On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:07:11 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I thought you had retired. How do we know this is really you and not one of
our many notorious and creative trolls? (-" Maybe you're a Russian spook
working for Putin as in Kurt (V)ladimir Putin!!!!!???

They do seem to be working their way west. It is only a matter of time.

It's said that what stopped Hitler in WWII was Russia's most powerful
General, ??????? ???? (General Winter). We have two such Generals named
General Atlantic and General Pacific and they've served us very well in the
past. We're at lower risk by far, just the way we're at much lower risk
from an Iranian atomic attack. The oceans buy us a LOT of security.

--
Bobby G.

We're only at lower risk from the Iranians until they extend the range
of their medium range missiles. Which, historically, won't be very
long.

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 6:31:06 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message
On 11/14/15 4:58 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Good point. It is, indeed me. I finally had a couple days off and
could sit down and figure our Thunderbird. I missed you guys so much.

We'll of course need your birth certificate . . .

as the other, but the two Generals aren't as formidable as they
used to be, at least in this context, because of General Electric (at
least the division that makes airliner engines). When all you need to
do is shuffle people (and only a few of those) around, that makes
getting over oceans less of a problem. Especially when most of the
goodies to do what you want to do are available at local Wall Marts or
Lowes or Home Depot.

They sell AK-47's at Lowes?? (-" Oh, you mean the PC bomb. Still, to do
serious damage, they have to get a LOT of people with weapons in one place.

It seems that when too many are involved there are leaks so there may be
self-enforcing size limitations on terrorist cells. So General Electric,
while capable of delivering a big sting, really can't deliver a
game-changing blow unless we allow it.

Maybe it's just me but when it's obvious their goal is to terrorize us, the
last thing we should do is show fear. It's how I was taught to handle
aggressive dogs (standing with your arms crossed) and I'll bet it works with
terrorist dogs, too.

The reality is that France loses far more citizens whenever an Airbus falls
out of the sky. No one tries moving heaven and earth to prevent the next
crash either, even when they know the cause.

That's pure BS. Following every air accident in the developed countries
there is a huge effort to find the cause, figure out what happened
and then take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening again.
That can include everything from changing crew training, changing
maintenance, ordering inspections or replacing faulty parts.



But we DO move heaven and
earth when far fewer people are killed by suicidal terrorist bogeymen.

Typical lib, minimize the seriousness of what's happening. NExt
you'll be telling us it was about a movie.


That's wrong because that's giving them precisely the reaction they want.


Yeah, better to just ignore it and pretend they are JV.




How much is the military operation France is contemplating going to cost? A
hell of a lot more than the cost of the AK's and the ammo that are prodding
them into an extreme reaction. A perfect example of asymmetrical warfare
where the bad guys can leverage their attack costs at incredible rates.


How much does it cost to conduct a murder investigation, then lock up
a prisoner for life? Following that logic, we should just ignore murders
and similar crimes too, they aren't that bad. And how much will it cost
to deal with the 1+ mil refugees flooding Europe? How much is all the
increased security costing us, while we allow ISIS to flourish in
countries? How much will the final war cost when it's totally out of control?


I can't help but wonder if our drone campaigns really have been working to
protect us because most of the terrorist leaders are afraid to pop up out of
their gopher holes in broad daylight. The drone program manages to kill at
least a few operatives and most importantly, to do it quietly without the
enemy having even a remote chance to deliver a counter-blow.


How well did it protect the passengers on that Russian jet or the dead
in Paris?



Still, I'm perfectly willing to wait until they find the accomplices and
financial backers, try them and hang them.

Typical lib. Treat a war with muslim terrorists like a criminal matter.



Expanding the war in Syria just
invites more jihadis to converge on Syria from all over the world.


Good, then we can kill them all in one place.



It may be that they struck France because they think they've already
succeeded in driving us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows what goes on
in the tortured brains of terrorist psychotics?


Russia, France..... You can't figure what's very likely next?
See how treating it like a JV crime for the past few years plays after that.

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 6:31:06 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

They do seem to be working their way west. It is only a matter of time.

It's a long swim across the ocean and Allah ain't no Aquaman. He can't even
walk on water the way Jesus did.

--
Bobby G.

Typical lib nonsense. The 911 terrorists made it here. The ones that
just conducted the attacks in Paris likely have EU passports and can
easily enter here, unless we're lucky enough that they show up on some
watchlist, ie that we know about them ahead of time.

