The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Elevated Terrorist Threats???

  1. #21
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom View Post
    Here is the deal RK, when the "chatter" increases the threat level increases. It doesn't mean the sky is falling, it means that the idiots are making more noise than usual.
    A warning under those circumstances just tells people to be a little more cautious.
    Good idea in my book!

    Why in the hell does everything have to have some sort political spin!!!!!!!
    Tom,
    Do you think there is a greater amount of activity today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago?

    Weren't we told diplomacy would lessen the terrorists desire to kill us?

    If so, what happened to increase it just before the elections?


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #22
    Senior Member tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ogden Utah
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Tom,
    Do you think there is a greater amount of activity today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago?

    Weren't we told diplomacy would lessen the terrorists desire to kill us?

    If so, what happened to increase it just before the elections?


    RK
    #1 again The chatter increased, so at that moment, YES

    #2 do you expect diplomacy to have an effect overnight? It takes time.

    #3 the damn chatter increased
    Do you somehow think that Obama, or a political party here in the US did that???
    Or just maybe it might have been the idiot terrorists that did that!!
    Maybe you should just be glad that someone was listening for the chatter!!!! And, no one was killed as a result!!!!!
    So yes, we are far better off than we were on 9/11
    Last edited by tom; 10-08-2010 at 02:03 PM.
    "there is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance --- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
    Herbert Spencer

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Tom,
    Do you think there is a greater amount of activity today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago?

    Weren't we told diplomacy would lessen the terrorists desire to kill us?

    If so, what happened to increase it just before the elections?


    RK
    Rk, There are no terrorist threats to the US that I am aware of, however, Europe has issued terrorist threat warnings to its citizens and from what I gather Obama has warned U.S. Citizens that are traveling abroad to heed the warnings.

    Obama is not running around like a chicken with his head cut off hollaring Terrorists, Terrorists like Bush did in his 2004 election campaign.

    The State Department issued a "travel alert" Sunday, cautioning American travelers of potential dangers in Europe after what U.S. officials said was an assessment of information that al-Qaeda appeared to be plotting attacks on cities there.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

    Britain raised its threat level for Germany and France to "high." The threat level for England had been raised earlier to "severe." Authorities in Europe have been warning for the past three weeks that the danger of a terrorist attack in Europe has been higher than usual, but they issued no specific information on what new intelligence has led them to ratchet up the alert level.

    Where does it say the U.S. raised its security level?

    I think you are paronoid in thinking everything Obama does is for political gain.

  4. #24
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    BS??
    This from the KING of BS??

    Read the above post!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    Oh, again, is this heightened alert status more warranted today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago??




    RK
    Yes.

    There are multiple times during the year when heightened alerts are appropriate in different sections of the world. Failure to take heed of one of those "warnings" was a direct factor contributing to 9/11.

    Our intelligence apparatus was revamped to make such alerts more likely to be given. However, this administration was criticized with some justification for failing to act more aggressively on warnings that might have prevented some attacks from going as far as they did.

    I am not interested in any administration inflating the threat artificially to deflect political pressure (as has been done by many Presidents, and done by Bush/Cheney more than most). I am even less interested in having an administration fail to act because it fears being accused of politics.

    One of the problems with preemptive action is that if you succeed, you will almost always be accused of over-reacting to the problem that precipitated the action to begin with. The swine flu was a bust. Was it a bust because it was never a threat or because the actions taken prevented the threat from materializing? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the latter was true, but for those with axes to grind, it is much more fun to attack everything done as hysteria. The good luck we experienced was that the immunities gained during some of the influenza epidemics of the 50'a appear to have helped reduce the severity of reactions to swine flu infections. But there was no way to know that in advance. It is because of this inevitable uncertainty that prevention programs are almost always underfunded. However, the price of non-vigilance will sometimes be disasters killing thousands.

    How much do you want our institutions to slack off? Shall we agree in advance that only Republicans can discuss terror during an election campaign?

  5. #25
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    Rk, There are no terrorist threats to the US that I am aware of, however, Europe has issued terrorist threat warnings to its citizens and from what I gather Obama has warned U.S. Citizens that are traveling abroad to heed the warnings.

    Obama is not running around like a chicken with his head cut off hollaring Terrorists, Terrorists like Bush did in his 2004 election campaign.

