Imagine yourself as the leader of a nation, and imagine being posed with the following dillemma. You are told by your 'potential disasters department' that your nation is in danger of attack. Estimates state that within five years your country will be subject to numerous campaigns of violence. Extrapolated beyond five years the numbers far are more severe, but these numbers are less reliable. Each major attack will potentially claim the lives of 5000 civilians, and your security measures will likely turn back, at best, only 75% of these attacks. Thus, by statistical measures your country is, on average, exposed to 1-2 successful campaigns of violence per year, which is the equivalent of 7500 citizens per year. Your enemies are in large part identifiable, but their numbers are too great to be handled in secret. The organizations by which you are threatened are being harbored in countries in which you have little to no presence. In short, so long as these organizations exist - so does the threat to the lives of your citizens. A position of defense can be maintained, but will only contain the problem. In order to save the lives of countless citizens you must strike the problem at its origins, where it originates, and to do this - a war must be waged. As leader, you have yet another problem. The public will not support a war of aggression. Despite the severity of the threat, the people of your nation and those of foreign nations will not support such a war. Your detractors will claim alterior motives and their claims will be met with, in large part, public support. The fact remains however, that the sooner such a war takes place the greater the chance for success and the fewer lives will be lost. It is a simple rule of the military that you strike an enemy while it is weakest - waiting will only cost the lives of your soldiers and of your citizens. Eventually your enemies will successfully breach your defenses. If it occurs within the next year over 2,000 people will likely die, but as the years pass this number will only increase and your counter-attack will become more difficult. You must decide, as leader of this great nation, whether or not you shall allow an attack to occur.
Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? (I ask this all the time whenever Optional777 and Dgabriel do their Beavis & Butthead routine).
I can't make a movie script until I get some replies. Let's see if this falls off the 20 most active thread list again.
They are everywhere. Some people will believe anything...the wackier it is, it seems, the more eager they are to swallow the lies whole. I actually know people who really believe that OJ Simpson was innocent. If you can believe that, in the face of the evidence (overwhelming as an adjective doesn't do justice to the evidence in that case), then you are gullible enough to believe anything. Being stupid helps, but it's not all about stupidity. g PS: Remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
You're right, some people will believe anything. Anything Fox tells them. LOL. Anyway, in this case, I don't see what is so 'wacky' about the FBI director admitting that they have no evidence of the plot to carry out 9/11.
Of course that's not whacky. What is whacky? All the people who seriously believe that the US govt. staged the whole thing, or that some Jewish conspiracy did. That is genuine whackiness. g
one of the reasons france didn't go along with the afghan and iraq wars is because of their high level of anti-semitism and the perception that jews control america.