This is topic He didn't even LOOK Asian and/or muslim in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/6848.html

Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
The guy who London police shot dead (executed is more like it) yesterday, was a goddumn Brazilian!! And if you look at his pic on the BBC website, he's quite white, he looks mediterranean, the pale variety at that. I mean, you would think that the London police would be able to distinguish enough between that and an Asian looking guy, NOT to pump him full of lead (FIVE bullets to the head) without stopping to check whatever they supposed to check??

According to eye witnesses, (good thing there were more than one) the guy tripped, WAS HELD DOWN by two policemen, while a third shot him. Now, I don't know shiite about guns but I imagine that to give 5 headshots you must be so close as to sorta recognize ethnicity on some one. And it's not as if these police were ignorant hicks who never saw an Arab, they are city cops!!?

Maybe the Brazilian thought he had to run away from a bomb?
Anyway, this is very disconcerting.
This, and the nine attacks on mosques and 200 violent incidents muslims in Britain, including one beating to death of a muslim or asian looking man in Nothingham by five white blokes.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
if you look at his pic on the BBC website, he's quite white, he looks mediterranean, the pale variety at that.
Oh, so it would have been better if he looked like he was "a muslim"? Because he was a white guy, they should have let him get away?

Are you trolling again? Or do you really believe this stuff you spout?
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
TS Elliot -

They were not looking for an Arab, they were looking for a bombing suspect.

The idea behind the 'shoot-to-kill' policy (I hate that - when else do you shoot?) is to stop suicide bombers before they can detonate off their arsenal. While I disagree with the policy, the actions of the officer on the scene might have been justified by that policy.

Five shots is not too many. Until the suspect is neutralized, they should keep shooting. Under the misguided policy mentioned above, it is not unreasonable to assume that 'neutralized' means 'dead'.

That said, whomever is responsible for the policy needs to be fired, and the policy should be revised.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
Because he was a white guy, they should have let him get away?

Please re-read. Then admit to unwarranted indignation and holier-than-thou behavior.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TS Elliot:
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
Because he was a white guy, they should have let him get away?

Please re-read. Then admit to unwarranted indignation and holier-than-thou behavior.
You're the one who was saying they should have suspected him or not suspected them based on his skin color.

Maybe you should look into your own sense of indignation and holier-than-thou behavior.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Scotland Yard admitted that they made a mistake. While it certainly an embarrassing incident and a tragedy, this is the "Brave New World" that we live in.

At least, Scotland Yard and British security forces had the courage to accept responsibility and accountability immediately. They made a mistake, and then they admiited it immediately.

What more do you really want?

In terms of national security, our government(s) will always make some mistakes here and there. As long as they admit to their mistakes and demonstrate accountability for their actions, then that is the most that we can expect from them.

[ July 24, 2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
In terms of national security, our government(s) will always make some mistakes here and there. As long as they admit to their mistakes and demonstrate accountability for their actions, then that is the most that we can expect from them.
Exactly. What more can you ask? Asking for total perfection is asking for godhood, and no human will ever reach that. It's a tragedy. It's a mistake. But we operate, all of us, on the best information that we have at the time. I'd rather a suspected terrorist be shot dead and be wrong about him than let him loose and be right...

Morality must always bow to necessity. THAT is the law of the land.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Starkiller:
I'd rather a suspected terrorist be shot dead and be wrong about him than let him loose and be right...


I'd rather a suspected terrorist be let loose than to shoot dead innocent people who might be terrorists.

There's a lot more innocent people in the world than there are terrorists. And being innocent should be a defense against being shot by the police.


I'd like to know what led up to the shooting. Like how many times the police yelled at him stuff like, "Stop or we'll shoot", "Freeze, police", "get down everybody, the guy in the jacket has a bomb", etc.

Most innocent people don't take off running when confronted by the police. I'm wondering what was going through the guy's mind.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
I'd rather a suspected terrorist be let loose than to shoot dead innocent people who might be terrorists.
To that I would respond: not if there is reason to believe that there is an imminent threat. In a perfect world, I'd agree with you, but this world isn't perfect, and I'm a ruthless bitch.

quote:
There's a lot more innocent people in the world than there are terrorists. And being innocent should be a defense against being shot by the police.
Agreed - but how do the police make that judgement? It's easy to say after the fact. But someone acting suspicious - someone acting as if he poses an imminent threat to those around him - almost deserves to be shot for pure stupidity. Less contamination in the gene pool... [Big Grin]

quote:
I'd like to know what led up to the shooting. Like how many times the police yelled at him stuff like, "Stop or we'll shoot", "Freeze, police", "get down everybody, the guy in the jacket has a bomb", etc.

Most innocent people don't take off running when confronted by the police. I'm wondering what was going through the guy's mind.

Agreed. And that's part of what I'm trying to say, though I'm perhaps not phrasing it well...
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Lady Starkiller said:
quote:
Agreed - but how do the police make that judgement? It's easy to say after the fact. But someone acting suspicious - someone acting as if he poses an imminent threat to those around him - almost deserves to be shot for pure stupidity. Less contamination in the gene pool... [Big Grin]
Lady Starkiller,

In this case, the man in question was handed a death sentence for running from the police. That is the bottom line.

He demonstrated no hostile intent at all. From all accounts he did not pull a cell phone, say 'I have a gun', or any of the myriad other possible threatening actions.

That is wrong no matter which way you slice it.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
look at the hipocracy of the world.

if heaven's forbid we israelis whould have accidently killed some civilian by mistake, all the world will say that we target innocent civilians that we torture and subude the palestinians etc.

and here to london police accidently killed some one suspected of terrorism, and people treat it as a mistake
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
look at the hipocracy of the world.


Yep.

quote:
Originally posted by FiredrakeRAGE:
In this case, the man in question was handed a death sentence for running from the police. That is the bottom line.

He demonstrated no hostile intent at all. From all accounts he did not pull a cell phone, say 'I have a gun', or any of the myriad other possible threatening actions.

That is wrong no matter which way you slice it.

The end result was wrong.

But I don't know that we have heard from witnesses from the beginning to the end of the event so I'm not sure we could yet conclude that "he demonstrated no hostile intent at all". Someone can be hostile without having a weapon and can have a hostile intent without being a terrorist.

For all we know at this point, the guy could have been stalking someone about to jump them hoping to mug them. Probably not but I'll give British policemen the benefit of the doubt until the investigation results come in.

quote:
Originally posted by Lady Starkiller:
In a perfect world, I'd agree with you, but this world isn't perfect, and I'm a ruthless bitch.

And who are we to depend on to help make it a more perfect world, we "the good guys" or them "the bad guys"?

If neither side is going to make an effort to create a better world, I think we're in trouble.
[Smile]
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
The end result was wrong.

But I don't know that we have heard from witnesses from the beginning to the end of the event so I'm not sure we could yet conclude that "he demonstrated no hostile intent at all". Someone can be hostile without having a weapon and can have a hostile intent without being a terrorist.

Maybe this is just me talking - but if this person did, in fact, do something to cause any reasonable police officer to assume hostile intent, I'm not going to say the end was wrong. Sad and regrettable, but not wrong.

Doing the right thing for the right reasons and getting a bad result does not, to me, mean the end result is wrong.

But that's just my weird morality talking... [Big Grin]

quote:
And who are we to depend on to help make it a more perfect world, we "the good guys" or them "the bad guys"?

If neither side is going to make an effort to create a better world, I think we're in trouble.

True, but I'd ask a different set of questions:

What kind of people do we need to help make it a more perfect world: idealistic ones or ruthless ones? Ones who will work towards the dream they want, or ones that will work with the reality we have?

Answer: we need both...

[ July 24, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Lady Starkiller ]
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Starkiller:
True, but I'd ask a different set of questions:

What kind of people do we need to help make it a more perfect world: idealistic ones or ruthless ones? Ones who will work towards the dream they want, or ones that will work with the reality we have?

Answer: we need both...

So does that mean you'll consider join me in asymmetric warfare against communist China?
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
So does that mean you'll consider join me in asymmetric warfare against communist China?
[Confused]
 
Posted by tshaw (Member # 1984) on :
 
This whole thing sounds like a case of terminal stupidity on the Brazilian's part.

If you wear a big puffy coat that looks like it can be used to cover a suicide belt on a hot, muggy day then fail to respond exactly as the police order you to, you will be shot until they are sure you can't set off the possible bomb.

If they had failed to shoot him until he was unable to set off a bomb, and he really was a suicide bomber, you who are now bemoaning police brutality would probably be wondering why the incompetent police failed to keep him from detonating his bomb.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
Thank you, tshaw, that's exactly my point, though you wrote it far more succinctly than I.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
You left out the part where they had been following him because he went to the subway from a building they had under surveillance because it was suspected that the terrorists had been using it.

It is sad, but I wouldn't call it a mistake on the part of the police. I don't think they would have shot him, even if he ran, as long as he wasn't headed towards the subway.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
tshaw -

Yes. It would bite if a suicide bomber was able to kill a bunch of people due to the police having to follow certain rules.

This is the price we pay for living in a free nation.

quote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

--Thomas Jefferson

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Mormegil (Member # 2439) on :
 
I am more scared of the people justifying this incident than the terrorists.

I know several people who wear coats in hot weather.

He ran from police, but they were PLAINCLOTHES police.

He was shot after he was already being held down on the ground!