My prediction, you're going to see the US hit hard and soon.

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 8:24:33 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in news:5ZSdnXlEs9Wu6NvLnZ2dnUU7-
:

to see how Europe reacts to the refugees now.

There won't be any kind of meaningful reaction until the Europeans figure out that these aren't
refugees at all.

They're invaders.

Let's see. There is a G20 Economic Summit starting in Turkey. In a couple
weeks, all the heads of state are meeting in Paris about global warming. They have
these summits regularly. Where are the summits on dealing with muslim
terrorism? When there has been a crisis, be it in Bosnia or the Middle East,
presidents have appointed special envoys that shuttle around, seeking to
build a consensus, figure out a solution. Where is that process with regard
to muslim terrorists?

I see Hollande added terrorism to a discussion at a working dinner now at
the G20. So, Barack, what should we do about these terrorists? IDK,
pass the salt and bread please Francois, after all they are JV you know.

On 11/15/15 6:07 AM, Robert Green wrote:

They sell AK-47's at Lowes?? (-" Oh, you mean the PC bomb. Still, to do
serious damage, they have to get a LOT of people with weapons in one place.

Define "serious". 8 guys with weapons and what appears to be homemade
bombs certainly have come close. The same for the relatively few who
flew the planes on 9/11.


It seems that when too many are involved there are leaks so there may be
self-enforcing size limitations on terrorist cells. So General Electric,
while capable of delivering a big sting, really can't deliver a
game-changing blow unless we allow it.

But we have shown the propensity toward allowing it.


Maybe it's just me but when it's obvious their goal is to terrorize us, the
last thing we should do is show fear. It's how I was taught to handle
aggressive dogs (standing with your arms crossed) and I'll bet it works with
terrorist dogs, too.

Haven't seen any reason to think so, especially with those actually
doing the work. I have long thought that resources are better spent
disrupting the command than chasing the few teams around. But all
terrorism is local, so we spend money looking for the idiots (since
those by definition are the ones we will find) who might blow up a few
places around town and don't lethally disincentivise (neat new term
maybe I should try to trademark it) those who make it possible back home
(and especially the fat cats who finance it). Another missed
opportunity is to take out a couple fat billionaire Arabs who put up the
money. That might actually do as much good as taking out the command.


The reality is that France loses far more citizens whenever an Airbus falls
out of the sky. No one tries moving heaven and earth to prevent the next
crash either, even when they know the cause. But we DO move heaven and
earth when far fewer people are killed by suicidal terrorist bogeymen.
That's wrong because that's giving them precisely the reaction they want.

Of course they do. They investigate, make changes in maintenance,
crew training, structure as needed. Don't you ever watch air disasters
on Cable? As to the second part, I agree.


How much is the military operation France is contemplating going to cost? A
hell of a lot more than the cost of the AK's and the ammo that are prodding
them into an extreme reaction. A perfect example of asymmetrical warfare
where the bad guys can leverage their attack costs at incredible rates.

Which brings us back to the relative usefulness of the two Generals
we were discussing earlier.



I can't help but wonder if our drone campaigns really have been working to
protect us because most of the terrorist leaders are afraid to pop up out of
their gopher holes in broad daylight. The drone program manages to kill at
least a few operatives and most importantly, to do it quietly without the
enemy having even a remote chance to deliver a counter-blow.

Yep.


Still, I'm perfectly willing to wait until they find the accomplices and
financial backers, try them and hang them. Expanding the war in Syria just
invites more jihadis to converge on Syria from all over the world.

The other side of that, to bring Tom Clancy back into play, is that
the "brutal Darwinian process that is war" would assure the survivors
are good at what they do. We are essentially training the next
generation to go against us. Much of which would be negated by drones,
special forces and other more symetrical warfare. We are forgetting that
you fight like with like and you don't use artillery against airplanes.



I've always wondered what would happen if someone managed to blow up the big
black "thingy" at Mecca?

That would only serve to radicalize a whole bunch of people that
probably wouldn't have been otherwise.

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 9:25:59 AM UTC-5, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/...cks/index.html

CNN is reporting that one of the Paris terrorists came into Europe
with the flood of refugees in early October, via Greece.

trader_4 wrote in news:79ee47ca-8764-4d08-909a-435a40a829d4
@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 9:25:59 AM UTC-5, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/...cks/index.html

CNN is reporting that one of the Paris terrorists came into Europe
with the flood of refugees in early October, via Greece.
^^^^^^^
You misspelled "invaders".

