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

[IdolEyes787]

Don't ask what the song Little Willy is really about because frankly that's a sensitive subject with him.

[j2k4]

Relative to all of the conspiracies fomented with regard the events of 9/11/2001 (< that's how Americans express dates) I will quote Mr. Hoffer:


"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves"

[j2k4]

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.

Nothing new there.

There are opposing/dueling compulsions throughout the correctional structures of every state, regardless of controlling ideology - they all cough and fart with humans running the show.

That and the under-abundance of truly 'Great Men' gets you eggroll(ed).

[TheFoX]

You are just all over the place, FoX. Speeding->Falklands->UNpeace keepers. All the same, right?

Policing is policing, regardless whether it is local, national or global. Even in our places of work, we have supervisors who have the limited power to police their staff by law. Then you have local law enforcement, then regional, national, and international.

Regardless whether it is a Police Officer, Guarda, Soldier, Peacekeeper, Special Forces, Secret Agent, Diplomat, Moderator or Administrator, they all have some sort of authority, right or wrongly.

Authority has always been a double edged sword. There are those who enforce it, and those who flout it. In fact, some of the biggest flouts have resulted in changes in the law, such as giving women the vote, or allowing the abolition of Prohibition.

Laws are laws, but not all laws are just. Some laws have been passed to protect the powerfull, while disadvantaging the masses. An excellent example is the Intellectual Property laws that discriminates against fair use, and doesn't allow natural evolution of concepts and ideas. After all, language is a natural evolution from its initial conception, yet if this were subject of Intellectual Property laws, we'd still be saying 'thou', 'wilt', 'thy', 'needeth' and other words of Olde Anglish.

Still, some laws are just, such as 'Thou Shalt Not Murder'.

[cleptomaniac]

I didn't read all of the pages. But, I don't think the "new WTC" can be attacked again. The word new refers to the new building. The old building was the one that had airplanes flown into it. Just wanted to clarify. Good day, sirs.

[j2k4]

I didn't read all of the pages. But, I don't think the "new WTC" can be attacked again. The word new refers to the new building. The old building was the one that had airplanes flown into it. Just wanted to clarify. Good day, sirs.

Truest post yet.

Well, then.

[megabyteme]

The symbolism can be attacked again. Attaching the same name to it carries with it the previous connections. If it carried the name Trump Tower, or no name at all, it would be less of a target. In "standing strong" and "rebuilding", there is a greater target value.

Would be interesting to see the design of the third. Probably look something like a pyramid. With an anti-aircraft gun on top.

[IdolEyes787]

Make it in the shape of a mosque with the top three floors devoted to Muslim studies and then hang a big sign on it that says "Now bomb this,motherfuckers".

I can see wee terrorist heads exploding all over the planet.

[megabyteme]

Make it in the shape of a mosque with the top three floors devoted to Muslim studies and then hang a big sign on it that says "Now bomb this,motherfuckers".

I can see wee terrorist heads exploding all over the planet.

Just woke up from a nap. Actually read that as make it in the shape of a mosquito... Makes more sense now.

[TheFoX]

You are just all over the place, FoX. Speeding->Falklands->UNpeace keepers. All the same, right?

I am able to concentrate on many aspects at the same time, bringing a level of commonality to all aspects. While some crimes may be local, some regional, some national, and some international, the commonality to these is that they go against laws in place, or mere common decency.

In some Islamic run countries, woman are considered nothing more than property, and who don't have a voice. It is not unheard of for a woman to be stoned to death because she fell out of favour with her family. Now if this happened in our Western society, we'd call this act barbaric. In fact, the honour killing of females is illegal in all Western run continents such as America and Europe.

(In the UK alone, there have been a number of highlighted cases of young women going missing because they refused to become part of an arranged marriage. The fathers and brothers of those missing women have ended up being incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure, even though they felt they had the right, under Allah, to take the lives of those young women).

(I am sure that most of us would agree that beheading innocent people for a faith, on TV, is probably one of the most barbaric ways of murdering someone. http://www.iraqinews.com/features/ur...is-16-syrians/ )

Religion is supposed to guide us to a better life, yet there are those who interpret the teachings of the prophets in other ways. If someone really wants to kill, they can read almost anything in to a religious text.

Beheading is such a final act, isn't it. If you incarcerate someone, you can release them later. If you behead, you cannot sew their head back on.

How many people have later been found innocent of the crime that initially got them incarcerated? More than I can remember. In any system of authority, there is coruption, and this isn't only the local police. Armies also have their rotten element, as do religious groups. ISIS may be out to promote its Islamic State, but there are those within that group who have their own agenda, and use religion to censor their opponents.

In our world, we have the very basic right to free speech, and a basic right to choose. Some choice to follow a religion, regardless which religion it is, and others choose not to follow a religion, or not to believe in a religion. Each of us has a choice. Yet under Islam, the rules are very much different. In fact, if ISIS comes to global power, our choice whether or not to follow a religion will be removed, as will our right to air our views.

The whole point of diversity is that people can practice, peacefully, whatever they like, but when that diversity is replace by a totalitarian system, then we have no choice. If 99% of the globe worshipped Islam, and 1% didn't, what right would the 99% have to enforce their beliefs on those who don't?

Our Western world is based on a one of choice. We can choose to be Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish or whatever. No one is forcing us, through law or coertion, to become what we are not. My fear is that these choices will start to erode, eventually leading to a society where we are told what to think and how to pray.

I have no issue with Islam; but I do have issue with those within that religion who wish to enslave the rest of us. Religious slavery is no different from commercial slavery, and should be addressed as part of the Human Rights issue. If someone wishes to leave Islam, then they should have the right to do so without retribution, and this needs to be law.