Replies

I remembered something that was nagging at me...
"The sweetest of which is bitter"

Zawahiri video Sept. 29th:

So I said they are two things
The sweetest of which is bitter.
But I will go to that
In which there is no shame
And enough for you are two things,
The best of which is captivity.
They say to me,
You've sold safety for death.
So, I said:
By God I have not suffered loss.
And will death abandon
Me for an hour
If captivity does not abandon me?
Death is loss, so choose that
Which preserves your memory
For a man has not dies as long
As his memory is preserved.

Bin Laden tape January 19, 2006

And after this experience, the solider is caught betweeen two fires. If he refuses to leave his military barracks for the patrols, he will be hit by the butcher of Vietnam's harsh punishments. While if goes out, he will be devoured by the duel of mines. So he is stuck between two things, the sweetest of which is bitter, which puts him under awful psychological pressure, fear, humiliation and coercion and his people don't care about him.

So the only solution he finds is to commit suicide, and this is what you have been hearing about. The suicide is a powerful letter to you, which he wrote with his life and blood as pain and regret gripped him.

Sweet and bitter - what does that conjur up?

Yep, cyanide - Almonds.

The almond is highly revered in some cultures.

The tree grows in Syria and Israel, and is referred to in the Bible under the name of "Shaked", meaning "hasten".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond#Sweet_and_bitter_almonds

Ohshizzle, also from wikipedia - I didn't know that the almond is from the peachtree family.
****
So, what does that all mean?
LOL, I haven't a clue.

It is good to look for more than one angle, more than one potential attack. Possibly two or more, and being caught between them, the "sweetest" of the two or more "will still be bitter".

Also, they are like a dog with a bone at times. They latch onto an idea for an attack and will not let go of it for years (which is why you've got to put the dirty dog down).

The 12 plane Bojinka plot didn't fly in early 1995, so they try again in the summer of 2006.

In 1993, they couldn't destabilize the supporting columns of one of the WTC towers with the explosion in the underground parking garage - - supposedly hitting the key columns needed to topple one tower onto another and bring them both down instantly (with possibly up to 50,000 dead).

So in 2001, they take the old Bojinka plot, make sure the planes are transcontinental flights fully loaded with fuel, so when they rammed them into the towers, the burning fuel would cook the steel and collapse the towers from above, instead of from below as they tried in 1993.

One of the reasons they failed in 1993 was that they didn't use enough explosives, but in a way, they also used too much.

Most people forget (or don't even know) that 1993 had a "backup" component in case the towers didn't fall - - the 1993 WTC bombing was also a crude chemical attack. If the towers didn't immediately fall like dominoes, they were supposed to fill with gas as in the Tokyo subway two years later.

But the explosives burnt off the gas in the van - - the *cyanide* gas.

We have to think multi-dimensionally with these individuals and their sponsors. With a major WMD attack, there will likely be more than one approach within the attack. They will likely see the chaos as an opportunity for follow-up.

If Bojinka was tried again this summer, and they came back at the WTC 8 years later, it stands to reason that they'll try a gas attack again. Just as they will one day go back to bio (like anthrax).

And if the "Dragonfire" stories of October/November 2001 were even close to reality, they will pursue that avenue of attack once again.

With them it is always "both-and", not "either-or".