This was just plain wrong. The terrorists caused people to be terrified, and in their fear they murdered an innocent man. The terrorists must be laughing themselves hoarse.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Has anyone found yet if this guys spoke a word of english?

If you were in a foreign country and several men starting yelling and pointing guns at you, men who wearing plain clothes, would you run?
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Ignorance is not an excuse, Jesse.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by potemkyn (Member # 1040) on :
 
"He was shot after he was already being held down on the ground!"

This isthe most disturbing part. Five times in the head after he's on the ground? Disgusting; if the officer isn't thrown up on charges, he should at least be dismissed.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
I wouldn't want to be the innocent guy who gets shot, but if you all think it's a fantastic idea, enjoy!


I know, I know...you'd be smarter.

Tell it to the five bullets screwing up the software.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Potemkyn said:
quote:
This isthe most disturbing part. Five times in the head after he's on the ground? Disgusting; if the officer isn't thrown up on charges, he should at least be dismissed.
Hardly. If the officer thought he was a suicide bomber, then the suspect fell within the policy. The policy stated that killing the suspect was alright.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Look, the British police made a catastrophic mistake. But at least, they owned up to it.

You have to understand that those police officers had the recent images of the horrific London bombings still in their heads. In the heat of the moment, one of them decided that he didn't want to take the chance of seeing more of those horrific images because he failed to do his duty. Then, he started firing at the innocent civilian, and then other officers started firing as well.

Again, they made a gruesome mistake. Nevertheless, they themselves are the ones who are the most keenly aware of their mistake. And they are also the ones who immediately owned up to their mistake and are now pledging not to make the same mistake in the future.

If you still have an axe to grind agsinst them, then go ahead and grind that axe. I will reserve my axe-granding for those who do not own up to their mistakes and do not take steps to correct their mistakes. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who admit their mistakes openly and pledge earnestly to fix those mistakes in the future.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Look, the British police made a catastrophic mistake. But at least, they owned up to it.


its easy to own up to the mistake, because every body knows that they have made it

and are now pledging not to make the same mistake in the future.

an empty promise they killed an innocent man, and they will make mistakes again, dont make them the tragic heroes or players in this story because they ****ed up greatly

i just cant stop thinking what whould have happned if we israelis made such mistake
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
There seem to be a number of factors contributing to this guy's death. Firstly, he lived in a block of flats. One of the flats in this block was already under surveillance by the anti-terrorist police (and was raided on Saturday with one arrest - all unconnected to this shooting). Secondly, being Brazilian, he was used to rather warmer weather than you get in the UK. So in the middle of summer, when most Brits are wearing shorts and T-shirts when it gets above 15 degrees or so, he was wearing a large jacket (apparently).

So combine the idea of a guy wearing a large jacket on a hot day, leaving a block of flats comntaining terrorist suspects, going to the tube, and running when challenged by police.

I can understand the actions of the police, even if I don't condone them.

And Hannibal - what on earth makes you think that the Israeli security forces haven't killed innocent people under similar circumstances? I'm fairly sure I remember a few such cases over the years.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
i remmember a couple too, and i also remmember the media and political linch that they got afterwards, but the english case it looks like people sympathize with the police

"its a hard work"
"they felt that they had to prove themselves in a hurry"
"he wore a jacket"
etc

the sad truth about this, is that it seems the english police has no idea who/what they are looking for, and they dont have even a profile of a typical suicide bomber to begin their search with, and they are in a complete panic because of this.

maybe they should come here and train a little

even in my backwater country we still dont kill people for wearing jackets
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
Turns out he was in the country illegally - his visa had expired - so that makes it alright then!

Not really, but that seems to be the impression being put out by the press. At least it explains why he ran.

Edit: I'd also like to add that witnesses I heard on the TV did say that there were no challenges/warnings issued within their hearing. I hope the inquiry sorts it out and the officer is put up on a murder charge.

[ July 25, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Badvok ]
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
even in my backwater country we still dont kill people for wearing jackets

LOL, no your military just kills people based on rumour and suspicion, or if they're standing too close to someone who is rumoured to be a terrorist. But let's not get into that one again.

[ July 25, 2005, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Badvok ]
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050725/ap_on_re_eu/britain_bombings

Menezes was followed by plainclothes officers after he left an apartment bloc in Tulse Hill that was under surveillance. Wearing a padded jacket, he boarded a bus and traveled to the nearby Stockwell subway station. According to officials, his clothing and behavior aroused the suspicions of the police who ordered him to stop.

Witnesses said Menezes ran into a subway car, where officers shot him. It was unclear why Menezes, who spoke English, did not stop.

Commissioner Blair expressed deep regret for Menezes' killing, which he described as a "tragedy," but defended his officers' right to use deadly force against suspected suicide bombers.

That explains at least why the policeman shot him. They thought he had a suicide bomb vest on and he ran into the subway car when challenged as if he was making one last desperate attempt for another bombing.

If it had been a suicide bomber, he'd have been trying to detonate the bomb when the police got to him. The police didn't know how the device was going to be triggered and the guy was obviously not lying there quietly and still. The policeman who shot him thought killing him was the only way to prevent the bomb from detonating.

Crappy luck on the Brazilian's part.
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
Crappy luck on the Brazilian's part.

What an epitaph! Hope we can say the same for you one day.

[ July 25, 2005, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Badvok ]
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Badvok:
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
Crappy luck on the Brazilian's part.

What an epitaph! Hope we can say the same for you one day.
Who's being the jerk here?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Badvok i was looking for you, maybe after all it is the english police who should go to israel and learn who/what to do eh?

LOL, no your military just kills people based on rumour and suspicion, or if they're standing too close to someone who is rumoured to be a terrorist. But let's not get into that one again.

i guess that if i said that the millitary does not, and that the millitary acts after the Shin-Bet or the Mossad have checked things wont weigh anything. let off your steam on my Badvok, deep down i know that you'd wish your military and police were as efficient at those things as my country's
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Badvok:
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
Crappy luck on the Brazilian's part.

What an epitaph! Hope we can say the same for you one day.
I'm the very embodiment of crappy luck. I'd proudly have that on my tombstone if my family wouldn't pitch a fit.

Its crappy luck.

He could have chosen some place else to live.

He could have chosen to not wear a bulkly jacket that day.

He could have chosen to take the jacket off for a minute and the police could have seen there was no bomb underneath

He could have chosen to make several stops before going to the subway and the police would lose interest in him.

He could have chosen to not take the subway.

He could have chosen to not run from the police.

He could have chosen to run any place but onto the subway car which was the final act that made the policemen think he was a suicide bomber.

If everything by chance had not fallen exactly as it did, he'd be alive today. That's crappy luck.
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
If everything by chance had not fallen exactly as it did, he'd be alive today. That's crappy luck.

If the police had been trained sufficiently, if the police weren't so trigger happy, if the police were held individually accountable for any loss of life they directly caused, he'd still be alive.
It's not crappy luck, its murder, luck doesn't come in to it. Unless you consider every rape/murder victim just to be unlucky rather than looking at the ills of society that caused the situation. Maybe we shouldn't persue murderers/rapists, after all, its just crappy luck that their victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Look, Badvok, at the end of the day, we had someone under surveillance wearing a heavy coat disobeying police orders and running onto a subway car. Are you arguing that the police should not prevent someone from boarding in that situation?
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
Badvok i was looking for you, maybe after all it is the english police who should go to israel and learn who/what to do eh?

Yes, I think you have a good point there. I am very disappointed in the level of ability demonstrated by our police in this incident. Maybe they would do well to experience a situation like in Israel. Both the Israeli army and the UK police could learn something from each other.
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Look, Badvok, at the end of the day, we had someone under surveillance wearing a heavy coat disobeying police orders and running onto a subway car. Are you arguing that the police should not prevent someone from boarding in that situation?

Depends on what you mean by prevent! Arrest him? Detain him? Sure. It would all be sorted out fairly quickly. Chase him, wrestle him to the ground, restrain him and then unload half a magazine of ammo into his brain? NO!

A couple of other points:
1. He was not himself under surveillance, otherwise they would have known who he was.
2. He probably did not speak English as his first language.
3. So far no witness has mentioned anything about hearing the police issue any orders, other than "Get Down". Which when shouted by someone in civilian clothes is not very useful to anyone.

[ July 25, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Badvok ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Okay, maybe you and I have a different mental image of a suicide bomber. How would you restrain a suicide bomber in a public place in a way that would prevent him from detonating the bomb?
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Okay, maybe you and I have a different mental image of a suicide bomber. How would you restrain a suicide bomber in a public place in a way that would prevent him from detonating the bomb?

Oh I'm sure there are ways, I'm not an expert but I suspect that standing on or otherwise constraining his hands would do the trick. Don't forget this was a close-up incident, they were on top of him!
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
It is quite unsettling to think that we are in or moving towards a place where shooting someone in the head on mere suspicion of being a suicide bomber is a defensible action.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
See, as much of a pacifist as I am, I'm not willing to say that these cops should have dogpiled the guy in the hope that they could effectively prevent him from detonating.

The mistake lay in originally identifying him as a potential bomber; I do not fault them for dealing with a potential suicide bomber in this way, however, especially when he continued to behave in a suspicious manner AND appeared to directly endanger the public.

The lesson here is that running from armed police, particularly when the city is on high terrorist alert, is a bad idea.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
quote:
It is quite unsettling to think that we are in or moving towards a place where shooting someone in the head on mere suspicion of being a suicide bomber is a defensible action.
Five times. After he's lying on the ground.

