...And The U.S. Arrogance And Incompetence Are Now Nauseating
Incredible (empasis added):
U.S. troops in helicopters flew four miles into Syrian territory over the weekend to target the leader of a network that channels foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq, killing or wounding him and shooting dead several armed men, U.S. officials said Monday.I've always thought that "warnings" were meant to be verbal or written notices given beforehand - i.e. "cease and desist or consequences will ensue".
(...) But officials said the raid Sunday, apparently the first acknowledged instance of U.S. ground forces operating in Syria, was intended to send a warning to the Syrian government. "You have to clean up the global threat that is in your back yard, and if you won't do that, we are left with no choice but to take these matters into our hands," said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the cross-border strike.
Let's verify, then:
Main Entry: warn·ingLooks like the Bush administration is so incompetent, it doesn't even have a firm grasp of the English language ...
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr-niŋ\
Function: noun
1: the act of warning : the state of being warned
2: something that warns or serves to warn ; especially : a notice or bulletin that alerts the public to an imminent hazard (as a tornado, thunderstorm, or flood)
Or
Function: adjective
Date:1511
: serving as an alarm, signal, summons, or admonition (a warning bell) (a warning shot)
And:
Main Entry: warn
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯrn\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English warnian; akin to Old High German warnōn to take heed, Old English wær careful, aware — more at wary
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
a: to give notice to beforehand especially of danger or evil
b: to give admonishing advice to : counsel
c: to call to one's attention : inform: to order to go or stay away —often used with offintransitive verb: to give a warning
I reiterate: rogue nation, anyone?






















I guess the US warned the Syrians without bothering to warn them!
ReplyDeleteNotice that these explanations of the attack are always by anonymous officials and also the supposed facts according to the US even though nothing is verified. The mainstream media duly reports all this helping out the US psychological warfare. The White House has officially said nothing.
Meanwhile the IAEA has found no evidence of any nuclear facility at the site razed in Israeli bombing.
The US attack has been condemned by Lebanon. Do we hear anything from Harper? Not too likely....
Exactly. Not much commenting from the WH, except through "anonymous" sources - with (again) the MSM playing stenographer.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that neither McCain or Obama have commented upon this - in fact, I expected McCain to exploit this in order to resume fears about them "evul Ay-rahbs" and thus seek to boost his (sputtering) campaign ... maybe he'll get to this sometimes this week.
And of course - Harper remains quite silent ... what else can he do? He can't openly cheer and he certainly won't condemn his Idol Commander Guy, eh?
(sigh)