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

gatt wrote:


Anybody know any "How many Americans does it take to screw in a light bulb"
jokes? Let 'em fly.

-c
(Oregon)

Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Two, one to hold the giraffe, and the other to fill the bathtub with
brightly colored machine tools.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200802/1

WingFlaps wrote:
Did you know that your #1 enemy was a US sponsored "freedom
fighter" before he was cut off and left out to dry? That might have
made him realize something don't you think?

Cheers

Cut off? Really? We helped OBL when his war against the USSR. Had we
jumped in right after they left and tried to make Afghanistan into a US
client state, which no Afghan wanted us to do in the first place, the
USSR would have had to react.

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?

Dudley Henriques 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.


One thing I've always found interesting when someone puts out the "we
haven't been attacked since" card is that no one in the national media
to my knowledge anyway, has even come close to suggesting something so
basic to common sense that it defies explanation.

Anyone with half a strategic brain has to at least consider the fact
that the reason could very well be that they don't WANT to attack us
again...at least not yet.

They may simply lack the capability to do anything credible, so rather
than do something anemic, they don't try.

I believe Osama et al have been pretty clear on their motivation for the
9/11 attacks and I believe many people have not bothered to read their
alleged grievances because they are considered the rantings of "crazy
terrorists." For the record, here are the main points and what I think
can be concluded from them:

(From the "Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

"As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling
you to, and what do we want from you?
....
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
....
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies,
immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
....
(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with
yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a
nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles
to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which
you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your
support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and
to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in
Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We
desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force
us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders
in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of
education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis
of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual,
theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the
Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight
with the Islamic Nation.
...."

See that "get out of our lands," "leave us alone," and the desire for
respect buried in (5), (6), and (7)?

Now contrast those 7 conditions with their lack of attacks on anything
in South America, Australia, Japan, and a lot of other countries (which
would seem to fail to meet their conditions of (1) through (3)). So the
important "trigger" points seem to be buried in the last three: don't
mess with them and they don't mess with you. A good basis for thuggery,
to be sure, but the U.S. often deals with unpleasant countries by
adopting the "don't mess with us and we wont mess with you."

So in my very humble opinion, everything seems to suggest that
disengaging from the region will have no negative affects on our
security (except oil I suppose) and has a reasonable chance to improve
it, based on the motivations Al Qaeda appears to have exhibited.

Here are some maps showing pre and post Al Qaeda attacks around the
world:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...3&source=embed
(Corresponding article:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...qaeda_map.html )

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cksAlQaeda.png

On 28 Feb, 19:16, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
As unprepared as American was at that time, if the U.S. had been part
of Europe, Germany could have rolled over us as well. *Germany's use
of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every
other country on the planet at that time.

I don't think anyone makes fun of the French for surrendering to Hitler's
blitzkrieg. *The Wehrmacht rolled over everything in its path, until Hitler
decided that they should winter in the Soviet Union. * Bad move for them,
good for us.

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.


You're an idiot, Jay.


Bertie

On 28 Feb, 21:08, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Jay, your thinking illustrates why such problems exist. You need to
try to understand that these are passionate believers in their cause.
No more or less. The suicide bombers are not mentally handicapped and
their goal is to enact retribution against their enemy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/

If strapping explosives to kids with Down's Syndrome isn't sick, I don't
know what is.

Taking the left half of the bell curve and strapping them to Abrahms
tanks?


Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote:

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 :-)



I think you are giving them way too much credit.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

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 :-)



I think you are giving them way too much credit.

Could be. I'm only a "man in the street" with one opinion and I'm
certainly not in the loop where the factual data lies.
I'm afraid history will have to play itself out on this one.


--
Dudley Henriques

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

By any measure, this is known as "success" -- and even the most rabid
Bush-bashers have been forced to admit it.

You are delusional.

That's a possibility, but I don't see it that way. Your hypothesis suggests
that there is a master strategy on the part of the adversary. I think that
since 9/11 we have effectively neutralized OBL. We don't have his scalp,
but his C&C has been destroyed.

Did the attacks in Spain galvanize the people against Radislam? Did the 7/7
attacks unite the British people in support of Blair? Which countries in
Europe are truly helping us in the fight against Radislam?

I think they would have done as much to us as they possibly could. The
bipartisan agreement between the D's and R's after 9/11 lasted a few months.
What did they have to lose by attacking again? My thesis is that Radislam
views us as weak, cowardly and vulnerable. An attack -- any attack -- would
have supported their view.


One thing I've always found interesting when someone puts out the "we
haven't been attacked since" card is that no one in the national media to
my knowledge anyway, has even come close to suggesting something so basic
to common sense that it defies explanation.

Anyone with half a strategic brain has to at least consider the fact that
the reason could very well be that they don't WANT to attack us again...at
least not yet.