Forums | MacLife

freakoutjackson · 2005-03-02 2:59 pm

Camp David wrote:
Ribtorus wrote:
Even a semantic issue like "insurgent" and "terrorist" carries great importance in the minds...
SEE! See here! The liberal left cannot bear to call terrorists by their rightful name! As I said, the American left - liberals in general - really ARE rooting for the terrorists. They can't bear to believe - in their minds - that terrorists are bad! In the minds of the left, case in point Howard Dean, "evil" is equated to republicans, while terrorists are merely "insurgents"!

I think his point is that "insurgent" is code for pissed off iRaqi....something you righty-tighties won't admit to the existence of.

jax · 2005-03-02 3:08 pm

Furthermore, people like Hannity, Coulter, O'Reily, President Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Limbaugh, etc. have also used the word insurgent. Does this mean they too are anti-americans? I suppose so. Either we're all Americans with differing opinions or we're all anti-americans. So, which is it Camp?

ShnickyShnack · 2005-03-02 3:28 pm

I personally don't think Syria is on the radar screen. Sure, the neocons would love a "land bridge" between Iraq and Israel, but to Joe Schmoe, the name only rings a vague bell. Saddam was a much more effective malefactor.

The only way a Syrian operation could happen is if it's planned to have Iraq's Sunni minority split off and joined with a pro-Washington Syria, but that's getting right bloody conspiratorial.

Also, Syria isn't overflowing with oil ...

Really, the question is whether the neocons in Warshington are able to concede ideology to reality. Even with a low-intensity war in Iraq, the credit card is fully maxed out.

Ribtorus · 2005-03-02 3:40 pm

Well, If Syria can be politically isolated from Iran, then it's ripe for intervention from the friendly Lebanese and Israeli armed forces alongside the U.S., and maybe even France. Oh yes, I do believe France would go along with a plan to wrest Syria from the Allawites. France has an opportunity to get back into the game, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts they would accept a major role "putting right" their own unfinished business in Syria.

Plus, I think much of the Syrian army can be "turned" with promises of money and amnesty, just like large units of the Iraqi armed forces were in 2002-2003. If such operations aren't happening now, they will be soon.

Of course, I see Syria in the context of Greater Pipelinestan, and I just don't see how the neo-cons would even consider allowing the present Syrian government to remain in place with all the work that's been done so far. And I don't see France putting up with being frozen out of their traditional stomping grounds just now, when the deals are being struck.

more or less · 2005-03-02 5:01 pm

the correct answer is "sabre ratttling".

and "next" is just about anyone starting with theocracies that don't at least have "free markets."

more or less · 2005-03-02 5:09 pm

Camp David wrote:
Ribtorus wrote:
So what's going to be big in 2005 for the right wingers to latch on to?
How about FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY Ribtorus?

A Few Notes From All Over:

[edited neocon ponderings]

FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY, hows that for 2005!

Camp David

it looks like campy and i sorta agree. that's probably not good. wink

oatmeal · 2005-03-02 5:53 pm

Someone is trolling.

Forums | MacLife

#26 2005-03-02 2:59 pm

Re: What's next for the war propaganda machine?

Camp David wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

#27 2005-03-02 3:08 pm

Re: What's next for the war propaganda machine?

#28 2005-03-02 3:28 pm

Re: What's next for the war propaganda machine?

#29 2005-03-02 3:40 pm

Re: What's next for the war propaganda machine?

#30 2005-03-02 5:01 pm

Re: What's next for the war propaganda machine?

#31 2005-03-02 5:09 pm

Re: What's next for the war propaganda machine?

Camp David wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

#32 2005-03-02 5:53 pm

Re: What's next for the war propaganda machine?

Board footer