On 11/15/2015 04:19 AM, Robert Green wrote:
I've heard talking heads proclaim we bought far too many toys and not enough
investigative horsepower after 9/11.

It's easy for the intelligence sector to state 'if we told you how good
we are, we'd have to kill you' but the well published successes often
read like the FBI recruited some low IQ dupe, gave him a script and a
phony bomb, and then arrested him. When the real bad things happen it's
'Duh, we didn't see that coming.'

So, maybe they thwart many heinous plots that we never even know about.
Or not.

On 11/15/2015 05:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
We're only at lower risk from the Iranians until they extend the range
of their medium range missiles. Which, historically, won't be very
long.

The Iranians have other fish to fry. Riyadh is a lot closer than Richmond.

On 11/15/2015 10:46 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
trader_4 wrote in news:79ee47ca-8764-4d08-909a-435a40a829d4
@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 9:25:59 AM UTC-5, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/...cks/index.html

CNN is reporting that one of the Paris terrorists came into Europe
with the flood of refugees in early October, via Greece.
^^^^^^^
You misspelled "invaders".


You mentioned that before and I never thought of it that way. I think
you are right.

"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message
...
On 11/15/15 6:07 AM, Robert Green wrote:

They sell AK-47's at Lowes?? (-" Oh, you mean the PC bomb. Still, to
do
serious damage, they have to get a LOT of people with weapons in one
place.

Define "serious". 8 guys with weapons and what appears to be homemade
bombs certainly have come close.

Serious is a military attack by a credible state actor who is capable of
inflicting more damage after the attack. A serious attack was Pearl Harbor
because it destroyed our Pacific fleet and was but the first in punishing
attacks from Japan that it took years of blood and treasure to repel.

The WTC was serious because the terrorists exploited several critical
loopholes in our own technology against us. The had no weapons, no way to
come back from the grave to strike again and no (visible) state to support
them. But we acted as if an army of terrorists were on the way and blew
through trillions of dollars.

This latest incident in France wounded their pride, killed a fair number
(129) of Frenchmen (66,000,000) but did relatively little economic damage -
so far. That's where we can depend on the government and the citizens of
France to go insane and spend perhaps 10,000 times the cost of the attack to
try to prevent the next one. It's a calculus Bin Laden described quite
thoroughly in the writings we seized from his compound.

The problem I see is that in this case France will expend billions to avenge
an attack where very little property was damaged and not a whole lot of
people were killed compared to real wars and not made up states of panic.
Responding that way to terrorists only encourages more terrorism. Spartans
wore red so that their enemies could not see their wounds. They were on to
something.

People wince (oddly enough those who understand financial consequences quite
well) but even though the WTC attack cost billions, it really did only minor
damage in terms of percentages of our GDP and the worth of the nation's real
estate.

In *real* wars, which nearly everyone conflates with this alleged war on
terror, attacks destroy significant industrial/service capacity,
infrastructure and people and in amounts that dwarf most terrorist attacks.
ISIS is trying to bait the West into all out war with provocative attacks
like this because they don't value human lives - neither their own or
others. We're flummoxed by this attitude the way we were by kamikaze
bombers. While I used to think the drone program was not a good idea, I
think there are a lot of people involved in this attack who aren't sleeping
very well with every buzzing bug in the air sounding like the drone that's
coming to kill them . . .

Generous estimates put the cost of the WTC attack in the $50B+ range which
includes 4.5B for the structure losses and payouts of $35B by various
insurers. Compare that to the kinds of damages other attacks have caused:

Terrorist attacks[edit]
See also: List of terrorist incidents and List of assassins
Estimate Name Political Ideology Country City Date
2,996 September 11 attacks Jihadism United States World Trade Center,
New York City, New York
The Pentagon, Arlington County, Virginia,
vicinity of Shanksville, Pennsylvania 2001
796 2007 Yazidi communities bombings Jihadism Iraq Kahtaniya and
Adnaniyah 2007
774 1990 massacre of Sri Lankan Police officers Tamil separatism Sri
Lanka Eastern Province, Sri Lanka 1990
449 May 2013 Iraq attacks Jihadism Iraq Across Iraq 2013
422 Cinema Rex fire Jihadism Iran Abadan, Iran 1978
400 Massacre of Trujillo Paramilitary groups Colombia Trujillo, Valle
del Cauca 1990
389 July 2013 Iraq attacks Jihadism Iraq Across Iraq 2013
336+ 2014 Gamboru Ngala attack Jihadism Nigeria Gamboru Ngala 2014
334 Beslan school hostage crisis Chechen separatism Russia Beslan 2004
329 Air India Flight 182 Sikh extremism Ireland Irish Atlantic
airspace 1985
307 1983 Beirut barracks bombing Jihadism Lebanon Beirut 1983
293 Russian apartment bombings Jihadism Russia Moscow 1999
270 Pan Am Flight 103 State-sponsored terrorism United Kingdom
Lockerbie, Scotland 1988
257 1993 Bombay bombings Jihadism India Mumbai 1993
252 2001 Angola train attack Separatism Angola 2001
238 MV Dara Unknown Southwest Asia Persian Gulf 1961
224 Kogalymavia Flight 9268 Jihadism (possibly) Egypt Sinai Peninsula
2015
224 1998 United States embassy bombings Jihadism Kenya,
Tanzania Nairobi,
Dar es Salaam 1998
222+ January 2012 Nigeria attacks Jihadism Nigeria Mubi, Yola, Gombi,
Maiduguri and Kano 2012
215 23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings Jihadism Iraq Sadr City 2006
209 2006 Mumbai train bombings Jihadism India Mumbai 2006
202 2002 Bali bombings Jihadism Indonesia Bali 2002
198 18 April 2007 Baghdad bombings Jihadism Iraq Baghdad 2007
191 2004 Madrid train bombings Jihadism Spain Madrid 2004
178+ 2004 Ashura bombings in Iraq Jihadism Iraq Kerbala and Baghdad
2004
175 2008 Mumbai attacks Jihadism India Mumbai 2008
171 UTA Flight 772 Jihadism Niger 1989
170 Moscow theater hostage crisis Chechen separatism Russia Moscow
2002
168 Kizlyar-Pervomayskoye hostage crisis Chechen separatism Russia
Kizlyar, Pervomayskoye, and Sovetskoye[disambiguation needed] 1996
168 Oklahoma City bombing Militia movement United States Oklahoma City
1995
155 October 2009 Baghdad bombings Jihadism Iraq Baghdad 2009
152 2007 Tal Afar bombings and massacre Jihadism Iraq Tal Afar 2007
150+ 2015 Baga massacre Jihadism Nigeria Baga 2015
150 St Nedelya Church assault Communism Bulgaria Sofia 1925
148 Gyaneshwari Express train derailment Unknown India 2010
147 2015 Garissa University College attack Jihadism Kenya Garissa 2015
147 Kattankudy mosque massacre Tamil separatism Sri Lanka Kattankudy,
Batticaloa District 1990
146 Anuradhapura massacre Tamil Separatism Sri Lanka Anuradhapura,
Anuradhapura District 1985
145 2014 Peshawar school attack Jihadism Pakistan Peshawar 2014
140 Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis Chechen separatism Russia
Budyonnovsk 1995
137 2015 Sana'a mosque bombings Jihadism Yemen Sana'a 2015
137 November 2015 Paris attacks Jihadism France Paris 2015
136 2007 Karachi bombing Jihadism Pakistan Karachi 2007
135 February 3, 2007 Baghdad market bombing Jihadism Iraq Baghdad 2007
133+ January 2011 Iraq suicide attacks Jihadism Iraq 2011
130 Rafiganj train disaster Unknown India Rafiganj 2002
128 Xiamen Airlines Flight 8301 Unknown China Guangzhou 1990
127 December 2009 Baghdad bombings Jihadism Iraq Baghdad 2009
127 2005 Al Hillah bombing Jihadism Iraq Al Hillah


Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_death_ toll

A better approach than France's all out declaration of war is to field
Special Ops teams and drones to find everyone who was in on the attack and
kill them quietly with no fanfare, no martyrs and no muss. And yes, without
legal protections normally afforded during war since this wasn't war but a
terrorist act against civilians. Doing it quietly denies the terrorists the
rewards of asymmetric warfare and solves the problem without drawing more
young jihadis from around the world to join in their "holy war." Which is
precisely what France will be doing - recruiting for jihadis - when they
crank out for an all-out assault on ISIS.