Other than that tidbit, I'm inclined to agree with TomDavidson; it was a bad situation that almost a begged a bad outcome.

But c'mon. I think we can expect A LITTLE better, and more importantly, can admit that, gosh, that went badly, didn't it? The fact that the police made perfectly human errors and perhaps didn't handle this situation perfectly doesn't mean that they are incompetant or evil, but we don't have to insist that they were just fine and the scenario couldn't have gone better.
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The lesson here is that running from armed police, particularly when the city is on high terrorist alert, is a bad idea.

Oh quite true but:
1. Did he know they were police? We'll probably never know now. They were plain-clothes officers.
2. Did he know they were armed? When was the gun drawn? Hopefully the inquiry will find this out.
3. Was he challenged clearly or warned in any way? No witnesses (other than police) have confirmed this yet. The inquiry may find this out.
4. How could shooting him in the head prevent detonation any better than restraining him?
5. Why didn't the officer with the gun down him earlier? Perhaps he wasn't trained sufficiently?

[ July 25, 2005, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Badvok ]
 
Posted by Mormegil (Member # 2439) on :
 
quote:
at the end of the day, we had someone under surveillance wearing a heavy coat disobeying police orders and running onto a subway car. Are you arguing that the police should not prevent someone from boarding in that situation?
"prevent someone from boarding"? Sure.

Shoot someone five times *after* he's already being held down? For wearing a coat and running from the police?

Ever watch "Cops"? People run from the police ALL THE TIME. Is it stupid? Of course! But do we really want "running away" to be a capital crime in and of itself?

I can definitely come up with lots of scenarios where shooting a man running from police is an okay thing to do.

This was not one of them.

Their suspicions were pretty flimsy, and they shot him after he was already being restrained.

I felt the same way before I found out he was innocent.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
The suicide bomb vest made for the palestinians are triggered when the person moves his arms away from his body. They design them like that to clear the bombers arms out of the blast radius so more of the blast hits the bystanders.

I'm sure they could rig vests to be triggered by pulling a string that's run down inside the jacket into the hand or any one of a dozen other methods.

The British police had no idea what kind of trigger a suicide bomber would have chosen for that particular time.

So the answer to your question of "How could shooting him in the head prevent detonation any better than restraining him?" is that he couldn't deliberately trigger the bomb no matter what method he chose after getting shot in the head five times.

Even if the police had the guy restrained to some extent after they chased him down and tackled him, the guy wasn't immobilized. Being immobilized is what it'd take to be sure that he couldn't trigger the bomb.


quote:
Why didn't the officer with the gun down him earlier? Perhaps he wasn't trained sufficiently?

If the police think they're following a terrorist, the last thing they want to do is shoot him. The police's fondest hope and dream is that he leads them to other terrorists. Stopping the guy before he got to his destination would have been a sign of bad training.

They confronted him because he went to the subway station where other bombings had taken place while wearing something that could conceal a bomb. The police's fear for the public safety became a higher priority than tracking down other terrorist contacts.

I really doubt there was any way to tell the guy was going into the station before he did it and the policemen shadowing him would have hanging back some distance, not standing next to him.

When they caught up and confronted the guy, he did exactly what a terrorist with a bomb would do, make a break for a subway car.
 
Posted by Nic Hobson (Member # 2384) on :
 
Hi All

Just a few things.

The guys doing the shooting were not beat plod. They are SO19 (Met Police Firearms Specialists) trained by the SAS. The shooting took place in a busy station and it is not the practice of the police fire arm officers or SO19 to start shooting randomly while there are crowds around (for me this shows how professional they are no one but Mr Menezes was hurt).

He did speak English, this has been confirmed by friends of his.

Now as for him running away this is the one that’s got me beat as I just don’t know why you would. I know people are saying that they would run if three people approached them with guns pulled out but no one else in the station did, it was just him.

Finally this was in London during the day at a busy station we just don’t get teams of crazed armed robbers running through trying to mug people in tube stations so it is very unusual to see someone with a gun let alone someone being chased by people with guns.

Nic
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Now as for him running away this is the one that’s got me beat as I just don’t know why you would. I know people are saying that they would run if three people approached them with guns pulled out but no one else in the station did, it was just him.


It's always puzzled me why people do this in the U.S. also. It's odd that innocent people take off running, but they do. Maybe there're psychological or sociological studies out there.

On the other hand, this guy was Brazilian and as someone who works with a number of Brazilians and has heard some of their "funny" stories about carjackings, kidnappings, and extortions in Brazil I think the first thought of a Brazilian when confronted by a group of plain-clothes armed men might not be "Oh, the police!".

quote:
Finally this was in London during the day at a busy station we just don’t get teams of crazed armed robbers running through trying to mug people in tube stations so it is very unusual to see someone with a gun let alone someone being chased by people with guns.

But this does happen in Brazil, where armed gangs will sometimes take over tunnels and stop traffic and force drivers to pay a "toll" or carjack or kidnap them. One Brazilian coworker has started stories with "The third time I was carjacked...".

[ July 25, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by ender wiggin (Member # 9) on :
 
I have two friends who ran into to some police one time and were told to stop. For some reason which even they can't explain they ran away. They weren't doing anything illegal. The cops never did find them even though they got the helecopters and everything searching. These friends still can't explain what exactly made them run from the cops, but they would have been in a lot of trouble had they been caught. so innocent people do sometimes run.

However, I have to agree with the "bad luck" theory. I can't see what the cops could have done differently and still preformed thier duty to protect the public.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A. Alzabo:
It's always puzzled me why people do this in the U.S. also. It's odd that innocent people take off running, but they do. Maybe there're psychological or sociological studies out there.

That's because most of the time they aren't innocent. Actually, I don't know if that is true, I even tried to look it up and couldn't find any stats to back it up one way or the other, although, since resisting arrest is against the law, and running from the police is resisting arrest, then they are guilty [Smile]

Anybody have more information on whether or not innocent people run?
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I think this is a tragic situation, but I don't see that the officers were negligent. They clearly believed that this guy was a bomber by his actions and circumstances.

Add to the bad luck list that he could have renewed his visa, and therefore have had one less reason to run.

I'm glad I'll never have to make a split-second life-or-death decision that will be examined for weeks by millions of people. Imagine if you had been the cop that didn't fire, and a half-dozen people were blown up. The fact that he was held down, if they believed him to be a bomber, was immaterial. My sympathy goes out to the family of this man and to the cops.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
The Drake said:
quote:
I think this is a tragic situation, but I don't see that the officers were negligent.
The officers were not negligent. However, whomever implemented a policy that allowed the police to kill without visible direct threat was negligent.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Nic, welcome to Ornery

"They are SO19 " so they are trained and they know how to shoot in a crowded place, every one has units who can do that. what they need to know is the profile of a typical suicide bomber, the philosophical state of mind of a suicide bomber and other background info like that.

what they also need is to develop an arrest protocol for a suicide bomber, that will keep him alive.

and what you all brittish should do, is to start checking people at public places as "undemocratic" as it may seem to you. i have been only last month to london, and as an israeli i cant help not to notice how easy it is for a terrorist to virtually do whatever he wants inside a museum or a tube station or anywhere public
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
That's a tough call under the circumstances, FdR. First off, there is no such thing as shooting to disable in this case (or most others). If the protocol is to shoot, then the protocol is to kill.

I'm not so sure about a requirement for "visible direct threat". I assume the discussion centers around visible, since it can easily be argued that a person under surveillance running into a crowded tube station while fleeing police is a very direct threat.

So now, the question is, how do you weigh the risk to a trainload of people against the risk of injuring or killing a suspect on mistaken identity or motives?

I don't imagine I'd be very open to such a discussion if it was my cousin who got shot by police. But, that's the choice we're stuck with, thanks to people willing to blow up a bunch of random people trying to go to work.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
here, with 50!! warnings a day, and not mere scares, real warnings of suicide bombings and locations and all, we still menage to block a fairly large presentage of attacks, and we dont shoot at innocent civilians.

its all a procedure of protocols, and psychology, and work method, that the london police and any other police force in the world needs to adopt
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FiredrakeRAGE:
The Drake said:
quote:
I think this is a tragic situation, but I don't see that the officers were negligent.
The officers were not negligent. However, whomever implemented a policy that allowed the police to kill without visible direct threat was negligent.


I can't speak for Europe but I'd imagine in similar circumstances in the US that police officers would not have to be specifically told to use lethal force if they have a terrorist suspect who they think is in the middle of the freaking act of detonating his weapon in a crowded subway station.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Archer said:
quote:
I can't speak for Europe but I'd imagine in similar circumstances in the US that police officers would not have to be specifically told to use lethal force if they have a terrorist suspect who they think is in the middle of the freaking act of detonating his weapon in a crowded subway station.
If there is no indicator other than suspicion and a fleeing suspect? They could shoot, but they would probably be fired thereafter. It really depends on the exact situation though.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Consider an analogy. It is a couple of weeks after 9/11. Cops or soldiers approach a man carrying a backpack in an airline terminal, whom they consider to be a suspect. When approached, he breaks and runs toward the long lines of people waiting at security. They yell for him to stop, he ignores them.

What should they do? What would you want them to do, if you were one of those people standing in line?

I suggest that there is no easy answer, there is no obvious choice right choice.

