Curiouser and curiouser? Or dumb and dumber?
Enjoy this contingent image -
You see, it's not necessarily true, but not necessarily false...
**
**"Overseas 'Contingency' Operation."
It's an interesting choice of words.
According to Wikipedia:
In philosophy and logic, 'contingency' is the status of propositions that are not necessarily true or necessarily false.
In philosophy and logic, 'contingency' is the status of propositions that are not necessarily true or necessarily false.
(aka: liberalspeak)
**
Obama Renames the War on Terror
I saw this last night, and I'm surprised there's not more of a stir about it. The war on terror is from this day forward to be referred to as an "Overseas Contingency Operation." It's an interesting choice of words.
I saw this last night, and I'm surprised there's not more of a stir about it. The war on terror is from this day forward to be referred to as an "Overseas Contingency Operation." It's an interesting choice of words.
According to Wikipedia:
In philosophy and logic, contingency is the status of propositions that are not necessarily true or necessarily false.
It's an appropriate definition. Take the "alleged" terrorists now being detained at Guantanamo Bay. According to this administration, they are no longer enemy combatants. Does that mean they aren't terrorists? Well, they may be -- it's not necessarily true that they represent a threat to the United States, but it's not necessarily false either.
Is the security and stability of Iraq vital to U.S. interests in the Middle East? Well, it's not necessarily true that the Obama administration is withdrawing all U.S. forces from the country, but it's not necessarily false that all "combat forces" will leave by the end of next year.
Is the Obama administration committed to victory in Afghanistan? Well, it's not necessarily true that the goal is victory, per se, but a "hard-earned peace" that denies al Qaeda a sanctuary there. On the other hand, it's not necessarily false that the objective has changed, and while Obama recently sent 17,000 additional troops to the fight, no one is quite sure what their objective is.
One could go on. Rendition? Not necessarily true that they've ended the practice, not necessarily false that they consider it a violation of the due process rights of terrorists. Talking with Iran? Not necessarily true that they plan on talking to A'jad, not necessarily false that they will talk to the "leaders" of the regime. And the press has let them get away with this since the earlies days of the campaign. The strike force? Who would've thought that the Obama campaign would have been able to conjure up something like that and assume office without ever explaining what the hell it means.
Somebody once said, "words matter." I think it was Deval Patrick.
Posted by Michael Goldfarb
In philosophy and logic, contingency is the status of propositions that are not necessarily true or necessarily false.
It's an appropriate definition. Take the "alleged" terrorists now being detained at Guantanamo Bay. According to this administration, they are no longer enemy combatants. Does that mean they aren't terrorists? Well, they may be -- it's not necessarily true that they represent a threat to the United States, but it's not necessarily false either.
Is the security and stability of Iraq vital to U.S. interests in the Middle East? Well, it's not necessarily true that the Obama administration is withdrawing all U.S. forces from the country, but it's not necessarily false that all "combat forces" will leave by the end of next year.
Is the Obama administration committed to victory in Afghanistan? Well, it's not necessarily true that the goal is victory, per se, but a "hard-earned peace" that denies al Qaeda a sanctuary there. On the other hand, it's not necessarily false that the objective has changed, and while Obama recently sent 17,000 additional troops to the fight, no one is quite sure what their objective is.
One could go on. Rendition? Not necessarily true that they've ended the practice, not necessarily false that they consider it a violation of the due process rights of terrorists. Talking with Iran? Not necessarily true that they plan on talking to A'jad, not necessarily false that they will talk to the "leaders" of the regime. And the press has let them get away with this since the earlies days of the campaign. The strike force? Who would've thought that the Obama campaign would have been able to conjure up something like that and assume office without ever explaining what the hell it means.
Somebody once said, "words matter." I think it was Deval Patrick.
Posted by Michael Goldfarb
**
jillosophy asks: WHY DON'T WE JUST ASK THE JIHADI'S WHAT THEY PREFER TO CALL THEIR WAR?
THEY CALL IT RELIGIOUS. DIVINELY INSPIRED. THEY CALL IT GOD'S WILL. THEY CALL IT GLOBAL JIHAD. THEY CALL IT JUSTICE.
WHY CAN'T WE?
I'LL JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS:
WWIII.
posted by jillosophy at 3/24/2009 04:49:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home