--
Bobby G.

On 11/15/2015 09:43 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/...cks/index.html

CNN is reporting that one of the Paris terrorists came into Europe
with the flood of refugees in early October, via Greece.

The latest I read is that they are not sure whether the Syrian passport
they found is even genuine -- and, if it is, whether it belonged to an
attacker or to a victim. The Egyptian passport they found earlier turned
out to have belonged to a victim.

Perce

"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

The reality is that France loses far more citizens whenever an Airbus
falls
out of the sky. No one tries moving heaven and earth to prevent the
next
crash either, even when they know the cause. But we DO move heaven and
earth when far fewer people are killed by suicidal terrorist bogeymen.
That's wrong because that's giving them precisely the reaction they
want.

Of course they do. They investigate, make changes in maintenance,
crew training, structure as needed. Don't you ever watch air disasters
on Cable? As to the second part, I agree.

Sure I watch those shows and it's precisely why I wrote what I did. Air
France, the French FAA and AirBus took their ever-loving sweet time
replacing pitot tubes that were known to freeze over and cause crashes. But
they're ready to go to war against *someone, somewhere* this week to avenge
these deaths from terrorists.

How much is the military operation France is contemplating going to
cost? A
hell of a lot more than the cost of the AK's and the ammo that are
prodding
them into an extreme reaction. A perfect example of asymmetrical
warfare
where the bad guys can leverage their attack costs at incredible rates.

Which brings us back to the relative usefulness of the two Generals
we were discussing earlier.

There's no doubt sea borders don't have the same porosity as land ones. We
are seriously vulnerable regarding containers, but we're improving. Still,
it will be interesting to trace the journey of the attackers and their
weapons to see what routes they took.

I can't help but wonder if our drone campaigns really have been working
to
protect us because most of the terrorist leaders are afraid to pop up
out of
their gopher holes in broad daylight. The drone program manages to kill
at
least a few operatives and most importantly, to do it quietly without
the
enemy having even a remote chance to deliver a counter-blow.

Yep.

I was also thinking that this set of assholes might still be fuming over "Je
Suis Charlie" and that's why they chose France. I suspect Westerners in
general can't quite fathom how and why they do get so worked up about what
they consider blasphemy.

Still, I'm perfectly willing to wait until they find the accomplices and
financial backers, try them and hang them. Expanding the war in Syria
just
invites more jihadis to converge on Syria from all over the world.

The other side of that, to bring Tom Clancy back into play, is that
the "brutal Darwinian process that is war" would assure the survivors
are good at what they do. We are essentially training the next
generation to go against us. Much of which would be negated by drones,
special forces and other more symetrical warfare. We are forgetting that
you fight like with like and you don't use artillery against airplanes.

Part of the problem is that it's hard to act sanely and stealthily behind
the scenes when the general public is clamoring for instant revenge.

Better a drone that in the last milliseconds of its lethal flight plays out
a message that says, "Samir, Allah has come for YOU!" Maybe even draw a
cartoon of Allah on the nosecone. (-:

I've always wondered what would happen if someone managed to blow up the
big
black "thingy" at Mecca?

That would only serve to radicalize a whole bunch of people that
probably wouldn't have been otherwise.

I wonder if it has any value as a deterrent, as in "control your radical
elements or we'll turn the black rock into dust.

--
Bobby G.

On 11/15/2015 8:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Typical lib nonsense. The 911 terrorists made it here. The ones that
just conducted the attacks in Paris likely have EU passports and can
easily enter here, unless we're lucky enough that they show up on some
watchlist, ie that we know about them ahead of time.

My prediction, you're going to see the US hit hard and soon.


Sadly, I concur. Wish it were not so.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:36:54 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:


The latest I read is that they are not sure whether the Syrian passport
they found is even genuine -- and, if it is, whether it belonged to an
attacker or to a victim. The Egyptian passport they found earlier turned
out to have belonged to a victim.

One bomber left a finger after his body exploded. Fingerprints are an
exact science. Forget the paperwork.

"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 11/15/2015 04:19 AM, Robert Green wrote:
I've heard talking heads proclaim we bought far too many toys and not
enough
investigative horsepower after 9/11.

It's easy for the intelligence sector to state 'if we told you how good
we are, we'd have to kill you' but the well published successes often
read like the FBI recruited some low IQ dupe, gave him a script and a
phony bomb, and then arrested him. When the real bad things happen it's
'Duh, we didn't see that coming.'

