For Keith Willshaw...

In which alternate reality

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

This kind of operations should be a thing of the past,but you can not prevent
the recurrence of such events by covering them up.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
In which alternate reality

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

This kind of operations should be a thing of the past,but you can not
prevent
the recurrence of such events by covering them up.


Relisting them does not equal proving them. but feel to relist them a few
more times.

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

Relisting them does not equal proving them. but feel to relist them a few
more times.

It establishes the existence of a pattern or govenment culture.

Its always easier to get an Arson suspect with prior Arson convictions
convicted than an Arson suspect without any prior convictions.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

Relisting them does not equal proving them. but feel to relist them a few
more times.

It establishes the existence of a pattern or govenment culture.

It does no such thing, note the dates - they are different govts, composed
of different people from markedly different backgrounds.



Its always easier to get an Arson suspect with prior Arson convictions
convicted than an Arson suspect without any prior convictions.


Except your "suspect" isn't the same person you loon.

Relist the dates again. you'll feel better.

It does no such thing, note the dates - they are different govts, composed
of different people from markedly different backgrounds.

You make me laugh,succesful operations set patterns.
Nobody wants to repeat failures but eveybody wants to use proven methods.(at
least till first failure),
Ourcome of 1861 operation was good,the ourcome of 1898 operation very good,the
outcome of 1941 operation was excellent.
So why not stick to proven methods

Except your "suspect" isn't the same person you loon.


Maybe not same "person" but definitely the same "entity"

In article ,
on 13 Jun 2004 04:27:50 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

It does no such thing, note the dates - they are different govts, composed
of different people from markedly different backgrounds.

You make me laugh,succesful operations set patterns.
Nobody wants to repeat failures but eveybody wants to use proven methods.(at
least till first failure),
Ourcome of 1861 operation was good,the ourcome of 1898 operation very good,the
outcome of 1941 operation was excellent.

What super secret organization spanned that time frame and conducted the
operations ?

So why not stick to proven methods

Why not try to lay out a coherent argument instead of ranting about some
grand conspiracy

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

What super secret organization spanned that time frame and conducted the
operations ?

Step by step:
Who lured confederates to attack Ft.Sumter? Check out the book I referred to.

Who destroyed USS Maine and made "Remember Maine" US Battle cry?

Who lured japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?
(and eliminated the evidences about Phone conversions prior to Pearl Harbor
attack berween Churchill and FDR about Pearl Harbor attack)

Who made 9/11 happen.

Also a small addition to above list,who were the Melody guys that created high
tech (well at least for 60s) equipment that created impression that USS Maddox
was under attack?

A hint for you none of them came from another planet.

In article ,
on 12 Jun 2004 05:51:59 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

In which alternate reality

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

This kind of operations should be a thing of the past,but you can not prevent
the recurrence of such events by covering them up.


You are making less and less sense.
Please try providing some proof, some ducumentation of what it is you are
trying to say.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.