Terrorist to hit around election!!!

[calf]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 24 2004, 10:10 PM
Come on you guys. Can't stand it now that someone comes in and tells it like it is? Anyone could find this site, hell i was looking for a politic site and i found my way here. I knew this was going to happen from his first post and have been expecting it. Typical liberals, suddenly scared when someone tells em like it is.

Wow, I asked a curious question about the guy, and suddenly people wondering the same thing are scared liberals, afriad of people telling it like it is?

Odd

[Displaced Flames fan]

Yep Calf....and me too. I don't think I've ever been accused of being a liberal before!

[Cowperson]

Daily I see people that put more faith in things happening the way they see it in a movie than the way real life actually functions.

Daily, we see that around here too.

Welcome to Calgarypuck Bill.

Cowperson

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 24 2004, 09:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 24 2004, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 04:17 AM

Dis you know good and well they'll be disagreeing with Bill come high hell. Its coming close to election time and people are kinda sensitive right now, thats why i replyed to what FA said.

FA didn't say anything that warranted your reply. In fact, I was thinking the same thing he was....and it wasn't a knock against Bill at all...it's just a reflection of how far this little community has come from what it was 7 years ago when I first started talking to the old timers here.

Your post was pure antagonism....and unprovoked antagonism. [/b][/quote]
So is attracting people here good or bad then? And if its good then why are people asking questions? You could have asked me the same question.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 24 2004, 09:23 PM
Yep Calf....and me too. I don't think I've ever been accused of being a liberal before!

Dis i never accused you. And coming from them what the hell should i make of their comments. And calf's post before he edited was that this was a Calgary Flames board and why is Bill posting the things he is.

And knowing liberals they can't stand it when someone shows them how it really is, and thats what happened here. Lanny can downplay everything i say, so why not let Bill have a crack at someone.

[calf]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 24 2004, 10:24 PM
So is attracting people here good or bad then? And if its good then why are people asking questions? You could have asked me the same question.

Asking questions = good
Since it's good, we're asking questions because it's a good thing to do

We asked Bill the question because naturally, we were curious about how someone that's worked as a US fighter pilot and has connections to the Secret Service wound up posting on a Flames fan site.

I guess you didn't make as big a splash as Bill did when you first arrived, sjwalter

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by calf+Oct 24 2004, 09:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calf @ Oct 24 2004, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 24 2004, 10:24 PM
So is attracting people here good or bad then?# And if its good then why are people asking questions?# You could have asked me the same question.

Asking questions = good
Since it's good, we're asking questions because it's a good thing to do

We asked Bill the question because naturally, we were curious about how someone that's worked as a US fighter pilot and has connections to the Secret Service wound up posting on a Flames fan site.

I guess you didn't make as big a splash as Bill did when you first arrived, sjwalter [/b][/quote]
I'm not picking a fight here or anything but are you accusing him of something? He's BTDT and is correcting everyone on the view they were given till now. Be glad that he is telling you like it is.

How does Lanny find his way here, he seems to be knowlegable in some areas as well. Or is he?

-----------------------------

Guess i never Calf, probably because i'm not experianced in the area's Bill is eh? Thats my plan one day though.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 04:24 AM

So is attracting people here good or bad then? And if its good then why are people asking questions? You could have asked me the same question.

Uh, it's good...and I don't think anyone was saying it wasn't.

The point is that most of us came here originally because we are Flames fans. This was just another forum where we could discuss other things non-Flames related.

This forum has grown and it looks like we are now attracting people who may have no interest in the Calgary Flames whatsoever. It's interesting and I don't think any of us were saying anything more than that.

In fact, I will now join Flames Addicition in welcoming Bill. I enjoyed reading his posts and look forward to more.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 04:31 AM

I'm not picking a fight here or anything but are you accusing him of something? He's BTDT and is correcting everyone on the view they were given till now. Be glad that he is telling you like it is.

How does Lanny find his way here, he seems to be knowlegable in some areas as well. Or is he?

-----------------------------

Guess i never Calf, probably because i'm not experianced in the area's Bill is eh? Thats my plan one day though.

I didn't see anyone accusing him of anything. It was curiosity.

Lanny is from Calgary and a Flames fan....he's been around as long as I have. 7+ years.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 24 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 24 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 04:24 AM

So is attracting people here good or bad then? And if its good then why are people asking questions? You could have asked me the same question.