Yeah, I've often felt that way when they parade some dim-wits that couldn't
plan a picnic in front of the cameras as "seasoned and trained terrorists."
I *really* doubt some of these episodes when it turns out that the FBI or
someone like them had to provide the terrorists with fake explosives to
carry out their "heinous plots."

So, maybe they thwart many heinous plots that we never even know about.
Or not.

I'm voting for "or not" based on how poorly the West has fared dealing with
small groups of terrorists. WTC, Mumbai, the Spanish train bombings and
others come to mind as examples of conspiracies that went undetected.

Then there are even smaller conspiracies (like the Boston Bombing *******s)
that will probably be *always* undetectable just because of their small
size. In reality, the Paris attacks were a relatively low "killers to
killed" ratio. That nutbag in Norway killed how many people with one gun?
Eighty-five? Over half of what it took perhaps a dozen terrorists to do in
Paris. Thank God the w*g *******s couldn't even match the kill rate of one
Western psychotic on a rampage.

If we really wanted to spook these SOB's I'd circulate a news story that
proclaims we've examined the remains of the Paris killers and discovered the
"Jihad gene" and a way to infect all those who carry it with terminal
diarrhea. Hey, we're killing them from the sky like magic so they're
probably well-primed to believe we've found the Jihadi gene. Who knows,
there might even BE one.

The bottom line is that I believe if we exit the Sunni/Shia feud soon,
they'll happily go back to slaughtering each other in mass quantities like
they did in the Iran/Iraq war. For me it's win/win because it ends up with
far fewer homicidal idiots on both sides of the S/S divide and no US troops
have to give up their lives.

I am afraid that ISIS will eventually decide it wants to attack Israel and
that the countries currently under assault will be more than happy to see
ISIS leave and go elsewhere. They might even help ISIS do it.

--
Bobby G.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
trader_4 wrote in
news:79ee47ca-8764-4d08-909a-435a40a829d4
@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 9:25:59 AM UTC-5, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/...cks/index.html

CNN is reporting that one of the Paris terrorists came into Europe
with the flood of refugees in early October, via Greece.
^^^^^^^
You misspelled "invaders".

As a descendant of families that left Europe during WW1, Russia during the
pogroms and Italy when the Red Shirts reigned, I have to protest. I think
you're right to an extent - among the new refugees will certainly be at
least a few "sleepers" programmed for some horrible future event. For that
reason alone the refugees should be settled temporarily on some island and
NOT in Europe or America.

But history shows us that there are real refugees who want nothing more than
to get out of a place where they are likely to be killed.

We should resettle them *temporarily* to Greenland (it's getting warmer and
more hospitable to Middle Eastern people every day!), let ISIS build a nice,
new shiny caliphate in Syria with all the bells and whistles. Then, when
they've put the last golden dome atop a nice tall minaret we carpet bomb
them back to 700AD or so where they belong. Then we divvy up what's left
among the returning refugees. My hunch is that such a caliphate could never
be built because the w*gs will all kill each other trying to prove who's the
Grand Potentate.

I wouldn't mind seeing ISIS buildings collapsing over and over again like we
had to watch the WTC collapse. It would be a good object lesson for them.
I just hope when one of those minarets with a globular top falls, that the
central spike of dome gores someone just before it hits the ground.

A way to engage the faithful, non-violent Muslims (there have to be SOME)
might be to say: "When the next Islamic terror attack occurs, we'll turn the
Kaaba (aka the black cube
of Mecca) into a big black grease spot. Might **** off our alleged allies
the Saudis (it was Saudis who flew the planes into the WTC and Pentagon) but
guess what. With oil prices going south, we don't need them nearly as much
as we used to.

Or, if we really wanted to be sneaky, we could "false flag" the Saudis into
thinking it was Shias who attacked and destroyed the Kaaba. IIRC, the
cube's been attacked by rival and splinter Muslim sects on and off for 100
of years. Then the Sunnis and Shias would go back to their over 1,000 year
old feud with a vengeane and once again begin to kill each other off in
large numbers. Works for me.

--
Bobby G.

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:40:18 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message
...
On 11/15/15 6:07 AM, Robert Green wrote:

They sell AK-47's at Lowes?? (-" Oh, you mean the PC bomb. Still, to
do
serious damage, they have to get a LOT of people with weapons in one
place.

