the Middle East, it has left many wondering just how different Obama is from his predecessor.
In his campaign for election in 2008, and in his campaign for re-election in 2012, Obama emphasized the fact that he intended to “end the war in Iraq.”
While Obama followed through on his promise, and all troops were removed from Iraq by December 2011, his recent decision to attack Islamic State militants in both Iraq and Syria via airstrike has left the country wondering whether ground troops returning to Iraq will be the next step.
Despite his attempt to set himself on the opposite end of the spectrum from Bush, Obama’s latest strategy has many looking back at when back at Bush’s actions prior to sending ground troops into Iraq in 2003.
In January 2002, President Bush gave a State of the Union Address, in which he warned the American people of the danger posed by the Iraqi regime, and insisted that the United States must take action.
“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.“
Bush vowed that the United State would work closely with their “coalition” to deny terrorists and their state sponsors “the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.”
Bush also highlighted the fact that Americans should fear the Iraqi regime, because of its hostility toward America, and its support for terror.
“This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children,” said Bush. “This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.”
On Wednesday, President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly, to garner support for his war against the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIL).
“There can be no reasoning – no negotiation – with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.”
Both Bush and Obama vowed that the United States would not be alone, but would instead work closely with a coalition. In the same way Bush used the tactic of fear, and described why Americans should be wary of the Iraqi regime, Obama highlighted the gruesome actions of the Islamic State.
“Innocent children have been gunned down. Bodies have been dumped in mass graves. Religious minorities have been starved to death,” said Obama. “In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded, with videos of the atrocity distributed to shock the conscience of the world.”
Obama also mirrored his predecessor, when he used the phrase “network of death,” which has a similar context to the “axis of evil” used by Bush.
However, a former White House speechwriter, Michael Gerson, who helped to coin Bush’s “axis of evil,” claimed that “When dealing with an ideology that inspires beheadings and mass murder, the English language only offers so many words that carry sufficient moral weight. ‘Evil’ and ‘death’ are two of them.”
Breaking: Eric Holder Resigns | Ben Swann Truth In Media
Breaking: Eric Holder Resigns | Ben Swann Truth In Media
THROW THE BUM OUT!!! FINALLY!
Breaking: Eric Holder Resigns
Washington- Attorney General Eric Holder, the first African-American to hold the nation’s top law enforcement position, plans to announce on Thursday that he will resign the post he’s held for nearly six years as soon as a successor can be confirmed. The announcement was first shared with NPR on Thursday.
Holder, who has been heavily criticized by Republicans in Congress for his role in Operation Fast and Furious, as well as criticisms that his AG Department was deeply involved in racial politics.
The House in June 2012 found Mr. Holder in contempt of Congress in a historic vote weighted with political significance — though it did little to break the stalemate over his decision to withhold documents regarding the Justice Department’s actions in a botched gunwalking operation.The House voted 255-67 to hold Mr. Holder in criminal contempt in a vote that amounted to a political spanking for the attorney general and President Obama, underscored by the 17 Democrats who joined Republicans.
Holder already is one of the longest-serving members of the Obama Cabinet and ranks as the fourth-longest tenured AG in history.
Do you even Liberty bruh?
I am so disappointed in Thom Hartman assessment of Libertarianism! He is so off the mark I cannot even believe he thinks this way. He truly is spouting disinformation regarding Libertarianism and this kid "That Guy T" has him on the ropes! Good for you for dispelling this total crap from someone I no longer consider a journalist but a double speak commentator. You are sooo off course Thom it is not even funny, it is despicable!
France to carry out airstrikes in Iraq
France to carry out airstrikes in Iraq
By GREG KELLER Sep. 18, 2014 3:33 PM EDT
2 photos
PARIS (AP) — France has agreed to carry out airstrikes requested by Iraq to bolster its fight against the Islamic State group's fighters who've captured swathes of the country, President Francois Hollande said Thursday.
Hollande stressed that France wouldn't go beyond airstrikes in support of the Iraqi military or Kurdish Peshmerga forces, and wouldn't attack targets in Syria, where the Islamic State group has also captured territory.
He said he would inform the parliament of the planned action "as soon as the first strikes — that is to say, soon."
Speaking during his twice-yearly news conference, Hollande said he agreed to Iraq's request for air support at a meeting of his top defense and security advisers earlier in the day.
"This morning I decided to respond to the request of Iraqi authorities to provide air support," Hollande said. "We won't go beyond this. There won't be troops on the ground. And we will act only in Iraq."
Following a request by Iraqi authorities, French jets began flying reconnaissance missions over the country Monday, and have so far carried out four using Rafale fighter aircraft and an ATL2 surveillance plane, military spokesman Col. Gilles Jaron said. He provided no further details.
By GREG KELLER Sep. 18, 2014 3:33 PM EDT
2 photos
PARIS (AP) — France has agreed to carry out airstrikes requested by Iraq to bolster its fight against the Islamic State group's fighters who've captured swathes of the country, President Francois Hollande said Thursday.
Hollande stressed that France wouldn't go beyond airstrikes in support of the Iraqi military or Kurdish Peshmerga forces, and wouldn't attack targets in Syria, where the Islamic State group has also captured territory.
He said he would inform the parliament of the planned action "as soon as the first strikes — that is to say, soon."
Speaking during his twice-yearly news conference, Hollande said he agreed to Iraq's request for air support at a meeting of his top defense and security advisers earlier in the day.
"This morning I decided to respond to the request of Iraqi authorities to provide air support," Hollande said. "We won't go beyond this. There won't be troops on the ground. And we will act only in Iraq."
Following a request by Iraqi authorities, French jets began flying reconnaissance missions over the country Monday, and have so far carried out four using Rafale fighter aircraft and an ATL2 surveillance plane, military spokesman Col. Gilles Jaron said. He provided no further details.
Male-On-Male Rape Epidemic in Obama’s Pro-Deviancy Military - BarbWire.com
Male-On-Male Rape Epidemic in Obama’s Pro-Deviancy Military - BarbWire.com
MALE-ON-MALE RAPE EPIDEMIC IN OBAMA’S PRO-DEVIANCY MILITARY
BRYAN FISCHER on 19 September, 2014 at 09:00
One of the things we predicted when the infamous crime against nature was dropped as a bar to military service was an inevitable descent into moral and sexual debauchery in our armed forces.
And we were right.
Homosexual conduct is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. There are a host of pathologies associated with male homosexual conduct, including random, promiscuous, anonymous sex, a highly elevated risk of HIV/AIDS and a proclivity toward sexual violence.
This is not a lifestyle any rational society, let alone its military, should embrace or support.
Now we are getting more information about just how twisted and dangerous this lifestyle is.
According to the Daily Mail, a prominent newspaper in the UK, male on male rape in the United States military is reaching epidemic proportions.
Absorb this tragic excerpt:
When a man enters the military he is ten times likelier to be sexually abused, and in 2012 alone there were an estimated 14,200 reports of male rape.
Read that again. A man who enlists in the United States military is ten times more likely to be on the receiving end of sexual abuse than if he remains in the civilian population. The risk of being raped jumps a staggering 1,000 percent.
Our military has become a playground for sexual predators, a veritable smorgasbord of victims for homosexuals on the prowl.
It would be stupendously stupid not to accept the plain fact that, as the public becomes aware of these sordid and tragic realities, recruitment, retention, readiness and morale will plummet.
Here are some excerpts from this article:
In a recent GQ article, more than a dozen veterans and current service men came forward to tell of their sexual assault, and how the military institution failed time and time again to bring their predators to justice or get them the psychiatric help they needed…
Steve Stovey, Navy: ‘As a man, I can’t perform the way I used to. I just feel damaged. All I remember, along with the pain, is the slapping sound of being raped. I try to make love to my wife, but I can’t – I’m triggered. I’m traumatized by that sound.’
This is problematic since men are much less likely to report these incidents, leaving their attackers in positions of power and keeping the pain inside to boil over into other relationships.
The power structure within the military also makes these attacks more prevalent, because men in lower ranks may find it hard to report their attackers if they are superiors.