Hannibal points out that it is possible to put a system in place to reduce these risks, or the need to make such a choice. But the only thing that changes is the location and circumstances under which such choices are made.

I don't find it credible to suggest that all the people killed at West Bank and Gaza checkpoints were any more threatening than the guy running for the subway in London.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
The Drake said:
quote:
I suggest that there is no easy answer, there is no obvious choice right choice.
In a free society, there is but one right choice - detain the guy.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
come on, what kind of people you think we are?

Drake, the checkpoints are the worst place possible to be, you are serving shifts in a place that you know everyone hates you, and you dont know where you gonna get it, and if its the next person in line or not ever.

cases of women suidice bombers who faked pregnency, children of 15, and even 13 years of age with charges have been reported there. many a suicide bombers found out that they couldnt pass and exploded inside those checkpoints killing soldiers and palestinians by stenders alike. there is NOTHING to compare a checkpoint in gaza to the london incident.

not to mention that the sole purpose of the checkpoints is to let palestinians come and work inside israel, and they attack those places on purpose.

to serve as a soldier in a checkpoint is a very taxing duty, both phisically and more importantly mentaly, thats why we should get the hell out of the territories and lock ourselves completly to palestinians
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I don't deny any of what you've said about checkpoints, Hannibal. I don't think you're bad people, certainly.

And if 15 year old kids at a checkpoint are a threat, and I think they very much could be - and some demonstrably have been - I don't see how you can suggest that bulky-coat guy walking out of the terrorist house and sprinting toward the subway should not be fired upon, or that it represents a lack on the part of the UK anti-terror procedures.

You can have all the protocols you want, and still kill innocents, especially when the bad guys choose to pose as innocents. All you will change is the location at which you make those mistakes. For the UK, that was at a subway this time. For Israel, this will often happen at a checkpoint. There has to be a "first search" done somewhere - and that location will become the most dangerous and error-prone.

It is interesting that the former Commissioner claims that methods used were based on an Israeli model.

quote:
The “shoot to kill” policy appears to have been discreetly introduced into anti-terrorist procedures in 2003, after then-Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens sent teams to both Israel and Sri Lanka to study how they dealt with suicide bombers.

On Sunday, Lord Stevens wrote in graphic language in the popular tabloid the News of the World why he had taken the decision.

“There is only sure way to stop a suicide bomber determined to fulfill his mission: Destroy his brain instantly, utterly. Which means shooting him with devastating power in the head, killing him immediately. Anywhere else and even though they might be dying, they may still be able to force their body to trigger the device,” he wrote

I'm afraid there's taxing duty in store for us all in the years to come.

[ July 25, 2005, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: The Drake ]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
true, thats why though israel has checkpoints, so that such stuff wont happen inside a major city.

the open-fire protocol in a checkpoint is much trigger happier then inside the green line, if some one will run striat to a checkpoint with no stopping he will be gunned down for sure. but the millitary handles checkpoints and the palestinians are not israeli citizens. while the police handles israel, and has to treat with israeli citizens

maybe now, you people whould understand why we use strgeted assasinations, we keep helicopters in the air 24/7 so that if intteligence will identify a car (and be 100% sure mind you) that is harboring a suicide bomber on its way to die, we destroy him inside the car.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
"I'm sure they could rig vests to be triggered by pulling a string that's run down inside the jacket into the hand or any one of a dozen other methods."

Yeah, dozens of other methods including a dead-man switch, either rigging the detonator to a cheap strap around the ribs type heart monitor or just rigging it so that the switch is held in the bombers hand and detonates if his hand relaxes.

A bullet to the head is by no means a sure-fire way to stop a suicide bomber.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

and we dont shoot at innocent civilians

Except you've not only segregated your likely bombers on the basis of their ancestry but require them to carry identity cards and are building a big wall to keep them away from the "real" people.

London is not nearly as restrictive -- and the price London pays for this is the need to respond more reactively and less proactively to potential threats.

quote:

the millitary handles checkpoints and the palestinians are not israeli citizens

This is a very salient point. You have the luxury of not having to respect the rights or lives of the demographic most likely to bomb you, which makes it considerably easier to intercept them.

[ July 25, 2005, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
but require them to carry identity cards and are building a big wall to keep them away from the "real" people.


every israeli citizen over the age of 15 carry an identitiy card, so if the palestinians want to come and work here, they need identity cards too.

"building a big wall to keep them away from the "real" people."

we are entitled to do what ever we want inside our territories, and the wall, by the guidance of our supreme court, is being built on the green line. the wall is built inside israel, we have every right to build it. and its purpose if to block palestinian terrorists from entering israel, since our borders with the palestinians are pretty much non existant and wide open, the wall's purpose is to limit the palestinians from illegaly entering israel, and using only the border passes to enter. just like you wont let mexicans enter america freely.

the wall is only here because of the palestinian terrorists, who caused the israeli population to simply not believe a word the palestinian say, and understanding that the only way for them to stop terrorism is by making one-sided actions such as building the wall.

"This is a very salient point. You have the luxury of not having to respect the rights or lives of the demographic most likely to bomb you, which makes it considerably easier to intercept them." the well being and rights of the palestinians are respected as much as possible in those checkpoints. palestinians ARE able to sue israelis, and many do so, and the israeli supreme court, the only place in israel still not hit by politics, many times rule in favior of the palestinians. soldiers know that there are strict rules that they have to follow.

but still given that, ofcourse getting into a checkpoint is an uncomfortable thing. but i tell you what, after 9/11, for us your israeli allies, entering on a plane inside an american airport is also a rather uncomfortable thing.

if you wanna work in israel, then you are going to be checked because it is people of your demoraphic who bomb israel.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
"I'm sure they could rig vests to be triggered by pulling a string that's run down inside the jacket into the hand or any one of a dozen other methods."

Yeah, dozens of other methods including a dead-man switch, either rigging the detonator to a cheap strap around the ribs type heart monitor or just rigging it so that the switch is held in the bombers hand and detonates if his hand relaxes.

A bullet to the head is by no means a sure-fire way to stop a suicide bomber.

No, its not a sure-fire method which is why I said "he couldn't deliberately trigger the bomb no matter what method he chose after getting shot in the head five times." (emphasis added)

I'm aware of the existence of dead-man switches. But I'm not aware of any terrorist group currently using them. The police are trying to stop the methods they know are being used rather than the methods that are unusual.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

if you wanna work in israel, then you are going to be checked because it is people of your demoraphic who bomb israel.

So what you are arguing is that England would be better off kicking anyone of Arabic descent to Milton Keynes and building a wall around it, and then only shooting the people who try to run through the two or three gates?
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:

if you wanna work in israel, then you are going to be checked because it is people of your demoraphic who bomb israel.

So what you are arguing is that England would be better off kicking anyone of Arabic descent to Milton Keynes and building a wall around it, and then only shooting the people who try to run through the two or three gates?
LOL, nice idea, but I don't think even terrorists deserve to be sent to Milton Keynes.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
if you want to play dumb, then play some where else
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"if you want to play dumb, then play some where else"

I scarcely read this thread, but I love this line, hannibal. Humphrey Bogart caliber material
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I'm pointing out that the way Israel manages its terrorist problem -- by officially making Palestinians like second-class citizens (or not citizens at all), ostracizing them and subjecting them to frequent invasive searches, and literally walling them off from the rest of the country's population -- would not be tenable in most other Western countries. One cost of this approach may well be the occasional accidental shooting, and even Israel has those at its own checkpoints.

If your argument is that Western countries need to more proactively segregate, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you.

[ July 26, 2005, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Badvok (Member # 1085) on :
 
Hannibal/Ricky, can you comment on this . Is this just palestinian propaganda or is there any truth in it.
Thanks.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Tom, you couldnt spill more palestinian propoganda if you tried

palestinians are not second class citizens, they are merely NOT israeli citizens just like an american is not an israeli citizen. if palestinians want to work in israel, they need to get a permit, which is an long process just like getting a green card to work in the states.
when palestinians enter israel, they are searched, just like when israelis enter the united states are searched
the palestinians are not walled of from the *rest* of the country, it is a mere border being built between israel and the future state of palestine, just like a mexican cant enter the united states anywhere he wants, but through valid border passes, just like a palestinian citizen wont be able to.

the searches that an israeli goes through the border guards in an american airport, are invasive aswell. nobody inserts a stick up our asses, but we need to take off the shoes, belts, and even hand bags. even the pages of the books are searched. so dont give me invasive

we are not segregating. palestinians are going to be citizens of another country, which is not israel. and we have every right to errect a wall between israel and palestine.
palestinians who have work permits to israel will still be able to enter israel trhough the checkpoints
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Badvok, you have entered the site of the extreme lefties of israel, they are just as bad as the settlers.

sure the wall on the WEST side is not built exactly over the green line, it is circling major settlement blocks that the US administration have approved. the suggested wall is not a finallity, and needs to go through the supreme courts approval, (which so far has not approved any initial suggested wall, and pushed it westards)

Sharon is after all a right winger, and he will try to make the wall built as eastwards as possible. that is the difference between a leftwinger PM and a right winger PM. and where i stop supporting sharon (i never had actually, i just aprove of the pullout plan) and start supporting a leftwing PM.

IF the palestinians had agreed to Ehud Barak's offer in 1999, then they whould have had 97% of the 1967 territories. because of the recent intifadah, the palestinians have lost the major settlement blocks - which the USA promised israel that they can keep them

the east barrier idea, is a mere propoganda by the Gush-Shalom activists, who assume what "might" happen.

there is no chance that such thing will be built, as it has no purpose of security and it will never be approved in the knesset. ofcourse it is a wet dream of many a hawkish right wingers in israel, it is a dream
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Security fence politics probably deserve an entire thread. The big problem is the route of the fence, changed from the green line to appease the settlers.

Which maybe isn't a bad analogy to what Texans did in creating the Mexican border [Smile]

I agree with others, that this particular solution, or turning the UK into an Iraq or Northern Ireland with checkpoints and searches on the street and everywhere else, would be an overreaction at the very least. 10 bombings from now, who knows if that will still be true?

Consider that there could easily be 20,000 to 30,000 radical muslims in the UK, which is often stated as the size of the insurgency in Iraq. Now that's a truly sobering thought.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
Security fence politics probably deserve an entire thread. The big problem is the route of the fence, changed from the green line to appease the settlers.

Which maybe isn't a bad analogy to what Texans did in creating the Mexican border [Smile]


I didn't know Texans dug the Rio Grande.


Separation might be an option is Israel. Where the fence is already built, its stopping atttackers from crossing over. If there becomes a real and separate Palestine whose border matches the fence and both sides are politically OK with that, its probably not a bad thing.

If the area on both sides of the fence remain Israel, the wall is only going to continue to increase resentment.

As for whether Palestinians in Israel are treated differently than Israeli citizens, I've read from a number of places (which aren't pro-palestine) for a number of years that its true. Such things as a palestinian having trouble getting electricity and water for his house even though its available to citizens in that community.

And why underestimate how hard Tom can try? I've seen people who are much more palestinian propagandists than he's been so far. [Wink]


I don't see separation being an option for Britain or the rest of Europe. There might be areas where immigrants more frequently settle but its nothing like palestinian refugee camps or similar places that can be easily isolated. They aren't going to build walls around arab "ghettos" in their cities even if the political will to do something that drastic increases.

If they want instead to displace the population completely, it'd be much easier to deport them altogether than to build camps then care for the displaced people there.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Drake

"or turning the UK into an Iraq or Northern Ireland with checkpoints and searches on the street and everywhere else, would be an overreaction at the very least. 10 bombings from now, who knows if that will still be true?"

Its not like that in israel.we dont have "checkpoints and searches everywhere" we have them on the BORDER, your picture of israel is wrong, out of luck of knowledge.

Archer

"As for whether Palestinians in Israel are treated differently than Israeli citizens, I've read from a number of places (which aren't pro-palestine) for a number of years that its true. Such things as a palestinian having trouble getting electricity and water for his house even though its available to citizens in that community"

in palestinians in israel, i take it you mean arab israelis, then basically as far as the law concerns they are 100% the same as myself. unfortionatly, its harder for them to get accepted to work. but is is also hard for a non russian-jew to get accepted to a place where the bosse are all russian-jews. what you said about electricity and water, is of no relation to the fact of a citizen being an arab israeli or not.
water is being supplied to the municipality, and if the municipality is under heavy debts, some times the water are being stopped. ellectricity is stopped for some one who doesnt pay his electricity bill. and unfrotionatly, both those things happen in israel to poor jew and arab citizens alike.


"I don't see separation being an option for Britain or the rest of Europe."

ofcourse it is impossible, this is not the purpose of which we are building the wall. we build it to mark a distinct border between israel and the future palestinian state , and for stopping illegal entrence of palestinians to israel.

we dont build a wall around arab israeli cities, just like england wont build one around its own arab english citizens. -- that is racism.

about Tom

bringing up so many lies in a single statment i mean, thats not so easy

[ July 26, 2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Hannibal ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*laugh* What lies, exactly? [Smile]

I am pointing out -- and continue to point out -- that the solutions applied by Israel to their terrorist problem (isolation, intensive search, assassination) are solutions that simply cannot apply to the rest of the world. And if the price of NOT building a wall around our Muslim immigrants is the occasional wrongful shooting, at least until better ways of rapidly identifying a threat are developed, then at worst London is no worse off than Israel, which regularly commits its OWN wrongful shootings at checkpoints.

By the way, I'm a fat, middle-aged white guy. And when I'm flying inside my own country, I'm still asked to remove my shoes and let people rummage through my carry-on. That's not a form of security being applied uniquely to Israeli visitors, or even to international visitors.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Hannibal,

I know perfectly well that Israel keeps checkpoints on the border, because their threat is external. The threat in the UK (at least the one we've been discussing, and that has manifested itself this month) is an internal one.

Maybe we both agree that this is not a solution for the UK. One question about the Israel - West Bank checkpoints though. Why not just close them all permanently, except to IDF? If the intention is to seal yourselves off from the Palestinians?


Archer,

With regard to Texans - they didn't build a fence, but they did annex territory claimed and held by Mexico. Or did you think that "San Antonio" was a name given by American settlers?
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:


I am pointing out -- and continue to point out -- that the solutions applied by Israel to their terrorist problem (isolation, intensive search, assassination) are solutions that simply cannot apply to the rest of the world.

I don't see that assassinations couldn't work anyplace but Israel.

If I understand Israel's policy, they assassinate when it'd mean less collateral damage than a frontal assault upon the neighborhood the terrorist is hiding in.

I wouldn't advocate assassinations using rockets like Israel does sometimes. But a sniper at long range would be preferrable to me than a pitched battle in an apartment complex. Both sides are likely to be using weapons that'd punch completely through US-built apartment walls.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Tom, i suppliment over Archer's point, assasinations is defenetly a solution viable in other countries, and americans have started to use it too, in their operations on iraq. if you remmember... saddam's sons were destroyed in that way.

any way Tom, the fact that you dont seperate palestinian citizens from israeli citizens is what boders me, you are not isolating a group of our own people, or anything like that, we are merely blocking ourselves from palestinians.

note Tom, that EVEN though we do all those searches, still palestinians come to work in israel, no one forces them to come, and still terrorists some times DO menage to smuggle weapons.


Archer
"Maybe we both agree that this is not a solution for the UK. One question about the Israel - West Bank checkpoints though. Why not just close them all permanently, except to IDF? If the intention is to seal yourselves off from the Palestinians?"

Ah! I'd wish such thing whould happen, i wish we closed down the west bank entirely, even to the IDF. simply remove our presence from there.

but the problem in israel is that we have a minority of crazed settlers who lobby enough power to keep them there and do whatever they want. it is starting to change though with the pull out from gaza, if it was up to me, we whould pull out from the settlments in the west bank and completley shut ourselves from palestinians, even to work, we whould bring alien workers instead
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
look at the hipocracy of the world.

if heaven's forbid we israelis whould have accidently killed some civilian by mistake, all the world will say that we target innocent civilians that we torture and subude the palestinians etc.

and here to london police accidently killed some one suspected of terrorism, and people treat it as a mistake

well, itsa totally different situation and you gotta admit that the israeli police/army did do some horrendous things. from sheer memory i can recall them firing into an ambulance? plus, the london police does get criticized when are racistic and stuff. not a whole lot, but still.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

assasinations is defenetly a solution viable in other countries, and americans have started to use it too, in their operations on iraq

If the American government were to snipe an American citizen -- or even a foreign national -- on our soil without first making an attempt to arrest that person and/or subject them to a trial of some sort, and this were to become known, I don't think you can even imagine the noise that would result. If the British were to do it, I'd expect an open revolt and immediate elections for PM.

quote:

the fact that you dont seperate palestinian citizens from israeli citizens is what boders me

You're right; I don't really make the distinction. Until a couple of years ago, Israel even denied that any Palestine existed that might make such a distinction meaningful. There may someday be a distinction between Israeli citizens and citizens of Palestine, but right now it's an imaginary -- and convenient -- distinction based purely on heritage.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Tom, I think thats a little disingeneous. The israeli government has never taken a position that the arab's who renounced the offer of israeli citizenship are israeli citizens, OR foreign nationals.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:

I don't see that assassinations couldn't work anyplace but Israel.
[/QB]

I wonder if u.s. presidents were succesfully assasinated a number of times, would that change anything? If it wasn't because of amateuristic and disfunctional Ukranian or Georgian handgrenades, bush would've been death.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Tom,

"If the American government were to snipe an American citizen -- or even a foreign national -- on our soil without first making an attempt to arrest that person "

Israel have never done so aswell, the assasinations take place in gaza and the west bank and AGAIN, you americans have done the same thing in Iraq of late and i bet it happned in manny other occasions

"You're right; I don't really make the distinction. Until a couple of years ago, Israel even denied that any Palestine existed"

really?!? wow thats nice, the palestinians still dont recognize that israel exists so we are on the same level here.

the fact that you dont recognize a distinction between israeli citizens and palestinian citizens means that you ALSO dont recognize the state of israel.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
"If it wasn't because of amateuristic and disfunctional Ukranian or Georgian handgrenades, bush would've been death. TS Elliot"

Heheh - a lot of people would argue that Bush is death [Wink]
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:


I don't see that assassinations couldn't work anyplace but Israel.

quote:
Originally posted by TS Elliot:
I wonder if u.s. presidents were succesfully assasinated a number of times, would that change anything? If it wasn't because of amateuristic and disfunctional Ukranian or Georgian handgrenades, bush would've been death.

I wouldn't change anything with me.

I don't accept the premise that Israel is unique in that assassinating terrorists "works" there but it couldn't work anywhere else. There's a heckuva lot of countries and cultures in the world.

Why would you think that a terrorist assassinating the president of the US would make the american people less likely to support going aggressively after terrorists? Everything in my experience would suggest that an overwhelming number of people would be in favor of throwing the rulebook out the window and doing whatever it takes to get the SOBs.

[ July 26, 2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
the fact that you dont recognize a distinction between israeli citizens and palestinian citizens means that you ALSO dont recognize the state of israel.
Or that I don't recognize the state of Palestine. And, no, I don't currently recognize Palestine as anything resembling a state; it is at best a puppet government presiding over a bunch of geographically scattered Israeli ghettos.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
i also dont recognize a *state* of palestine, but there is going to be one in the near future.
there is a palestinian people, a palestinian authority, and even somthing that resembles a palestinian police and a rulling government
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
And until then, would you agree that Israel is pretty much sovereign over Palestinian territory? That, in fact, Palestinian territory exists in name only?

What I'm trying to point out here is that you've excused a lot of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians by falling back on "well, they aren't Israeli citizens" -- but considering the accidents of birth and geography involved here, it's not like they really have a practical choice in the matter.

The Palestinian people are second-class Israelis, as far as I'm concerned, until they get their own state. Until then, the fact that Israel feels justified to treat them as anything but full citizens is not a mark in its favor.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
And until then, would you agree that Israel is pretty much sovereign over Palestinian territory

the palestinian authority is divided into different zones, the A zones are in complete palestinian security and responibility and the B zones are also under palestinian responsibiliy.
if any, only the C zones are under israeli responsibility.

these things are signed in a contract. the palestinians do hold and have responsibility
Gaza for instance, is one of the A zones.

do iraqis have all the things americans have? did the vietnamese had?

you are right though, israel has some responibility for the palestinian well being and so israel gives the palestinians water, electricity, gas, medical services, phone services and gives tousands of work permits. atleast untill there will be a self sufficient palesinian state.

and again, if it was up to me, the settlers were gone, and both countries whould be locked and sealed from one another.

you know that basically the palesinians arent goodie two shoes, 20 years ago they worked freely inside israel, the checkpoints were nothing even close to what they are now.
i remmember that when i was six years old we hired palestinian buisness to make renovations in our house.
if there was no terrorism Tom, then there whould be no checkpoints. the sad truth for the palestinians is that the moment we lessen the checkpoints security level there is a suicide attack somehere inside israel, and usually the suicide bomber comes from inside A or B territories. where the palestinians have all the capabilities to block the terrorists.

so once the palestinians will fight visibally not verbally against terrorism, things will go much better for them
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
So, Tom, you'd treat people who reject citizenship, deny your existence as a state, deny your right to exist, and wage war on your civilian population, as full citizens, despite the fact that you offered citizenship at one point and it was rejected?

Further, treating them as full citizens would actually circumvent the entire peace process... and end israel as a state, permanently. The fact israel doesn't treat them as citizens is rooted not only in the fact that the palestinian people don't recognize the state of israel, but also in the fact that recognizing them as israeli would destroy israel. Would you suggest israel intentionally destroy their own nation?
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with the Pals. They should roll over. They have no power, and the only way to improve their situation is to accept that. Instead they'd rather destroy themselves and take as many as possible with them. They'd rather throw stones in defiance and get shot in the throat.

They had their own state right in front of them, but that wasn't good enough for them, and now they will likely have even less. If I spent a generation trying to find a peace with those guys, I'd throw up my hands and lay a minefield a mile wide along the entire green line. Settlers will have notice to withdraw.

Granted, my nation has never been invaded by a foreign power since becoming established, and nobody I know has ever lived under an occupation. At the end of the day, I don't care. At some point you surrender, and make your fellow countrymen do the same.

Sorry for the mini-rant. It just bugs me that either the Israelis or the Palestinians can't win their conflict after generations.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Well, the israeli's could easily win the conflict. It would involve genocide though, and unlike the arabs around them, the israelis don't hold with that.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

The fact israel doesn't treat them as citizens is rooted not only in the fact that the palestinian people don't recognize the state of israel, but also in the fact that recognizing them as israeli would destroy israel.

Oh, I'm not saying it's unjustified. I'm saying that it makes the Israeli "solution" to terrorism completely untenable in societies that have extended citizenship to likely suicide bombers, and consequently any criticism from Israelis on the execution of a completely different sort of protective measure may not be entirely informed.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Well, the israeli's could easily win the conflict. It would involve genocide though, and unlike the arabs around them, the israelis don't hold with that.

Except that people practically accuse them of it, anyway [Frown]

But there are methods short of genocide, as I mentioned - you could just cut them off entirely. Impose a de-facto border and let them choke on it. No more work permits, no more travelling to hospitals in Israel. Done. The end.

Call it Tough Love.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
So, Tom, you'd treat people who reject citizenship...

Unless you know something I don't, Israel never offered citizenship to the Palestinians.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
" and consequently any criticism from Israelis on the execution of a completely different sort of protective measure may not be entirely informed."

I'll accept that.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Unless you know something I don't, Israel never offered citizenship to the Palestinians."

1948. Israel offered citizenship to all the arabs living within the territory they controled.

In late december, 1977, Menachem Begin instituted a policy towards the occupied territories that any resident of those territories who asked for israeli citizenship would obtain it.

This policy only came to an end when Israel recognized the PLO with the Olso accords in 1993.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

[ July 27, 2005, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
[QB] Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with the Pals. They should roll over. They have no power, and the only way to improve their situation is to accept that. Instead they'd rather destroy themselves and take as many as possible with them. They'd rather throw stones in defiance and get shot in the throat.

Yeah, like israelis and americans wouldn't do exactly the same thing were they in the Pals shoes. I think they would, unless they can only have big mouths when they have the technological advantage.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TS Elliot:
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
[QB] Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with the Pals. They should roll over. They have no power, and the only way to improve their situation is to accept that. Instead they'd rather destroy themselves and take as many as possible with them. They'd rather throw stones in defiance and get shot in the throat.

Yeah, like israelis and americans wouldn't do exactly the same thing were they in the Pals shoes. I think they would, unless they can only have big mouths when they have the technological advantage.
Well, when the americans were over-whelmingly out-gunned and fighting for their independence against Britain (which was the biggest military power in the world of its day), I don't recall Americans setting car bombs or blowing up malls, subways, and busses full of innocent civilians.

Maybe you read a different history book?
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
Why would you think that a terrorist assassinating the president of the US would make the american people less likely to support going aggressively after terrorists? Everything in my experience would suggest that an overwhelming number of people would be in favor of throwing the rulebook out the window and doing whatever it takes to get the SOBs.

Okay, this is just theory, but let's say that these presidents where assasinated the day or the week after they were sworn in? If that happened 53 times in a row, might that not change things? And, why do you call them SOBs? You've declared war on them, they're merely doing whatever they can not to let you win. the us president is a legitimate object in their and your own view.
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TS Elliot:
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
Why would you think that a terrorist assassinating the president of the US would make the american people less likely to support going aggressively after terrorists? Everything in my experience would suggest that an overwhelming number of people would be in favor of throwing the rulebook out the window and doing whatever it takes to get the SOBs.

Okay, this is just theory, but let's say that these presidents where assasinated the day or the week after they were sworn in? If that happened 53 times in a row, might that not change things?
Well, like I said, it wouldn't change things for me. What are we supposed to be able to do, be able to sit down with the terrorists and agree that we aren't going to assassinate each other?

If that were going to work, we could kill off a few of their civilians tomorrow then sit down with them next week and make an agreement to quit killing each other's civilians.

quote:
And, why do you call them SOBs?
Because you don't seem to have an understanding of americans. If they assassinate a president, the american people are going to think they're a bunch of dirty SOBs who just signed their own death warrants and want to go after them. 9-11 happened and the next day the military recruiting offices were overwhelmed with volunteers wantin to go get someone.

Hitting america gets america pissed off. It might not work like that for other countries but that's how it works here.

If you hit america 53 times in a row, america is still going to be pissed off and the people are going to demand their leader, whoever that happens to be, do something about it. Now. Right now.

The only thing that could happen to make america not want to hit back is for the country to be completely destroyed as a working entity. And nuking a city or assassinating several leaders isn't going to be enough to make the country disintegrate.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
oh yeah? and still you hit iraq this way, and aid in hitting the palestinians this way you expect them to roll over. I predict that a country who would lose their leader that much in a short time, would get pretty demoralized, america included. But hey, it's all theory, so ... Nuewking Yellowstone, now that would be a real worry ...
 
Posted by Archer (Member # 2546) on :
 
I wasn't the one who said he expected the palestinians would roll over.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
After the first couple of times, the US president would reside in a bunker or Air Force One on a semi-permanent basis.

Regarding Americans rolling over or what tactics an occupied America would use - hard to speculate for sure. A couple of indicators are the Reconstruction and integration of the South back into the Union. You didn't have a lot of die hards still fighting the Civil War with explosives and rifles in 1910. And certainly, the residents of Atlanta probably had more reason to hold a grudge than the residents of Jerusalem.

Other Western countries like France and Belgium limited their resistance mostly to military targets, as I understand it.

IIRC, The Irish might have the Western longevity prize for keeping up rebellion, but even they gave it a rest every once in a while to regroup and build up their strength.

Many historians suggest that the Rebellion against the British Crown would have died off if stalemate had occurred for just a couple more years.

