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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

11/9. Get it right. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFoX

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Canada borders on the insane.

---

Does it really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

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

---

Annually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFoX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Canada borders on the insane.

---

Does it really?

---

To be fair it's mostly Rob Ford,this guy and anyone who still supports the Leafs.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karhamazov

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFoX

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

---

Been there; done that. -USA :01:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pone4444

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFoX

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JunkBarMan

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.

Short answer no, long answer yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziggyjuarez

Short answer no, long answer yes.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziggyjuarez

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'.

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

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.

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...erican_Century

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...erican_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

Quote:

---

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"

---

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

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...

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 .

---

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?

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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