Syria now: isn't this close to the scenario in Flash: WW2.5

in General Discussion edited January 2014
Syria: troops and armerments from their border

Well, is this the beginning of that worst case scenerio FLASH movie?

will this get worse?

is it merely Iraqis coming back to help out?

or are they the chemical weapons out from hiding?

by the way . . . is it still going better than we are told? . . . in less than two months temperatures will be daily in the hundreds


  • Reply 1 of 11
    You mean the one that was more racist than it was clever...aka the very racist one? (Groverat and Anders)

  • Reply 2 of 11
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    If you hate sand in your socks, take your phones off the hook, boys.

  • Reply 3 of 11
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    You mean this flash movie?

    Actually the first bad thing was Iraq launching a Scud with an athrax payload at Haifa, Israel. And then a Scud with a uranium payload hitting Tel Aviv. Then Israel nukes Baghdad. Then a rise in Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Then Pro-Al Qaeda rition in Egypt. Then a Hamas revolt in the West Bank and Hezbollah active in Lebanon. Iranian clerics then declare martial law. Then Taliban attacks on US bases in Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands protest in Pakistan (has that happened? I don't know off the top of my head). Then Kurds moving south to attack (I think this has happened, and perhaps we even encouraged it).

    Still not seeing Syria.

    So to answer pfflam's question:


    Well, is this the beginning of that worst case scenerio FLASH movie?

    No, not it's not.

    Towards the very end we get Rumsfeld saying "Syria is looking nasty." and later they are in a list of countries "at war" with us.

    Hardly a prophetic vision. You're such a palooka.
  • Reply 4 of 11
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    A palooka

    well, yeah . . . I watched it again

    anyway, in that movie they were Hezbollah, and that is just who we think these people might be

    or, they could be the weapons coming out from hiding . . . hiding from inspectors . . . I wouldn't say that's not possible . . .
  • Reply 5 of 11
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,079member
    A little over the top, no?
  • Reply 6 of 11
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member

  • Reply 7 of 11
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    It seems that the knee jerks here-abouts are forgetting that it was they themselves that suggested that the WMD wouuld not be found in Iraq because they were actually in hiding in Syria

    I guess you can't even entertain a thought of your own when it comes from a "Liberal . .
  • Reply 8 of 11
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Who said that, pfflam, be specific now.
  • Reply 9 of 11
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member

    Originally posted by groverat

    Who said that, pfflam, be specific now.

    I believe that wasw Scott or SDW himself. or maybe Finboy

    but it was one of the wagon riders in the context of: 'well even if those inspectors don't find anything its cause etc etc . . "
  • Reply 10 of 11
    Please, don't base this all on a Flash cartoon. Reality should be much more promising...

    Ok, outragious scenario...half of our military are going to be in the Middle East soon...then North Korea fires a nuclear missile into L.A....hilarity insues...
  • Reply 11 of 11
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Yeah, that'd be a ****ing riot.

    Hiding your shame out in the open, eh?
Sign In or Register to comment.