    The State Department issued a "travel alert" Sunday, cautioning American travelers of potential dangers in Europe after what U.S. officials said was an assessment of information that al-Qaeda appeared to be plotting attacks on cities there.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

    Britain raised its threat level for Germany and France to "high." The threat level for England had been raised earlier to "severe." Authorities in Europe have been warning for the past three weeks that the danger of a terrorist attack in Europe has been higher than usual, but they issued no specific information on what new intelligence has led them to ratchet up the alert level.

    Where does it say the U.S. raised its security level?

    I think you are paronoid in thinking everything Obama does is for political gain.

    Roger,
    I don't know if I think that or not.
    I just read the article that posed the question, or actually I guess did make the accusation.

    It did create an interesting response.

    BTW--you might be right about the paranoia, or maybe you are a bit naive if you DON'T think everything he does is for political gain.



    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #26
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Yes.

    There are multiple times during the year when heightened alerts are appropriate in different sections of the world. Failure to take heed of one of those "warnings" was a direct factor contributing to 9/11.

    Our intelligence apparatus was revamped to make such alerts more likely to be given. However, this administration was criticized with some justification for failing to act more aggressively on warnings that might have prevented some attacks from going as far as they did.

    I am not interested in any administration inflating the threat artificially to deflect political pressure (as has been done by many Presidents, and done by Bush/Cheney more than most).
    (could you please prove that assertion??) I am even less interested in having an administration fail to act because it fears being accused of politics.

    One of the problems with preemptive action is that if you succeed, you will almost always be accused of over-reacting to the problem that precipitated the action to begin with. The swine flu was a bust. Was it a bust because it was never a threat or because the actions taken prevented the threat from materializing? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the latter was true, but for those with axes to grind, it is much more fun to attack everything done as hysteria. The good luck we experienced was that the immunities gained during some of the influenza epidemics of the 50'a appear to have helped reduce the severity of reactions to swine flu infections. But there was no way to know that in advance. It is because of this inevitable uncertainty that prevention programs are almost always underfunded. However, the price of non-vigilance will sometimes be disasters killing thousands.

    How much do you want our institutions to slack off? Shall we agree in advance that only Republicans can discuss terror during an election campaign?
    Now I want to tell you what I told Roger.

    I don't know for sure what I think about this.
    (very risky admission)
    I read it, found it bizarre to tell the truth.
    I posted it.

    The truth may well be somewhere in between, as it usually is.

    In regards to terrorist attacks, I personally would error on the side of caution.


    Nice post BTW


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
    Yes.

    There are multiple times during the year when heightened alerts are appropriate in different sections of the world. Failure to take heed of one of those "warnings" was a direct factor contributing to 9/11.

    Our intelligence apparatus was revamped to make such alerts more likely to be given. However, this administration was criticized with some justification for failing to act more aggressively on warnings that might have prevented some attacks from going as far as they did.

    I am not interested in any administration inflating the threat artificially to deflect political pressure (as has been done by many Presidents, and done by Bush/Cheney more than most).
    (could you please prove that assertion??)
    I am even less interested in having an administration fail to act because it fears being accused of politics.

    One of the problems with preemptive action is that if you succeed, you will almost always be accused of over-reacting to the problem that precipitated the action to begin with. The swine flu was a bust. Was it a bust because it was never a threat or because the actions taken prevented the threat from materializing? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the latter was true, but for those with axes to grind, it is much more fun to attack everything done as hysteria. The good luck we experienced was that the immunities gained during some of the influenza epidemics of the 50'a appear to have helped reduce the severity of reactions to swine flu infections. But there was no way to know that in advance. It is because of this inevitable uncertainty that prevention programs are almost always underfunded. However, the price of non-vigilance will sometimes be disasters killing thousands.

    How much do you want our institutions to slack off? Shall we agree in advance that only Republicans can discuss terror during an election campaign?


    Now I want to tell you what I told Roger.

    I don't know for sure what I think about this.
    (very risky admission)
    I read it, found it bizarre to tell the truth.
    I posted it.

    The truth may well be somewhere in between, as it usually is.

    In regards to terrorist attacks, I personally would error on the side of caution.


    Nice post BTW


    RK

    I can help you out there-----------------

    Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins

    By DAVID E. SANGER
    and DAVID M. HALBFINGER


    Published: September 8, 2004

    OLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 - Stepping up the battle over national security, Vice President Dick Cheney warned on Tuesday that the country would be at risk of a terror attack if it made "the wrong choice" in November, and President Bush accused Senator John Kerry of adopting the antiwar language of his Democratic primary rival Howard Dean.
    Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney delivered their accusations in separate appearances as Mr. Kerry, for the second day in a row, attacked Mr. Bush's "wrong choices." The Democratic contender said that of all of them "the most catastrophic choice is the mess that he has made in Iraq."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/po...bush.html?_r=1

  8. #28
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
    Yes.

    There are multiple times during the year when heightened alerts are appropriate in different sections of the world. Failure to take heed of one of those "warnings" was a direct factor contributing to 9/11.

    Our intelligence apparatus was revamped to make such alerts more likely to be given. However, this administration was criticized with some justification for failing to act more aggressively on warnings that might have prevented some attacks from going as far as they did.

    I am not interested in any administration inflating the threat artificially to deflect political pressure (as has been done by many Presidents, and done by Bush/Cheney more than most).
    (could you please prove that assertion??)
    I am even less interested in having an administration fail to act because it fears being accused of politics.

    One of the problems with preemptive action is that if you succeed, you will almost always be accused of over-reacting to the problem that precipitated the action to begin with. The swine flu was a bust. Was it a bust because it was never a threat or because the actions taken prevented the threat from materializing? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the latter was true, but for those with axes to grind, it is much more fun to attack everything done as hysteria. The good luck we experienced was that the immunities gained during some of the influenza epidemics of the 50'a appear to have helped reduce the severity of reactions to swine flu infections. But there was no way to know that in advance. It is because of this inevitable uncertainty that prevention programs are almost always underfunded. However, the price of non-vigilance will sometimes be disasters killing thousands.

    How much do you want our institutions to slack off? Shall we agree in advance that only Republicans can discuss terror during an election campaign?


    Now I want to tell you what I told Roger.

    I don't know for sure what I think about this.
    (very risky admission)
    I read it, found it bizarre to tell the truth.
    I posted it.

    The truth may well be somewhere in between, as it usually is.

    In regards to terrorist attacks, I personally would error on the side of caution.


    Nice post BTW


    RK

    I can help you out there-----------------

    Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins

    By DAVID E. SANGER
    and DAVID M. HALBFINGER


    Published: September 8, 2004

    OLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 - Stepping up the battle over national security, Vice President Dick Cheney warned on Tuesday that the country would be at risk of a terror attack if it made "the wrong choice" in November, and President Bush accused Senator John Kerry of adopting the antiwar language of his Democratic primary rival Howard Dean.
    Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney delivered their accusations in separate appearances as Mr. Kerry, for the second day in a row, attacked Mr. Bush's "wrong choices." The Democratic contender said that of all of them "the most catastrophic choice is the mess that he has made in Iraq."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/po...bush.html?_r=1
    Well, 2 things.

    #1--We will never know if he was correct.

    #2--That's one, so that can't be more than most.



    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Well, 2 things.

    #1--We will never know if he was correct.

    #2--That's one, so that can't be more than most.



    RK
    Here is another that Bush released a couple of days before the 2004 Presidental election. Of course he could not have waited until after the election could he?:

    The Bush administration said Friday it believes the videotape was authentic and had been made recently. Bush said Friday that
    "Americans will not be intimidated"
    by bin Laden.

    The U.S. was given a copy of the bin Laden tape several hours before it aired, so intelligence analysts have had time to study it, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. Emergency video conferences were set in motion all over Washington to assess what the tape meant and how the U.S. should react to it.

    The timing of the tape suggests bin Laden is trying to influence the U.S. election -- much as the Madrid train bombings last March apparently led to the defeat of Spain's pro-U.S. prime minister, Martin reports.


    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in652425.shtml
    Last edited by Roger Perry; 10-08-2010 at 02:47 PM.

  10. #30
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    Here is another that Bush released a couple of days before the election. Of course he could not have waited until after the election could he?:

    The Bush administration said Friday it believes the videotape was authentic and had been made recently. Bush said Friday that
    "Americans will not be intimidated"
    by bin Laden.

    The U.S. was given a copy of the bin Laden tape several hours before it aired, so intelligence analysts have had time to study it, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. Emergency video conferences were set in motion all over Washington to assess what the tape meant and how the U.S. should react to it.

    The timing of the tape suggests bin Laden is trying to influence the U.S. election -- much as the Madrid train bombings last March apparently led to the defeat of Spain's pro-U.S. prime minister, Martin reports.


    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in652425.shtml
    So when Bush did it, he was deliberately trying to sway the election.

    But when Obama does it, it is simply a coincidence that needs to be done.

    I see!!



    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •