Guys, do you think the new WTC tower will be attacked by terrorists again?

**IdolEyes787** · 01-14-2015, 10:01 PM

Yeah those insidious bastards,Mel.

While I'm not saying that there aren't people acting upon their own agendas in the US and British governments,I am saying that we being not privy to everything that led those decisions aren't really in a position to judge policy.
Become director of the CIA or President or PM and then get back to me.

Instead of imagining stuff and believing documentaries that go in being tainted by a single point of view I'd be more concerned about Black Sites and other proven evil,"let's toss away the Bill of Rights when it suits us" stuff like that.

**TheFoX** · 01-14-2015, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I must have bumped my head recently, because I am agreeing with FoX on this one.

There's no cure for sanity.

**IdolEyes787** · 01-14-2015, 10:02 PM

Yeah there is.

**megabyteme** · 01-15-2015, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Become director of the CIA or President or PM and then get back to me.

Bitch, I might.

Are you actually suggesting that someone knowingly made the decision to let the 9/11 attacks happen for a good reason?

**TheFoX** · 01-15-2015, 06:48 AM

Like everything in life, there is a point of law.

For example, imagine you are a police officer, and you become privvy to information that someone is going to rape a woman. Do you stop the crime before it happens, knowing that you cannot legally prosecute the offender, or do you allow the woman to get raped so that you can prosecute for the actual crime?

Tough one, isn't it.

On the one hand, you save a victim, but you cannot prosecute for intent, while on the other hand, the victim becomes the heart of the case for the prosecution, so while you can remove a dangerous fellon from the streets, someone has been violated.

We all know that Saddam invaded Kuwait, but if Bush Senior had sent in troops to deter the invasion before it had happened, then there would be people prepared to question whether an invasion was ever likely, or whether this was simply Bush using muscle to weedle more oil out of Kuwait.

Is there a right or wrong way? Do we save the victim? Or do we present a legal case for our actions?

In all of this, someone has to suffer before action can be taken. The law doesn't allow for intent. If you could prove someone intended to do harm to another, many crimes could be stopped before they began, but how do you KNOW that a crime is about to happen? How do you prove something that hasn't yet transpired?

Tough one, isn't it.

**megabyteme** · 01-15-2015, 02:43 PM

Oh, oh, oh...Mr. Cotter, I know this one. From my experience with cops, they would just lie and swear that they had witnessed something that didn't actually happen.

**Vestibule** · 01-15-2015, 02:49 PM

I know you are using Kuwait as an example, but lets not forget the lie that Bush used to sell the invasion, the faked testimony and the fabricated baby incubator death... it is well documented. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...ubatorlie.html ... so oil it is then. Many other countries could have used the muscle of the USA to prevent atrocities and genocides... yet... those poor saps were disregarded before, during and after the fact... Why? It did not meet the criteria of promoting, protecting, securing... Oil. Period.
As for the conundrum you present... it would depend on an individuals personal convictions and boldness. You may as well ask is there hope for mankind? I would hope so... even in the most dire of circumstances.

**TheFoX** · 01-15-2015, 05:22 PM

There seems to be a fine line between deterrent and detention. On one side, you make it harder to commit crimes, while on the other you eagerly wait for a crime to be committed so you can detain.

If you have enough policing, you can effectively rule out some sorts of crime, yet reduce the level of policing, and those crimes become common.

Take speeding, for example. Have a high enough number of highway patrols, and everyone more or less sticks to the speed limited imposed. Reduce the number of highway patrols significantly, and people will take liberties with the speed restrictions. This goes for other sorts of crime as well.

Take the invasion of the Falklands. If Thatcher had decided to garrison a few more regiments, along with the necessary supplies, on the islands, the Argentinians probably wouldn't have invaded, especially if the islands had been heavily fortified. On the flip side, station only a token force, and the islands become a prize worthy of their attention.

It is the same during conflicts when the UN station peace keepers. In areas where there is a high multinational presence, ethnic cleansing is minimised, yet when there is only a token force, cleansing becomes elevated, with the local UN force powerless to prevent the mass murder of innocents.

There has to a suitable balance so that crime is minimised, without overspending on policing. If you bankrupt a nation by overspending on policing, you end up back at square one, with no policing, and anarchy.