Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59

Thread: Britain says they will not let terrorists change their lifestyle, but...

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default Britain says they will not let terrorists change their lifestyle, but...

    The british PM before seemed adamant saying that they would not let terrorists succeed in their aims, which somehow he previously assigned as bullying or scaring Britons into changing their lifestyle.

    however look today: police can shoot dead a man who is not related to the crime they are investigating with no serious repercussions for the police who shot him. Not even an official apology, or statement accepting culpability. Is that not a change in the British lifestyle or values? Previously, a police would not even shoot at a suspect unless his life was directly in danger, and then only with several verbal (and non-verbal) warnings.

    Anyway, I think Tony Blair was off the mark in assigning that goal to the terrorists. I think the terrorists want to hurt British people, in revenge for the way they feel their own people have been hurt by the British, (not to say that terrorism is right, but I feel that is closer to the real reason they do it). But even assigning their own reason to the terrorist actions, the Brits have not been able to live up to their promise of not allowing the terrorists to "win this fight" by changing their lifestyle. In fact, Britain is changing because of terrorism, and I think it's changing for the worse where a cop can now shoot a person dead and pass it off as "the new regulation when facing suicide bombers."

    If Tony Blair really wants to keep to his word that it will not change British values, British ethics, british way of life, then British cops should not have a free license to shoot people in the head that they suspect of being terrorists.

  2. #2

    Default

    i don't know about you, and i may not even be on topic, but i feel that the British police who now have the authority to sort of "shoot to kill on sight" is a much scarier thought than terrorist actions.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waffle
    i don't know about you, and i may not even be on topic, but i feel that the British police who now have the authority to sort of "shoot to kill on sight" is a much scarier thought than terrorist actions.
    That's bad, mean- if i am a police and i don't like you- shoot you and call you terrorist.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waffle
    i don't know about you, and i may not even be on topic, but i feel that the British police who now have the authority to sort of "shoot to kill on sight" is a much scarier thought than terrorist actions.
    Well... I wouldn't say it's a much scarier thought, but I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to behave that way. Anybody know why that Brazilian man ran from the police? Maybe he was a petty theif or something, anyway, hardly a capital offense. Stupid maybe, but the police should not have shot him... execution style lagi, in the back of the head when he was on the floor. Yeah, it is a pretty scary thought actually...

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toasty
    Well... I wouldn't say it's a much scarier thought, but I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to behave that way. Anybody know why that Brazilian man ran from the police? Maybe he was a petty theif or something, anyway, hardly a capital offense. Stupid maybe, but the police should not have shot him... execution style lagi, in the back of the head when he was on the floor. Yeah, it is a pretty scary thought actually...
    In the back of the head. That's murder..

  6. #6

    Default

    we are living in a society of paranoia from a psychological outcome of a society manipulated by mass media to propagate war on terrorism, when war itself is the root of terrorisme. Are you with them or Are you against them? Political conflict kills innocent life. One man's cause killed millions and leave millions more to suffer.


  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amospi
    In the back of the head. That's murder..
    it's based on the account of an eye-witness who said that he jumped over the ticket-barriers at the train station and stumbled. The 2 officers came behind him and held him down, and a third one shot him 5 times. He had been challenged by the officers previously and fled.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amospi
    That's bad, mean- if i am a police and i don't like you- shoot you and call you terrorist.
    Yes, absolutely if you give them grounds to think you are a "terrorist suspect".

    This is the war against terrorists and a lot of innocent people are going to get caught in the crossfire.

  9. #9

    Default

    basically, all our lifestyles have changed because of the terrorism threat.

    we have now gotten used to a greater security presence in our country, armed patrols are now a common sight. security checks are tight in the ports and at checkpoints. what you don't see is the greater powers of arrest given to security forces to nullify any perceived terrorist threat like JI. it may not be "shoot to kill" here yet, but laws can change overnight should there be a suicide bombing in singapore *touch wood*. already, people are getting more security conscious, someone even suggested in ST recently to close off empty compartments under the seats in MRT trains so that suspicious bags can't be left in them.

    welcome to our brave new world.
    you can buy better gear but you can't buy a better eye

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zaren
    basically, all our lifestyles have changed because of the terrorism threat.

    we have now gotten used to a greater security presence in our country, armed patrols are now a common sight. security checks are tight in the ports and at checkpoints. what you don't see is the greater powers of arrest given to security forces to nullify any perceived terrorist threat like JI. it may not be "shoot to kill" here yet, but laws can change overnight should there be a suicide bombing in singapore *touch wood*. already, people are getting more security conscious, someone even suggested in ST recently to close off empty compartments under the seats in MRT trains so that suspicious bags can't be left in them.

    welcome to our brave new world.
    With or without terrorism, life will still go on.. no need to close anything la.. just close the ear lo..

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toasty
    it's based on the account of an eye-witness who said that he jumped over the ticket-barriers at the train station and stumbled. The 2 officers came behind him and held him down, and a third one shot him 5 times. He had been challenged by the officers previously and fled.
    How many shots to the head do you need to eliminate the threat of him detonating himself? Maybe 5 is a good number (sarcasm). I am no expert in human anatomy, but come on, 1 shot and maybe another just to make sure, five is definately an over-kill.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seewhy
    How many shots to the head do you need to eliminate the threat of him detonating himself? Maybe 5 is a good number (sarcasm). I am no expert in human anatomy, but come on, 1 shot and maybe another just to make sure, five is definately an over-kill.
    If it were you who hold a gun to that "terrorist" head and there's every cahnce that he might trigger an explosion ..would you shoot him to ensure he won't blow up the bomb? or would you attempt at apprehending him risking an explosion that will certainly kill you and those around him? What's your answer in 1 second ..... BOOOOM!

