Britain says they will not let terrorists change their lifestyle, but...
- Thread starter toasty
- Start date
- Status
think not changing lifestyle is meant for the common people. police and other security officers would have to be more on their toes.
getting shot dead without proper justification or evidence will definitely mean that it is a change in the way common british people live. Certainly it has changed Mr. Menedes' lifestyle as he's now dead. An unjust death affects all the common people. It affects the friends, the family, it affects eye-witnesses, it even affects total strangers who never saw or knew the victim. It has also changed the british people's values and opinions (at least some of them) as more of them see excessive force as necessary and even excusable (or understandable) when the wrong person is killed. I'm glad to see however that this is not true for all of them.mpenza said:
Imagine if you had lost someone who was shot dead because he was mistakenly suspected of being a terrorist and the shooting policeman did not even stop to make sure of his suspicion? Would you still be asking that question? You would have at least expected him to make sure that the person he shot was guilty before killing him.zaren said:
Two wrongs do not make a right. The correct way to fight terrorism, is not to become less just and more terroristic. We have no control over what the terrorists do. We have control over how we respond, and responding with more violence and less tolerance and less restraint is only going to make the cycle of violence worse, not better. The police need to make sure, absolutely sure that they are killing someone who is guilty. In fact, if possible, they should not kill him at all, as they are not in the position of judge nor executioner. If it is unavoidable and guilt beyond question, then yes, but in this case, they did not even consider any other options. Kill first, ask questions later. That's completely the wrong attitude to have. The police, are taking on the same attitude as the terrorists in this case.
You cannot unkill a person. If the person has to be killed, then the police better make pretty darn sure that they are killing the right guy. In any case, it benefits everyone, if the terrorist is captured alive. It benefits the police (less bad publicity, more leads to capture the master-mind, less chance of vengence attacks), it benefits the public (less chance of getting shot in the head), it benefits the terrorists (who will now have less incentive to seek revenge), it benefits the whole world. That is the first and best outcome that they should hope for and work towards. Killing the terrorist is as a last resort (after he's been properly identified and his intention made clear). Killing an innocent shouldn't even be an option, but in todays hysteria and paranoia, it has become an unfortunate reality. If there is an option in which everybody gains, and nobody loses, then this is the choice we should be working towards. Instead, because of the paranoia and panic, they chose an option in which everybody loses. Maybe you can say the terrorists win, because they have succeeded in their attempts to spread chaos and terror. I can answer your question: absolutely, yes, whether someone I know and care about died in a suicide bombing or not, the correct way is more restraint, and less wrecklessness.
toasty said:
unfortunately the world is seldom so clear cut in black and white in terms of having perfect information to act upon. another scenario.... intel from the top informs you that terror alert level is currently high. you are manning a police checkpoint and a car is driving straight at you. you yell at the driver to stop, but he ignores you. you now have two choices: continue yelling at him to stop, or take decisive action to nullify the terrorist threat. there is no time to make *absolutely* sure the driver of the car is not a terrorist. he may even be a *really* deaf innocent man. but can you risk public safety by not doing something quick and decisive, which may well be shooting dead the driver of the car or destroying the car to potentially save the lives of nearby civilians or your own comrades?
The world was clear-cut black and white in this case. The police should have made sure before pulling the trigger.zaren said:
You also have to realize, your scenario is not realistic. What you describe is a hollywood scene car-chase. Terrorists rarely pull off their attacks through bravado and car-chases like you see in hollywood. They operate more on sneak attacks and lax security. The experienced ones will choose soft, easy targets, where security is not high. Of course, their chances of success are higher there. They will not normally drive a car blazenly towards a roadblock. The terrorists get through because of our laxness, not because we are not shooting them before they get to the target.
toasty said:
not realistic? suicide bombings using cars is a favourite tactic of suicide bombers. driving a bomb-laden car into a busy precinct or checkpoint is not hollywood, but reality. remember, these people firmly believe they will go to heaven because of their martyrdom. nothing will stop them from driving cars into crowds, or planes into buildings.
