More London bombs (21st July)

Nonskimmer · 08-13-2005, 09:23 AM

I'm not usually one for nation bashing, but there's something about the French. You all see it. The British have almost always hated them as PD points out, Americans dislike them for their apparent complete lack of gratitude for the help in WWII, and I can tell you that Canadians dislike them for mostly the same reason. Canadian troops didn't play nearly as much of a part in the liberation of France as the US did. We were largely up in Belgium and the Netherlands after Normandy, but the fact is...we fought, they didn't. This hoopla about the famous French Resistance is a bit overdone in the history books in my opinion.

The fact that de Gaulle himself insisted on leading the victory march through Paris after US troops had fought so hard to get there was enough to turn any stomach. He was seen as the liberator, after he'd basically spent the war to that point in the safety of Ireland and the UK.

Canadians, and not just the anglophones, see them as ignorant, arrogant, obnoxious, and just plain sh*tty. Sorry but we do, and anyone who tells you different has either never met any, doesn't know what a Frenchman even is, or is just lying through his/her teeth.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-13-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SM79Sparviero

Quote:

Dunkirk was a masterful withdrawal. With out it the British too would have been lost.

British troops could be completely defeated in Dunkirk but Hitler decided to save them from the final knock-out because he was still hoping to get a separate honourable peace with British Empire, whose force and prestige and fleet he feared.
He would have liked an alliance with them more than with Italians, considered an unreliable people ( and he was not completely wrong).
Hitler justified himself with the enraged generals of Wermarcht by explaining that tanks and armored divisions "could be stick in the mud of the swamps in the northern France"

I believe that is what I said in my post, just in few words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SM79Sparviero

About the bombs in London:
Tribute to the innocent victims and solidarity with a wonderful City where I spent the by far best summer of my life.

But none wonders why the terrorists had a timer for the bomb?

If I am a "shaid al said" ("lucky martyr") or a "shaid-al-mugattil" (" martyr killed in combat")-"Kamikaze" had completely different motivations-exactly on the same model as suicide terrorist in Israel or Iraq, why should I use a timer for my bomb?And, if I am a young mind-washed traditionalist Muslim why don't I shave all my body , don't I wear a white dress under my clothes, and why don't I cry "Allah Akhbar before the death?

I frankly dont give a damn why they did it and I dont care why they did it. They are cowards and all of them deserve a cowards death.

SM79Sparviero · 08-13-2005, 09:45 AM

Quote:

They are cowards and all of them deserve a cowards death.

Right.An adequate punishment for THEM an for the criminals who sent them.
They are still unknown, but the search should not overlook any source.Not only Al-qaeda or Muslims.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-13-2005, 09:47 AM

Agreed.

evangilder · 08-13-2005, 09:57 AM

I have a more modern reason for my dislike of the french. Aside from the previous items, I was on the communications support team for Operation El Dorado Canyon. To those who don't know what that was, it was also called the Libya raid. Our F-111Fs took off from Lakenheath with tanker support and Raven support from RAF Upper Heyford, who also had F-111Es involved.

Anyway, instead of over-flying France for this operation, we were denied airspace access. Our poor pilots had to fly all the way around the area and come in through the Med. This added a great deal of flight time to our crews. One of our aircraft that was damaged in the raid was denied landing rights and fortunately made it to Spain for an emergency landing.

Denying overflight for the raid was one thing, but to deny landing rights to a crew that is in trouble is what sent me through the roof. THAT was inexcusable and to me, unforgivable.

Nonskimmer · 08-13-2005, 10:06 AM

Didn't France supply Libya with a lot of their aircraft and missile systems?

evangilder · 08-13-2005, 10:10 AM

Yep. But that kind of thing happens. Some third world ****-hole needs weapons, someone will sell them weapons. I think the French were selling those before we reached the flashpoint. If memory serves me correctly, I think the Libyans had the Exocet missile, which posed a threat to our fleet at the time.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-13-2005, 10:10 AM

France supplies everyone. When I was in Iraq we found missles built by the French and sold to the Iraqi's that were dated 2000 and 2001. If I am wrong please let me know but wasn't there a UN Sanctions against Iraq after 1991. If I am wrong please let me know, but what the hell were the French selling them weapons for.

Nonskimmer · 08-13-2005, 10:11 AM

That was more my point, Adler. They'll supply just about anyone regardless of that nations intentions, even if those intentions are fairly well known.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-13-2005, 10:12 AM

Because they are back stabbing arrogent pricks. I do not like them at all.

evangilder · 08-13-2005, 10:17 AM

Yes, there was sanction against weapons at that time. They also found banned items sold to them by Russia and China. The oil for food program was a joke. The UN is nothing more than an impotent organization that is rampant with corruption.

If it was up to me, I would kick that whole UN mess out of the US and let them find someplace else to put those crooks.

P38 Pilot · 08-13-2005, 10:34 AM

Evanglider you are absolutly correct! The UN hates America and friends of the US. That Food for Oil program was jsut a big scam!

P38 Pilot · 08-13-2005, 10:41 AM

I mean Oil for food!

evangilder · 08-13-2005, 11:29 AM

Yep, more like oil for palaces and illicit weapons. The corruption goes all the way up to Kofi Annan.

trackend · 08-13-2005, 03:40 PM

The concept of the united nations is a good one but it has ended up with an equality of nations that is ruled by the lowest common denominator
and there are some very dubious and indeed corrupt influences within its corridors. the quality of its various "peace keepers " ranges from very good too bloody useless and as bad as those that they are meant to be protecting the people from. there is far too much talk and not enough muscle to back it up, by the time the various resoulutions have been discussed and agreed upon the conflict is all over and thousands have died.