I don't intend to draw any conclusions or suggest that any of these are direct analogies.

But I will say here and now, if some foreign nation occupies California for 50 years, I'm throwing in the towel.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Drake :
"Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with the Pals. They should roll over. They have no power, and the only way to improve their situation is to accept that. Instead they'd rather destroy themselves and take as many as possible with them. They'd rather throw stones in defiance and get shot in the throat.

They had their own state right in front of them, but that wasn't good enough for them, and now they will likely have even less. If I spent a generation trying to find a peace with those guys, I'd throw up my hands and lay a minefield a mile wide along the entire green line. Settlers will have notice to withdraw.
"

to your first statment - they are jihadists, thats what wroung with them, they are being controlled for years over years by jihadists who want to destroy israel. and even if some or most of the palestinians do want to lay down the arms, consolodate their gains and establish a country. they will never admit defeat because it became a religious thing.

to your second statement - i agree 100%, only that instaed of minefieald we israelis build the wall, and its one heck of a wall the settlers can either stay with the popular palestinian population or return to israel.


by the way -
"Well, the israeli's could easily win the conflict. It would involve genocide though, and unlike the arabs around them, the israelis don't hold with that. "

"Except that people practically accuse them of it, anyway
"


people do seem to forget that we have tousands of tanks and hundreds of jet fighters not to mention other weapons... we could level the palestinians in 5 minutes, but we try so hard to minimize the casualties, we fire missiles with lessened warheads we warn the palestinians before we go to an air raid so they can clear up the buildings.

by the way, seems that the leading news paper in denemark , which was rather hostile to israel, published a leading article today calling it "we are all israelis" addmiting its error at its critisizem on israel
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
"to your first statment - they are jihadists, thats what wroung with them, they are being controlled for years over years by jihadists who want to destroy israel. and even if some or most of the palestinians do want to lay down the arms, consolodate their gains and establish a country. they will never admit defeat because it became a religious thing."

Wow, cristian palestinian suicide bombers are jihadists too?

It's Isreal that gives veto power to any nut with a bomb who wants to destroy peace, as many of your arguments clearly show Hannibal. Time and again "we were close to peace, and a few dozen assholes attacked us, and we walked away from the table". So long as this is the case, no wall is going to solve the problem.

As far as targeted assasination, I have to say that for me the very competance of the Mosad makes the use of airstrikes suspect. You've got the best spooks in the world, but have to launch rockets into apartment buildings instead of cleanly sniping a target? The motivation is to attempt to indimidate the Palestianians through a show of force, at least, this is the only motivation I can come up with.

The policy of the forming Israeli Gov. in 47-49 toward the local arabs was schizophrenic. We've been over this a time or two before. The Gov. offered full citizenship to arabs who wanted to stay, and the majority of Israelis supported that offer, but groups like the Haganah were attacking undefended arab towns and commiting massacres which have been well documented.

Little effort was made to stop them from commiting these attrocities. It's true that the Israeli gov. couldn't afford to alienate them and had few resources to do so any way. However, it should be understable that Palestinians have always viewed this as tacit aproval of the ethnic cleansing which occured.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Wow, cristian palestinian suicide bombers are jihadists too?


there simply arent any

You've got the best spooks in the world, but have to launch rockets into apartment buildings instead of cleanly sniping a target?

sometimes we do kill them that way, some times we put bombs inside the celular phones, or in the headress of their car sits.

some times its simply easier to use a hellfire, and 90% of those attacks succeed.

It's Isreal that gives veto power to any nut with a bomb who wants to destroy peace

thats right, we do, because we control the checkpoints, every time, in order to advance the peace process, we open the checkpoints to more palestinians to work, and thus they menage to snick one suicide bomber inside.

and if we close the checkpoints the whole world and the palestinians, and Tom Davidson will say that we are segregating them.

47-49

you are talking about the 40s come on, it was totally different time back then lets not get into what your army did in the 40's and in the 60s and 70s.

maybe there were a few incidents of *slaughter* by israeli forces, there have been much more slaugghters commited by arabs back then, and they went on towards the 50s with the Fedayoun.

no wall is going to solve the problem.

so far, where ever there was a wall, it did solved the problem thats proven. no terrorist comes from a place which is walled.
 
Posted by michaellofts (Member # 2552) on :
 
The truth is that none of us were there. We do not know what was said or who said it. All we have is second hand accounts of the incident unless someone has some video that I have not seen. The police are at not at fault as long as they were acting in the best interest of the British citizens. It is a terrible tragedy plain in simple. If it is between my comrades and me or the other guy I will be deliberate in my actions and ensure that it is not me.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
even if it means the death of one of your comrades.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"But I will say here and now, if some foreign nation occupies California for 50 years, I'm throwing in the towel."

Herd the native Californians into Orange County and wall 'em in.

"But there are methods short of genocide, as I mentioned - you could just cut them off entirely. Impose a de-facto border and let them choke on it. No more work permits, no more travelling to hospitals in Israel. Done. The end."

I wonder, as do many others, why this hasn't been done. A common theory is the cheap labor pool aspect. Me, I don't know. But it IS curious.

"Call it Tough Love."

More honest and less confusing if we just call it "tough"?

"A couple of indicators are the Reconstruction and integration of the South back into the Union. You didn't have a lot of die hards still fighting the Civil War with explosives and rifles in 1910. And certainly, the residents of Atlanta probably had more reason to hold a grudge than the residents of Jerusalem."

Ah, but the South still had their nigrahs to oppress, suppress, and contain. Chew toys, so to speak, to distract them from their own conquest by the North. Palestinians ain't got no nigrahs: they ARE the nigrahs. Makes for an interesting situation, especially since their conquerors are folks who, for millennia, served as Niggars of the (western) World.

It is also interesting that the Roman model of granting the conquered jus civitatis -- the right to citizenship in Rome -- which worked so well for the Romans most of the time, hasn't worked for the Jews in modern Palestine-become-Israel. (Come to think of it, when it came to ancient Jewish Israel, this didn't work so well for the Romans, either; the Jews were ever chafing at the Imperial leash, and eventually 'had to be' destroyed as a national people around 70 AD.)

If Shakespeare were alive and writing today, he wouldn't be writing about British or Danish political tragedies, but rather about the Middle East. And Romeo and Juliet would be members of opposing Semitic clans (Palestinian versus Hebrew).
 
Posted by michaellofts (Member # 2552) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
even if it means the death of one of your comrades.

If it means protecting the majority from the minority, then sadly yes.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
quote:
Originally posted by TS Elliot:
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
Because he was a white guy, they should have let him get away?

Please re-read. Then admit to unwarranted indignation and holier-than-thou behavior.
You're the one who was saying they should have suspected him or not suspected them based on his skin color.

Maybe you should look into your own sense of indignation and holier-than-thou behavior.

I'm sorry but I'm gonna puke at all the Rabid righties getting all color blind all of a sudden. Of course ethnicity was a factor, since they got them all on CCTV! From that they knew that the perp was an Asian looking male between 20-40. And to be explicit, not because he was a white guy , but because he did not match the description, they should've waited at least 1.3 seconds before pumping him full of lead!!! If he had, in any way matched ANY part of the description, then it would be sort of defendable. But only sort of and ever so slightly. Also then, they should've waited with shooting, until they had SOMEthing solid to convince them he was up to no good.
But they didn't, and he didn't, so now he isn't.


But now, there's new damning info, which makes the term "near execution" very relevant. It seems he wasn't even BEHAVING SUSPICIOUSLY!!!
What did the police do wrong:
1. They 'building'-profiled someone. I use the word profiled since it has been proven as useless as racially profiling into finding the actual criminal, only even more so.
2. They 'building'-profiled the wrong guy according to their OWN descriptions.
3. they shot a defenseless man (he was restrained, held down) SEVEN times in the head, and once in the chest.
4. They lied about how it happened. The point that the commissioner was badly informed, doesn't fly since SOMEONE in the police DID TOO lie.
5. They WAITED SIX DAYS to even START an investigation, allowing the bungling police-men to align their story and remove god knows what more damning evidence.

I mean, really .... and these are supposed to be the good guys? the brits, the nice version of americans, with likeable Tony Blair etc etc. ?? I'm reminded of the film In the name of the Father, about the Guildford Four again, whereby the defense lawyer accidentally found some notes on evidence (which would have set these people free immediately), saying "NOT TO BE SHOWN TO DEFENSE". One wonders what evidence will be surpressed this time.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Has anyone found yet if this guys spoke a word of english?

If you were in a foreign country and several men starting yelling and pointing guns at you, men who wearing plain clothes, would you run?

Whoa -- the officers were in plain clothes? That's an angle I didn't realize.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
quote:
Originally posted by TS Elliot:
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
[QB] Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with the Pals. They should roll over. They have no power, and the only way to improve their situation is to accept that. Instead they'd rather destroy themselves and take as many as possible with them. They'd rather throw stones in defiance and get shot in the throat.

Yeah, like israelis and americans wouldn't do exactly the same thing were they in the Pals shoes. I think they would, unless they can only have big mouths when they have the technological advantage.
Well, when the americans were over-whelmingly out-gunned and fighting for their independence against Britain (which was the biggest military power in the world of its day), I don't recall Americans setting car bombs or blowing up malls, subways, and busses full of innocent civilians.

Maybe you read a different history book?

Actually in North Carolina Americans did a number of things far more horrible than that -- Loyalists against Revolutionaries and Revolutionaries against Loyalists. But that wasn't general to the whole revolution.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
There may someday be a distinction between Israeli citizens and citizens of Palestine, but right now it's an imaginary -- and convenient -- distinction based purely on heritage.

Tom, that's not true. Palestinians have voted in a number of elections. That's a real, legal distinction. And the heritage distinction isn't "convenient" -- it's damned inconvenient for Israel, since that's the distinction that has been used to kill Israelis.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
Rereading this thread, a most definitive feeling of wry and sour comes to me:


quote:
Originally posted by FiredrakeRAGE:The idea behind the 'shoot-to-kill' policy (I hate that - when else do you shoot?)
such crap, you can shoot his legs, shoulder, hands .

quote:
Originally posted by Lady Starkiller:
It's a tragedy. It's a mistake. But we operate, all of us, on the best information that we have at the time.

It seems that the info the shooters had would've been pretty good to decide not to shoot.
quote:
Lady Starkiller: (..)Maybe this is just me talking - but if this person did, in fact, do something to cause any reasonable police officer to assume hostile intent
It IS just you talking, he didn't do ANYTHING to cause suspicion.
quote:
Originally posted by tshaw:
This whole thing sounds like a case of terminal stupidity on the Brazilian's part. If you wear a big puffy coat (...) possible bomb.

Doesn't that sound terribly stupid now?

quote:

OP by David Ricardo: Look, the British police made a catastrophic mistake. But at least, they owned up to it.
OP by Hannibal: its easy to own up to the mistake, because every body knows that they have made it


hear, hear

quote:

OP by David Ricardo: and are now pledging not to make the same mistake in the future.
OP by Hannibal: an empty promise they killed an innocent man, and they will make mistakes again, dont make them the tragic heroes or players in this story because they ****ed up greatly. i just cant stop thinking what whould have happned if we israelis made such mistake

quoted for thruth

quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
He could have chosen some place else to live.

Apperantly arch never tried to find housing in London

quote:
Archer:
1. He could have chosen to not wear a bulkly jacket that day.
2. He could have chosen to take the jacket off for a minute and the police could have seen there was no bomb underneath
3. He could have chosen to make several stops before going to the subway and the police would lose interest in him.

this is just what he did, imagine that!

quote:
Archer:He could have chosen to not take the subway.
yeah right, in London?? do you know how long buses take? On average 3 hours where tubes take one hour.

quote:
Archer:He could have chosen to not run from the police.
By George, waddaya know? He didn't run, he just sat down.

quote:
Archer:He could have chosen to run any place but onto the subway car which was the final act that made the policemen think he was a suicide bomber.
Didn't do that either!!
quote:
Archer:
If everything by chance had not fallen exactly as it did, he'd be alive today. That's crappy luck.

It's amazing how every single item on archs lists turned out to be not true! There was no luck involved in this, crappy or otherwise. Okay, maybe then just one:
He could have had the luck not to run into trigger happy incompetent police.
I'm with Hannibal on this one, but do realize that Israeli police might be better because of practice, not genetic disposition. And they made a lot of mistakes too, apperantly.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
quote:
Originally posted by TS Elliot:
Yeah, like israelis and americans wouldn't do exactly the same thing were they in the Pals shoes. I think they would, unless they can only have big mouths when they have the technological advantage.

Well, when the americans were over-whelmingly out-gunned and fighting for their independence against Britain (which was the biggest military power in the world of its day), I don't recall Americans setting car bombs or blowing up malls, subways, and busses full of innocent civilians.

Maybe you read a different history book?

no no, I read the same one, where the americans, I mean Washington, won the revolution by throwing some tea in the harbor. This upset the Brits so much, they went all like "Oh dearie me, good golly miss Molly, well if you feel that strongly, here have your country then. We can't have you wasting good tea!"

Kiss my grits, Arch, you guys did all sorts of horrible things to the Brits (not to mention the Indians) even without the provocation of being occupied, which you never were. And that crap about the biggest military power, yeah maybe they were ... only not in that part of the world. Pretty convenient, eh?

And since the majority of Israelis voted to keep the situation of the occupation such as it is, you can hardly call them innocent, even if they weren't all in the army anyway. Same goes for americans. In case of the westbank etc.: YOU OCCUPIED THEIR LAND!!!!!! Bubba, no wonder they get mad. And also: YOU WOULD DO THE SAME THING!!!

[ August 20, 2005, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: TS Elliot ]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
excuse me? didnt we just experience the majority of israel voting to change the situation?
 
Posted by Athelstan (Member # 2566) on :
 
Writing as someone who was born in London I would like to say that I am very sorry an innocent Brazilian was shot by our Security Services. Secrecy here is a way of life. We learn it as children. Our newspapers, on the other hand, will say anything and it usually changes from day to day. When anything happens here people normally say nothing. They will not even deny rumours. In the US, it seems to me, everyone speaks. Jurors at high profile cases seem to be writing books as they leave the court. This is a rarity here. We expect this case to be properly investigated and in due time a complete whitewash to be presented. We are still looking into Diana’s death and a conclusion is expected any year soon.

As far as George Washington is concerned I never regarded him as a terrorist. I believe he was wearing his uniform before the revolution (in fact that’s why he got the job) and he led a recognisable uniformed army. It was recognised as French from whom they obtained the blue uniforms.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
TS Elliot said:
quote:
Originally posted by FiredrakeRAGE:The idea behind the 'shoot-to-kill' policy (I hate that - when else do you shoot?)

such crap, you can shoot his legs, shoulder, hands .

...if the person is a direct enough threat that you are using deadly force, logic and regulation would require shots to the center of mass.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
excuse me? didnt we just experience the majority of israel voting to change the situation?

I was referring to the WestBANK not Gaza!
And Hannibal, sorry, but I've done some reading and it seems more like a tactical withdrawal to me. And a nasty one to me, since they destroy all the houses and maybe poison the land when leaving. if that aint scorched earth, then I haven't got sunburn.
Some numbers:
- 0,1 percent of Gazastrip inhabitants, jews, owned 20 percent of the land and 60 percent of the production capabilities?
Boy, I wouldn't wanna leave too!
- Palestinian control over borders and airport and seaport: ZERO?
- number of referenda about Gazastripping: ZERO?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hannibal, basically, I think I'm with you: go back to 1967 borders, put up a big fence, and be done with it. Of course it would be nicer to all get along without a fence, but hey.
But let's not kid ourselves that the gazastripping is a good thing for Palestinians, mostly or even a little done for their sake. We can act all optimistic and say it's a good thing, but then we would be just hoping for the best. Which is kosjer, true that.

[ August 21, 2005, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: TS Elliot ]
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Athelstan:
We are still looking into Diana’s death and a conclusion is expected any year soon.

LOL!
Damn, more competition for canadian! [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Athelstan:
As far as George Washington is concerned I never regarded him as a terrorist. I believe he was wearing his uniform before the revolution (in fact that’s why he got the job) and he led a recognisable uniformed army. It was recognised as French from whom they obtained the blue uniforms.

See how subversively those bleeding French frogs sneaked the honest standup american revolutionary into their own uniforms! Bet they made a fast buck too ... Maybe that's the French word for military victory? Selling someone your uniforms?
Or should we see it as something that started out so beautifully, (selling or giving them uniforms, and being one of the first to regcognize the usa) and has since then deteriorated?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
TS Elliot:

"seems more like a tactical withdrawal to me"

ofcourse it is, we tried to communicate with the palestinians for years, they dont want to, so we decided to act unilaterally.
we destroy all the homes, the palestinians were not going to use them anyway - they are building dense population neighbourhoods instead.
we ARE LEAVING INTACT all the public buildings - schools, kiddenguardes, libraries, sport centers.
we also LEAVE intact, the greenhouses that were used and built by the gush katif inhabitants.

"maybe poison the land when leaving"
Is that what you think of us israelis? i am GREATLY dissapointed, i really dont know how to express it more heavilly then that

Some numbers:
- 0,1 percent of Gazastrip inhabitants, jews, owned 20 percent of the land and 60 percent of the production capabilities?

thats why nearly all of israel supports the pullout! for years we secular majority were held hostage buy a bunch of religious zealots, finally we kick them out.

" Palestinian control over borders and airport and seaport: ZERO?

thats right!, the palestinians ALLREADY had control on their borders and airspace during Arafats era, it is PROVEN that they used this thing to arm their terrorist organizations with superior weapons from abroad.
the palestinians have so much to worry about BEFORE such things - like reconstructing their country for instance. when they regain some shamblance of trust from us israelis they will get control of their airspace and naval ports

- number of referenda about Gazastripping: ZERO?"

i have no idea what you mean by that? but if you mean that we "harvested" and "stole" un-replanishable natural resources, then the answer is that we didnt. we harvested fish from the see, and grown food from the land. thats all.

"But let's not kid ourselves that the gazastripping is a good thing for Palestinians"

thats the best thing ever happned to them. do you realize that this is the first time in history, that a peace of territory will be completely governed by palestinians, for palestinians by palestinians.

now the ball is in their hands.... if they choose to build their country peacfully - great, slowly israel will withraw also from the west bank (its not easy to move 200,000 people) and slowly the palestinians will gain complete controll on more territory

if the palestinians continue to attack us - israel will retaliate in such a way, that they will return back to the stone age. (hmmm... even before that)
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1