bin Laden Supporter: Peter Jennings of ABC

[Champane Flight]

Blame game.

The blame can also be put on Reagan for backing the training and arming of the Taliban in the 80s,they were trained by OUR people to take on and embarass a much larger foe"Russia". Now who is the foe?How about Bush and the Big Backdown of Desert storm,he didn't go in and take Sadam down like he should have. There were base closings in the Reagan years to,no body wants to hear about them. I can remember them trying to close a fort nearby.



We can play the blame game and continue to say we should have. But if you I TRIED TO BY-PASS THE CUSSING FILTER in one hand and should in the other which is going to fill faster?I don't give a darn what party you are,I may have to sit in a foxhole with you. And I don't want to talk politics. I want to concentrate on the job in front of us NOT behind.

 

[fest3er]

Re: Boss

Originally posted by Champane Flight

One sign of highjackers and push the button. Sleeping gas the whole plane except for the pilots. They land at the nearest airport and carry our sleepy headed highjackers off to wake up with some serious bruises on their heads.

Since modern planes can land themselves, why not install a panic button in the cockpit. One push and the plane heads to the nearest airport/airfield/airstrip that can handle the craft and lands. Once the button is pushed, the plane lands. All internal flight controls are disabled. I might concede that perhaps there might need to be a means to allow ground personnel to restore on-board control. But as long as the plane can land itself, it should land and shut down.



And as many passengers who so desire should be armed. If even 2% are armed, at least one of them should be close enough to a terrorist to be able to safely shoot him. (I don't know of many people who can miss a human-sized target at a range of 3-5 feet with a pistol. ) In this case, we brought it on ourselves when we further eroded citizens' right to keep and bear arms by prohibiting citizens from arming themselves on aircraft.



The social fascists are still gaining on us.



Fest3er

 

[David_VT]

They say El Al airlines have two doors to the cockpit.

Why not do one better and have three doors. .



First and second are the man trap and the third is operated by the pilots and is mounted in the floor of the man trap!

 

[tntway]

speechless

i'm trying to think up a good reply to the three door trap, but...



did see a clip once of an airbus trying to dothe take-off and landing thing by itself. result was a fireball something like what

we saw last week about 100 yards past the runway. 3 or 4 souls onboard DOA. sorry, don't trust a computer to get my sorry, fat a$$ on the ground.

 

[Archive]

My weekend with PJ..........

I just returned from a weekend of camping and the ONLY channel I could get any reception from was an ABC affiliate. This is NOT the network I trust to delivery any important news or information to me and I was reminded in just a few short minutes why.



Petey had Andrew Young and Warren Rudman on his infomercial, both of whom were boasting about a "Special Report" they had done for the government (read: tax fraud here) that warned we were unprepared for terrorism. Wow. That's impressive. I wonder how much those golden nuggets of information cost us all. Petey got a real high from smoozing and wallowing in the mutual admiration society with these two cretins. It made me ill.



(Petey never did find the time to ask Andy Young if he had participated in any fund raising events for the American Communist Party lately. )

 

[Lhotka]

Well said Champane Flight. I am always amazed at some of the responders here who conveniently forget such important points as yours.

 

[John Berger]

Re: Blame game.

Originally posted by Champane Flight

The blame can also be put on Reagan for backing the training and arming of the Taliban in the 80s,they were trained by OUR people to take on and embarass a much larger foe"Russia". Now who is the foe?

You cut to the chase quickly and efficiently, and despite your intent, you validate my point of view. By the way, you forgot to mention the Iran/Iraq war! I'll go one further: World War II. The Nuremburg trials were a sham, from some legal points of view. Legal minds that know far more than I do about the law. The trial served a much larger objective: The world needed to know that such monsters were eradicated from this earth. However, the trial only focused on the leaders of Germany. There were many German scientists who were brought to this country by our government so we could understand and study the results of their work in the concentration camps. War is indeed ugly and the means of executing a war to a successful conclusion often involve tactics, personnel and ideology that may be objectionable during saner times of reasoning. My point about looking back is that we can't prevent repeating the mistakes of the past if we ignore the fact that they happened because it is expedient in the present to do so. It may be comfortable and offer one shelter from having to face things they would rather forget, but it is akin to sticking one's head into the proverbial sand and saying have a go.

 

[Cobra]

Peter Jennings

Peter Jennings is not even a us citizen. He is here working on a green card. Anyway, I never watch Jennings or abc. FOX news is much better.

 

[Lhotka]

Originally posted by John Berger



Our intelligence community has been gutted by every president since Jimmy Carter, with Ronald Reagan being the lone exception. Clinton just happened to be the last of the lot and his response to these terrorists was selfish in nature, i. e. ; it kept Monica Lewinsky's testimony off of the front page.



John Berger,



I believe your real intent of your above statement and point of view is to trash a specific political party and their affiliates. Set aside your prejudices and look at the big picture. Open your mind. What about Reagan funding and training terrorists in the 1980s? That probably had a bit more to do with last weeks incident then did Monica Lewinski!!!

 

[John Berger]

Lhotka, re-read all of my posts and I think you will see that I have already answered your charges. As for my so-called prejudices, I would admonish you to be careful of what you say, as you don't know the first thing about me, which could result in you being called a flame throwing liberal



If I have to explain my position to you in any more detail, you probably will never understand the point I'm trying to make anyway, therefore it would be useless to try.

 

[Lhotka]

John Berger your every and subsequent responses only reaffirms my observations. Name calling or classifying one as liberal or conservative based on a few points of view certainly exhibits a lack of objectivity. I am not offended or frightened by being labeled as either. I have been accused of being both.

 

[John Berger]

You initiated the name calling...

by insinuating that I hold prejudicial inclinations towards people you obviously support. If you are not ashamed of being called a liberal, then good for you. Honestly, you would be the first one I have ever encountered that didn't get their testicles (or ovaries) all wound up over being called liberal. My image of Bill Clinton is as follows: shallow, self-serving, vindictive and extremely selfish. If that makes me prejudiced in your view, then so be it. If you go back and re-read all of my posts, and then look at your responses, you have not answered any of the facts or suppositions that I have presented, instead you chose to focus on me and my views, in the abstract. Every liberal I have ever encountered does this. It's like you guys get a satellite download every day with your marching orders, from whomever your leader may be. It must be in the genetic code, but that is far beyond my intellect to understand so I will leave it at that. Suffice it to say that my view point stands on it's merits, of which you have chosen not to respond to. I have said all I need to on this issue; it is going nowhere. Although you don't need my permission to do so, I concede you the last word on this issue, should you choose to have one.

 

[Lhotka]

John Berger your every and subsequent responses only reaffirms my observations. Name calling or classifying one as liberal or conservative based on a few points of view certainly exhibits a lack of objectivity. I am not offended or frightened by being labeled as either. I have been accused of being both. I and many others on TDR have offered opinions that support both conservative and liberal views. One must possess incredible intelligence to pick and choose the few responses that supports a limited view.