POOR INNOCENT MAN THAT WAS SHOT

wimpers said:
Buckley said:
Unfortunately where there is potential for the lossl of many lives, that is exactly what must happen. Difficult times require difficult measures.

I hope you let me not agree with you to let my life depend on how good a police officer has slept or how good his marriage is going. Some people are saying that deadth penalty should be abolished but at least people sentenced to the death penalty get a trial. Difficult times require difficult measures owke but this end with all is fair in war and love and I totally not agree with that.

I see your point (and respect your opinion) but the death penalty is a punishment/revenge, whereas this is not.

I see your problems with what happened but you don't appear to be offering an alternative? What does a policeman do to render a suspected suicide bomber incapable of detonating a bomb?
 
jjinit said:
yeah agree totally, im sure when they drove all the way to London, and then got onto packed rush hour trains with rucksacks loaded with explosives that they just wanted to scare a few people??

I think you've missed my point. I'm not saying that these attacks were unintentional by any means of the imagination. What i'm trying to explain here that terrorists arent people that just woke up one day and decided they want to bring down the western world. However people try to package it, terrorists incite terror for various reasons. Not always because they are 'brainwashed' or 'madmen' but because they believe in a cause so much that they are willing to die for it. I think its best to approach this topic with a certain amount of open mindedness. Sure, we're all affected, some more than others, by the attacks and that usually leads us to adopt an offensive stance. What you have to realise is that things arent as rosy in the east and many believe that it is the west that are to blame. I'm not trying to get into a battle over right and wrong, I'm just asking you to consider the bigger picture rather than focusing on the recent tragedies at home.

Knocking peoples beliefs isnt my idea of a good argument. I'm an athiest myself but I keep an open mind as to what does and doesnt exist. Whats to say there isnt an afterlife? Even if there isn't, there are many people who live positive and fruitful lives because they believe and follow a religion. Its also worth noting the '100 virgins' statement was probably printed by the sun and it is unfounded. No doubt its related to some mistranslated text which was nothing to do with the matter in question.

fatphilb said:
1. dont read newspapers
2. my aim in life is to eventually find a nice girl, settle down and have kids and see out my life in relative boredom in suburbia

perhaps generalised, but if you want me to think any different of a *beep* who sraps himselves with explosives and walks into a packed train, or jumps a plane and flies it into a building killing thousands, you've got your work cut out. if you think thats the height of my opinionated views you're short of the mark. i don't care what aims they have. as far as i can see, the only justification for al qaeda's cause is they want their state to return to oppresion, the kind of place music is banned, people are killed indiscriminately (bizarrely in the name of honour), women must cover up etc. etc. there is absolutely no justification for acts like this

I'm not asking you to change your views, I'm just saying that there's more to it than you initially think. Firstly 'al qaeda' is not an organisation, nor is it based nor affiliated with any governments or states. Al qaeda is not the taliban or a traditional group as we know them to be. Until recently I thought the same. Al qaeda is a concept or principle. The people that believe in al qaeda believe in freedom rather than mindless killing. Although we all consider it morally wrong for them to perpetrate these acts, they truly believe it is the only way for them to bring about change. These attacks are believed to mobilise support in places that until now, have chosen to reject their message. Al qaeda do not want states to return to oppression etc, more the opposite. I'm not saying their acts are justified, i'm merely saying that these attacks are for valid reasons, not those of madmen. I'm not trying to insult you phil so please dont take this the wrong way. The post above; signifies why I think people need to look at the broader picture here. There's a lot of myths and rumours which are unfounded but they help to shape our opinions in a negative manner.
 
Drew said:
How do you guys find the time on a Monday to get so deep?
:lol:

I have two brains so I can do this and guide the good ship Buckley & Co through the the formerly murky water of the utilities sector simultaneously.

Are your chaps cutting naughty shapes in hedgerows while you're distracted?
 
dam0 said:
I think you've missed my point. I'm not saying that these attacks were unintentional by any means of the imagination. What i'm trying to explain here that terrorists arent people that just woke up one day and decided they want to bring down the western world. However people try to package it, terrorists incite terror for various reasons. Not always because they are 'brainwashed' or 'madmen' but because they believe in a cause so much that they are willing to die for it. I think its best to approach this topic with a certain amount of open mindedness. Sure, we're all affected, some more than others, by the attacks and that usually leads us to adopt an offensive stance. What you have to realise is that things arent as rosy in the east and many believe that it is the west that are to blame. I'm not trying to get into a battle over right and wrong, I'm just asking you to consider the bigger picture rather than focusing on the recent tragedies at home.

