But you are insisting that the rock COULD have been a meteorite, so it MUST be tested for that. You follow the evidence, the rock, where it landed, the type of rock, it's size, which window was broken and such. You ask to see if anyone saw anyone with rocks. If you eliminate the other possibilities, then you start looking at things like it might be meteorite. But even then, you NEED some FACT to lead you in that direction, like there were reports of a fireball while you were gone that could have showered your area with meteorites. The truthers want the rock tested because there was a fireball thousands of miles away, and that is after finding out that folks say a bunch of kids throwing rocks at windows while you were gone.
Hiper, pretty much everything you've said is a variation on the same theme.
You have repeated the same point ad nauseam, and it's been explained back to you many times why people disagree with you.
You just ignore all the answers and then say the same thing again, spamming every thread with variants on the same argument. You must have done this well over a hundred times. I think I've been quire reasonable in allowing this to go on as long as it has done.
If you want to expound upon your argument, you can go make it in that thread. If you post the "but they didn't test ..., so you can't believe them" arguments ANYWHERE else on Metabunk I will ban you for one month. If you do it again when you come back I will ban you for six months.
So you can address the science in the appropriate threads, you can make your argument in a treat devoted to that argument. That's it.
But you are insisting that the rock COULD have been a meteorite, so it MUST be tested for that. You follow the evidence, the rock, where it landed, the type of rock, it's size, which window was broken and such. You ask to see if anyone saw anyone with rocks. If you eliminate the other possibilities, then you start looking at things like it might be meteorite. But even then, you NEED some FACT to lead you in that direction, like there were reports of a fireball while you were gone that could have showered your area with meteorites. The truthers want the rock tested because there was a fireball thousands of miles away, and that is after finding out that folks say a bunch of kids throwing rocks at windows while you were gone.
Yeah, see, no matter how much of an expert you are, you're not going to convince me for a second that the technology to send a signal between two devices, devices which aren't likely to be set off by other surrounding devices/signals, doesn't exist now/didn't exist in 2001.
Again, you are deliberatly missing the point. It is perfectly feasible to send such a signal to two devices, or a number of devices, what you are willfully twisting is that is not what i said. The send signal and reciever are not the issue - you seem to think it is - the DETONATOR is the dangerous bit, as they are sensitive to RF signals.
[h=3]IME Provides Guidance on RF Hazards Relative to Mine Communication Systems[/h]09/04/2008
The IME Board of Governors recent approved an addendum to SLP-20, Safety Guide for the Prevention of Radio Frequency Radiation Hazards in the Use of Commercial Electric Detonators (Blasting Caps) (July 2001). Primarily, the addendum provides guidance intended to assist the regulated community safely comply with the mine communication requirements of the MINER Act. Specifically, the addendum addresses the top bullet on page 3 of MSHA Program Policy Letter No. P08-V-02, Approval of Communication and Tracking Devices Required by the MINER Act.
Radio frequency (RF) energy is a recognized hazard to standard electric detonators and SLP-20 has provided sufficient guidance for surface blasting operations since 1953. The guidance has always been provided in table format. All a blaster needed to know was what type of transmitter was involved and how much power was delivered to the antennae to determine how far to stay away with electric detonators. The potential ubiquitous introduction of mine communication systems in underground mines required by the MINER Act and the proliferation of other wireless communication devices lead IME to develop this additional guidance.
SLP-20 now provides a graph of safe electric field strength vs. frequency for standard electric detonators, thus compiling all the tables in SLP-20 into one chart. The addendum also provides a method of determining the effect of multiple RF sources impinging on a single electric detonator. IME hopes this guidance helps implement underground mine communication systems in the complex RF environment possible in mines where electric detonators are used. As with all other guidance in SLP-20, worst case assumptions were made. A more detailed technical analysis may lead to less conservative conclusions.
Right. The 'facts', as NIST states them, as to why the WTC 7 steel went undocumented and was destroyed without examination = 'woops', with a dose of 'Oh well.'
So if you know the answers, why not start by stating your case, not asking questions?
Asking a question gives your position an air of false authority, as if the question has not been answered. When really all you are saying is "I do not believe anything NIST says".
Why waste time asking questions? Just tell people what you think.
I don't entirely understand what you're getting at here, but my point is that 'woops' and 'oh well' are not sufficient answers. The destruction of evidence itself should be a topic of investigation ending in punitive action against those who made the decision to obstruct justice, and the exploration of why they made this decision, as it was either innocent but punishable negligence or an intentional, criminal effort to conceal evidence. There are questions that still need answers. 'Woops' and 'oh well' are NOT answers.
Again, you are deliberatly missing the point. It is perfectly feasible to send such a signal to two devices, or a number of devices, what you are willfully twisting is that is not what i said. The send signal and reciever are not the issue - you seem to think it is - the DETONATOR is the dangerous bit, as they are sensitive to RF signals.
I don't think I am, especially considering both the quote and the link you provided don't really speak to the issue at hand, which is whether or not remote detonators could be used to demolish a building in New York City. I maintain that its entirely possible with the technologies of the day. You've stated it's not, due to interfering signals from cellphones/radios. In trying to prove that, you've submitted a quote which really has no bearing on the issue, and a PDF which is a rather simplistic collection of images and snippets of advice. Only one of these snippets seemed pertinent to our discussion, which referenced a publication one has to buy, containing guidelines for 'using two-way radios and cellphones near electric detonators.' Perhaps you have a source for those that's free, or can provide them, given your employ? That being said, if there are guidelines for using these technologies around detonators, then using them around detonators probably isn't impossible.
Again, you are deliberatly missing the point. It is perfectly feasible to send such a signal to two devices, or a number of devices, what you are willfully twisting is that is not what i said. The send signal and reciever are not the issue - you seem to think it is - the DETONATOR is the dangerous bit, as they are sensitive to RF signals.
Here is a 48 page pdf on the subject: www.dynonobel.com/files/2011/10/1Seismic-Safety.pdf
How many electric detonators do you imagine would be required to bring down any of those buildings?
If a man's body is found burning in his shed, and his house is on fire as well, do the police treat the shed as a crime-scene, but ignore the house because the body wasn't there?
We have tried and it hasn't worked. You and others resort right back to where you started. I don't know how to explain to y'all that one follows a path to look for an answer and if you come to a dead end, then you look for other things. No dead end.
NONE of y'all can explain a way the buildings could have been rigged, WHO could have done it, and how the explosives survived the fires and how they could have been triggered. In spite of that, you wanted them to check for explosives, just like wanting someone to check the rock to see if it was a meteorite in spite of the evidence that kids threw it and you are using a fireball that COULD have sent your way.
Y'all ignore all the FACTS because of a 'might have been' that you can't explain how it could have happened.
I don't think I am, especially considering both the quote and the link you provided don't really speak to the issue at hand, which is whether or not remote detonators could be used to demolish a building in New York City. I maintain that its entirely possible with the technologies of the day. You've stated it's not, due to interfering signals from cellphones/radios. In trying to prove that, you've submitted a quote which really has no bearing on the issue, and a PDF which is a rather simplistic collection of images and snippets of advice. Only one of these snippets seemed pertinent to our discussion, which referenced a publication one has to buy, containing guidelines for 'using two-way radios and cellphones near electric detonators.' Perhaps you have a source for those that's free, or can provide them, given your employ? That being said, if there are guidelines for using these technologies around detonators, then using them around detonators probably isn't impossible.
I possibly could provide one if I was in the UK, but here I can't readily find one. Im currently in a planning role.
In any event, I have stated the hazard, but you do still do not understand the point. There is no such thing as a 'remote detonator'. There are ingniferous detonators and there are electric detonators. There are remote firing devices, and you are getting them confused.
Anyway, I can't say it any other way, and I guess I cannot compel you to accept what I saying is true, even when accompanied by clear guidance from the Institute of Makers of Explosives.
A crime scene is not necessarily where the crime was committed. Indeed, there are primary, secondary and often tertiary crime scenes. For instance, the police may use a warrant to search a suspect's home. Even though the suspect did not commit the crime at that location, evidence of the crime may be found there. In another instance, an offender might kidnap at one location (primary crime scene), transport the victim (the car being a secondary crime scene), commit another crime at a distant location (murder, for instance) and then dispose of the body at a fourth scene.
What is a crime scene? Simply put, it is a location where a crime has occurred. There could or could not be physical evidence present. It could encompass an area as small as a postage stamp or as large as several city blocks.