Define "serious". 8 guys with weapons and what appears to be homemade
bombs certainly have come close.

Serious is a military attack by a credible state actor who is capable of
inflicting more damage after the attack. A serious attack was Pearl Harbor
because it destroyed our Pacific fleet and was but the first in punishing
attacks from Japan that it took years of blood and treasure to repel.

The WTC was serious because the terrorists exploited several critical
loopholes in our own technology against us.

You just violated the definition that you just gave. 911 wasn't
committed by a credible state actor. Nor was Al Qaeda capable of
large scale warfare like Japan. Yet, you call it serious. It's
typical that you libs have fluid truth and definitions. You
just make it up as you go. And just
like they managed to pull 911 off, just like they just managed to
pull off downing of a Russian airliner, Paris, etc, it's clearly
possible that they could pull off another 911.



The had no weapons, no way to
come back from the grave to strike again and no (visible) state to support
them. But we acted as if an army of terrorists were on the way and blew
through trillions of dollars.


They have come back. Al Qaeda is still committing terrorist attacks,
and ISIS grew out of Al Qaeda. They are for all purposes, the same
evil.




This latest incident in France wounded their pride, killed a fair number
(129) of Frenchmen (66,000,000) but did relatively little economic damage -
so far. That's where we can depend on the government and the citizens of
France to go insane and spend perhaps 10,000 times the cost of the attack to
try to prevent the next one. It's a calculus Bin Laden described quite
thoroughly in the writings we seized from his compound.


It's the lib calculus. Just let terrorists kill Americans, kill the
French, Russians, rape little girls, behead people, burn them alive.
As long as it's just a few hundred French, a few hundred Americans
at a time, just ignore it, let it keep going. Ignore the corrosive
effect on world order, how it just encourages other enemies, how the
flood of 4 million refugees is destabilizing countries. Let them
take over the whole Mideast, just look the other way. Kind of like
what the deniers did with Hitler, it's not so bad, he's just rounding
up some Jews, how did that work out?



The problem I see is that in this case France will expend billions to avenge
an attack where very little property was damaged and not a whole lot of
people were killed compared to real wars and not made up states of panic.

The point is not to "avenge" it. The point is to defeat ISIS.



Responding that way to terrorists only encourages more terrorism.

Yes, let's just be pacifists and take some more for the team.



Spartans
wore red so that their enemies could not see their wounds. They were on to
something.

People wince (oddly enough those who understand financial consequences quite
well) but even though the WTC attack cost billions, it really did only minor
damage in terms of percentages of our GDP and the worth of the nation's real
estate.


Gee, I thought it was just some people, so no big deal. But clearly
you're willing to accept the huge economic damage too. What do you
think the cost to clean up nyc from a dirty bomb will be?




In *real* wars, which nearly everyone conflates with this alleged war on
terror,

There is no war on terror. Just ask Dear Leader. There is however a
real war against non-muslims.




A better approach than France's all out declaration of war is to field
Special Ops teams and drones to find everyone who was in on the attack and
kill them quietly with no fanfare, no martyrs and no muss.

Yeah, sure. We're going to do that in Syria, in the middle of a
civil war. The idiot Dear Leader hasn't even cut off their oil
revenue. That's right, they are still pumping $400 mil a year in
oil revenue. He should be impeached for that alone.

And for the record, there has been no French declaration of war.
Just some talk from Hollande. With no support from Dear Leader,
in a couple months, it will all be forgotten.




And yes, without
legal protections normally afforded during war since this wasn't war but a
terrorist act against civilians.

Unbelievable rubbish. You minimize the loss of life in Paris, in 911
but freely worry about the "legal protections"?



Doing it quietly denies the terrorists the
rewards of asymmetric warfare and solves the problem without drawing more
young jihadis from around the world to join in their "holy war." Which is
precisely what France will be doing - recruiting for jihadis - when they
crank out for an all-out assault on ISIS.

--
Bobby G.

How long did it take that approach to work with Bin Laden? We find
AL-Zawahiri yet?

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:44:15 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

The reality is that France loses far more citizens whenever an Airbus
falls
out of the sky. No one tries moving heaven and earth to prevent the
next
crash either, even when they know the cause. But we DO move heaven and
earth when far fewer people are killed by suicidal terrorist bogeymen.
That's wrong because that's giving them precisely the reaction they
want.