Uh, it's good...and I don't think anyone was saying it wasn't.

The point is that most of us came here originally because we are Flames fans. This was just another forum where we could discuss other things non-Flames related.

This forum has grown and it looks like we are now attracting people who may have no interest in the Calgary Flames whatsoever. It's interesting and I don't think any of us were saying anything more than that.

In fact, I will now join Flames Addicition in welcoming Bill. I enjoyed reading his posts and look forward to more. [/b][/quote]
Thanks Dis, thats all i was looking for, a welcome for him. We need more people with views for my side and yours if you allow me to say that around here to even things out because right now its more then 90% for the democrat viewpoint.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 04:34 AM

Thanks Dis, thats all i was looking for, a welcome for him. We need more people with views for my side and yours if you allow me to say that around here to even things out because right now its more then 90% for the democrat viewpoint.

Flames Addicition, firmly on the left and the target of your first attack was the first person to welcome him here. You missed that I guess.

[calf]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 24 2004, 10:31 PM
I'm not picking a fight here or anything but are you accusing him of something? He's BTDT and is correcting everyone on the view they were given till now. Be glad that he is telling you like it is.

Not accusing him of anything. Just naturally curious, and that's all.

I'm certainly glad he's calling it as he sees it. It's very much welcomed and refreshing to read new perspectives.


I will also join Dis and FA in welcoming BillW - I don't get involved in these threads (I'd get hacked to bits), but look forward to reading you more.

[sjwalter]

Alright Calf then i have to apologize to you, because you were the target of my attack.

It just turns me off with what you said, especially with me expecting it from someone and all.

And i'll join you in welcoming Bill.

[BillW]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 23 2004, 09:44 PM
I've got a question: Why is the Bush/Cheney pair seen as such an obvious "stronger" pair in regards to fighting terrorism? It's always mentioned on the US news, they run ads (with wolves now) portraying themselves as really tough, the polls show Bush ahead on the issue, it's seen as a "strength" for them. Why?

Is it because "liberal" is such a dirty word? Is there some sort of conception that they've had fabulous success fighting wars over the past three years?

On a related note, I don't think I'll ever understand how Kerry gets painted as an anti-war wimp when Bush and Cheney were so obviously anti-war as well.

Fundamentally the approach Kerry has outlined (as far as anyone knows) is to revert back to the Clinton, Reno, and Richard Clark model regarding terrorism. Kerry has repeatedly stated that he thinks the war on terror should be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue.

The flaw in that thinking is obvious to anyone that thinks about the primary tool used by law enforcement, which is punishment. Law enforcement works as a deterrent against crime because of the threat of punishment if the perpetrator is caught. The simple fact that more people are arrested after they commit a crime than before they have committed a crime is proof, and why crimes of passion are so difficult to prevent. Even the FBI is limited in preventing crimes and is considered the worlds best crime investigation unit – after the fact. The only major law enforcement type organization in the US that operates strictly on preventing a crime before it can happen is the Presidential and Executive Detail of the Secret Service. The Secret Service also deals with the most criminals that are not deterred by the prospect of getting caught such as Oswald or Hinckley.

Where this law enforcement model falls apart in the war on terror is that most terrorists go into their action intending to die anyway. How can you use a punishment deterrent model against a dead perpetrator? Incarcerate his remains after the fact? Common criminals worry about getting caught and plan accordingly, but terrorists plan on getting caught.

This is why the military model is so necessary at this time when you need to round up the suspects before they can plan and commit an act of terrorism. I had to laugh when Kerry stated that he would round up the terrorists around the world if he was President, but he never suggests how he would do that. President Bush and the UN gave the Taliban many opportunities for them to offer up OBL and the other al Qaeda members known to be in Afghanistan and they refused to cooperate in any way. Saddam has been harboring the 1993 bomber of the WTC for many years and refused to assist the US or the UN in apprehending him or even limiting his involvement in other terror activities. Maybe someone who watched one too many Tom Clancy movies might think that we could just send some covert operation into Afghanistan or Iraq and arrest the bad guys out from under Omar or Saddam’s nose, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.

Even worse than Kerry’s boneheaded ex-prosecutor perspective on terror is that he would let a country like France unilaterally alter what he knows needs to be done. This despite the fact that he understood that France had a huge vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo no matter what the consequences to the US or the UN’s respectability.