‘When a gunnery sergeant tells you to take off your clothes, you better take off your clothes. You don’t ask questions,’ former Marine Sam Madrid (name changed) said…
Kole Welsh, Army, 2002 – 2007: ‘I had actually let the assault go, because I didn’t want it to interfere with my career. I wanted to be an officer, and I just said, “Bad experience, won’t let that happen again.” But there was some residual damage. A month and a half later, I was brought into a room with about nine officers and told, “You’ve tested positive [for HIV].” I was removed from the military and signed out within a day. It was a complete shock…’
And when the men aren’t silencing themselves, the military is doing it for them by discharging victims for misdiagnosed personality disorders and letting their attackers continue to serve.
Trent Smith, Air Force, enlisted 2011: ‘He was a senior aide—he had a direct line to the top. Being invited over to his house, I just took it as I should go. Looking back, I ask myself, Why didn’t you do anything? It wasn’t like he held me down or tied me up. I didn’t want to cross him. I really didn’t feel like I had any choice. I had just turned 19. It could be my career. I froze and went along with it.’
Because sodomy is now a most-favored sexual proclivity in President Obama’s military, male victims of rape have no one to tell without placing their military careers in jeopardy.
And they have a vanishingly small chance of getting justice if they do complain. “[T]he military justice system…has only convicted 7 per cent of all MSP cases that go to trial, which is why an estimated 81 percent of victims never even report.”
In other words, in 2012 there were almost certainly more than the 14,200 male-on-male rapes that we know about. Our military has become a cesspool of homosexual degeneracy.
“Meanwhile,” concludes the Daily Mail, “the victims continue to suffer in silence.”
Here’s what GQ says on this subject:
Sexual assault is alarmingly common in the U.S. military, and more than half of the victims are men. According to the Pentagon, thirty-eight military men are sexually assaulted every single day. These are the stories you never hear—because the culprits almost always go free, the survivors rarely speak, and no one in the military or Congress has done enough to stop it.
And according to GQ:
Men develop PTSD from sexual assault at nearly twice the rate they do from combat…Military sexual trauma causes a particularly toxic form of PTSD. The betrayal by a comrade-in-arms, a brother in whom you place unconditional trust, can be unbearable. Warrior culture values stoicism, which encourages a victim to keep his troubles to himself and stigmatizes him if he doesn’t. An implacable chain of command sometimes compels a victim to work or sleep alongside an attacker, which can make him feel captive to his suffering and deserving of it.
A weakened, enervated, morally eviscerated military compromises its ability to do its job and it makes us all less safe.
Bottom line: it is long past time to reinstate the ban against homosexuality in the United States military. Our national security depends upon it.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/09/19/male-male-rape-epidemic-obamas-pro-deviancy-military/#ixjXHzRDDigBVrIW.99
MALE-ON-MALE RAPE EPIDEMIC IN OBAMA’S PRO-DEVIANCY MILITARY
BRYAN FISCHER on 19 September, 2014 at 09:00
One of the things we predicted when the infamous crime against nature was dropped as a bar to military service was an inevitable descent into moral and sexual debauchery in our armed forces.
And we were right.
Homosexual conduct is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. There are a host of pathologies associated with male homosexual conduct, including random, promiscuous, anonymous sex, a highly elevated risk of HIV/AIDS and a proclivity toward sexual violence.
This is not a lifestyle any rational society, let alone its military, should embrace or support.
Now we are getting more information about just how twisted and dangerous this lifestyle is.
According to the Daily Mail, a prominent newspaper in the UK, male on male rape in the United States military is reaching epidemic proportions.
Absorb this tragic excerpt:
When a man enters the military he is ten times likelier to be sexually abused, and in 2012 alone there were an estimated 14,200 reports of male rape.
Read that again. A man who enlists in the United States military is ten times more likely to be on the receiving end of sexual abuse than if he remains in the civilian population. The risk of being raped jumps a staggering 1,000 percent.
Our military has become a playground for sexual predators, a veritable smorgasbord of victims for homosexuals on the prowl.
It would be stupendously stupid not to accept the plain fact that, as the public becomes aware of these sordid and tragic realities, recruitment, retention, readiness and morale will plummet.
Here are some excerpts from this article:
In a recent GQ article, more than a dozen veterans and current service men came forward to tell of their sexual assault, and how the military institution failed time and time again to bring their predators to justice or get them the psychiatric help they needed…
Steve Stovey, Navy: ‘As a man, I can’t perform the way I used to. I just feel damaged. All I remember, along with the pain, is the slapping sound of being raped. I try to make love to my wife, but I can’t – I’m triggered. I’m traumatized by that sound.’
This is problematic since men are much less likely to report these incidents, leaving their attackers in positions of power and keeping the pain inside to boil over into other relationships.
The power structure within the military also makes these attacks more prevalent, because men in lower ranks may find it hard to report their attackers if they are superiors.
‘When a gunnery sergeant tells you to take off your clothes, you better take off your clothes. You don’t ask questions,’ former Marine Sam Madrid (name changed) said…
Kole Welsh, Army, 2002 – 2007: ‘I had actually let the assault go, because I didn’t want it to interfere with my career. I wanted to be an officer, and I just said, “Bad experience, won’t let that happen again.” But there was some residual damage. A month and a half later, I was brought into a room with about nine officers and told, “You’ve tested positive [for HIV].” I was removed from the military and signed out within a day. It was a complete shock…’
And when the men aren’t silencing themselves, the military is doing it for them by discharging victims for misdiagnosed personality disorders and letting their attackers continue to serve.
Trent Smith, Air Force, enlisted 2011: ‘He was a senior aide—he had a direct line to the top. Being invited over to his house, I just took it as I should go. Looking back, I ask myself, Why didn’t you do anything? It wasn’t like he held me down or tied me up. I didn’t want to cross him. I really didn’t feel like I had any choice. I had just turned 19. It could be my career. I froze and went along with it.’
Because sodomy is now a most-favored sexual proclivity in President Obama’s military, male victims of rape have no one to tell without placing their military careers in jeopardy.
And they have a vanishingly small chance of getting justice if they do complain. “[T]he military justice system…has only convicted 7 per cent of all MSP cases that go to trial, which is why an estimated 81 percent of victims never even report.”
In other words, in 2012 there were almost certainly more than the 14,200 male-on-male rapes that we know about. Our military has become a cesspool of homosexual degeneracy.
“Meanwhile,” concludes the Daily Mail, “the victims continue to suffer in silence.”
Here’s what GQ says on this subject:
Sexual assault is alarmingly common in the U.S. military, and more than half of the victims are men. According to the Pentagon, thirty-eight military men are sexually assaulted every single day. These are the stories you never hear—because the culprits almost always go free, the survivors rarely speak, and no one in the military or Congress has done enough to stop it.
And according to GQ:
Men develop PTSD from sexual assault at nearly twice the rate they do from combat…Military sexual trauma causes a particularly toxic form of PTSD. The betrayal by a comrade-in-arms, a brother in whom you place unconditional trust, can be unbearable. Warrior culture values stoicism, which encourages a victim to keep his troubles to himself and stigmatizes him if he doesn’t. An implacable chain of command sometimes compels a victim to work or sleep alongside an attacker, which can make him feel captive to his suffering and deserving of it.
A weakened, enervated, morally eviscerated military compromises its ability to do its job and it makes us all less safe.
Bottom line: it is long past time to reinstate the ban against homosexuality in the United States military. Our national security depends upon it.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/09/19/male-male-rape-epidemic-obamas-pro-deviancy-military/#ixjXHzRDDigBVrIW.99
Doublethink: Media Reports No Military Action Against ISIS While Reporting Airstrikes Against ISIS | The Daily Sheeple
Doublethink: Media Reports No Military Action Against ISIS While Reporting Airstrikes Against ISIS | The Daily Sheeple
Melissa Melton
The Daily Sheeple
September 24th, 2014
Are we at “war” with ISIS?
Nope.
According to our White House, who still cannot even manage to give an estimate about how much this…eh… (insert that word for whatever that one thing is called when one nation offensively blows up targets in other sovereign nations) is going to cost over in the Middle East, we’re at anything but a war.
In fact, when White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked that very question back on August 29 — “Is the United States presently at war with ISIS — yes or no?” — he answered a definite “no,” instead claiming,
“What we are doing is we are working very aggressively with international partners, with Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, to take the steps necessary to mitigate the threat that’s posed by ISIL.” (source)
See? Airstriking other countries isn’t war. It’s “mitigating a threat.” Funny, didn’t see that phrase anywhere in the Constitution…so much for checks and balances.
Of course, that was all the way back when the U.S. was only bombing ISIS in Iraq. Now we’re also striking targets in Syria. In fact, reports are coming in that 12 oil refineries — definitely for sure used by ISIS, right? — were blown up in Syria by the U.S. and coalition forces just today.
France is also striking right as reports have come out that one of their countrymen has also been beheaded by ISIS. Is ISIS’ plan to behead one person from each Western nation? Guess that would give more and more Western countries an excuse to join in on bombing Syria as well. Oh, and the UK is about to start striking, too.
But again, this isn’t a war. It’s a “focused campaign” or “military action” of a bunch of countries blowing stuff up in several other countries.
Or…is it even military action?
The reason I ask is the government and mainstream media’s glaring inability to fully define what exactly our government is doing in the Middle East right now by blowing up people and places in other countries.
Watch the Fox News clip below from about a week and a half ago. Starting at around the 1:55 mark, you’ll see something a little…odd.
http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2014/09/15/36768/fnc-an-2014-hegsethisis
On one side of the screen, you have the “Fox facts” and the number one “fact” listed is as “U.S. has conducted at least 160 airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.”
At the same time on the same screen, the lower third asserts, “No military action yet against ISIS, despite coalition to fight terrorists.”
Wha…?
Oh, and in case you were wondering, there are also absolutely no boots on the ground…even as we continue to send more and more “military advisers” over there… who… apparently… Wear flip flops and levitate?
Congress is also voting once again to spend millions more to arm the supposedly “vetted” moderate rebels in Syria (rebels who, in the past after being funded, armed and trained by the CIA at a base in Jordan went on to join ISIS, the very group we’re now striking), how is anyone even supposed to keep straight who the “good guys” and “bad guys” are in this non-war, non-military action airstriking by the U.S. military?
Via Godfather Politics:
Now that the United States is going to “fight” ISIS, the non-Islamic non-state Islamic State in Syria and Iraq plus the Levant plus Cincinnati, by funding the non-moderate, non-rebel moderate rebels in Syria, it’s high time somebody sat down and tried to clarify this whole mess.
Ever since President Obama got the five-iron out of his … ahem … let me try that again. Once President Obama stepped up to his responsibilities and declared we would crush, kill, destroy — whatever verb he used — ISIL/ISIS/IS/non-Islamic non-State, the Administration has been on a positive tear through the thesaurus in trying to find euphemisms to describe what exactly we’re trying to do to whom, without us hearing that we’re doing anything definite to anybody real.
Well, we definitely blew up 12 of Syria’s oil refineries today, so…
What was the definition of George Orwell’s “doublethink” again? Holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s head simultaneously while believing both are true?
Impossible in practice? Ask the White House and the establishment media.
Case in point: go ahead and try to wrap your mind around these comments President Obama made before the United Nations General Assembly earlier today:
The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day. Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies – Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: “We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace.” [emphasis added]
War on war will get us peace upon peace?
So…war is peace.
(If you haven’t figured out by now that we’re living in George Orwell’s 1984, I’m not sure how much more obvious it will have to get.)
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/doublethink-media-reports-no-military-action-against-isis-while-reporting-airstrikes-against-isis_092014#sthash.ryqiBhGX.dpuf
Melissa Melton
The Daily Sheeple
September 24th, 2014
Are we at “war” with ISIS?
Nope.
According to our White House, who still cannot even manage to give an estimate about how much this…eh… (insert that word for whatever that one thing is called when one nation offensively blows up targets in other sovereign nations) is going to cost over in the Middle East, we’re at anything but a war.
In fact, when White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked that very question back on August 29 — “Is the United States presently at war with ISIS — yes or no?” — he answered a definite “no,” instead claiming,
“What we are doing is we are working very aggressively with international partners, with Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, to take the steps necessary to mitigate the threat that’s posed by ISIL.” (source)
See? Airstriking other countries isn’t war. It’s “mitigating a threat.” Funny, didn’t see that phrase anywhere in the Constitution…so much for checks and balances.
Of course, that was all the way back when the U.S. was only bombing ISIS in Iraq. Now we’re also striking targets in Syria. In fact, reports are coming in that 12 oil refineries — definitely for sure used by ISIS, right? — were blown up in Syria by the U.S. and coalition forces just today.