Of course they do. They investigate, make changes in maintenance,
crew training, structure as needed. Don't you ever watch air disasters
on Cable? As to the second part, I agree.

Sure I watch those shows and it's precisely why I wrote what I did. Air
France, the French FAA and AirBus took their ever-loving sweet time
replacing pitot tubes that were known to freeze over and cause crashes.

First, there were no prior crashes from pitot tubes on the Airbus 330.
There were *incidents* where they ice over, but none lead to an
accident. Second, the problem was identified and the
pitot tubes were in the process of being replaced. Yes, it didn't
come fast enough for the ill fated AirFrance flight, but it wasn't
the pitot tube that crashed the plane either, it was incompetent
pilots, mainly the co-pilot who pulled back on the stick the entire
time while the plane was stalled. And third, once again, they did
move heaven and earth to find the cause of that crash. It took $50mil
and 2 years of searching 12,000 ft water to recover the wreckage.
That's how we know what happened and even before that, all those
pitot tubes were quickly replaced once it became apparent that they
were involved.



But
they're ready to go to war against *someone, somewhere* this week to avenge
these deaths from terrorists.


It's not about avenging, it's about defeating and destroying ISIS.
And there is no "someone, somewhere". We know who did it and where they are.
You libs would have sent Bin Laden a cake. You'd send a cake to al Baghdadi
right now, wouldn't you?




How much is the military operation France is contemplating going to
cost? A
hell of a lot more than the cost of the AK's and the ammo that are
prodding
them into an extreme reaction. A perfect example of asymmetrical
warfare
where the bad guys can leverage their attack costs at incredible rates.

Which brings us back to the relative usefulness of the two Generals
we were discussing earlier.

There's no doubt sea borders don't have the same porosity as land ones.


911 would suggest they have more than enough porosity.



I was also thinking that this set of assholes might still be fuming over "Je
Suis Charlie" and that's why they chose France. I suspect Westerners in
general can't quite fathom how and why they do get so worked up about what
they consider blasphemy.


The tired old lib canard. It's all our fault. We should just be nicer to
them. Nicer to a crew that rapes little girls, cuts off the heads of
non-believers, sells sex slaves, and burns captives alive.


Still, I'm perfectly willing to wait until they find the accomplices and
financial backers, try them and hang them. Expanding the war in Syria
just
invites more jihadis to converge on Syria from all over the world.

The other side of that, to bring Tom Clancy back into play, is that
the "brutal Darwinian process that is war" would assure the survivors
are good at what they do. We are essentially training the next
generation to go against us. Much of which would be negated by drones,
special forces and other more symetrical warfare. We are forgetting that
you fight like with like and you don't use artillery against airplanes.

Part of the problem is that it's hard to act sanely and stealthily behind
the scenes when the general public is clamoring for instant revenge.


I see. Poor Dear Leader. He hasn't been able to deal with ISIS
because the general public is clamoring. That's a new one. Never
mind that there is no such clamoring from the general public. Any
new excuse will do. Why don't you start working on the excuse for
him when we have an ISIS attack here, which is almost surely coming?

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:40:46 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:

911 would suggest they have more than enough porosity.

In respect to all that died it is "9/11".

Oren posted for all of us...



On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:36:54 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:


The latest I read is that they are not sure whether the Syrian passport
they found is even genuine -- and, if it is, whether it belonged to an
attacker or to a victim. The Egyptian passport they found earlier turned
out to have belonged to a victim.

One bomber left a finger after his body exploded. Fingerprints are an
exact science. Forget the paperwork.

If it's possible to make a comparison. Remember they don't have databases
for some of these killers (at least that's what the gov't claims).

--
Tekkie

On 11/18/15 5:10 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Oren posted for all of us...



On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:36:54 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:


The latest I read is that they are not sure whether the Syrian passport
they found is even genuine -- and, if it is, whether it belonged to an
attacker or to a victim. The Egyptian passport they found earlier turned
out to have belonged to a victim.

One bomber left a finger after his body exploded. Fingerprints are an
exact science. Forget the paperwork.

If it's possible to make a comparison. Remember they don't have databases
for some of these killers (at least that's what the gov't claims).

That goes along with the passport as being a little too convenient.
Although they should be able to tell how it was separated. Many
countries are using biometrics such as fingerprints when entering the
country. Don't know right off if there was one available.