| YourValentine 24.07.2005 07:34 |
sorry I could not resist. We all feared that from the moment we heard about the "suspicious" details. He wore a coat and was running towards a train, that should be enough to kill someone with 5 shots from close distance. |
| INXS 24.07.2005 07:47 |
The poor guy was running because he had all these guys chasing him dressed in normal clothes, they didn't even tell him to stop, they went right for him, the guy freaked out! And was it really necessary to shoot him 5 TIMES in the head? I mean do you really think he would have survived after just 1 shot? All I can say is.....BIG MISTAKE GUYS! And for God sake, his features weren't even near pakistani (like they said), he was brazilian but looked like any spanish person I know.This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility. Fuckers! |
| DudleyFufkin 24.07.2005 08:16 |
What if he had a bomb belt? Why was he running, why did he jump over the pay gates, why was he wearing a coat in the heat? You cant take these chances anymore. I know he was innocent, but just what IF he did have a bomb and ran onto the train? Its a major cock up now, but what if the police shot one of the guys from thursday, and then found that his rucksak contained week old explosives that wouldnt go off, would you all be saying the same thing then? |
| @ndy38 24.07.2005 08:23 |
Dudleyfufkin is new the king of controversy :P He probably didnt know what the hell was going on, i mean, did the guy even speak English? To say WHAT IF in these situations is not exactly right, is it? |
| Serry... 24.07.2005 08:41 |
What if, what if, what if, what if... - are bad reasons to kill someone! |
| iGSM 24.07.2005 08:53 |
Score one for the terrorists? |
| brENsKi 24.07.2005 09:34 |
DudleyFufkin wrote: What if he had a bomb belt? Why was he running, why did he jump over the pay gates, why was he wearing a coat in the heat? You cant take these chances anymore. I know he was innocent, but just what IF he did have a bomb and ran onto the train? Its a major cock up now, but what if the police shot one of the guys from thursday, and then found that his rucksak contained week old explosives that wouldnt go off, would you all be saying the same thing then?what if? what if? what if? what if it was ONE of YOUR relatives shot down? would YOU still feel so positive about the statement you've just made? f-f-s grow up!!! |
| brENsKi 24.07.2005 09:37 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: This shooting has been the final proof that attempting to deal with terrorism in the Bush/Blair way will only lead to more terrorism...from the government side. QUOTE] |
| Mr.Jingles 24.07.2005 09:44 |
I don't really know what happened, but if the guy was asked to STOP several times and he was innocent, then why didn't he stop at the right moment? Perhaps he couldn't speak english, but when cops are calling you, you know that they want you to either stop or come to them immediatly. It doesn't matter what language you speak, or what country you're from. When a higher authority with a gun is yelling at you, the last thing you should do is run, especially when you know you're innocent. He should have raised his hands and face the cops. Besides, if he was innocent, what is this guy supossed to be afraid of? I can't take either one's side. I don't have enough information about how the incident developed. If the cops truly shot him immediatly after looking at this man running, then they're the ones to blame. If they yelled out several times warnings to stop immediatly or the cops would shoot, then it's the guy's fault. |
| TheThumb 24.07.2005 10:19 |
I've just been reading the views on the bbc website and I am shocked at the amount of people who think this public execution is acceptable. They wrestled this man to the ground, then AFTER they had overpowered him, put five bullets in his head. And as for their justification for thinking he was a suicide bomber (well apart from the real reason, which was the colour of his skin)... - his clothes - has it suddenly become a crime to wear more than a T-shirt? What is T shirt weather for the average British person might not be considered warm for people who are used to living in hotter climates, so they may wear a layer or two more than us. I certainly saw evidence of this while on holiday in Scotland recently. - the fact that he ran - his grasp of english might not have been too good. And he was being chased by plain clothed men weilding machine guns. At a time when all he hears about on the news are terrorists. And I will say it again, they overpowered him, THEN shot him. How the fuck was he going to set off a bomb lying on the ground with his hands behind his back? If this is the way the police are going to act in future, then every non-white man in London has the right to be very afraid indeed. |
| Guy 24.07.2005 10:39 |
It's not acceptable, but you have to distinguish between the "Bush/Blair way of dealing with terror" and this unfortunate incident. Do you really think Blair ordered the London police to shoot to kill any suspicious person? One would think these attacks would cause you (anti-war-in-Iraq people) to wake up and realize what kind of world you live in, but apparently even 30+ dead aren't enough. |
| Serry... 24.07.2005 10:45 |
Guy wrote: It's not acceptable, but you have to distinguish between the "Bush/Blair way of dealing with terror" and this unfortunate incident. Do you really think Blair ordered the London police to shoot to kill any suspicious person? One would think these attacks would cause you (anti-war-in-Iraq people) to wake up and realize what kind of world you live in, but apparently even 30+ dead aren't enough.So maybe they should FIND and kill Osama and Saddam instead of killing innocent people? And please read this: link this is about the city where I do live for whole my life, do I still need to wake up and realize something? And yes, I'm one of those anti-war-in-Iraq people And that's for you too link - this place is in my country, this happened in my country, so I know what terrorism is! |
| Hitman 24.07.2005 11:42 |
terror and fear and someone somewhere is laughing |
| bitesthedust 24.07.2005 13:32 |
my two ideas regarding this mess : 1)how about if police ride on all UK trains, overground and underground ? 2)how about if people are searched before and after getting on trains and leaving/arriving stations? |
| DudleyFufkin 24.07.2005 13:52 |
And how much is that gonna cost? And whos gonna pay? Muggins here, thats fucking who. Why not send the buggers back, or just arm all police with guns. That will solve everything. Gypsies got guns and they do alright. You dont see anny trouble at fairs. |
| Sonia Doris 24.07.2005 15:49 |
just f*ckin shut up as*hole! no one really wants to know your opinion! cookies anyone? |
| Sir Archie 'Tiffany' Leach 24.07.2005 17:07 |
I think we should see it in a different light. When farmers hang up rats and mice on their fences they do it as a display to scare other vermin. The Met shoot an unarmed Brazilian five times in a comparable display. No innocent bugger is going to do a runner again. Lets face it Johnny Foreigner better learn the language if he wants to visit this country. And about time too. |
| brENsKi 24.07.2005 17:23 |
bitesthedust wrote: my two ideas regarding this mess : 1)how about if police ride on all UK trains, overground and underground ? 2)how about if people are searched before and after getting on trains and leaving/arriving stations?sorry fella - but 1. the police bill would make his impossible - the cost would be so high 2. the trains already run late - how bad would this make things? trains running two hours late instead of 1 hour? great |
| brENsKi 24.07.2005 17:23 |
DudleyFufkin wrote: And how much is that gonna cost? And whos gonna pay? Muggins here, thats fucking who. Why not send the buggers back, or just arm all police with guns. That will solve everything. Gypsies got guns and they do alright. You dont see anny trouble at fairs.why don't you fuck off and die, cretin!!! |
| Mrs.Taylor 24.07.2005 18:25 |
Apparently the victim has lived in the UK for three years and is said to have had good English. The Metropolitan Police are operating a shoot-to-kill policy and where suicide bombers are concerned it's head first as any disabling shots could still enable them to detonate a bomb, or the Police themselves could detonate a bomb by shooting at the body. It's a tragic turn of events, yes, but he must have seen the news and been aware that the Police were all over London like a rash, and it appears he should have understood the words "Stop or I'll shoot" or whatever it is they're supposed to say. The Police are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If there's anything positive to be taken from this, then perhaps any would-be jokers, nutters or hoaxers will think twice. |
| Tero 25.07.2005 00:21 |
Mrs.Taylor wrote: Apparently the victim has lived in the UK for three years and is said to have had good English. The Metropolitan Police are operating a shoot-to-kill policy and where suicide bombers are concerned it's head first as any disabling shots could still enable them to detonate a bomb, or the Police themselves could detonate a bomb by shooting at the body. It's a tragic turn of events, yes, but he must have seen the news and been aware that the Police were all over London like a rash, and it appears he should have understood the words "Stop or I'll shoot" or whatever it is they're supposed to say. The Police are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.Judging by the fact that his friend wouldn't say why he was running from the police, it's a safe bet to say that he had done something criminal. However, the official policy for very few crimes in Britain is to shoot to suspect... I don't know how many people live in the building which was under surveillance (10? 1000?), but there was very little chance he would have known he was suspected of terrorism, and at the worst he expected to be shot in the leg after the warnings! |
| My Melancholy Blues 25.07.2005 01:46 |
That's one of the stories the terrorists have wanted. What they have been up to is to cause terror and dreadful disorder in people's mind. I feel much anxiety about it. |
| Mrs.Taylor 25.07.2005 07:30 |
Now, according to the BBC, it would appear that this guy has an out-of-date student visa which would possibly explain why he ran. |
| KEVPAR 25.07.2005 09:15 |
well id have shot him...and im sure if u could ask the guy(s) that did they would tell u that they would do the same again tomorrow if they needed to im sorry but you dont run from a guy shouting 'ARMED POLICE, STOP OR YOU WILL BE SHOT DEAD' especially now... Kev x |
| Guy 25.07.2005 09:18 |
Serry... wrote:Bin Laden lives in caves in Arab countries, is very rich and has an army that protects him. It's not like he's around the corner and the Americans can just catch him. If the Americans go into every Arab country they suspect he's in you'll just scream and shout "Invasion! Conquest! Oil!".Guy wrote: It's not acceptable, but you have to distinguish between the "Bush/Blair way of dealing with terror" and this unfortunate incident. Do you really think Blair ordered the London police to shoot to kill any suspicious person? One would think these attacks would cause you (anti-war-in-Iraq people) to wake up and realize what kind of world you live in, but apparently even 30+ dead aren't enough.So maybe they should FIND and kill Osama and Saddam instead of killing innocent people? And please read this: link this is about the city where I do live for whole my life, do I still need to wake up and realize something? And yes, I'm one of those anti-war-in-Iraq people And that's for you too link - this place is in my country, this happened in my country, so I know what terrorism is! There's a difference between knowing terror and understanding terror. You can't fight terror with treaties and agreements. IT DOESN'T WORK. And yes, you SHOULD wake up and realize 'something', because the US got Saddam out of power. The man killed millions of his own people, whether it was secretly or by public executions, and now he's gone. 4,200 innocent lives are spared every month. That wouldn't be the case if the US went your way. If the US leaves now, before democracy is established in Iraq, a new tyran will rise. And now, regarding your pathetic attempt of starting a competition about the loss of human lives... Before linking to Wikipedia and trying to teach ME about terror, maybe you should read Wikipedia yourself and see who has been the greatest supporter of Muslim countries (including Iran) since the dawn of days... Yes, your homeland, Russia. Following the same despicable tone you used, allow me to link you to the following Wikipedia article: link |
| Serry... 25.07.2005 09:48 |
...yeah, and this is about the country which helped Bin Laden to became who became. link And this photo shows you who's been another (except Russia) friend of Saddam: link (if you can't recognize him - I'd tell you - this is Donald Rumsfeld) American (and not only) young guys now are dying in Iraq for nothing and you're sitting in your home tell the world how many people were killed by Saddam's orders.... And I'm talking in 'pathetic way' because I lose my friend in one of those terrorist attacks in Moscow and I lose my friends who were soldiers and fought in Chechnya and I KNOW and UNDERSTAND much better than most of you what terrorism and war is! If my words offended you - I'm sorry, but since I live in the city where terrorist attacks are usually like rain in London - I couldn't resist to tell my opinion. |
| Bobby_brown 25.07.2005 09:56 |
