London terror attacks
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Saturday, July 30, 2005 21:41
VIEWED: 6537
PAGE 4 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The only person for whom the way he died is a secondary issue is him, IMHO.
I'm just trying to say that the main issue is an innocent person was killed by cops trying to stop terrorists from killing innocent people. The terrorists have created a state of such fear that the cops are doing their job for them.
If citizens now feel, "Oh shit, that cop is looking at me! He might shoot me, I'm terrified!" Well, then the terrorists are winning.
They could pass a law telling cops to only shoot terrorist suspects 2 times. So if cops go around shooting innocents in the head 2 times instead of 5, somehow that's better?
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
original post by Succatash:
I'm just trying to say that the main issue is an innocent person was killed by cops trying to stop terrorists from killing innocent people. The terrorists have created a state of such fear that the cops are doing their job for them.
I don't believe that is the main issue. The police had reason to believe he was a terroist, even that he may of had a bomb. That he turns out later to be innocent is a tragedy, and things must be done to prevent it happening again.
Quote:
original post by Succatash:
If citizens now feel, "Oh shit, that cop is looking at me! He might shoot me, I'm terrified!" Well, then the terrorists are winning.
Yes, I agree whole heartedly.
Quote:
original post by Succatash:
So if cops go around shooting innocents 2 times instead of 5, somehow that's better?
No its not. But the feroicity of the attack, the fact that it was more like a gangland execution than any legitimate police shooting I've heard of is, IMO, a major issue.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
original post by Finn mac Cumhal:
You seem to want to portray the British police as a bunch of reckless cops out to commit summary execution, while at the same time you’re splitting hairs on the Koran. In other words, wild speculation and fruitcakey conspiracy theories. Unless you were there you don’t know what actually happened, so your assessment that the police held this guy down and shot him five times in the back of the head is as likely nonsense then any knowledgeable assessment of the event. But still you capitalize in bold the number of shots the media says were fired, completely unaware of what it actually means to fire those shots, and evidently uninformed of your own police force.
How about you read what I said rather than see that I quoted the Qur'an and assume its some crackpot conspiracy theory.
Ruxton alluded to the fact that Muslims are forbiden from committing suicide bombings because of their religion, I used some quotes from their holy text to support the GOVERMENT and POLICE view that this was not the case.
Many sources have said, including a number of witness that five shots were fired at point blank range, thats where my assessment comes from. Where does yours come from exactly? Your idea that I don't know what I'm talking about. Why, because I dissagree with your assessment, so you feel its better to insult me and say I don't know what I'm talking about, rather than show any evidence to the contray.
Its my experience that people who have their view threatened and are unable to adequetly defend them resort to these sort of tactics.
Quote:
original post by Finn mac Cumhal:
You really need to gain some useful information and perspective.
You need to grow up and realise that people can have a different point of view to you. If you believe I'm wrong try making a reasonable reasearched argument, possibly with evidence, you may have heard of it, to back it up.
The only person so far making wild unsupported claims so far is you.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
Thanks for that most interesting link re Muslim suicide.
======================
Finn: "Islamic terrorists are really okay fellas."
As usual you got it wrong again. Who but the government told you it was Muslim terrorists behind the bombings? Why are you so totally gullible to what you're told?
You also said:
"You really need to gain some useful information and perspective." This applies to you in spades. You really have NO idea of the use of lethal force and what it does to the shooter before and during the act. The widely reported (by numerous witnesses) figure of five shots is not up for discussion, except by those like you. The fact that five shots were fired (and remember, NO ONE knows at this time whether the shooters were cops, spec ops, an Israeli death squad, or nuns dressed in plainclothes) indicates the shooter was OUT OF CONTROL. Two would be normal for trained shooters, but any number of shots indicates either intentional murder or lack of control by the people involved. You really need to gain some useful information and perspective, Finn.
==============================
Succatash: But who are the terrorists? There is more evidence that Bush and Blair are terrorists rather than any other group/nation/bunch. And yes, the "terrorists" are winning, i.e., getting their agendas passed, like the ID card in Britain and the now-reinstated Patriot Act in the U.S. Also, the populace is quite terrorized, wanting yet MORE government protection. Does that not tell you who benefits?
