911 Redefined

Emperor Obama, in skirting the restraints of the War Powers Resolution, sent a 38 page report to Congressional jackals defending his war of aggression against Libya. According to the NY Times, “the report asserted that ‘U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.’”

In other words, Obama does not consider the actions of bombing and killing by his armies (at least, for now, armies of the air) and fellow NATO hooligans as acts of war. If this new definition of war is accepted, can it not also be used to justify and excuse other similar actions?

The 911 attacks on the World Trade Center are constantly referred to by the US Government and its compliant media as an “act of war” and used as justification for the invasion, occupying, and even colonization of numerous Middle Eastern and African countries. But these “attacks” involved absolutely no “sustained fighting.” The attackers were immediately consumed in the fireballs they created. There was no one left to fight. Nor did these attacks involve “active exchange of fire with hostile forces.” You may remember that the entire US military was on stand down at the time of the attack and never lifted a finger in attempt to thwart the attacks. Not a single projectile was fired from a USG owned weapon, let alone any fire “exchanged.” And their certainly were no “ground troops” involved in the disaster.

So will 9/11 now be referred to as a “kinetic military action performed by terrorists?”

If bombing a country is not an act of war than miraculously flying jets into buildings and making them defy the laws of physics by collapsing into their own footprint cannot be identified as such an act, as well.

So if Obama or his cult following are to remain consistent in their Orwellian definition of war, they must reclassify the events that occurred on 9/11/01.

I’ll be patiently waiting for the change.