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

[OlegL]

Guys, do you think it's possible that there will be a plot to attack the new WTC tower, and both the FBI and the CIA will be unaware of this plot? Do you think there will be another 9/11 in the USA? The former Vice President Dick Cheney recently told tv viewers that he was certain that there would be a deadlier terrorist attack than 9/11 before the end of this decade. Should we trust his opinion?

[TheFoX]

Guys, do you think it's possible that there will be a plot to attack the new WTC tower, and both the FBI and the CIA will be unaware of this plot? Do you think there will be another 9/11 in the USA? The former Vice President Dick Cheney recently told tv viewers that he was certain that there would be a deadlier terrorist attack than 9/11 before the end of this decade. Should we trust his opinion?

What makes you think the FBI and the CIA were not aware of the last attack?

Terrorism only succeeds because they want it to. If they wanted to stamp out terrorism tomorrow, they could with precision.

[Something Else]

11/9. Get it right. :no:

[IdolEyes787]

What makes you think the FBI and the CIA were not aware of the last attack?

Terrorism only succeeds because they want it to. If they wanted to stamp out terrorism tomorrow, they could with precision.

That makes about as much sense as Sam Smith's popularity.:mellow:

Good conspiracies theories only work when the number of people involved is quite limited.To suggest that no one in the entirety of the FBI,CIA and by proxy every other law agency and probably government(with let us not forget,conflicting agendas) in the entire World knows stuff and is willing,let alone able to keep their collective mouths shut borders on the insane.

[TheFoX]

Canada borders on the insane.

Does it really?

[megabyteme]

Do you think there will be another 9/11 in the USA?

Annually.

[IdolEyes787]

Canada borders on the insane.

Does it really?

To be fair it's mostly Rob Ford,this guy (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-dismemberment-suspect-guilty-degree-murder-27789845) and anyone who still supports the Leafs.

[karhamazov]

Why would they single out the new WTC tower? What about all the other buildings in the rest of the USA.

[TheFoX]

Why would they single out the new WTC tower? What about all the other buildings in the rest of the USA.

Why stop at the US of A? Why not target every single building the whole world over, including temporary structures, tents, teepees, shacks and trailers. Imagine the economic boom it would provide Boeing, Airbus and all the other big plane manufacturers. Also, what a boon it would be to the construction industry, trying to keep ahead of the terrorists with their development plans.

Also, it would help with the severe overcrowding this world currently has, as the supply of suicide pilots would allow other races to expand into the vacuum created by those martyres wishing to devote their lives to the destruction of others.

This could be a win win situation. The US Army gets a blank cheque/check, the aircraft industry gets to produce an unlimited supply of planes and the construction indurstry gets the boost it needs in light of the recent recession. Oh, and we rid the world of retards willing to die to further someone elses ideals.

[megabyteme]

Why not target [...] tents, teepees,

Been there; done that. -USA :01:

[pone44]

Retro,such a conspiracy theorist. :P You may be right. It would be unthinkable but the mind,actions and motivations of a person never surprise me.









:yup::shuriken::tank::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[TheFoX]

Retro,such a conspiracy theorist. :P You may be right. It would be unthinkable but the mind,actions and motivations of a person never surprise me.









:yup::shuriken::tank::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

The whole concept of taking a life is alien to me, so someone who can take the lives of many is utterly incomprehensible.

For me, those cowards who kill using devices of mass destruction, such as bombs and grenade, are the biggest cowards. To kill indiscriminately those that you don't even know is a henious act against humanity, and those who commit such acts have given up the right to be called human.

Man's greatest strength is his compassion, and forgiveness. If more people forgave, there would be less strife in the world. Compassion means you should look after those around you as well as yourself.

For example, Dion is a dick, but I would not wish him to suffer, even though he is a dick. Knowing he is a dick is punishment enough for him, and we must show compassion because he cannot help being a dick.

[IdolEyes787]

You're deeming Man to be superior for not killing except out of need which last time I checked was something every other animal on the planet does as a simple fact of being.

[JunkBarMan]

The whole concept of taking a life is alien to me, so someone who can take the lives of many is utterly incomprehensible.

For me, those cowards who kill using devices of mass destruction, such as bombs and grenade, are the biggest cowards. To kill indiscriminately those that you don't even know is a henious act against humanity, and those who commit such acts have given up the right to be called human.

Man's greatest strength is his compassion, and forgiveness. If more people forgave, there would be less strife in the world. Compassion means you should look after those around you as well as yourself.

For example, Dion is a dick, but I would not wish him to suffer, even though he is a dick. Knowing he is a dick is punishment enough for him, and we must show compassion because he cannot help being a dick.

Forgive me, I mean no troll. Your philosophies have peaked my interest. In your first line, you say taking a life is alien to you. Did you mean human life or life in general?

[TheFoX]

Forgive me, I mean no troll. Your philosophies have peaked my interest. In your first line, you say taking a life is alien to you. Did you mean human life or life in general?

Both. Too many people die needlessly, from many different reasons.

For example, which is worse? Someone who dies from a terrorist attack or someone who dies because the medicine needed to save their life was withheld due to the expense?

People die from terrorism. People die from keeping the peace. People die for no good reason.

Life is precious. It is so easy for those in power to forget that we each have a limited time on this planet of ours, and their compunction to press a button to wipe out thousands of innocents comes too easily for them.

In the past, war was fought one on one, yet today we have weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands, and even millions. Such devastation is a travesty.

Let's hope that those in power can keep their hands away from those little buttons that can wipe out half of humanity.

[ziggyjuarez]

Short answer no, long answer yes.

[megabyteme]

Short answer no, long answer yes.

This. However, I'm still expecting those sneaky Japs to hit Pearl Harbor again.

[TheFoX]

Short answer no, long answer yes.

But it is only longer by one character. Compared to a word such as 'unemcumbered', which contains twelve characters, 'yes' and 'no' are considered extremely short, only being trumphed by words such as 'I' and 'a'.

[IdolEyes787]

Trumphed isn't a recognized word,Mr. Chipping.

[j2k4]

Look for Obama to surrender if we take a good left to the ribs stateside.

That's the prevailing opinion here, at least among the the sentient crowd.

[Vestibule]

False flag.... anyone?

Oleg, if Dick Cheney says there will be an attack before the end of the decade, you can believe he will have a hand in it... profiteering in some fashion and helping to tighten the chains of American freedoms...

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[TheFoX]

Freedom has become a falacy.

Since the late seventies, computer technology has enabled our governments to start monitoring their citizens. As time has moved on, the technology has become so sophisticated that no one can disappear completely, unless they want to literally leave the grid.

Your mobile phone can report your current location.

The black box in your car not only reports your location, but can also tell when you are speeding.

Your computer can allow others to monitor your surfing habits. With the right OS, it can even allow operatives from certain agencies to analyse your files.

How long will it be before every newborn baby has a tracker chip installed in them, with or without their knowledge.

Technology can be fun, but it can also be frightening, depending on how it is used.

[IdolEyes787]

Also a fallacy.

I can say that because I don't own a mobile phone, I drive 1970 Chevelle and I'm posting this from the library.

[IdolEyes787]

Also it may come as a shock but governments monitored their citizens long before computers ever existed.
Computers just mean you don't have to pay as many people to lie so it cuts down on expenses.

[IdolEyes787]

False flag.... anyone?

Oleg, if Dick Cheney says there will be an attack before the end of the decade, you can believe he will have a hand in it... profiteering in some fashion and helping to tighten the chains of American freedoms...

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

I'm sure there exists lots of privately funded Washington based think tanks that denounce the use of violence so I'm not really getting the point.
If you're saying that fanatical nationalism is unique to the US then I believe Putin takes offense to that statement.

Anyway
By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website [with a] a single employee … left to wrap things up"

[IdolEyes787]

Politics are like the weather,if you don't like the outlook wait a couple of days and it will change.

[Vestibule]

Anyway

By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website [with a] a single employee … left to wrap things up"

Well of course, the major players who signed off on that document ( which achieved it's goals and then some, re; patriot acts I and II, the creation of Homeland security, perpetual warfare against fictitious enemies, dictatorial powers, box cutter profiling ) and have moved on to bigger and better things...

[01nidhish]

first of all don't be a fool do u really think CIA & FBI were not aware of 911 attack ! ...they were not only aware but also involved in it ... anyhow about Dick Cheney ! well if he is ringing the bell then i'm sure it will happen ..but i doubt it will be WTC again..it could be worst maybe a nuke bomb .

[TheFoX]

first of all don't be a fool do u really think CIA & FBI were not aware of 911 attack ! ...they were not only aware but also involved in it ... anyhow about Dick Cheney ! well if he is ringing the bell then i'm sure it will happen ..but i doubt it will be WTC again..it could be worst maybe a nuke bomb .

Looks like the terrorists have their eyes firmly set on Paris this time. No part of the world is safe from this scum.

Terrorism is just an excuse to murder in the name of something. Terrorists are no different from any other murderer. They pick their targets randomly. In fact, terrorists are worse than murderers because murderers normally pick their victims for one reason or another.

If you walk down the road and butcher a pregnant woman, you'll be called a murderer, yet if you do it in the name of something, you are called a terrorist.

Also, it seems anyone can call themselves a muslim, including those born of a different faith. You could murder someone, then claim to be muslim, giving you an excuse to kill an innocent.

Terrorism works by scaring the population. You target innocents and put the fear of God in to them, forcing them to demand action from those in power. If those in power do not ammend their ways, you slaughter some more innocents until you either get your way, or you run out of innocents.

Now, can anyone show me which God would tolerate such behaviour? I am sure that the Holy Father and Allah would abhore this sort of behaviour, as would Buddha, Christ, the Divine Spirit and other deities.

In fact, terrorism is a contradiction, because it is usually done in the name of something that abhores this sort of behaviour.


So, what is the driving force behind terrorism? Well, it is money and control. Money, because those in charge of the act (not the actual perpetrators) want financial reward, and those in power want the control that they can force on the population in the name of counter terrorism.

For example, the UK will probably follow the lead of the US by insisting on greater monitoring of communications, ensuring that nothing is really private. Now while this may help track down terrorist cells (I say, 'may', because terrorists, if they know they are being monitored, will switch to a more secure medium for communication), its ultimate use would be to keep the population under total government control.

Some argue that terrorism is government funded solely for the reason of being able to dwindled our various human rights. Ultimately, our freedom will be removed from us totally. When we are told what to eat, what to wear, what to drive, and where to live, we know then that we are abject slaves. Many are already in financial slavery, earning just enough to survive, with little hope of ever exceeding their station in life.

Even TV, with its emphasis on Reality TV, is designed to distract us from the fact that life has become mundane. My only outlet is to write material like this, to remind myself that I have a brain, and are prepared to use it.

What's your excuse?

[j2k4]

It occurs to me that demonstrating against terrorism is a singularly feckless activity, but, given the name of the game is terror, what if the terrorists had the bright idea to attack the demonstration and kill as many as they could?

Easy pickings, there, and if the demonstrators objected that such an attack had a chilling effect on demonstrations, what do they do then?

Resort to terrorism?

[megabyteme]

Was thinking along similar lines, Kev. All of this "We shall overcome..." stuffs is creating a massive target. One that practically begs to be struck. HARD. The French will surrender, of course.

[j2k4]

Was thinking along similar lines, Kev. All of this "We shall overcome..." stuffs is creating a massive target. One that practically begs to be struck. HARD. The French will surrender, of course.

We are currently lost in a forest of stupid without a compass or flashlight.

[IdolEyes787]

Yes let us stop congregating en mass because Lord knows that's never been done at stuff like football games or concerts or marathons before and this will give some smart terrorist new ideas.

No on second thought as churches are basically peace protests for the less trendy I think it's already been done to death.Bad pun not intended but acknowledged.

[megabyteme]

Yes let us stop congregating en mass because Lord knows that's never been done at stuff like football games or concerts or marathons before and this will give some smart terrorist new ideas.

No on second thought as churches are basically peace protests for the less trendy I think it's already been done to death.Bad pun not intended but acknowledged.

Not the same. The current gatherings are in resistance to the very organization(s) that blow up peaceful people. An attack would appal and spread fear. EXACTLY what terrorists enjoy doing.

[TheFoX]

What it boils down to, then, is one simple statement.

Terrorists enjoy killing.

The reason for killing or the religion they use is just an excuse to give it some sort of legitimacy. A terrorist is nothing more than a high stakes killer, hell bent on ruining the lives of others.

There is no real motive, other than the sheer delight in killing

[IdolEyes787]

You're a bit off as the vast majority of terrorists are simply brainwashed pawns.The leaders on the other hand, the ones who shape the doctrine,clearly kill merely to kill.

After all history has proven that nothing stiffens a people's resolve more than massacring a few of them so blowing up stuff is always going to be a losing proposition and anyone not completely mental has got to realize that.

In doing so you're uniting the vast majority of the population against you,most of whom prior to the act really were more concerned about the football scores.

[Vestibule]

I believe the leaders are also puppets of government agencies that allow, and in some case promote terrorism, to further policy and get people marching in the streets united against a common foe. What better way to control what people think and do? The deepest layers of the terrorist agenda is a proven and refined technique used by governments around the world.