People, why do you BELIEVE all the crap you're told? Why don't you ask questions, such as, Does this make sense? Who told me they're Muslims? Why should I believe him? Etc.
Forty years ago I determined beyond question I was being lied to by "authorities," by the U.S. news media, etc. Things have only gotten worse.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well you may be right about that. Some of this argument is very confused, and I might have jumped to a conclusion and accused you of something that you didn’t say or mean. I apologize for that.
Originally posted by citizen:
How about you read what I said rather than see that I quoted the Qur'an and assume its some crackpot conspiracy theory.
Ruxton alluded to the fact that Muslims are forbiden from committing suicide bombings because of their religion, I used some quotes from their holy text to support the GOVERMENT and POLICE view that this was not the case.
Quote:Yes, people at the scene, who were probably more interested in getting away from the event then actually scrutinizing it and were probably speaking more from shock then anything else did describe something similar to that, according to the media. That’s not terrible strong evidence, but even that doesn’t fit what you’ve saying. Where is the information that the shots were to the back of the head or that the police were holding the guy down? According to you, the guy was being held down with his back to the officers and then shot five times in the back of the head. This is basically a description of a summary execution, and it is a reckless accusation without strong evidence. The evidence that you do have, that I'm aware of, is not strong, and certainly doesn’t describe this.
Originally posted by citizen:
Many sources have said, including a number of witness that five shots were fired at point blank range, thats where my assessment comes from.
Quote:You compared the British police to US SWAT teams. You either don’t know what a US SWAT team is or you are misinformed about the British police. Furthermore you implied that they shouldn’t have to use five shots, when actually there is not quota on shots fired.
Originally posted by citizen:
Where does yours come from exactly? Your idea that I don't know what I'm talking about. Why, because I dissagree with your assessment, so you feel its better to insult me and say I don't know what I'm talking about, rather than show any evidence to the contray.
Quote:What view of mine is being threatened? I don’t really have a view, other then that I feel we need to give the police the benefit of the doubt, wait until adequate information and not make up stories about them, but that’s not much of view specific to this event. I don’t really have an opinion about this event. I don’t know whether the police are right or wrong, but I’m content to wait until I do before I make a judgment. You’re the one with the view. A view that I don’t think is based on complete information.
Originally posted by citizen:
Its my experience that people who have their view threatened and are unable to adequetly defend them resort to these sort of tactics.
Quote:Many people have different points of view, some of them are based more on assumption then fact.
Originally posted by citizen:
You need to grow up and realise that people can have a different point of view to you. If you believe I'm wrong try making a reasonable reasearched argument, possibly with evidence, you may have heard of it, to back it up.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is your story and it’s not a very good one, since I never made any comments about who made what bombings in this thread, but without a doubt Islamic terrorist have committing bombings and murdered innocent people for the sake of murdering innocent people, not an accident on a subway. So I think you will be hard pressed to demonstrate any of this spurious ranting as remotely fair criticism or anything but an indictment of your own single-minded credulity.
Originally posted by Ruxton:
As usual you got it wrong again. Who but the government told you it was Muslim terrorists behind the bombings? Why are you so totally gullible to what you're told?
Quote:This much a basically agree with. For all intents and purposes, no one knows.
Originally posted by Ruxton:
(and remember, NO ONE knows at this time whether the shooters were cops, spec ops, an Israeli death squad, or nuns dressed in plainclothes)
Quote:Any number of shots, huh? So there’s basically no way, in your view, that the police could have fired any shots without it being labeled murderers or out of control?
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Two would be normal for trained shooters, but any number of shots indicates either intentional murder or lack of control by the people involved. You really need to gain some useful information and perspective, Finn.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That he turns out later to be innocent is a tragedy, and things must be done to prevent it happening again.
But that's the thing, what can be done? As long as the police are given the power to kill someone on the mere suspicion that he might be connected with a bombing, this kind of thing will happen. You're asking these police to do the impossible.
This whole terrorist situation is so grossly misunderstood because people don't want to see reality. There is no way to control or vanquish a disorganized, decentralized, unaffiliated force whose only certain connection is a crackpot ideological gloss on obvious nihilism.
