Are we at "war" with ISIS?
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.
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."
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.)Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.