[IdolEyes787]

I think people here have watched The Pelican Brief one too many times because I'm fairly sure that there are better ways to get the populace convinced they need to do something stupid than to kill people.
If in doubt maybe ask ad agencies?

Anyway if you want to really control something then you placate not incite. At least that's what my experience with small children and polar bears has taught me.
Don't get me wrong,anger is a great thing but sadly it tends to be hard to direct and there's no perfect off switch.

[TheFoX]

There was an excellent documentary about how to control society. It started by showing how our leaders used to try to offer us Utopia, but since Utopia is always just beyond our reach, our politicians decided to protect us from evil instead.

Of course, if evil doesn't exist, or is too insignificant to be a threat, they need to increase the threat until we, the population, demand protection.

Some of the terrorist acts of recent times have required the resources only available to governments, which makes me think that agencies are behind the acts that have deplored us. Or the Agencies have turned a blind eye to the obvious.

Take the first Gulf War, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The impending invasion was reported months before it happened. I remember reading an article in the Mail where a reporter stated that Saddam was mobilising to invade Kuwait.

So, the US had two choices.

1) Send in additional forces into Kuwait to bolster the local military, to dissuade Saddam from invading.

2) Do nothing, then act after Saddam had invaded.

The problem with the first choice is that you don't get the PR you need, and there is the suggestion that the invasion was a figment of your imagination.

The second choice allows you to act with inpunity, and do what you want, because you are not seen as the bad guy.


The invasion of the Falklands during the early eighties was predicted, yet Thatcher waited until after the invasion to send in the troops, even though sending troops in before the invasion would have saved thousands of lives, both English and Argentinian. Policiticians aren't interested in the human factor, only the Browny Points that they can score with their peers.


Given a choice to act early and save lives, or to act after the event and appear mortified by the carnage, most politicians would willingly trade lives for their own gratification.

[megabyteme]

There was an excellent documentary about how to control society. It started by showing how our leaders used to try to offer us Utopia, but since Utopia is always just beyond our reach, our politicians decided to protect us from evil instead.

Of course, if evil doesn't exist, or is too insignificant to be a threat, they need to increase the threat until we, the population, demand protection.

Some of the terrorist acts of recent times have required the resources only available to governments, which makes me think that agencies are behind the acts that have deplored us. Or the Agencies have turned a blind eye to the obvious.

Take the first Gulf War, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The impending invasion was reported months before it happened. I remember reading an article in the Mail where a reporter stated that Saddam was mobilising to invade Kuwait.

So, the US had two choices.

1) Send in additional forces into Kuwait to bolster the local military, to dissuade Saddam from invading.

2) Do nothing, then act after Saddam had invaded.

The problem with the first choice is that you don't get the PR you need, and there is the suggestion that the invasion was a figment of your imagination.

The second choice allows you to act with inpunity, and do what you want, because you are not seen as the bad guy.


The invasion of the Falklands during the early eighties was predicted, yet Thatcher waited until after the invasion to send in the troops, even though sending troops in before the invasion would have saved thousands of lives, both English and Argentinian. Policiticians aren't interested in the human factor, only the Browny Points that they can score with their peers.


Given a choice to act early and save lives, or to act after the event and appear mortified by the carnage, most politicians would willingly trade lives for their own gratification.

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

[IdolEyes787]

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]

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

There's no cure for sanity. :D

[IdolEyes787]

Yeah there is.

[megabyteme]

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? :unsure:

[TheFoX]

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]

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]

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/WRHARTICLES/incubatorlie.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]

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.

[megabyteme]

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

[IdolEyes787]

Little known fact but TheFox's username is an ode to him being the former lead singer of Sweet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjfZG9UzK7E

[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" (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/erichoffer397168.html)

[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? :blink:


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. :sly:

[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? :blink:

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/urgent-video-peter-kassig-beheaded-isis-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.

[tbs3000]

Only if the gas price goes under 1.50

[OlegL]

Wow, I just came to this board and noticed this thread already has 7 pages!..
I am reading a book about Al Qaeda now. According to this book, Osama's early beliefs weren't as extreme as his later beliefs. It seems to me he was influenced by Qutb, but I am still confused about the nature of Qutb's beliefs. Did he believe that the Western culture lacked spirituality? If he was so concerned about spirituality, why did he hate the Jews? Do people who are truly spiritual actually hate another group of people? I highly doubt it.

