I chose not to write a special essay on the anniversary of 9/11. What would be the point?
I've said everything I've cared to say over the past thirteen years - how one cannot fight terrorism and support it at the same time, how there are no "good" terrorists just because they currently serve one's agenda, how it's madness to appease jihadists in hopes of earning their gratitude, etc. etc. Go through the posts tagged 9/11 if you wish, and see for yourselves whether the questions I've posed are not just as relevant today as a year ago, or five, or ten.
And I stand by my contention that there was never any war on terror(ism): the grand crusade was all about power. Don't believe me? Listen to the Emperor's speech declaring war on ISIS.
Proving that the brevity of Twitter can be the soul of wit, someone named "Stalingrad & Poorski" summarized the speech thus:
Justin Raimondo rightly called the speech a "dreary peroration exuding a skunk-like aura of insincerity" and correctly identifies it as a back-door attempt to effect "regime change" in Syria. Make no mistake, that is what "assistance to the Syrian opposition" really means. By the by, the mythical "Syrian opposition" is basically an adjunct of ISIS!
Jan Oberg dubbed the speech a "record low in terms of moral and intellectual analysis," and dwelt on the last two minutes of "everything is fine" (continuing the theme of protesting too much): "A combination of unbearable self-praise, slight megalomania and denial of the changing U.S. role in our changing world."
It's like watching the coyote from the old cartoons, chasing the road-runner bird over a chasm. Once he realizes he's running on air - but not a moment sooner - he immediately plummets to the ground. It now appears as if the Imperial government has convinced itself that so long as it pays no attention to the chasm, the law of gravity does not apply.
Newsflash: it does.
I've said everything I've cared to say over the past thirteen years - how one cannot fight terrorism and support it at the same time, how there are no "good" terrorists just because they currently serve one's agenda, how it's madness to appease jihadists in hopes of earning their gratitude, etc. etc. Go through the posts tagged 9/11 if you wish, and see for yourselves whether the questions I've posed are not just as relevant today as a year ago, or five, or ten.
And I stand by my contention that there was never any war on terror(ism): the grand crusade was all about power. Don't believe me? Listen to the Emperor's speech declaring war on ISIS.
Proving that the brevity of Twitter can be the soul of wit, someone named "Stalingrad & Poorski" summarized the speech thus:
POTUS Summary:
We'll be bombing a sovereign nation (Syria)
We'll be arming terrorist groups while fighting them. #Ref
Economy is Great
— Stalingrad & Poorski (@Stalingrad_Poor) September 11, 2014
Justin Raimondo rightly called the speech a "dreary peroration exuding a skunk-like aura of insincerity" and correctly identifies it as a back-door attempt to effect "regime change" in Syria. Make no mistake, that is what "assistance to the Syrian opposition" really means. By the by, the mythical "Syrian opposition" is basically an adjunct of ISIS!
Jan Oberg dubbed the speech a "record low in terms of moral and intellectual analysis," and dwelt on the last two minutes of "everything is fine" (continuing the theme of protesting too much): "A combination of unbearable self-praise, slight megalomania and denial of the changing U.S. role in our changing world."
It's like watching the coyote from the old cartoons, chasing the road-runner bird over a chasm. Once he realizes he's running on air - but not a moment sooner - he immediately plummets to the ground. It now appears as if the Imperial government has convinced itself that so long as it pays no attention to the chasm, the law of gravity does not apply.
Newsflash: it does.
No comments:
Post a Comment