But the question is not really what area the crime scene encompasses, it's what you consider to be evidence. WTC7 steel debris did not make the cut when investigating a hijacking and deliberate crashing of two planes. But more discussion on that should happen: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/17...-not-testing-WTC7-steel-invalidate-everything
‘If people are offered a fact which goes against their instincts or their cultural programming, they will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, they are offered something which falls in accordance to their cultural programming, in accordance to their conditioning, they will accept it, even on the slightest evidence.’
Are you offering us an explanation for your position?
Please tell us where you think 'cultural programming' stops and why you are not susceptible to it?
‘If people are offered a fact which goes against their instincts or their cultural programming, they will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, they are offered something which falls in accordance to their cultural programming, in accordance to their conditioning, they will accept it, even on the slightest evidence.’
To me that seems to explain folks that ignore the evidence and postulate unworkable scenarios instead. Their 'cultural programming' has them clinging to possibilities that are impossible.
Hope you don't mind me interjecting here but I have to ask, what makes you think cultural programming stops? I suggest it is everywhere from the cradle to the grave.
People are punished in various ways for non compliance to cultural programming, normally incrementally so but often very seriously; it can affect everything in your socioeconomic status.
One way to counter such negative impact is to actually embrace it by making a career from breaking the programming. The French designer Coco, was one such phenomena who rebelled against the strict fashions of the day and transformed the way women dressed and perceived themselves, becoming a millionaire in the process.
Alex Jones has been criticised by some for making a career from conspiracy theories but is it really wrong. The guy dedicates his life to it and is entitled to make a living. Simply because it is contrary to cultural programming and MSM, does not make it wrong He does live in America after all.
Susceptibility to cultural programming is a question of degree. We are all affected to some degree or quite literally we are classified as mad/evil and may lose our freedom or our life. But that is at one extreme, what about the other extreme... total acquiescance to social programming, total conformity and the need to be accepted by 'the mainstream'. The King is dead... Long live the King and whatever the King says.
It is safe, you are accepted and helped and enfolded and rewarded.
But the same can be said for sub cultures... the only problem with sub cultures are, they are in the minority and therefore may be subject to attack. But most sub cultures are not overly frowned upon nowadays, so mostly they were reasonably safe, that is until people were told by Bush, "You are either with 'us' or you are with the terrorists'.
Now that is quite some mouthful... 'If you are against us in any way... you are a terrorist' and we all know what happens to them. Well the thing is, if you have made a statement like that you better have the majority of people go along with your plans or you could be in trouble yourself, so you better make the 'baddy', really bad and promise the people that you can protect them so long as they do everything you tell them to.
And of course it does help if you have millions of people ready to back you in a Crusade.
Anyone who wants to understand why Israel has such unwavering support from the United States should speak to one man.
Fiery television evangelist Pastor John Hagee has emerged as the rallying voice for thousands of American Christians who believe Israel is doing God's work in a "war of good versus evil".
When he strode on to a stage in Washington last month, he was cheered to the rafters by 3,500 prominent evangelicals - as well as by Israel's ambassador to America, a former Israeli chief of staff and a host of US congressmen of both parties.
"After 25 years of hammering away at the truth on national television, millions of people have come to see the truth of the word of God," Mr Hagee told The Daily Telegraph. "There is literally a groundswell of support for Israel in the USA among evangelicals."
Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.
Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.
Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”
This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”
After the 2003 call, the puzzled French leader didn’t comply with Bush’s request. Instead, his staff asked Thomas Romer, a theologian at the University of Lausanne, to analyze the weird appeal. Dr. Romer explained that the Old Testament book of Ezekiel contains two chapters (38 and 39) in which God rages against Gog and Magog, sinister and mysterious forces menacing Israel. Jehovah vows to smite them savagely, to “turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws,” and slaughter them ruthlessly. In the New Testament, the mystical book of Revelation envisions Gog and Magog gathering nations for battle, “and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”
In 2007, Dr. Romer recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir. A French-language Swiss newspaper, Le Matin Dimanche, printed a sarcastic account titled: “When President George W. Bush Saw the Prophesies of the Bible Coming to Pass.” France’s La Liberte likewise spoofed it under the headline “A Small Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog.” But other news media missed the amazing report.
Subsequently, ex-President Chirac confirmed the nutty event in a long interview with French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice, who tells the tale in his new book, Si Vous le Répétez, Je Démentirai (If You Repeat it, I Will Deny), released in March by the publisher Plon. Oddly, mainstream media are ignoring this alarming revelation that Bush may have been half-cracked when he started his Iraq war. My own paper, The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, is the only U.S. newspaper to report it so far. Canada’s Toronto Star recounted the story, calling it a “stranger-than-fiction disclosure … which suggests that apocalyptic fervor may have held sway within the walls of the White House.” Fortunately, online commentary sites are spreading the news, filling the press void.
The French revelation jibes with other known aspects of Bush’s renowned evangelical certitude. For example, a few months after his phone call to Chirac, Bush attended a 2003 summit in Egypt. The Palestinian foreign minister later said the American president told him he was “on a mission from God” to defeat Iraq. At that time, the White House called this claim “absurd.”
Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: “Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.”
It’s awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” He never should have been entrusted with the power to start wars.
For six years, Americans really haven’t known why he launched the unnecessary Iraq attack. Official pretexts turned out to be baseless. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after all, and wasn’t in league with terrorists, as the White House alleged. Collapse of his asserted reasons led to speculation about hidden motives: Was the invasion loosed to gain control of Iraq’s oil—or to protect Israel—or to complete Bush’s father’s vendetta against the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Nobody ever found an answer.
Now, added to the other suspicions, comes the goofy possibility that abstruse, supernatural, idiotic, laughable Bible prophecies were a factor. This casts an ominous pall over the needless war that has killed more than four thousand young Americans and cost U.S. taxpayers perhaps $1 trillion.
Hope you don't mind me interjecting here but I have to ask, what makes you think cultural programming stops? I suggest it is everywhere from the cradle to the grave.
Alex Jones has been criticised by some for making a career from conspiracy theories but is it really wrong. The guy dedicates his life to it and is entitled to make a living. Simply because it is contrary to cultural programming and MSM, does not make it wrong He does live in America after all.
Making a living as an entertainer is not wrong. Making a living as a charlatan is wrong.
It’s awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” He never should have been entrusted with the power to start wars.
In that it is received opinion, there's no argument.
My post-war "programming" was received at fourteen schools. They were all very different. The last school I went to had a humanist headmaster. My father was a socialist, but also a serving RAF officer. He never discussed service life, religion or politics with me. At all, ever. Before he died I asked him why he only bought the right-wing papers, and he said the politics of the paper didn't matter because he never read the editorials. He picked them for their amusement value.
The only "programming" I was subject to were the instructions "Keep your head down and learn. Use your commonsense."
I learnt enough from that advice to see any other "programming" for what it was.
Are we susceptible to "programming"? Yes, we are, but much less so when we give it proper attention. So frequently we don't, of course, and this and that may slip in to ferment one's brain stew.
But part of your upbringing should have prepared you. I can't see why you complain so much. Life's a beach.
I agree this would have ensured that these specific conspiracy theories never started, but what is the guarantee that an entirely different set of theories would not have emerged in any case, from over-actively imaginative minds? And at what cost to embark upon such an investigative operation when there is more serious work to be done? It sounds to me, it would have been needless and thankless anyway. But, of course, I am willing to be wrong.
If they had looked for them and reported none found, the truthers would be saying that it was just covered up. Just like the need for hundreds of folks that would have been needed for their 'implosion' scenario are ignored
To me that seems to explain folks that ignore the evidence and postulate unworkable scenarios instead. Their 'cultural programming' has them clinging to possibilities that are impossible.
Talk about complicating the uncomplicated - some people have a penchant for doing just that, sometimes, quite subconsciously. For them, there must always exist an opposing view even when there is clearly none and phrases like "there are two sides to a coin" are a favoured one, simply but resolutely ignoring the fact that the situation at hand might actually be dealing with a ball (no 2 sides apply to that shape) and not a coin.
sarcastic quote from the video.
My second favorite one is when he says America and the UK are non violent.
He should check up on what nation could reduce their army by 75% and still have the most powerful army in the world and what scumbag family earned their wealth through the opium, cocaine and the slave trade.
sarcastic quote from the video.
My second favorite one is when he says America and the UK are non violent.
He should check up on what nation could reduce their army by 75% and still have the most powerful army in the world and what scumbag family earned their wealth through the opium, cocaine and the slave trade.
sarcastic quote from the video.