[megabyteme]

Only if the gas price goes under 1.50

It is actually Middle East competition driving down the prices. It is being done to keep the US' exploration and drilling (market share) down.

[j2k4]

Did he believe that the Western culture lacked spirituality? If he was so concerned about spirituality, why did he hate the Jews? Do people who are truly spiritual actually hate another group of people? I highly doubt it.

Then you envision "spirituality" as indicating a commonly-held type, and commonly definable across all ideologies?

Excuse me, and with all respect, I wish you the best of luck with that.

Actually, if the U.N. weren't...the U.N., it would be interesting to hear what's said from it's well in aid of parsing the question.

God, et al, would surely be interested in the results. ;)













Good gollee, that ^^ was cryptic...don't bother me for a while about everything I intend it to mean.

My knees are fucking killing me right now, too, anyway, and to boot.

[Adster]

at least America would know what they were doing.... here in Australia the 'Sydney Siege' went on for 17 hours. the U.S with their obsession with guns would have had him sniperd in 10 mins

[IWH2010]

I seriously doubt it, i mean, it was an insider job from the start anyway! :whistling

[j2k4]

at least America would know what they were doing.... here in Australia the 'Sydney Siege' went on for 17 hours. the U.S with their obsession with guns would have had him sniperd in 10 mins

Snipers wouldn't have helped on 9/11, and if terrorists took another swing at the same property, they'd wouldn't be doing it on foot and with small-arms.

Not grand enough, you see; this IS the US, after all.

Just thought of this now, too; that would be 'three-strikes-and-you're-out', and, depending on who's in office, he/she might be really pissed and willing to do something...decisive.


I seriously doubt it, i mean, it was an insider job from the start anyway! :whistling

Anyone know for sure how many times that phrase has been committed to the 'netz, seriously or not?

Dumping it forever would be like shaving cold-boot time in half, ffs.

[whatcdfan]

Very interesting ideas of MR. FoX. Unsure what to quote, I chose to quote nothing.

As I agree on most of his general Sociopolitical theories, I disagree his opinion about Islam. There's no two kinda Islam, moderate or extreme. It's just one faith designed to accomplish one goal. That categorization is done by the western media and politicians, who don't give a fuck about what it really is except to tailor it in different forms to suit their needs. In KSA Islam is moderate and tolerant, while every where else is extreme, not just that even the monarchy is good and the recently died monarch was a steady developer; shut up you fucking bastards.

Terrorism is multi billion dollar industry. These terrorist give as 2 cents about Islam as MR. Bush or the Israel. The people funding these terrorists want them to label their actions as motivated/directed by Islamic Ideology to demonize it's image in order to validate their actions for foreign policy. This isn't anything new, this idea has been exercised in the west since Roman times.

Making terrorism a commercial industry was the idea invented in Pakistan. Against the hate that Indian Hindus had for the Pakistan and for Muslims in general, a clan of people that transformed into a political party later on, needed it to exploit to throw the Congress out of power, who had ruled India ever after British went. To fuel this hatred and influence the decision making of the masses to vote for radical Hindu group they needed terrorist, for which there were many in Pakistan. Every time the congress was in power there were many terrorist attacks all in the name of Islam. Terrorist carry that small signs with them, after the attacks when their bodies were discovered, there were pages of Koran in their pockets and such other things that signifies that the attack was motivated by the Islamic ideology. When an attack occurred the numerous groups in Pakistan rush to take the responsibility for it, so that they can get the contract for the next assignment.

There were news of the wing of the radical Hindu group which is involved in making of bombs. Few years ago, an intelligence officer named Karkare was investigating into the cases of attacks in the Trains and societies/markets where majority of died were Moslems. He found the evidence pointing towards the very same wing of Hindu radical group that media has reported of making bombs. When it was discovered by the agency that the material used to make the bombs came directly from the military and the guys who planted the bombs were from a Hindu monastery, the news went blasting in the media. And guess what 15 days later, you have the worst terrorist attack ever to occur in the country specially designed to get as much attention as possible to divert the populace from the idea of Hindu terrorism. The terrorist spotted and targeted the very officer (MR. Karkare) who was investigating the case of wing and the involvement of the military and monasteries on the very first day of the attack, apparently that was the first things on the terrorist to-do list. The radical political party is currently in power and no attacks have occurred ever since. The guy who is the Head of the State is the one who carried genocide against the Moslems in his sub-state when he was Head of that state at that time.

[iLOVENZB]

11/9. Get it right. :no:

You metric scum