Knocking peoples beliefs isnt my idea of a good argument. I'm an athiest myself but I keep an open mind as to what does and doesnt exist. Whats to say there isnt an afterlife? Even if there isn't, there are many people who live positive and fruitful lives because they believe and follow a religion. Its also worth noting the '100 virgins' statement was probably printed by the sun and it is unfounded. No doubt its related to some mistranslated text which was nothing to do with the matter in question.



I'm not asking you to change your views, I'm just saying that there's more to it than you initially think. Firstly 'al qaeda' is not an organisation, nor is it based nor affiliated with any governments or states. Al qaeda is not the taliban or a traditional group as we know them to be. Until recently I thought the same. Al qaeda is a concept or principle. The people that believe in al qaeda believe in freedom rather than mindless killing. Although we all consider it morally wrong for them to perpetrate these acts, they truly believe it is the only way for them to bring about change. These attacks are believed to mobilise support in places that until now, have chosen to reject their message. Al qaeda do not want states to return to oppression etc, more the opposite. I'm not saying their acts are justified, i'm merely saying that these attacks are for valid reasons, not those of madmen. I'm not trying to insult you phil so please dont take this the wrong way. The post above; signifies why I think people need to look at the broader picture here. There's a lot of myths and rumours which are unfounded but they help to shape our opinions in a negative manner.


Totally agree with you dam0 :D
 
stephen said:
please lets be sensible here.

the police have to shoot to kill. a wounded would be suicide bomber can still explode the bomb and kill or mutilate more people.

ps can we not let this thread deteriorate into a flame fest?

even with a shot to the head the suicide bomber can still set off the bomb
and if there was a bomb!! he could have detinated it long time ago. he has being chased for while so if it was a bomber the police didnt ask theseselves.. emmm why hasnt he set it off already??
they knew he had no bomb! they just thought it was a terrorist!
who was the idiot who gave the order shot to kill. without even having enough evidence! a man running away from the police is not enough evidence to give a kill order.

the man was running for ages! if he had a bomb he would have used it already!
 
Buckley said:
I have two brains so I can do this and guide the good ship Buckley & Co through the the formerly murky water of the utilities sector simultaneously.

Are your chaps cutting naughty shapes in hedgerows while you're distracted?

spock.jpg


*whistles innocently*
 
I don't disagree with a shoot to kill policy under these circumstances, BUT....the bloke got on a bus for three miles before arriving at the tube station, according to The Guardian.

If they were that concerned he were a threat to the public, why wait until he had travelled on a bus, and actually got onto a tube train?!?

Split second decision....... :?: :?
 
Coffeetime said:
stephen said:
please lets be sensible here.

the police have to shoot to kill. a wounded would be suicide bomber can still explode the bomb and kill or mutilate more people.

ps can we not let this thread deteriorate into a flame fest?

even with a shot to the head the suicide bomber can still set off the bomb
and if there was a bomb!! he could have detinated it long time ago. he has being chased for while so if it was a bomber the police didnt ask theseselves.. emmm why hasnt he set it off already??
they knew he had no bomb! they just thought it was a terrorist!
who was the idiot who gave the order shot to kill. without even having enough evidence! a man running away from the police is not enough evidence to give a kill order.

the man was running for ages! if he had a bomb he would have used it already!

Logic would suggest they thought he was attempting to make it onto a crowded train for maximum damage to life.
 
Coffeetime said:
even with a shot to the head the suicide bomber can still set off the bomb
and if there was a bomb!!

yep, theyve found a way to cleverly wire it up so that any pressure on the head will set the bomb off.

think best course of action is to let mr terrorist to go about his daily business huh. dont wanna infringe on the guys human rights huh.

now where did i put that veggie burger.
 
silvia said:
Coffeetime said:
even with a shot to the head the suicide bomber can still set off the bomb
and if there was a bomb!!

Really? 8O

leia1.jpg



[C3PO]HE'S HOLDING A THERMAL DETONATOR!![/C3PO]

ohhh dear.. bad taste i know but i couldnt help myself :lol:
 
the police were in plain clothes. the guy had no idea they were police when 5 guys started chasing him (as pointed out before, have you ever been to stockwell).

The police have rarely been known to under-respond to a situation in the best of times (how many times have you seen the police completely over-react, i have loads of times).

Fact is the police shot an innocent man. they must also be responsible for their own actions.

The other aspect of this that bothers me is the police reaction since. They immediately closed ranks and started to protect each other. They told the press that the guy was a bomber who had been under survielance (not true)

it must have become clear pretty quickly that they had shot an innocent guy. why did it take so long for them to admit it.

and it also directs people's attention away from the police still haven't tracked the four murders.
 
Back
Top