Terrorist Attacks in London?

[eddyjo]

============================================================
What is "tosh"? cant find the meaning?
Do you have something to share with us? that would make interesting reading or trading methods etc etc.

Tosh can mean anything you want it to mean.

Nothing to share really....... just curious as to how long this thread can be kept going.

 

[Bigbusiness]

tosh
n. Chiefly British
Foolish nonsense.

www.thefreedictionary.com/tosh

 

[oatman]

Blair re-active rather than pro-active again. Same as all his policies. Security running round locking people up or shooting on sight. Suddenly he wants to round up the agitators.
Where were the policies before 7th July???

 

[bulldozer]

============================================================
What is "tosh"? cant find the meaning?
Do you have something to share with us? that would make interesting reading or trading methods etc etc.

Tosh can mean anything you want it to mean.

Nothing to share really....... just curious as to how long this thread can be kept going.

======================================================
Just as i thought nothing worthwhile to contribute.. only criticism :cheesy:


Bull

 

[millsy500]

nothing wrong with shoot to kill especially when it concerns terrorists

Millsy

 

[trendie]

nothing wrong with shoot to kill especially when it concerns terrorists

Millsy

it does help if you can distinguish between
a: rabid terrorists hell-bent on destroying our way of life,
and
b: innocent electricians on their way to fixing a new plug on grannys kettle.

five bullets in the brain dont help peoples sense of security if they end up in the wrong people.

bbc.co.uk repotrs that the police says:
"He said the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a "tragedy", but admitted more people could be shot as police hunt suspected suicide bombers. "

More innocent people shot, on the off-chance they might be terrorists ?

I suggest leaving your briefcase at home in future.

better still, go naked, just in case you might be thought of carrying anything under your clothes.

and dont point your willy at anything.

"nothing wrong with shoot to kill especially when it concerns terrorists"
quite agree.
but everything wrong with innocent people having their brain-matter splattered on the 5:20 from Stockwell.

 

[bulldozer]

it does help if you can distinguish between
a: rabid terrorists hell-bent on destroying our way of life,
and
b: innocent electricians on their way to fixing a new plug on grannys kettle.

five bullets in the brain dont help peoples sense of security if they end up in the wrong people.

bbc.co.uk repotrs that the police says:
"He said the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a "tragedy", but admitted more people could be shot as police hunt suspected suicide bombers. "

More innocent people shot, on the off-chance they might be terrorists ?

I suggest leaving your briefcase at home in future.

better still, go naked, just in case you might be thought of carrying anything under your clothes.

and dont point your willy at anything.

"nothing wrong with shoot to kill especially when it concerns terrorists"
quite agree.
but everything wrong with innocent people having their brain-matter splattered on the 5:20 from Stockwell.

======================================================================

If you were the cop at the sceene and you asked that man to stop [freeze] and he would not obey your command! what would you do? would you let him run down[get away] to the trains below and perhaps kill many innocent people.?
Lets say you chose to let him run away and then it transpires that he killed many people how would you feel?
The guy [brazilian] was an iddiot! he should not run away from police orders.

Remember the police are not like GOD! They dont know why he chose to ignore their orders and they dont know for sure that he was not carrying a bomb.
Where would you have put those 5 bullets?

If i were a torrorist threatening to blow up your family and your a cop wiv a gun, where would you shoot me?

Bull

 

[roguetrader]

It's the same old story, the public demand that they are protected, therefore the public indirectly put those men in potentially life and death situations in order to achieve that, having to make split second decisions with their own lives at risk. Then the public sit back in the comfort of their armchairs and criticize how they do it.

 

[danfreek]

Then the public sit back in the comfort of their armchairs and criticize how they do it.

Exactly, if only the police could act with 20/20 hindsight! Nobody in their right mind can blame the police for what happened.

 

[Bigbusiness]

Obviously this man should not have ran away and in this situation the police probably had no choice but to shoot. My problem with the police is that they have a long history of getting the wrong people and not being able to catch the real perpetrators of the crimes. Just look at how wrong they were with several of the suspected IRA bombers. They were locking up innocent people and letting the real bombers get away. I just hope they have improved and that this will be an isolated incident.

 

[MarvinS]

The US have always had a shoot to kill policy have they not?
How many people are killed in America due to police taking excessive action?
1 question why did the police allow a potential terrorist to get on to a bus then follow him into a tube station? It seems rather fishy.....

 

[rossored]

The US have always had a shoot to kill policy have they not?

It depends what you're talking about.

If "general" criminals then the answer is "no", they don't as a rule - I think its a "shoot to incapacitate" policy, unless they are pointing a weapon back at them - I'm not sure about their anti-terror legislation but i would imagine so, yes.

I don't agree with what has happened and it is a tragedy that this guy has lost his life - but equally I must ask myself that if I were walking onto a tube station, holding a backpack (in light of recent events) and someone shouted "stop" or "police" (and police in Portugeuse doesn't sound too dissimilar) and pointed a gun at me, the very last thing I would do would be run the other way. I'd be too busy pi**ng my pants.

 

[MarvinS]

It just seems rather strange that they followed this guy in a police car all the way to a tube station. Then said they thought he had explosives hidden in his jacket. Fair enough if he had explosives shoot to kill shoudl always be the policy but why follow the poor guy.... Stop the bus then do it. The police were obviuosly to scared to commit an arrest on the bus.

If we can compare ourselves to America, we are all scared of weapons and you are right, one hint of someone running after you with a gun would probably cause most people to poooooeee themselves.
Perhaps it was split reaction on both parties at the wrong time in the wrong place....