Everyone is anti-war, but there comes a time when war is the only road to peace. Too many on the left today equate lack of war to the same thing as peace and that is far from the truth. No one, including Kerry and the UN, could claim that the people of Iraq or Afghanistan were living peacefully even though they were not formally at war before the liberation. The key is making that decision when war is necessary to bring about peace. In 1971, I was shocked when Kerry told the US Congress that a withdrawal from Vietnam would result in a maximum loss of life or liberty to 5,000 South Vietnamese citizens. He was wrong then by a factor of close to 200 with over one million innocent citizens dieing at the hands of the communists, 500,000 being incarcerated, and several million fleeing as refuges. He has yet to admit his mistake then and he is even more mistaken today about the human suffering that would occur under his current plans – whatever they may be this week.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by BillW@Oct 25 2004, 03:05 AM
The above delays in response to an unanticipated scenario in multiple bureaucracies is why there is no way NORAD could have responded any faster unless they would have gone out and shot down 100 innocent aircraft. NORAD was not notified sooner because there was no hijack or emergency code transmitted prior to the aircrafts transponders being turned off, and the individual controllers involved had no way of knowing that any given aircraft was anything other than a transponder, radio, or electrical system failure and the aircraft were turning, as they should have, to the nearest place of landing and repair.

To pull a Cowperson here...

So let me get this straight? You're saying that all commercial flights in the US do NOT have a transponder and this is not required by the FAA? You're also saying that NORAD (not no radio) does not track every single piece of traffic in the air and does not have a series of protocols that they follow in regards to loss of transponder signals and norad situations? (Wow, I guess those F-16's that escorted Payne Stewart's jet to where it crashed were just fighter jocks looking for an autograph?) I just want you to clear these points up so I know where you're coming from. What you say does not jive with the information available nor standard procedures that happen daily. Care to elaborate on those?

[BillW]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 24 2004, 09:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 24 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I specifically said “to resecure either of the routes back to the airport and the perimeter of the school.” Anytime the President is going to be at a location more than 30 minutes they do not keep the motorcade route locked down for the entire time. The locals would go nuts if traffic were tied up that long, so they move the President and then resecure the route when it’s time to leave. The same holds true for the perimeter of the secured building he’s in which is the only area to maintain top security during his stay. The Secret Service will typically have multiple exit routes planned, but in a case like this they will not announce to the supporting agencies which one will be used until the last possible moment to prevent a possible ambush along a route known in advance.

The President has taken the “heat” for a number of reasons, the least of which being that the explanation has been covered in several sources, but the mainstream media has not wished to cover those. The President also understands that he can not make a direct statement to what happened because it would be interpreted by his opposition and the media of him whining about the Secret Service much like Kerry does all the time – especially when he curses them on the ski slops. The President also keeps his mouth shut out of respect for the men who have volunteered to die for him if need be and the heat they would come under if he accused them of being a delay. Considering the mass exodus of experienced Executive Detail Secret Service that occurred under President Clinton for the way he and his family treated them, President Bush learned very well how to work with them from the way his mother demanded everyone traveling with his father respect the job they have to do.

If the Secret Service needed to evacuate the President in 5 minutes, they can do it at anytime, but they first must feel the threat in the current location is worse than the threat in an unscheduled movement. Since the FAA, NORAD, and NSC had been talking for less than 2 minutes at the time they had nothing but speculation to offer him and they needed some kind of facts and proposed plans to present to him and they actually didn’t have that until about 15 minutes later.

I would prefer to have a President that acted on facts than feelings. We have a saying in fighter aircraft that you never react to a situation, you assess and then respond. As a former and very competent combat fighter pilot, President Bush understands that if he would have stopped immediately he would have been reacting, and then he would have sat around waiting for enough facts to respond to.

You specifically said a lot of things, such as they needed to re-secure " the perimeter of the school". In your latest reply you did say "the perimeter of the secured building he’s in which is the only area to maintain top security during his stay" so now I'm a little confused. Did they need to resecure the building, or was it already secured because he was still in it?

Much like you are a member of the inner circle, I am part of the President's opposition, and I promise you, if he said "I had to sit there and read that donkey book because the Secret Service told me not to move because they had to re-clear the mudroom and the soccer field" then I wouldn't attack him for it. I certainly wouldn't think he was whining about the Secret Service if he said it.

In other news, why didn't "The Ace of the Georgia Skies" ever take his great skills across the pond? Security issue? Cowardice? Drunkeness? [/b][/quote]
By perimeter I am referring to the egress points of the perimeter. Not what happens in the building but what happens within 500-1000 yards around the outside of the building in what could be considered reasonable sniper or bomber range.

The only inner circle I consider myself to be part of is the United States of America. I have no desire to divide Americans into Democrats, Republicans, left, or right, but to protect all Americans from those that which to destroy the freedoms and liberty we uniquely have in the world. Yes, I have found that to be a much more difficult job to accomplish under internationalist Presidents like Carter or Clinton, but we still find a way to do the best we can. Personally, I’m an optimist that prefers to look at how to make things better in the world rather than being in opposition to anything that I don’t have a better strategy or plan for.

I must say you find interesting ways to get the puck to the goal in your logic. Just as many people try to say that the lack of WMD stockpiles proves the war in Iraq was wrong despite the dozens of other reasons given, the fact that people latch on to one reason for the President’s delay on 9/11 and fail to look at the big picture and realize nothing happens alone anymore than one person can score a goal against an entire team. I just happened to throw out one of the factors the President was probably weighing at the time and did not refer to the fact, contrary to some myths, that there was no way the President had anything more than speculation at the time about the magnitude of the attack, who was responsible for the attack, or what resources he reasonably had available to deal with the problem.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

"Fundamentally the approach Kerry has outlined (as far as anyone knows) is to revert back to the Clinton, Reno, and Richard Clark model regarding terrorism. Kerry has repeatedly stated that he thinks the war on terror should be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue."

Interesting comment, but I'm not sure this is completely true. Kerry has been saying that he would like reshape the military to include more special forces units and allow these teams to deal with the terrorist threat. If what you suggest is true it is unlikely that Kerry would be talking about hunting down and killing terrorists. It seems to me that he is looking for a continued military involvment, but one that focuses on small reactive units rather than the large cumbersome engagements that Bush has used. Comment on why this strategy is wrong and why Bush's strategy of massive invasion is superior to rooting out a threat that does not know borders. Thanks.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 25 2004, 04:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 25 2004, 04:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Uh, it's good...and I don't think anyone was saying it wasn't.

The point is that most of us came here originally because we are Flames fans. This was just another forum where we could discuss other things non-Flames related.

This forum has grown and it looks like we are now attracting people who may have no interest in the Calgary Flames whatsoever. It's interesting and I don't think any of us were saying anything more than that.

In fact, I will now join Flames Addicition in welcoming Bill. I enjoyed reading his posts and look forward to more.

Thanks Dis, thats all i was looking for, a welcome for him. We need more people with views for my side and yours if you allow me to say that around here to even things out because right now its more then 90% for the democrat viewpoint. [/b][/quote]
90% democratic? Who else sees it this way? Not me, i feel outnumbered here about 4-6 or 7-3 or something in terms of left and right.
By the way sjwalter, telling us how it is? I thought he was telling us his opinion, or did his expansive, uncrossreferenceable and proveable statements convince you so easily? What if I were to breeze on here saying "hi, my name is Fred, I'm in the CIA and I'm telling you Kerry is better due to operating manual a-fb 1". Just cause someone writes it doesn't mean they're telling you how it is.
Bill I welcome you too, and wasn't trying to call you out or anything, but more trying to illustrate that sjwalter might want to think about things from different angles before deciding that one person knows how it is.
I'm awsome at doing that afterall....lol

[sjwalter]

Hey Lanny you accused me of backing Bush on his stance when the attacks happened, so why not elaborate on what Bill said what really goes on. You said that seven minutes that Bush sat there could have saved alot of lives and IMO you lied. Care to say anything, but don't expect me to believe it because most of what you say is BS anyway. IMO of course.

[Flame On]

Even worse than Kerry’s boneheaded ex-prosecutor perspective on terror is that he would let a country like France unilaterally alter what he knows needs to be done.
Boneheaded ex-prosecuter persective. I guess that's worse than failed business man; in the oil business in texas for hells sake when your father is the pres, perspective. Or how about the bumbling imbecile I didn't know I owned a lumber company perspective? You say he would let France do such a thing, I've heard it from his mouth that he would never allow anything like that. I'll believe Kerry over Bill the new board guy sorry.