  13. #13

    Default

    WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE
    Eat breath LIVERPOOL!!!

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    666

    Default

    This reminds me of a book called "The Crucible" Its about the witch hunt in Salem Massachusetts. Somehow they fail to capture the witch but instead they sacrificed more innocent people.... more like what US experienced few years ago when twin towers were bombed......

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seewhy
    How many shots to the head do you need to eliminate the threat of him detonating himself? Maybe 5 is a good number (sarcasm). I am no expert in human anatomy, but come on, 1 shot and maybe another just to make sure, five is definately an over-kill.
    Try 7 shots to the head and one to the shoulder, that's the officially admitted number by the Chief Constable of the London Met in a press conference yesterday.

    As an expat Brit I consider this shooting to be outrageous and nothing short of cold blooded murder. One or two shots is excusable, just, but to empty a whole clip in to someone is really a bit much.

    Toasty has got it right though, anyone who thinks the attacks on London, as well as Bali, Spain and indeed NYC were anything but direct consequences of US foreign policy as backed by the likes of Tony B.liar and Johnny "rotten" Howard etc have rocks in their heads or are self deluded.

    Disclaimer: The views in this post are the personal views of the poster and are in no way affiliated with ClubSnap, or it's owners.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default

    I've been talking with an Israeli on another forum. He told me that the same day that britain tried to excuse the shooting by saying they'd received new methods for dealing with terrorists from Israel, Israel apprehended and disarmed a suicide bomber without firing a single shot.

    I asked him how it was done (I guess those failed suicide attempts don't make international headlines, but will make local news in Israel) he said that they surrounded the bomber at a distance and held him at gunpoint. They told him that he could either choose to live or to die, but that he wasn't going to take any of them with him. Faced with that choice, he chose to disarm. Now this is a much better response to suicide bombing threats, than shooting someone in the head before you know who he is.

  17. #17
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    The problem is that the suicide bomber is already ready to die. Whether you shoot him or he blows himself up is the same result to him. I suppose he'd rather blow himself up and at least he knows he succeeded, than to let you shoot him and therefore he failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by toasty
    I asked him how it was done (I guess those failed suicide attempts don't make international headlines, but will make local news in Israel) he said that they surrounded the bomber at a distance and held him at gunpoint. They told him that he could either choose to live or to die, but that he wasn't going to take any of them with him. Faced with that choice, he chose to disarm. Now this is a much better response to suicide bombing threats, than shooting someone in the head before you know who he is.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    The problem is that the suicide bomber is already ready to die. Whether you shoot him or he blows himself up is the same result to him. I suppose he'd rather blow himself up and at least he knows he succeeded, than to let you shoot him and therefore he failed.
    No, the thing is, that if he blows himself up and the police are a distance away with their guns trained on him, he will only kill himself. The choice he faces is: die alone, or live. Either way, he's already failed his mission at that point. You have to understand, their goal is not to just die, but to die taking as many of the enemy with them as possible. if he dies by blowing himself up, but none of the enemy is killed too, then he's failed. That was the choice the Israeli soldiers gave him, and he chose not to die.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toasty
    No, the thing is, that if he blows himself up and the police are a distance away with their guns trained on him, he will only kill himself. The choice he faces is: die alone, or live. Either way, he's already failed his mission at that point. You have to understand, their goal is not to just die, but to die taking as many of the enemy with them as possible. if he dies by blowing himself up, but none of the enemy is killed too, then he's failed. That was the choice the Israeli soldiers gave him, and he chose not to die.
    my guess is that the israeli soldiers have had many years of hard experience with suicide bombers and so they have refined their tactics to deal with them, as well as keeping a cool head in such situations. i'd be interested to hear how the israelis dealt with the first suicide bomber suspect they have faced, i bet it was not with such restraint.

    this is the first suicide bombing faced by british police, so an overreaction in the immediate aftermath, while deplorable, is not exactly unexpected. i hope the british police learn quickly from this mistake, as well as take to heart the experience of the israelis, and strike the terrorists in a more effective way.
    you can buy better gear but you can't buy a better eye

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zaren
    my guess is that the israeli soldiers have had many years of hard experience with suicide bombers and so they have refined their tactics to deal with them, as well as keeping a cool head in such situations. i'd be interested to hear how the israelis dealt with the first suicide bomber suspect they have faced, i bet it was not with such restraint.

    this is the first suicide bombing faced by british police, so an overreaction in the immediate aftermath, while deplorable, is not exactly unexpected. i hope the british police learn quickly from this mistake, as well as take to heart the experience of the israelis, and strike the terrorists in a more effective way.
    Yes what you say is true. The Israelis have had many long hard years of this experience. How did they initially react? Well it started with a war which Israel won. You know wars, lots of people killed, atrocities go un-detected on both sides, accusations are abound. There were 2 phases to the war. A kind of latent, tit-for-tat reprisal type scuffles prior to the official declaration of war (which happened in may 1948), and then the official stage where regular armies engaged each other. Israel was born in conflict, so they have always been vigilant. Israel has responded to sucessful suicide bombings, normally by attacking neighbouring refugee camps (that were created during the initial war) which has earned it world-wide condemnation.

    One difference between Israel and england, is that Israel has somebody to blame and punish for the attacks. britain does not, not somebody specific at least.

    At any rate, the british over-reaction needs to be seen and accepted as such by those who committed the over-reaction, and changes need to be made from within.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •