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

[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.