France is also striking right as reports have come out that one of their countrymen has also been beheaded by ISIS. Is ISIS’ plan to behead one person from each Western nation? Guess that would give more and more Western countries an excuse to join in on bombing Syria as well. Oh, and the UK is about to start striking, too.
But again, this isn’t a war. It’s a “focused campaign” or “military action” of a bunch of countries blowing stuff up in several other countries.
Or…is it even military action?
The reason I ask is the government and mainstream media’s glaring inability to fully define what exactly our government is doing in the Middle East right now by blowing up people and places in other countries.
Watch the Fox News clip below from about a week and a half ago. Starting at around the 1:55 mark, you’ll see something a little…odd.
http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2014/09/15/36768/fnc-an-2014-hegsethisis
On one side of the screen, you have the “Fox facts” and the number one “fact” listed is as “U.S. has conducted at least 160 airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.”
At the same time on the same screen, the lower third asserts, “No military action yet against ISIS, despite coalition to fight terrorists.”
Wha…?
Oh, and in case you were wondering, there are also absolutely no boots on the ground…even as we continue to send more and more “military advisers” over there… who… apparently… Wear flip flops and levitate?
Congress is also voting once again to spend millions more to arm the supposedly “vetted” moderate rebels in Syria (rebels who, in the past after being funded, armed and trained by the CIA at a base in Jordan went on to join ISIS, the very group we’re now striking), how is anyone even supposed to keep straight who the “good guys” and “bad guys” are in this non-war, non-military action airstriking by the U.S. military?
Via Godfather Politics:
Now that the United States is going to “fight” ISIS, the non-Islamic non-state Islamic State in Syria and Iraq plus the Levant plus Cincinnati, by funding the non-moderate, non-rebel moderate rebels in Syria, it’s high time somebody sat down and tried to clarify this whole mess.
Ever since President Obama got the five-iron out of his … ahem … let me try that again. Once President Obama stepped up to his responsibilities and declared we would crush, kill, destroy — whatever verb he used — ISIL/ISIS/IS/non-Islamic non-State, the Administration has been on a positive tear through the thesaurus in trying to find euphemisms to describe what exactly we’re trying to do to whom, without us hearing that we’re doing anything definite to anybody real.
Well, we definitely blew up 12 of Syria’s oil refineries today, so…
What was the definition of George Orwell’s “doublethink” again? Holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s head simultaneously while believing both are true?
Impossible in practice? Ask the White House and the establishment media.
Case in point: go ahead and try to wrap your mind around these comments President Obama made before the United Nations General Assembly earlier today:
The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day. Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies – Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: “We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace.” [emphasis added]
War on war will get us peace upon peace?
So…war is peace.
(If you haven’t figured out by now that we’re living in George Orwell’s 1984, I’m not sure how much more obvious it will have to get.)
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/doublethink-media-reports-no-military-action-against-isis-while-reporting-airstrikes-against-isis_092014#sthash.ryqiBhGX.dpuf
Study: Antidepressants rapidly alter brain architecture
(LOS ANGELES TIMES) A single dose of a popular class of psychiatric drug used to treat depression can alter the brain’s architecture within hours, even though most patients usually don’t report improvement for weeks, a new study suggests.
More than 1 in 10 adults in the U.S. use these drugs, which adjust the availability of a chemical transmitter in the brain, serotonin, by blocking the way it is reabsorbed. The so-called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs, include Prozac, Lexapro, Celexa, Effexor, Paxil and Zoloft.
Study: Antidepressants rapidly alter brain architecture
-NO AUTHOR-
Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:27:06 GMT
U.N.: Wrongly mixed vaccine kills 15 infants
(CNN) — A crying mother cradles and moves her dead baby to the floor, yelling out, “My child, my child.” Outside, another woman shakes and gestures in a fit of absolute grief as she piercingly screams, “Pray to God and his prophet sister.”
Both women had brought their children to a clinic in a rebel-held part of northwestern Syria, hoping to help save their lives. Instead, at least 15 children — all under the age of 2 — died after receiving measles vaccinations through a U.N.-sponsored program.
As many as 50 other children got sick after what a U.N. report described as a “bungled immunization.”
U.N.: Wrongly mixed vaccine kills 15 infants
-NO AUTHOR-
Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:23:13 GMT
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)