My second favorite one is when he says America and the UK are non violent.
He should check up on what nation could reduce their army by 75% and still have the most powerful army in the world and what scumbag family earned their wealth through the opium, cocaine and the slave trade.
Can you please list instances of American and the UK non provoked violence? Also, since I'm not up on Illuminatti lore, what scumbag family earned their wealth through the opium cocaine and slave trade?
USA 682
China 166
^How much each country spent on national defense in billions. the USA has been leading the world in foreign occupation for a while now.
"Every important British European family, including the royal family, invested in and grew wealthy from the slave trade. In fact, the Royal African Company, an English slave-trading outfit, was founded by the Duke of York and his brother Charles II.The 17th-, 18th-, and early 19th-century wars fought on the high seas between the nations of Western Europe were directly about the slave colonies."
Of course the modern royal family isnot really involved in that to my knowledge but their money is was not earned in an honest way. The royal family also has some pretty strong ties with blood diamonds which supports genocide and child soldiers luckily their are people out their now helping them live a fair life.
USA 682
China 166
^How much each country spent on national defense in billions. the USA has been leading the world in foreign occupation for a while now.
"Every important British European family, including the royal family, invested in and grew wealthy from the slave trade. In fact, the Royal African Company, an English slave-trading outfit, was founded by the Duke of York and his brother Charles II.The 17th-, 18th-, and early 19th-century wars fought on the high seas between the nations of Western Europe were directly about the slave colonies."
Of course the modern royal family isnot really involved in that to my knowledge but their money is was not earned in an honest way. The royal family also has some pretty strong ties with blood diamonds which supports genocide and child soldiers luckily their are people out their now helping them live a fair life.
Simply comparing budgets is not a good measure of military power. The UK spends more than Israel, but Israel has a larger Army and more sophsticated Air Force. The IAF has two thirds less Officers than the RAF.
The Chinese have an extremely small (but growing) blue water Fleet and a single Aircraft Carrier. If you factor in salaries, pensions and housing, as well as conscription vs professional forces, or argument is invalid.
Regarding the Royal Family, there is no evidence of any sort that they have been involved in an criminal activity of any sort, unless you subscribe to the LaRouche/Icke school of imagination.
Has a member of the royal family ever been arrested? In the USA your allowed to run major drug smuggling operations as long as your a powerful figure and historically things in the UK have been the same. Most royal familys wealth is past down from the horrid crimes their ancestors did, just because they may of been above the law or still are it does not change what is moral and what is not. the committee of 3000 is still a thing. Starts in the late 1700s to kill people in India and China and take over their opium production.the mathersons family which controlled a big junk of the asian opiate trade and have been on the queen of Englands honours list since the 19th century. I could write a book about the royal family and their connections with drugs slavery and murder. Do some research and you will probably be amazed at what you can find out. Larouche icke and alex jones are not the people who tell this stuff straight, you need to dig deeper than that.
Also the first link I posted was a different type of military power calculator it was based on 40 different factors not just money which is the best google can find and the USA came out #1 with Russia right behind the US and China third,
Has a member of the royal family ever been arrested? In the USA your allowed to run major drug smuggling operations as long as your a powerful figure and historically things in the UK have been the same. Most royal familys wealth is past down from the horrid crimes their ancestors did, just because they may of been above the law or still are it does not change what is moral and what is not. the committee of 3000 is still a thing. Starts in the late 1700s to kill people in India and China and take over their opium production.the mathersons family which controlled a big junk of the asian opiate trade and have been on the queen of Englands honours list since the 19th century. I could write a book about the royal family and their connections with drugs slavery and murder. Do some research and you will probably be amazed at what you can find out. Larouche icke and alex jones are not the people who tell this stuff straight, you need to dig deeper than that.
Also the first link I posted was a different type of military power calculator it was based on 40 different factors not just money which is the best google can find and the USA came out #1 with Russia right behind the US and China third,
A better gauge would be the amount spent on the military, compared to a countries GNP. The US is the wealthiest country on the planet. We also provide defense for Japan and South Korea and help to back up defense forces in NATO countries.
Has a member of the royal family ever been arrested? In the USA your allowed to run major drug smuggling operations as long as your a powerful figure and historically things in the UK have been the same. Most royal familys wealth is past down from the horrid crimes their ancestors did, just because they may of been above the law or still are it does not change what is moral and what is not. the committee of 3000 is still a thing. Starts in the late 1700s to kill people in India and China and take over their opium production.the mathersons family which controlled a big junk of the asian opiate trade and have been on the queen of Englands honours list since the 19th century. I could write a book about the royal family and their connections with drugs slavery and murder. Do some research and you will probably be amazed at what you can find out. Larouche icke and alex jones are not the people who tell this stuff straight, you need to dig deeper than that.
For a warrant of arrest to be issued against someone, that person first of all has to commit or be suspected to have committed a crime. After the arrest, and statements have been taken the person may or may not be granted bail. Investigation ensues and based on the strength of the evidence, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) will advice the Police on a Charging Decision. This could be to proceed to prosecution [high threshold of evidence found], decline to prosecute until further evidence is obtained [insufficient evidence to arrive at a realistic hope of conviction], or an outright closure of the case [total lack of evidence]. After the 'in the interest of the public' test, it proceeds to trial, the alleged perpetrator or suspect is either convicted or acquitted. Now, this is the usual procedure.
Since you are asking if a member of the Royal family has ever been arrested, I am pressed to ask you who it is you are referring to and what crimes this person committed, against whom was this crime committed, when and where was this crime committed and do you have any witnesses and evidence of this crime(s)? We can't just go around rounding people up, just because they are members of the Royal family or any other family that we just happen to not like. Give us a crime, a suspect and some evidence - that is how it normally works.
I am mindful of the fact that you allude to some crimes committed since the 1700s; are you asking us to prosecute the Queen for wars that were fought hundreds of years ago between nations? I do not know what country you are posting from or indeed your nationality, but can you show me just one country [including yours] in the history of this world that has never been involved in a war?
Do you remember the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria? Do you know the ruse Japan applied and the subsequent diplomatic isolation that Japan faced, culminating its eventual withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933? I do not see you asking that we arrest the current Emperor of Japan, Akihito, for Japan's invasion of China as recent as in 1931 completely unprovoked, yet you appear to be advocating that the Queen be arrested for 'crimes' committed since 1700s? Why is that so? Please do correct me if I got this wrong.
Moreover, if you want to dreg up history be sure to get your facts right as if not, you make it appear that the Royal family was singularly marching around causing wars and devastation in the four corners of the world when in actual fact, from pre-historic times nations have always risen against nations - it is human nature. This nasty phenomenon is the reason why there existed/exists organisations such as the League of Nations, NATO, United Nations, Arab League of Nations etc because often times when war breaks out between two nations, some other nations stand by and pretend it is not happening whilst others get involved, and yet others try to break it up by coming to the negotiating table. Sadly, it does appear that this all important part of International Relations and the pivotal role Britain has played and continue to play [at a great cost] in these roles for hundreds of years appears to be completely lost on you. I am not at all implying that we always get it right - we just don't do the Ostrich and pretend it is not happening - we try.
On an end note, yes if a Royal is suspected of a crime, yes they will be arrested and investigated. If there is no evidence or sufficient evidence to the basis of the arrest, just like anyone else, they will not be charged. If you doubt it check out the Spanish Royal family member that got arrested over fraud and tax evasion.
Quite often horrible things, using explosive devices against people being one of them... which is why I truly hope you find another calling. Please, feel free to ignore this question if it's too personal, but I'm curious after your mindset: do you experience guilt in relation to your occupation? How does it effect you to know your work results, at times, in the loss of life?
I am an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) officer in the Royal Engineers, which means I make bombs safe, be they what the Taliban puts in the ground, AQ when I was in Iraq, mines the Iraqi Army put in the ground, Nazi bombs from WW2 and unexploded ordnance from accidents and ranges or remnants of war. I'm also a combat engineer so I build stuff, destroy stuff, make potable water, increase force protection, build runways and deny the enemy their equipment. Right now I am in working in a Headquarters against the Taliban, and I am proud of what I do and the uniform that I wear.
Grieves, would you hold the same grievance against a surgeon who tries to save lives but lost some on the operating table? Or are you completely against the military? I think a country without a functioning military is like a house without a roof - I am not sure how comfortable and safe that would be. A good way to look at it is to try and understand what the military does than to band them all up as trigger-happy [or in this case explosives-obsessed] killers!