Yes, not realistic in the way you described it. The car bombs that have been used have been parked under buildings or next to the soft target, drawing as little attention to themselves as possible. The car-chases and gun-fights are what sell tickets to movies, but the terrorists know, that if it comes to a direct show of force, they will lose, because they lack the technology, they hardware, to fight the developed world face on. They will always rely on sneak and unpreparedness.zaren said:
Anyone of you watched the BBC dcoumentary "The Power of Nightmares BBC Documentary VCD.mpg"?
It's about the insecurity of the americans and their fears, creating assumptions that feed more fears.
Apparently, the name "Al Qaeda" did not even exist before Jan 2001. The name was never mentioned anywhere before then. The americans made them up. Though the group may or may not have existed.
Not sure about the validity of the documentary, but it's worth a good watch, for the humor of how the americans reacted to their fears.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
It's about the insecurity of the americans and their fears, creating assumptions that feed more fears.
Apparently, the name "Al Qaeda" did not even exist before Jan 2001. The name was never mentioned anywhere before then. The americans made them up. Though the group may or may not have existed.
Not sure about the validity of the documentary, but it's worth a good watch, for the humor of how the americans reacted to their fears.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
Anyway, if I were faced with the situation you described (even though I do not think that a real terrorist or suicide bomber would ever operate that way) I would try to act so as to stop the driver without killing him if possible. That would mean shooting at the tires or if possible at the limbs. You need to realize, if you kill him, there is a very good chance that you've made the situation worse, not better, as has happened here. Even if he's a real terrorist and you kill him, the situation is worse than if you apprehend him alive. And chances of him being a real terrorist charging at you, announcing his intention to kill you, is very remote.
I know you are thinking, or worrying about what would happen if the terrorist reaches his target and hundreds die? Like I said before, that's not how terrorists tend to operate. They don't go charging towards police stops, or running rambo-style through the streets of new-york guns-ablazing.
Consider the terrorist's position. You want to maximize civilian deaths and minimize the chances of getting shot before you get there. Are you going to go where the security is high and draw attention to yourself by driving like mad towards a police depot, or are you going to try to sneak around and reach your target avoiding as many police/army/security as possible? Of course it will be the latter. The situation you describe where a policeman is going to be making a split second decision that will save or kill hundreds, is not realistic. Therefore, allowing police to have free-license to shoot at suspected terrorists at will, is going to result in more innocent deaths than terrorists stopped.
I know you are thinking, or worrying about what would happen if the terrorist reaches his target and hundreds die? Like I said before, that's not how terrorists tend to operate. They don't go charging towards police stops, or running rambo-style through the streets of new-york guns-ablazing.
Consider the terrorist's position. You want to maximize civilian deaths and minimize the chances of getting shot before you get there. Are you going to go where the security is high and draw attention to yourself by driving like mad towards a police depot, or are you going to try to sneak around and reach your target avoiding as many police/army/security as possible? Of course it will be the latter. The situation you describe where a policeman is going to be making a split second decision that will save or kill hundreds, is not realistic. Therefore, allowing police to have free-license to shoot at suspected terrorists at will, is going to result in more innocent deaths than terrorists stopped.
tokrot said:
And one shot is not?
Be it 1 or 7, the result is the same. Objective is to kill the guy asap. Even at minimum, elite police train to double tap.
toasty said:
Hypothetically, IF the man did indeed is a suicide bomber and the officers held their fire. On the ground the bomber managed to detonate the bomb killing the officers and perhaps some civilians. What would the outcome be then? To err on the side of caution. But on which side of caution?
Tough call they have to make.
Well alot of ppl here talk as if they already know before the police shot that chap that he's not a terrorist with a bomb. Suppose they wind the clock back to 7/7 just before the bomb goes off in the bus. Imagine a policeman with a gun to the terrorist's head and asked the family of that lady who later die without legs, hands and head.... "Should I pull the trigger or should I negoitate with him.." Tell me what you think the family of that lady would answer. Come on, when you've a responsibility at that brief moment to make a decision that A) kills a man and save many B)don't kill him and risk killing many . That split seconds decision. You tell me what's going thru your head. And don't even think about World Peace. In real world, its just a figment of imagination. The world will only start to have world peace when we found evidence of Aliens. ... and not before that.
So far no one here has addressed the reasons why suicide bombers exist ... It's also one question the majority of the mass media skirt around big time lest they annoy their poltical masters.
(Hint: solve the question "why do suicide bombers exist" and you'll understand why such people are so aggrieved that they will end their lives in such a manner, the solution to the problem also becomes self evident).
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are in no way connected with ClubSnap, it's officers or other officials of Clubsnap. They represent the personal views of the poster
(Hint: solve the question "why do suicide bombers exist" and you'll understand why such people are so aggrieved that they will end their lives in such a manner, the solution to the problem also becomes self evident).
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are in no way connected with ClubSnap, it's officers or other officials of Clubsnap. They represent the personal views of the poster
There were lots of wrongs done in the past to aggrieve people so much that they are willing to lay down their lives.
TopGun said:
Rather than deal with hypothetical what if's how about dealing the actual facts as they stand!
nova_nebula said:
You are missing the point, it's not so much that he was shot, but rather that 7/8ths of a magazine of 9mm pistol ammunition was pumped in to his head ... which I can tell you from having seen enough carnage in real life leaves a bloody pulp instead of a head.
England has for 780 years prided itself on a simple legal concept, innocence until proved guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers, a right guaranteed after the signing of the Magna Carta by King John in 1215. This is diametrically opposed to the the concept of extra-judicial execution (read murder) of people suspected of a possible crime as is the case with this shooting.
TopGun said:
8 total shots = 4 x double taps .. i rest my case.
Given that none of us know the sequence of the shots as yet, ie: was the fist shot to the shoulder, or was it an afterthought to cover the shooters ass?
Perhaps you might like to read up what the British press is saying:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1537234,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1537236,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1535984,00.html
toasty said:
Pardon me for saying, I find your knowledge of terrorist bombing tactics a little shallow, from the fact that you consider the often used crash through vehicle bombs tactics akin to scenes that only happen in hollywood movies. Perhaps you never stopped to wonder what all those giant concrete blocks lining the perimeter of Raffles City was for during the recent International Olympic Council session? If you are still unaware, vehicle crash through bombings HAVE already been used before and often, often enough to warrant those ugly blocks.
In fact if I might add, the idea of 'shooting at car tyres and hitting them hence bringing the vehicle to a stop, belongs more appropriately to the realm of hollywood fiction than vehicle crash through bombings. For one, not everyone can boast of toasty's marksmanship to be able to hit the tyres from a far enough distance to remain alive when the vehicle explodes. For another, flat tyres don't bring a moving vehicle to a halt. Drivers with unfortunate flat tyre experiences can surely attest to that. Real footages of police car chases in the US often showed cars with all 4 tyres flat still speeding away for miles after. Or perhaps we should aim the shots such that it would spin the vehicle around and send it moving back towards where it came from?
Do get some facts right before making bold sweeping statements.
In any case, sarcasms and jabs aside, I similarly deplore the shooting of an innocent man, because it is proof that the terrorists had succeeded. They had succeeded in creating fear and chaos that is propogated by their intended targets (the british) themselves. They are the only ones laughing from such innocent killings, for creating fear, doubt and confusion in the masses is their aim, and not even requiring the sacrifice of anyone of their members.
While I condemn the shooting, that it cannot be allowed to happen again, counter-factual comments such as "why the necessity for so many shots", "could have surround him" is hardly constructive. Having never looked death in the face, it is easy to sit back on our couches and dictate rationally and calmly if x number of shots is excessive. The officer sincerely believed he was dealing with a suicide bomber and at the moment he fired those shots, he truly had no idea if that was he and his fellow officers' and innocent bystanders' last breath on earth. At the moment the subject ran, it was probably too late or not feasible to surround him from a distance and the possibility that he would run into a crowd and detonate himself is very real in the officers' mind.
I condemn the shooting but I do not blame the officers. Put yourself in their shoes. The trauma of an innocent shooting will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
OT a little.... I wonder if the shooting happen in singapore or other asian countries like Indonesia or China, will the westerners... namely Tony Blair and George Bush Criticize us as having violated human rights.....:think:
- Status
Similar threads