Terrorism of the kind and magnitude that we see today is historically new. It is not the result of the crusades and it is not an inevitable conclusion of Koranic interpretation. It arises out of a particular set of political circumstances. Is it not reasonable to believe that changing the political circumstances could greatly reduce the threat of terrorism? There is evidence that suicide bombings which occur in occupied territory cease when the occupying forces leave.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr071405.htm
Our overarching goal as human beings should be to save human lives across the board if possible. Remember when human life was human life and not us and them? Many legitimate people in government and out, in this country and abroad, believe we should reduce our military presence in the Middle East.
When are we going to join with the Muslim world to stop the terrorist extremists, instead of promoting the lie that all Muslims (dark skinned civilians now?) are terrorist sympathizers and they hate our freedom?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Citizen,
Thanks for that most interesting link re Muslim suicide.
======================
Finn: "Islamic terrorists are really okay fellas."
As usual you got it wrong again. Who but the government told you it was Muslim terrorists behind the bombings? Why are you so totally gullible to what you're told?
You also said:
"You really need to gain some useful information and perspective." This applies to you in spades. You really have NO idea of the use of lethal force and what it does to the shooter before and during the act. The widely reported (by numerous witnesses) figure of five shots is not up for discussion, except by those like you. The fact that five shots were fired (and remember, NO ONE knows at this time whether the shooters were cops, spec ops, an Israeli death squad, or nuns dressed in plainclothes) indicates the shooter was OUT OF CONTROL. Two would be normal for trained shooters, but any number of shots indicates either intentional murder or lack of control by the people involved. You really need to gain some useful information and perspective, Finn.
==============================
Succatash: But who are the terrorists? There is more evidence that Bush and Blair are terrorists rather than any other group/nation/bunch. And yes, the "terrorists" are winning, i.e., getting their agendas passed, like the ID card in Britain and the now-reinstated Patriot Act in the U.S. Also, the populace is quite terrorized, wanting yet MORE government protection. Does that not tell you who benefits?
People, why do you BELIEVE all the crap you're told? Why don't you ask questions, such as, Does this make sense? Who told me they're Muslims? Why should I believe him? Etc.
Forty years ago I determined beyond question I was being lied to by "authorities," by the U.S. news media, etc. Things have only gotten worse.
Ruxton, compañero! Right now, your posts are up there with John Stewart in the "What's Keeping Me Sane" category. Good to see you on the board.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
People, why do you BELIEVE all the crap you're told?
Because Bush and Blair haven't ever lied to us before, right? I mean, I don't think that they would....Did they?
Oh crap, my cat's meowing for food.
Spacey average citizen Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
original post by Finn mac Cumhal:
You compared the British police to US SWAT teams. You either don’t know what a US SWAT team is or you are misinformed about the British police. Furthermore you implied that they shouldn’t have to use five shots, when actually there is not quota on shots fired.
Yes and I stand by the analogy. I perhaps didn't make my point clear however. Special Branch and SO19 are our 'special forces' of the police force. As is US SWAT for the American police. Both train for situations like this constantly. This was my point, not that they are identical counterparts. Perhaps a better analogy for special branch would be the American secret service as much of their [special branch] duties include protection of diplomats/dignitaries, as well as counter-terroism.
Quote:
original post by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, people at the scene, who were probably more interested in getting away from the event then actually scrutinizing it and were probably speaking more from shock then anything else did describe something similar to that, according to the media.
So we should dismiss out of hand anything the eyewitnesses have to say? This is what we have to go on. But I conceed your point about complete information.
However you should remember that we will never have complete unbiased information.
Quote:
original post by Finn mac Cumhal:
Where is the information that the shots were to the back of the head or that the police were holding the guy down?
I heard it said seperatly on different news channels. I believe it was the BBC and ITN. The exact statements were that the man tripped or was pushed and that officers were on top of him when he was shot. I admit now that I may have been over zealous in posting it.
Quote:
original post by Finn mac Cumhal:
Many people have different points of view, some of them are based more on assumption then fact.
This is true, and if you believe that of my argument, or anyone elses, you will find that most people, including myself are more receptive to a reasonable reasoned argument, than simply being told their wrong, they don't know what their talking about, etc. etc.
This [your] post was reasonably well reasoned, and allowed me to think where I was perhaps getting carried away, thank you. Your previous post I found, however, mearly insulting.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME