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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

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

---

There's no cure for sanity. :D

Yeah there is.

Quote:

---

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? :unsure:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

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'.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Truest post yet.

Well, then. :)

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

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/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.

Only if the gas price goes under 1.50

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbs3000

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IWH2010

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Something Else

11/9. Get it right. :no:

---

You metric scum