Who's next?

[Carver]

Originally posted by August Borms


In Flanders, the communsit party works togheter with the muslim fundamnetalist s , so maybe i'll get stoned too for being a kafir kapitalist

Exactly what does your useage of "kafir" mean?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon


Shame - I thought it was a serious question. I'm not trolling or anything like that. The rumblings about Syria have made me wonder.

The way you present the thread, serious and non-troll like as it may be, is what will get it locked. You use harsh and sarcastic words, making the mods very angry. You look very much like a troll, even if you're not.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
I only posted it because Donald Rumsfeld has been making noises about Syria. I mean Donald Rumsfeld is always making noises, but they are rarely intelligible.

That's because Little Red Rummy-hood has the special talent of talking through all his orifices simultaneously.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Carver


Exactly what does your useage of "kafir" mean?

Kafir = infidel

It's not the same as "kaffir"

[RGBVideo]

Is Katar the next target?

Katar = Qatar?

[Promethus]

If Iran sends in irregulars as they have said, then they will go down. Israil is ready to take on Syria if nessary to prevent them from coming to Iran's aid.

[AnnC]

There's lots of evidence that the neo-fascists have set their sights on Syria (even though they haven't publicly admitted that yet). So it appears that Syria is next.

In the mean time North Korea will probably develop a nuclear bomb and sell it to the highest bidder, and the Bush administration will do nothing about it. Apparently, George Bush hasn't been "called by God" to deal with North Korea.

[The Mad Monk]

Re: Who's next?

Originally posted by Agathon
In the crypto-fascist imperialist war of conquest (or righteous war of liberation and nation building, depending on your view) that is planned by the hawkish members of the Bush administration, it is clear that all the "evildoers" must be punished.

So the question is: which country do you think is next to be flattened/liberated?


I reckon Syria. Obviously there are no WOMDs in Iraq, so they must have been moved to Syria. Those dastardly Syrians! They'll pay for their impertinence! And we know they're in league with Osama bin Laden. What do you mean, evidence? We know it, we don't need any evidence.... God told us.

Syria dosen't need WMDs to be targeted.

Hezbollah is enough.

[muxec]

I hape that it will be syria, but North Korea is more likely to be the next

[Harovan]

Switzerland!

They make a cheese there, that goes under the category "chemical weapon".

[Stefu]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wosyri103215060apr10,0,4184048.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

Looking like Syria's the next focus.

Of course, Syria's army hasn't been buggered by twelve years of sanctions. Hmm.

Still, it would take at least 5 years to get a proper demonization campaign going, and GWB might be gone by then.

[ThePlagueRat]

I don't think russian diplomats would appreciate an invasion into Syria. (A country in their diplomatic interest, thus a potential ally). However, Russia would be better off cooperating with OSCE-countries in Europe, and then what? USA will stand there all alone... If Washington would be so selfdestructive as to ruin the diplomatic relations with Moscow and Europe, the cold-war might start all over again, or a real hot one! So IMHO, these hawks in Washington really don't care much about international security and world peace.

[Spiffor]

None.

The attack on Iraq was thoroughly prepared, and the demonization campaign was decades old, even though it had to be warmed again a bit. It would be very difficult to justify an attack on Syria out of the blue, simply because US troops are nearby. The chickenhawks would need months, if not years, to convince the American people Assad is the new Hitler, and how much Syria is a rabid bloodthirsty and expansionist regime.
In the meantime, keeping the troops there would cost more and more billions.
I think the Bushies will keep the minimal amount of troops in Iraq, to police the country until the puppet regime has enough authority.
Once the bulk of the troops has left ME, we won't hear about Syria in a long time. Besides, Assad jr. is somehow reformist and knows to behave towards the US when he needs to, so he won't be as annoying for the US as Saddam.

[Bereta_Eder]

how can you say no?

Damascus

[SlowwHand]

Nice Thread Title.

Syria.
Though George Bush would rather it not be, Syria is going to get whacked next.

Oh, well. Their choice.