Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
That, to me, is a dangerous, dangerous thought.
Have you not seen all of the James Bond movies? Spectre/Dr. No/Goldfinger had nothing but intent and were definitely a threat to the entire world.
Anyway, I'm sure you get my point.
Intent is the first sign of a threat and it is also the best place to stop a threat.
I would much rather stop a terrorist that intends to blow up a building rather then arrest him after he actually committed the act.
|
No, it's not a dangerous thought. Intent without ability means that nothing is going to happen. By definition. If i walk by my neighbor's yard and his pit bull starts barking at me from behind the fence and i know that the only thing separating me from death by pit-bull is the leash and the fence, that doesn't give me the right to shoot the dog. The intent to harm is there, the means to harm are not. Besides, there can be a huge chasm between percieved threat and actual threat, just ask our presidential candidates.
Anyways, bond movies aren't the best representations of reality. Very few known spies are internationally renowned playboys.
Intent is the first sign of a threat, but if that intent is supported by little along the lines of actual danger preemption can be a little counterproductive.
-and-
The war in iraq and the war on terrorism are separate issues.