thinksquad:

peaking with Anderson Cooper on Monday, the spokesman for Steven Sotloff’s family said that the journalist, who was beheaded by Islamic State fighters last week, was believed to have been sold to the group by Syrian rebels for as much as $50,000.
In the interview, a very outspoken Barak Barfi cited “sources on the ground” for the new revelations about Sotloff’s kidnapping.
We believe that these so-called moderate rebels that people want our administration to support, one of them sold him probably for something between $25,000 and $50,000 to ISIS, and that was the reason he was captured.”
Update 4:50 p.m.: White House spokesperson Josh Earnest disputed the claim, “Based on the information that has been provided to me, I don’t believe that is accurate.” Barfi has not yet again commented on the matter.
http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/steven-sotloff-was-reportedly-sold-to-isil-for-several-thousand-dollars/379847/

thinksquad:

peaking with Anderson Cooper on Monday, the spokesman for Steven Sotloff’s family said that the journalist, who was beheaded by Islamic State fighters last week, was believed to have been sold to the group by Syrian rebels for as much as $50,000.

In the interview, a very outspoken Barak Barfi cited “sources on the ground” for the new revelations about Sotloff’s kidnapping.

We believe that these so-called moderate rebels that people want our administration to support, one of them sold him probably for something between $25,000 and $50,000 to ISIS, and that was the reason he was captured.”

Update 4:50 p.m.: White House spokesperson Josh Earnest disputed the claim, “Based on the information that has been provided to me, I don’t believe that is accurate.” Barfi has not yet again commented on the matter.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/steven-sotloff-was-reportedly-sold-to-isil-for-several-thousand-dollars/379847/

fursasaida:

priceofliberty:


However, the administration is still trying to draw a distinction between this new “war” and the previous war the U.S. waged in Iraq, which included putting American troops on the ground in Iraq for combat operations.
"The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.
"The president has been clear that American ground combat troops would not be deployed into Iraq and Syria," Earnest said. "The president has indicated how serious he is about building a true international coalition where you will have governments in the region and our allies around the world contributing to this broader effort to deny ISIL a safe haven in Iraq and Syria."

The U.S. government lies about most things, so we can assume that “troops would not be deployed” actually means troops will eventually be deployed.

I think there’s something interesting about "The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe." Something about how no one can ever describe this war; we just point at something like it, which is also incredibly amorphous and undefined, and that is enough. Signifiers referring to signifiers that ultimately reach back to nothing. What the hell does "The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe" actually mean?

fursasaida:

priceofliberty:

However, the administration is still trying to draw a distinction between this new “war” and the previous war the U.S. waged in Iraq, which included putting American troops on the ground in Iraq for combat operations.

"The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.

"The president has been clear that American ground combat troops would not be deployed into Iraq and Syria," Earnest said. "The president has indicated how serious he is about building a true international coalition where you will have governments in the region and our allies around the world contributing to this broader effort to deny ISIL a safe haven in Iraq and Syria."

The U.S. government lies about most things, so we can assume that “troops would not be deployed” actually means troops will eventually be deployed.

I think there’s something interesting about "The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe." Something about how no one can ever describe this war; we just point at something like it, which is also incredibly amorphous and undefined, and that is enough. Signifiers referring to signifiers that ultimately reach back to nothing. What the hell does "The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe" actually mean?

(via priceofliberty)

  • obama: *forces himself into the public eye and does "hip" things to make gullible teens like him*
  • tumblr: you don't have to like his policies but you have to admit he's cool
  • obama: *kills people*