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

[toasty]

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.

 

[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.

 

[amospi]

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. :faint:

 

[toasty]

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...

 

[amospi]

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.:bigeyes: That's murder..:flame:

 

[shahrecover]

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.

;(

 

[toasty]

In the back of the head.:bigeyes: That's murder..:flame:

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.

 

[Sion]

That's bad, mean- if i am a police and i don't like you- shoot you and call you terrorist. :faint:

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.

 

[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.

 

[amospi]

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..:sweatsm:

 

[seewhy]

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.

 

[nova_nebula]

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! :bsmilie:

 

[fotoudavid]

WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE

 

[idor]

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...... :think:

 

[Ian]

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.

 

[toasty]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[toasty]

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.

 

[zaren]

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.

 

[toasty]

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.