When people actions are rulled by fear that's what can happen!! Probably if we were one of those policemen we would do exactly the same. Would you take any chances? Those policemen can't afford to be against war on terrorism anymore because they are part of the system. We can say what we want about Bush/Blair, and i agree with you about that, but this guys have no option at all! They follow orders, and they are being fuelled with information by their intelligence services that you don't even dream about. It´s hard to deal with pressure, because wether you like or not, they can't take any risks! Imagine what would it be like, if instead of shooting a guy, they just let him run for a packed area and then he explodes and kills another 10 or 20. What would be the public reaction? They would start to get a feeling of insecurity. It's difficult to judge this situation because when you see a suspect of a suicidal bomber you can't let this guy put his hand in the pocket (like we see in the movies) to get his ID or to let them now he's not armed. So, what would you do? Throughout Europe the Police has detected and desarmed terrorists that were about to do their actions. When this happens it's top secret because authorities don't want to alarm people. I am against war in Iraque and all kinds of terrorism attacks! But nowadays i really don't know how to react because there is a lots of information that i don't have access, wich would allow me to have a brighter opinion. One thing i can say: We all saw what kind of liberty Al-Qaeda wants for their people. The political regime of Afgenistan was very, very hard. I mean no TV, no music, no arts whatsoever (they even destroyed the Budas(?)statues. People would lived by fear 24/7. Imagine what would be like for you to see a soldier raping your mother or sister just because he wants to, or kills your father for some stupid reason. In that regime you couldn't do nothing. But the funny thing is that this guys at Al-Qaeda wants to freedom their people (at least thats what they say), and for some reason people buy this kind of bulshit! Well, they're the ones who treated their people like animals (even worst), what they really want is to get their asses in the power again and do wathever they want without the occidentals pissing them off!! Well, as a global society that we bacame, we can't allow such things. Their problem is our problem too, no one likes to be treated like an animal and we must help each other whathever they are, because it could be us in their situation!! War on Iraque was bad, but what other way would we have to put Saddam out of power? you can say, thats their problem, and i say NO, that's everybody problem (when a guy receives 99,6% of votes in a military country you know that anything has to be donne). To see the every day news and feel sorry for them wouldn't help too. The easyest thing to do is say that they vote for him because they liked him. I allways like to put myself in their place so i can feel (or try to) what would be like if it was me in their situation. The Occident needs to change their behaviour towards African countries and the rest of the world. But they have to insure that human rights are going to be respected,and this is a comitment to their citizens other than their liders, because how can you respect a lider that doesn't respect human lives? So, when Al-Qaeda said that the 9/11 was for the poor palistinian children, and bla bla... I don't buy it, cause they don't have nay credibillity whatsoever in what concerns to human rights. Take care |
| Guy 25.07.2005 10:20 |
Serry... wrote: ...yeah, and this is about the country which helped Bin Laden to became who became. link And this photo shows you who's been another (except Russia) friend of Saddam: link (if you can't recognize him - I'd tell you - this is Donald Rumsfeld) American (and not only) young guys now are dying in Iraq for nothing and you're sitting in your home tell the world how many people were killed by Saddam's orders.... And I'm talking in 'pathetic way' because I lose my friend in one of those terrorist attacks in Moscow and I lose my friends who were soldiers and fought in Chechnya and I KNOW and UNDERSTAND much better than most of you what terrorism and war is! If my words offended you - I'm sorry, but since I live in the city where terrorist attacks are usually like rain in London - I couldn't resist to tell my opinion.I live in Israel, so I understand terror as well, perhaps more than you do. It's a well known fact America helped Bin Laden & Saddam in the past. But once their true nature was discovered, America fought them. The same, as much as you'd like it, cannot be said about Russia. Russia continues to provide tanks, missiles, guns, grenades and what-not to countries like Syria, which were warned by the UN security council for their supportive actions towards terror organization such as the Hizbollah. If Russia really wanted terrorism to be a thing of the past, it wouldn't support countries such as Syria. You sit at home just like me, but there's a little difference. Exactly one year from now I will already be enlisted in the army, helping to fight terror... Will you? And what makes you think every second family in my country, Israel, hasn't been hurt by terror in some way? I'm just thinking out loud here, do you think you can compromise with terrorist Chechens, or do you think they should be captured/eliminated/killed? |
| Carol! the Musical 25.07.2005 10:23 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: I don't really know what happened, but if the guy was asked to STOP several times and he was innocent, then why didn't he stop at the right moment? Perhaps he couldn't speak english, but when cops are calling you, you know that they want you to either stop or come to them . I was watching TV, and one of the victim´s friends or family (I don´t remember precisely which) said it wasn´t possible that he didn´t understand the cop´s english, because he spoke and understood the english language perfectly. |
| Serry... 25.07.2005 10:24 |
Actually I'm a former officer of Russian army, I'm Lietunant... Well, anyway - yes, we did mistakes, yes, we're still doing mistakes - does it mean that everyone should repeat them? No. About Chechnya - I think we need to give them freedom and forget about them, without wars, without anything like that. |
| Guy 25.07.2005 10:25 |
Serry... wrote: Actually I'm a former officer of Russian army, I'm Lietunant... Well, anyway - yes, we did mistakes, yes, we're still doing mistakes - does it mean that everyone should repeat them? No. About Chechnya - I think we need to give them freedom and forget about them, without wars, without anything like that.That's where you're wrong, because they won't forget about you. |
| Serry... 25.07.2005 10:25 |
So we need to kill them all? Did it help in Northern Ireland? Did it help in Spain? Did it help in Israel? Did it help in Russia? No. Our war with Chechnya is about 10 years and nothing changes! |
| Carol! the Musical 25.07.2005 10:30 |
It would be much better if the policemen were armed with tranquilizer guns, instead of the traditional guns. If they were not sure wrether a suspect had really commited the crime, they could shoot the person, and investigate if he/she were actually guilty. This way, tragedies like that wouldn´t happen. :´( |
| @ndy38 25.07.2005 10:34 |
Aren't the metropoliton police testing out new 'zap' guns? That's what i read in my local paper not so long ago. They knock out the victim for a while, preventing the loss of life. |
| Mr.Jingles 25.07.2005 10:42 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: Errr...Al Qa'ida has NOTHING to do with the Taliban, my friend.They did indeed. They were hiding Bin Laden and allowed Al-Qaeda to do as they please in Afghanistan. Now Iraq (or Saddam Hussein for that matter) and Al-Qaeda have NOTHING to be with each other. |
| Bobby_brown 25.07.2005 10:58 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: Errr...Al Qa'ida has NOTHING to do with the Taliban, my friend.Well, my friend i gess they have everything to do with Al-Qaeda. Take care |
| Bobby_brown 25.07.2005 11:28 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:
Now Iraq (or Saddam Hussein for that matter) and Al-Qaeda have NOTHING to be with each other.
That's my point.. They don't have nothing to do with him or Iraq, but they justify their acts with the Iraq invasion. And before the Iraq invasion they would justify their acts with something else. The thing is, it was proven in the Taliban regime that this guys don't guive a shit for human life. They just want the occident to leave because they want to put their people in power and do whathever they want. I mean, put yourselves in those people shoes and think what it would be like to live in a Taliban regime (or with one with the same characteristics). This has got to a point where we can't let that happen again because it would made those deads (soldiers and citizens) even more pointless than that their are now!! Let me remind you that in 1985 Saddam Hussein was considered by the UN the most dangerous country Lider in the World. By now, everyone of you has already got access to his Curriculum Vitae. All over the years Saddam enjoyed his success as "BAD". Every now and then he would threat USA saying that someday he would put bombers in subways and cause terror. Then he invaded Koweit, killed his daughters husbands beacuse they run from Iraq and spoke what they knew about him. You all saw how his two sons lived. He put venom in water and killed thousands of people. In the Iran/Iraq war he tested Quemical bombs and was acused of having comited one of the biggest atrocities in a war untill today. I mean, do we need a good reason to not want this guy in power? NO. Do we need a good reason to start a war and kill inocent people? Yes. How can we conciliate this two things? I don't know, but doing nothing wouldn't help too. Of course USA suported him in the past, but that is no reason for let it be in the present. All of a sudden he has becaneme a saint??- C´mon... By the way, if want my opinion i don't believe that Saddam wasn't supporting Bin Laden. I'm totally shure that they've must met each other even if it's not proven. Just my opinion! Take care |
| Guy 25.07.2005 12:09 |
Serry... wrote: So we need to kill them all? Did it help in Northern Ireland? Did it help in Spain? Did it help in Israel? Did it help in Russia? No. Our war with Chechnya is about 10 years and nothing changes!If when you say 'them' you mean terrorists, then the answer is yes. Good defence will always keep a country quiet. I'm not afraid of riding the bus anymore, because we have good defence. Our war with the Palestinians is more than a 100 years old and nothing in our relationship has changed, but our security has. I sincerely recommend you read the following article (link and especially this paragraph, in order to understand the significance of killing terrorists: Since the conclusion of Operation Defensive Shield, the follow-on Operation Determined Path and the continued construction of the Israeli West Bank Barrier the level of terrorism in general, and suicide bombings in particular, has, according to some sources, dropped by more than 95% to less then five suicide bombings during the period from August 2003 to July 2004. |
| Serry... 25.07.2005 12:28 |
They lived under threat of Saddam, you live under threat of terrorists... Good exchange for Iraq? I don't know... |
| Guy 25.07.2005 12:32 |
Serry... wrote: They lived under threat of Saddam, you live under threat of terrorists... Good exchange for Iraq? I don't know...Emphasis on 'lived'. They don't live under his threat anymore, they live under the threat of terrorists. |
| Mr Mercury 25.07.2005 12:47 |
ChinesedogTorture wrote: It would be much better if the policemen were armed with tranquilizer guns, instead of the traditional guns.The reason why they dont use tranquilizer guns is that, to the best of my knowledge, they dont work straight away as the drug still has to enter the bloodstream which takes maybe more than a few seconds - thus still giving any potential suicide bomber time to trigger any bombs |
| Guy 25.07.2005 12:52 |
Mr Mercury wrote:You're indeed correct.ChinesedogTorture wrote: It would be much better if the policemen were armed with tranquilizer guns, instead of the traditional guns.The reason why they dont use tranquilizer guns is that, to the best of my knowledge, they dont work straight away as the drug still has to enter the bloodstream which takes maybe more than a few seconds - thus still giving any potential suicide bomber time to trigger any bombs |
| rachael mae. 25.07.2005 13:14 |
Guy, you certainly know your stuff.. well done :) |
| Sonia Doris 25.07.2005 13:46 |
Guy wrote:True indeed. So let's kill them all, so there wouldn't be any threat...Mr Mercury wrote:You're indeed correct.ChinesedogTorture wrote: It would be much better if the policemen were armed with tranquilizer guns, instead of the traditional guns.The reason why they dont use tranquilizer guns is that, to the best of my knowledge, they dont work straight away as the drug still has to enter the bloodstream which takes maybe more than a few seconds - thus still giving any potential suicide bomber time to trigger any bombs |
| @ndy38 25.07.2005 15:20 |
Well these new 'zap' guns arent tranquilizer guns, It does exactly what the name says, it 'zaps' the victim with an electronic charge. It will be interesting to see if the tests are successful. |
| Guy 25.07.2005 15:20 |
Somebody To Love Me wrote: Guy, you certainly know your stuff.. well done :)Thank you very much, appreciated :) Sonia Doris wrote:True indeed. So let's kill them all, so there wouldn't be any threat...I don't believe it was anyone's intention to imply that. Don't put words into people's mouths. |
| Guy 25.07.2005 16:17 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:It's quite clear what side I'm on, since I'm a Jew living in Israel (though not all Israeli Jews think the same way, mind you). That said, any "we" I use is a reference to the Jews, and any "they" I use is a reference to the Palestinians.Guy wrote:If when you say 'them' you mean terrorists, then the answer is yes.That's exactly the mistake Israel makes: "if they don't like us taking their land, we'll just kill them, then they won't protest against it". Well, that just doesn't work.Our war with the Palestinians is more than a 100 years old and nothing in our relationship has changed, but our security has.Your conflict with the Palestines dates back to the late 1940s, when Israel was established. You were given the land, but somehow it was forgotten that there was already a people living there (reminiscent of the pope dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal, disregarding the natives). Your war dates back to the '60s, when you so kindly started occupying land which according to the treaties both of you signed belonged to the Palestines.Since the conclusion of Operation Defensive Shield, the follow-on Operation Determined Path and the continued construction of the Israeli West Bank Barrier the level of terrorism in general, and suicide bombings in particular, has, according to some sources, dropped by more than 95% to less then five suicide bombings during the period from August 2003 to July 2004.That wouldn't by any chance have anything to do with the fact that Israel has instigated something of an apartheid against the Palestines, making sure they can hardly leave their LEGAL (as opposed to the Colonists') settlements, now would it? Moreover, your army tends to shoot terrorists dead when they are still teenagers protesting against yet another Nazi-like measure against their people...that's an effective tactic, killing them before they get a chance to maybe become terrorist. Maybe we should enforce that worldwide. That'd solve the exess population for sure, as anyone affiliated with any opposition party worldwide would surely be killed. I'm sorry for my sarcasm, but I just can't see the Israeli military itself as anything but a terrorist organisation. I'll start by saying I'm against any military action that harms innocent people in any way. However, I'm in favor of capturing terrorists and in case of immediate danger - killing them. Our way of action is simple. We surround the house of a wanted terrorist and use a loudspeaker to tell him we had surrounded the house. We then ask him to come out and surrender. Usually, the following scenario happens: he doesn't come out, we bring tractors and start demolishing the house, he comes out shooting everywhere (usually with a few terrorist friends) and we kill him (hence I said 'immediate danger'). Sometimes, when surrounding the terrorist's house is dangerous for various reasons (the area is known to "host" a lot of other armed terrorists, for example), we use helicopters which shoot missiles directly at the terrorist's car. In some cases, sadly, innocent people are hurt. You might be sad to hear that these 2 methods DO work, at least as far as we're concerned. I know there's 1 less terrorist to get on a bus, get on a plane, enter a mall or take hostages inside a private home, and that's what matters to me. The fact his mother is at home crying, protesting, doesn't make me shed a tear, because she's the one who had given him the education that made him into what he was. Our conflict with the Palestinians did not start back in the late 40s, when Israel was established. Maybe that's what someone made you think, but it's wrong. Read link #1 for the facts. Our war with the Arabs does not date back to the 60s. Read link #2 for the facts. During this war, by the w |
| Guy 25.07.2005 17:34 |
What did I say about replying calmly and politely? I tolerated your horrifying comparison to the Nazis once, and replied honestly and in a mannered tone, but I will not make the same mistake again. You are the cold-hearted between the two of us, because you fail to realize that one dead terrorist means many innocent lives spared. You justify terror shamelessly, and give lame excuses to acts of terror. You twist the facts, and disregard neutral sources of information such as Wikipedia (which is edited by many people, and which gives a notice in case neutrality is disputed), explaining history teachers and books are behind you all the way. I got my facts from history teachers and books as well, only I seem to be supported in most history sources. Maybe you think comparing someone to a Nazi is a joke, but I don't. To me, it's perhaps the worst insult one can receive, and therefore I will not continue this debate. |
| Gecko 25.07.2005 18:47 |
you know, i think the terrorist couldnt beet the tri lamdas...they won the olympics, won the talent show and one of them even got a pie. than they all sang "we are the champions" and waited for the sequel |
| Saint Jiub 25.07.2005 20:40 |
Great posts, Guy |
| Bob The Shrek 25.07.2005 21:47 |
Can anyone here put their hand on heart and swear blind that their police force has not fucked up on an operation that resulted in an innocent person being killed? I doubt it. It happens, deal with it and move on. |
| Guy 26.07.2005 02:07 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: Great posts, GuyThanks! |
| YourValentine 26.07.2005 04:59 |
"Can anyone here put their hand on heart and swear blind that their police force has not fucked up on an operation that resulted in an innocent person being killed? I doubt it. It happens, deal with it and move on." Yes, it happens, unfortunately. A couple of years ago a suspected terrorist (RAF) was literally executed by German police. The Minister of the Interior resigned after the shooting. The problem is that the London police says they will do it again. They officially announced they will go on shooting people in the head when they are convinced that the suspect could be a suicide bomber. This is the end of a free society, it's Police State. The police accusing and executing in one peocedure. No need to prove anything. Blair said he was willing to defend British life style against the terrorists but in fact he already surrendered. If it's okay for the British society that their police shoot people just because they look suspicious, they are no better than the Saddam Hussein Regime. Al Quaeda has done a good job in undermining the most basic values of a Democratic society. |
| Bob The Shrek 26.07.2005 05:43 |
Will you people please get it into your heads that the police did not shoot him because he looked suspicious - they shot him because he refused to stop when challenged. The guy lived and worked here for 3 years - you tell me which part of 'Armed Police, stop' he wouldn't understand. 74% of Londoners want the police to carry on with the shoot to kill policy - that's pretty democratic to me. |
| Serry... 26.07.2005 05:47 |
I don't know about UK police, but in Russia in such cases policemen shoots up in the air firstly and then in the legs, but not 5 times in the head... And if a guy is gonna explode himself, he wouldn't be afraid of police and wouldn't run, you know... |
| Tero 26.07.2005 05:57 |
Bob The Shrek wrote: Will you people please get it into your heads that the police did not shoot him because he looked suspicious - they shot him because he refused to stop when challenged. The guy lived and worked here for 3 years - you tell me which part of 'Armed Police, stop' he wouldn't understand.Maybe he was just stupid enough to think that the police wouldn't shoot him for being in the country illegally? The man had no reason to believe he was supposedly a terrorist. Aren't all terrorists arabs? :P I'm sure Dudley Fufkin will be thrilled with the idea of shooting anybody running away from the police (especially the foreigners), but that just isn't the way a civilised society works. |
| Fenderek 26.07.2005 06:07 |
How about- the guy panicked? |
| YourValentine 26.07.2005 06:16 |
"Will you people please get it into your heads that the police did not shoot him because he looked suspicious - they shot him because he refused to stop when challenged." Sorry but this is NOT what the BBC reported and what was never denied. They wrestled him down to the ground he could not move they fired 5 bullets into his head just in case "74% of Londoners want the police to carry on with the shoot to kill policy - that's pretty democratic to me." According to that logic the Nazi Regime was democratic because the overwhelming majority was in favour of it. Human Rights cannot be voted away by an emotionalised public. It's the strength of a free, liberal and democratic society that Human Rights are ALWAYS observed. If you think it's okay that policemen kill unarmed and innocent suspects you give up your own right to be protected against assaults by the state. |
| Bob The Shrek 26.07.2005 06:20 |
Fair enough Fenderek, he may have done, but why? If an armed police officer stopped you in the street, would you run? I know I wouldn't. |
| YourValentine 26.07.2005 06:33 |
Bob - if four guys with fire arms were running at you, isn't it possible you would run - just very spontaneously? They were "under cover", the guy could not see they are police. The problem is that the terrorists already succeeded in increasing the tolerance and acceptance for such outrageous police actions to an incredible extent. It's obvious that mistakes happen but the police does not even admit it was a mistake, they claim it's lawful procedure. A frightened public readily giving up the most basic values of a country ruled by law: that is a success the terrorists sure did not expect so quickly. |
| Bob The Shrek 26.07.2005 06:45 |
Barb - to be honest (even if I was fit enough to run LMAO) I wouldn't run. If they shouted at me to stop, I would stop. Firearms are illegal in the UK and our ordinary poilce are not armed either. If I saw a person in plain clothes openly carrying a weapon I would assume he was a police officer. I can't outrun a 9mm bullet. |
| Fenderek 26.07.2005 08:02 |
Bob The Shrek wrote: I can't outrun a 9mm bullet.Good point, actually... I don't know- he didn't stop. But it's a huge price to pay for stupidity here... Not sure if I feel comfortable with a police feeling free to put me down to the ground and shot five times into my head just in case... Having said that- I think I would have stopped, but... Imagine police is calling you for whatever reason, you're running after train and... are listening to iPod and obviously- don't hear the policeman... |
| Bob The Shrek 26.07.2005 08:58 |
That is a 'what if' scenario and it's already been decided on page 1 we can't use them as examples. |
| Bob The Shrek 26.07.2005 09:35 |
'According to that logic the Nazi Regime was democratic because the overwhelming majority was in favour of it. Human Rights cannot be voted away by an emotionalised public. It's the strength of a free, liberal and democratic society that Human Rights are ALWAYS observed. If you think it's okay that policemen kill unarmed and innocent suspects you give up your own right to be protected against assaults by the state.' If the Nazi regime was voted for by the majority of the population then indeed it was democratic - that doesn't make it a morally correct decision though. Human Rights went out of the window, as far as I am concerned, the day 56 people were killed. What about my Human Rights to walk the streets, take the bus or tube without fear of being killed or maimed (Okay, I'm in Sheffield but you get my point). Tony Blair summed it up this afternoon: 9/11 was a wake up call, unfortunately some people turned over and went back to sleep. |
| Guy 26.07.2005 10:37 |
You can refer to it in any way you want, you can claim a conflict started on year X while it actually started on year Y and you can deny a war even existed. That still doesn't make you right, or polite, for that matter. There were terror acts against Jews in the 20s, the Arabs did have representatives of their own at the conference which was organized by the British, there was an Arab revolt called The Great Uprising in 1936 towarded against the British mandate and the Jewish economy, there was a war in 1948 between the newly-born Israel and Arab countries, and anything you say won't change that, because these are FACTS. I'm not even going to supply additional proofs, since you can pursue information on your own. And again, I don't like your tone, so I'm not going to continue this conversation any longer. |
| TheThumb 26.07.2005 10:37 |
YourValentine wrote: Human Rights cannot be voted away by an emotionalised public. It's the strength of a free, liberal and democratic society that Human Rights are ALWAYS observed. If you think it's okay that policemen kill unarmed and innocent suspects you give up your own right to be protected against assaults by the state.- very well put indeed. And to those who are saying he was shot because he ran, this is incorrect. He was shot AFTER he was overpowered. This was an execution. I find it interesting that most people seem to think that because of one attack on London, and one attempted attack, it is necessary to be this drastic, and yet after all the years of people over here in Northern Ireland being blown to bits, we are meant to accept the fact that the killers have been released from jail early to continue their illegal activities, and some of them are even in our government. Maybe Londoners lives are more valuable than ours. |
| Gecko 26.07.2005 11:32 |
does anyone believe that Anne Bolynne (sp) still walks the bloody tower with her head tucked under her arm??? |
| Guy 26.07.2005 13:04 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: And why would the fact that there were anti-Jewish sentiments in the 20th century justify Jewish oppression of the Palestines in the 21st? Would you like me to shoot some Germans, because they murdered 6 million Jews in WWII? That's the same thing, you know.You said the conflict started in the late 40s. I said it didn't. You said history teachers and books are behind you. I proved you wrong, but you're desperate so you're ignoring the original purpose of my previous post. It wasn't supposed to "justify" any so-called oppression. As I demonstarted earlier, this is not an oppression. The Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, and they have the Palestinian authority to take care of them. We only go into Gaza, Ramallah and so on when we need to arrest terrorists. If there weren't any teorrorists - there wouldn't be any arrests. |
| Serry... 26.07.2005 13:11 |
Guy wrote: We only go into Gaza, Ramallah and so on when we need to arrest terrorists.Bad argument actually... "We only go into Poland, France, Russia, UK when we need to kill guys who doesn't like us"... |
| Guy 26.07.2005 13:18 |
Serry... wrote:The Palestinian authority has an autonomy on certain territories, but we still have the legal right of entering them to defend ourselves. That's in the agreements we both signed. They get autonomy in certain fields and don't get it in other fields. You have to understand, the Palestinians don't have a state yet, so when they do you can say we're not allowed to arrest terrorists.Guy wrote: We only go into Gaza, Ramallah and so on when we need to arrest terrorists.Bad argument actually... "We only go into Poland, France, Russia, UK when we need to kill guys who doesn't like us"... |
| Serry... 26.07.2005 13:20 |
So give them complete and full autonomy then! And as I wrote this "we still have the legal right of entering them to defend ourselves" is something what my country (USSR) did in the past and how it was explained! After such enterances the whole world called us as an evil country, though your country and USA do the same things still, but that's okay... That's wrong, IMHO. |
| Guy 26.07.2005 14:10 |
Serry... wrote: So give them complete and full autonomy then! And as I wrote this "we still have the legal right of entering them to defend ourselves" is something what my country (USSR) did in the past and how it was explained! After such enterances the whole world called us as an evil country, though your country and USA do the same things still, but that's okay... That's wrong, IMHO.We don't mind giving them full autonomy, even their own state, but they have to stop using terror first. That's a condition we will never ever give up. |
| Gecko 26.07.2005 16:29 |
no thomas, comic relief is your comments to everyone who dosent agree with you in the form of nazi accusing and nazi accusing accesseries. you use the word nazi like fat people use hambergers to forget the boredom in their lives. maybe if you didnt have so much hatred and 50 chips on your shoulder, your tree loving hippie ass would actually listen to someone insted of trying to save a moth or something, maybe you would see that there are people, like you, have opinions that are valid in their minds, and to them they are just as right as you feel you are with your beliefs.if you didnt spend all yout time busting down everyones post and breaking it down word for word and putting it to YOUR satifaction, you might realize that that there is a real non perfect world out there that we are all part of.people like guy and bob are only giving their facts and beliefs, and you tear it apart cause it dosnt meet your agenda, when will it stop, once the world becomes a bush hating terrist supporting russia winning ww2 believing anit -government everything getting our ass out of iraq, palistine. isreal,ireland,tatoonee,easter island, and wonderland so that thomas can than be happy and save a tree or something like that existence. so please, before you start downing everyone for their political statements, look at your own nazi accusing racist ass and your beliefs,and than see where the real comic relief is HIPPIE oh, by the way, i really dont agree with everyones opinions, i just value them, but i rather agree to with them to know that im disagreeing with you now go ahead and break down this post..please, than we will know for the next 20 minutes, your rebellious,terrist acting, calling everyone nazis ass will be occupied so the world will once again be at peace to live and breath again p.s.--have a happy day |
| Saint Jiub 26.07.2005 23:13 |
Munches on popcorn ... |
| Saint Jiub 26.07.2005 23:27 |
In my mind, the execution of the Brazilian was unnecessary. He was prone and evidently under complete control of the police. I understand and sympathize with the police, but they are professionals and should be held to a higher standard. Hypothetically, I believe shooting the Brazilian just before he entered the train would have been justified and "could" have saved many lives if he had a bomb. However, the cold blooded shooting of the Brazilian after he was subdued can not be justified as the correct action. However, it is possible that some small leniency could be considered for the "guilty" cops, as they were in a potential life or death situation, but they should not get off with a slap on the wrist. |
| Gecko 27.07.2005 00:35 |
hey RVW...have anymore popcorn i can get some butter and salt |
| Saint Jiub 27.07.2005 00:44 |
sure ... here ya go |
| Guy 27.07.2005 02:43 |
Well said, Gecko (about the popcorn too :P). |
| Bob The Shrek 27.07.2005 05:06 |
Gecko wrote: does anyone believe that Anne Bolynne (sp) still walks the bloody tower with her head tucked under her arm???Fresh argument: Henry VIII has his marriage to Anne Boleyn anulled in 1536. In the eyes of the law they were never married, so why was she beheaded for adultry? |
| @ndy38 27.07.2005 05:52 |
Is she the one who was to be known as his 'sister' rather than his 'wife'? |
| Bob The Shrek 27.07.2005 06:34 |
Nah, that was Anne of Cleves. |
| Serry... 27.07.2005 10:54 |
"Egg or chicken" situation... "We won't let them go - 'till they stop to kill us, but they won't stop to kill us - 'till we'll let them go"... Well... PS I thought it was serious discussion untill Gecko's reply about TQ... |
| @ndy38 27.07.2005 11:05 |
I thought this was a pretty decent and insightful political argument until things got a bit personal...... Just be calm when writing these posts lol, and remember cleverly written pieces of argument are more respected than name calling and senseless rambling. |
| Guy 27.07.2005 13:39 |
andylamb_38 wrote: I thought this was a pretty decent and insightful political argument until things got a bit personal...... Just be calm when writing these posts lol, and remember cleverly written pieces of argument are more respected than name calling and senseless rambling.Indeed, but ThomasQuinn's latest reply doesn't actually follow any of that, now does it? I stepped out of the arguement because he got personal. I didn't call him any names, and asked him to talk more calmly... But he didn't. |
| Gecko 27.07.2005 19:12 |
guy...lets admit it, we were the name callers and racist and biggots and everything else...oh thomas deserved none of this bashing, and was completely innocent of any wrong doing, his comments were never selfserving,and we took it to far by calling him a "oh my God...A HIPPIE"..and for that , we are sorry.... oh, and we are sorry for the sinking of the titanic.... and distruction of the dinosaurs...... and atlantas sinking...... and the black plague...... and the fact that the usa landed on the moon first...but really didnt.. and last but not least..the big bang.... to be honest, i really think he was upset over the fact that we didnt share any popcorn with him |
| Gecko 27.07.2005 19:21 |
bob..i never knew that fact, the only thing i really knew is that i thought she was queen for 1000 days, her "affair was with her brother" and she hd 6 fingers on each hand.... a third nipple was also noted, but i think that was just an urban legend. i guess in those day, the church wouldnt accept divorce, and i guess lopping off her dome was the next best choice. anyway, i heard wife number 3 was a hottie(i wasnt to sure if that was jane or kathrine) |
| Bob The Shrek 27.07.2005 23:58 |
'anyway, i heard wife number 3 was a hottie(i wasnt to sure if that was jane or kathrine)' Jane Seymour - the only wife to bear him a son, Edward, and also the only wife to be buried with Henry VIII. |
| Serry... 28.07.2005 07:26 |
Gecko wrote: and the fact that the usa landed on the moon first...Oh, that's okay. No problem. Because it was we who sent man (Mr Gagarin) to the space first. And our 'Sputnik' was the first artificial satellite to be put into orbit! :P Please Gecko don't reply to this, I don't want second USA-Russia cold war, just couldn't resist to put some facts too! :) |
| The Real Wizard 28.07.2005 13:16 |
Gecko wrote: i guess in those day, the church wouldnt accept divorce, and i guess lopping off her dome was the next best choice.In those days? This hasn't changed at all! |
| Guy 28.07.2005 14:10 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:I'm a very sick bastard? Okay, Captain Queeg.Guy wrote:I never called you names. Seeing as you referred to your goverment as 'we', I referred to it as 'you'. If you wish to manipulate that into a personal attack, you are a very sick bastard (and in that case 'you' would be personal!)andylamb_38 wrote: I thought this was a pretty decent and insightful political argument until things got a bit personal...... Just be calm when writing these posts lol, and remember cleverly written pieces of argument are more respected than name calling and senseless rambling.Indeed, but ThomasQuinn's latest reply doesn't actually follow any of that, now does it? I stepped out of the arguement because he got personal. I didn't call him any names, and asked him to talk more calmly... But he didn't. |
| Gecko 28.07.2005 16:22 |
serry, im gonna responce for 1 reason and one reason alone, you read and posted to half a comment lol i said that "we were the first to put a man on the moon...BUT REALLY DIDNT" meaning that i believe we never did land on the moon...it was all a propaganda thing.. i find it funny you respond to only half of what i said...showing me that you not only read what you wanna read, and respond to the part you feel fits your agenda lol and thomas,as far as the missles in cuba, all, i can say is that insted of pointing them at the usa, maybe you needed to use them in afganistan a many years ago, after all, you need to do something besides getting your ass kicked lol now keep bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with anything, cause you know, thats is the kind of comment that is made when you run out of things to say now go fight your "fight you will never win" (as you called it)and take time stepping off your soap box once in a while to notice the real world ps...God bless you all lol |
| Serry... 28.07.2005 16:45 |
I can't speak English, but I can read English, and I've read what you wrote - I've read your full comment, but since there was sarcasm in your words, I didn't put this last bit..... Though I believe Americans were first on the moon... And yes - I reply to what I want. This something what I've used to do. Your wish is not my command, sorry. |
| Gecko 28.07.2005 17:00 |
sir GH.... is it really that way, i guess church and state arnt seperated in many places, including parts of the us |
| The Real Wizard 29.07.2005 03:11 |
Nope, the catholic church still forbids it. Whether or not people still obey is another story. The majority of catholics I know don't follow every bit of biblical doctrine (and also post-biblical doctrine the church has made up through the years, mind you). However, a friend of mine once told me he has an aunt who won't leave an emotionally and physically abusive marriage of 30 years because "it's not the catholic thing to do". How horrible it is that the church has manipulated this poor woman into living such a horrible life. Of course I realize that people have the ability make their own choices in life, but this just shows the power that an outside source can have over one's mind. So does one condemn her for her lack of willpower, the church for its need to control the masses, or a bit of both? |
| Lord Blackadder 08.08.2005 14:12 |
YourValentine wrote: sorry I could not resist. We all feared that from the moment we heard about the "suspicious" details. He wore a coat and was running towards a train, that should be enough to kill someone with 5 shots from close distance.I don't agreee with what happened but the Police were instructed to shoot to kill because of what happened on 07/07. And a witness said he did look very suspicious. Like I said I don't agree, but I kind of understand. Especially as it was only 2 weeks after London was blown in bits. |
