Way off topic, but it has do to with the French

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:10:04 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Jay Honeck"

Don't forget the plane that was brought down by the passengers. That one
was supposedly aimed at the Washington, possibly the White House.

I suppose that's questionable since the plane never made it.
But I think you missed my point.
If you were going to take out the WTC, the Pentagon, and Congress (or the
White House).
Which one would you hit FIRST?

UAL 93 took off 45 minutes late.

Recently, Dudley Henriques posted:

Jay Honeck wrote:

It's a plausible explanation, except for one thing: We're dealing
with people who strap explosives to mentally handicapped people and
blow up school buses. These aren't the sharpest sticks in the
bunch, and I think you're giving them more credit for strategic
thinking than they deserve.

Well....don't forget that the strategic thinking doesn't happen at the
suicide bomber level. That's a bit above their pay grade I would
imagine. The bombers are simply the "tools" of the movement. The
"thinking" comes much higher up, and these people are the chess
players.

I have always believed that 9-11 was devised by the chess players to
create the exact result it has achieved. I've never for a moment
believed that those buildings were brought down to destroy the
buildings or kill the people. That to me was simply the "tool"
designed to open the door that the "thinkers" believed would split
the United States wide open politically which it and the events post
9-11 certainly has done.

Now that the country has been split like it has, the scenario for the
"thinkers" has changed. Another attack would undue what they have
achieved and re-unite the country against them.
In other words, using the immortal phrases of one Kenny Rogers,
"You got to know when to hold up!!"

To me, the terrorist strategy is glaringly apparent. You first split
the country, then you let it destroy itself from within. You sit back
and watch. It's the old divide and conquer all over again, only this
time it smells of camel crap :-)

Well said, and the only thing that surprises me (somewhat) is how well
this tactic worked on us. One way that I see it is that some people saw a
way to profit from the situation, and did all they could to play into the
hands of those "strategic thinkers".

I don't think it's a coincidence that most of those 9/11 participants were
from a country that we consider an ally. Or that we've essentially
eliminated that country's competition in the region. Or that we've set up
and funded "private armies" that will have an existance far beyond our
formal military involvements in the region. Or that those same "patriots"
have managed to get us to pay them to "offshore" their existance, so they
really don't care how bad things get for the rest of us because life can
be quite comfy in may other places in the world. The only question that
remains is whether we are up to what it will take to change this course.

--
Neil

Flydive wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


Did we get all of them? No. But we did pretty well. And last time I
checked there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since.


And how many in the 30 previous years?

WTF?

How many times had Japan attacked us in the 30 years prior to 12/7/41?

"Phil J" wrote in message
...

Yeah, the collaboration is part of it. But I think the French had an
extra-embarrassing surrender because they had invested so much in
their "impregnable" Maginot line. When the Germans simply went around
it, it really made the French look like fools.


Why does that make the French look like fools? If the Germans had gone
THROUGH their "impregnable" Maginot line the French would surely have looked
like fools, but forcing the Germans to circumvent the line was one of the
reasons for building it. The French expected the Maginot Line to be
bypassed and had therefore massed the majority of their army on the Belgian
border. The Germans rolled over those troops rather easily. The few
Maginot fortifications which were actually attacked by the Germans held up
rather well.

Jay Honeck schrieb:

No, what makes the French the butt of so many jokes was their
collaboration with the Nazis after the surrender. The Vichy government
was an abomination.

Of course it never dawned upon you that the governement was not "the
French"? Ever heard of something like the Résistence?

"Flydive" wrote in message
...

And how many in the 30 previous years?


Well, let's see, there was the WTC bombing in 1993, the Empire State
Building shootings in 1997, hmmm, that's all I can recall. Do I win?

On Feb 29, 8:16*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Phil J" wrote in message

...



Yeah, the collaboration is part of it. *But I think the French had an
extra-embarrassing surrender because they had invested so much in
their "impregnable" Maginot line. *When the Germans simply went around
it, it really made the French look like fools.

Why does that make the French look like fools? *If the Germans had gone
THROUGH their "impregnable" Maginot line the French would surely have looked
like fools, but forcing the Germans to circumvent the line was one of the
reasons for building it. *The French expected the Maginot Line to be
bypassed and had therefore massed the majority of their army on the Belgian
border. *The Germans rolled over those troops rather easily. *The few
Maginot fortifications which were actually attacked by the Germans held up
rather well.

The purpose of the line was to prevent the Germans from invading
France, or at least hold them back long enough that the French could
mobilize their army to repel them. The line did succeed in forcing
the Germans to move some of their invasion force through Belgium. But
the French didn't believe the Germans could invade through the
Ardennes forest, so they left a gap in the Maginot line there. The
Germans sent a majority of their invasion force through that gap,
which allowed them to swing north and flank the French defenders
massed on the Belgian border. Because of this the Maginot line is
generally considered a failure, and leaving the Ardennes gap is
considered a huge blunder by the French. Obviously, this is all 2020
hindsight.

Phil

On Mar 1, 3:38 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Flydive" wrote in message

...



And how many in the 30 previous years?

Well, let's see, there was the WTC bombing in 1993, the Empire State
Building shootings in 1997, hmmm, that's all I can recall. Do I win?

There were the attacks on embassies and the hijackings

"george" wrote in message
...

There were the attacks on embassies and the hijackings


True dat. I limited my count to attacks on the US itself by groups of
Middle East origin.

wrote in message
...


NonFrance is mainly Paris and the Cote de Azur area. The NonFrench are
mostly obnoxious b*st*** who are only after your money. The good thing
about them is that they treat everybody like low life scum no matter
were you come from.

Ah, yeah. Out here we call that Dallas. *duck*