Please READ what I said, CAREFULLY
And read what you said, too. "snafu" Remember? Why do you put postings on this board if you are not in full agreement with the message you are presenting? I don't get it.
1) I did NOT say that I thought that the situation in Iraq was a civil war scenario. I said that it COULD be hypothesized as such, but probably not. I was thinking out loud, if you will, but I admitted that such thinking was a "stretch".
2)I know you did not say that this was another Vietnam. I did not say that you did. I said you are drawing a comparison between the REPORTING of this war and the reporting of the Vietnam war. I'm sick of your attempts at comparative history. Frankly, they are not very good, and they get us off onto hopelessly ridiculous tangents and I simply don't want to go there.
3) As for the rest, all I SAID was: there might be another way of looking at the choice of word use, here. "Insurgent" means something. "Terrorist" means something a little different.
YOU said (and I quote):"as far as I'm concerned this is just another example of how the media tries to legitimize one side under the guise of their self-proclaimed objectivity, when their true intentions are rooted in Leftist politics."
I was reacting to THAT. Now, what does the above statement imply but that you believe that the media does this selective choosing of words, ON PURPOSE?
Well, you know ...? Fine. If you want to now say that it was not your intent to imply that the media does this on purpose, then I'll buy that. IN that case, WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT. So ... why did you post this in the first place?
At the risk of being accused of attacking the messenger and not the message, I MUST ask: did something happen to you when you were little that I do not know about? Did someone drop you on your head? If not, where do you draw ALL these conclusions from what I wrote??? It's quite maddening.