 

[trendie]

with regards to the replies to my ealrier post.

I am NOT opposed to a shoot-to-kill policy.
Yes, I am sitting in my comfy armchair.
No, I didnt have to, nor could I, make such a decision to kill someone.

My point is that a man who was NOT on any known terrorist list was shot.

During the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, there was a shoot-to-kill policy against KNOWN IRA terrorists.
And their deaths, whether they were engaged in NI or Gibraltar, were the result of incredible intelligence gathering, building up a detailed picture of who they were dealing with.
I have no problem with this.

But, to shoot, with minimal information, a man who was not under surveillance for any ( as far as I know ) appreciable amount of time, is a disturbing precedent.

If you are unfortunate to be on a train in presence of an armed plain-clothes policeman, and you reach into your coat-pocket to answer a mobile phone, you could be killed.
Walking down Oxford Street after a day of shopping, makes you a target.

To simply abdicate responsibility onto others doesnt work.

The British military have considerable experience in dealing with terrorists, but this only because of concerted INTELLIGENCE and SURVEILLANCE operations.
To this end, I applaud their quiet, modest, most often unheralded, bravery.

Anyone being shot by the police, who was under surveillance, and where the police have compiled damning evidence, has my support.

BUT, we dont want Bruce-Willis-wannabees and James-Bond-wannabees walking about London, thinking this is the wild-west.

We WILL win. But only through the proper behaviour, and following the rules of engagement.
Anything else will only create a greater pool of disaffected people for evil-doers to recruit from.

PS: I wonder how soon some kids messing about on some estate, running about, and making a nuisance of themselves, as kids do, get shot by police because they tried to run off. Not because they were terrorists, or had anything to hide, but because they were afraid of their parent reactions if they got caught.

This way lies madness.

EDIT: Or, how about, 11pm, pub closing time on a Friday night, when loads of people, a little worse for wear, getting up to any manner of drunken behaviour, not really in the clearest frame of mind, start to respond irrationally to any kind of police demands to "stop" ??
It being dark, loads of people about, etc.
Dont think we will have to wait too long for this kind of tragic scenario to unfold.

 

[commanderco]

Exactly, if only the police could act with 20/20 hindsight! Nobody in their right mind can blame the police for what happened.

The problem as I see it is; 5 shots to the head.
Any well trained shooter will tell you; 2 to the head.
Where is the training? is the question that I ask and how many more
wantabe James Bonds are running around with weapons.

These are the real questions that should be asked.

 

[rossored]

Trendie, if you dont mind me saying so I think you are being a little unrealistic.

First of all, there is no way that all the Police in this country are going to be armed. It will remain at airports and high security locations for some time I would imagine. Its certainly not going to be a case of cops turning up outside a pub brawl with MP5s and shotguns.

Second, none of the terrorists involved in the 7/7 attacks were on any known lists either - but they still blew themselves and many innocent bystanders to pieces.

Third, how does walking down Oxford Street make you a target exactly? For whom, the terrorists or the police? Equally, if you honeslty think that reaching into your coat pocket for a mobile whilst on a train would result in any kind of reaction from anyone except the seriously disturbed... come on.

You also have to take into account how this will have been distorted to some extent bt the media. Even "eyewitness" reports cannot be counted upon 100% because people simply imagine things at times of stress, or do not report facts correctly.

Yes these guys probably had very little intelligence to go on in this case - but given recent events it is hardly surprising that they reacted as they did. If they suspected he was a suicide bomber, it was a choice of the needs of the many (ie the tube passengers) outweigh the needs of the one (the unfortunate electrician). At the end of the day, to run from an armed police officer is a dangerous thing to do, and in this case it cost the man his life. Very unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected.

Look at it this way - were the same thing to happen today, and the officer didn't shoot him, and he was a bomber and killed 40 or even 10 people on the tube because he hadn't been shot... what would you be saying then?

Everyone has their opinion of course and you are as entitled to yours as I am to mine (and everyone else) but I cannot help but think that you are distoring reality a little.

 

[roguetrader]

with regards to the replies to my ealrier post.

I am NOT opposed to a shoot-to-kill policy.
Yes, I am sitting in my comfy armchair.
No, I didnt have to, nor could I, make such a decision to kill someone.

My point is that a man who was NOT on any known terrorist list was shot.

During the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, there was a shoot-to-kill policy against KNOWN IRA terrorists.
And their deaths, whether they were engaged in NI or Gibraltar, were the result of incredible intelligence gathering, building up a detailed picture of who they were dealing with.
I have no problem with this.

But, to shoot, with minimal information, a man who was not under surveillance for any ( as far as I know ) appreciable amount of time, is a disturbing precedent.

If you are unfortunate to be on a train in presence of an armed plain-clothes policeman, and you reach into your coat-pocket to answer a mobile phone, you could be killed.
Walking down Oxford Street after a day of shopping, makes you a target.

To simply abdicate responsibility onto others doesnt work.

The British military have considerable experience in dealing with terrorists, but this only because of concerted INTELLIGENCE and SURVEILLANCE operations.
To this end, I applaud their quiet, modest, most often unheralded, bravery.

Anyone being shot by the police, who was under surveillance, and where the police have compiled damning evidence, has my support.

BUT, we dont want Bruce-Willis-wannabees and James-Bond-wannabees walking about London, thinking this is the wild-west.

We WILL win. But only through the proper behaviour, and following the rules of engagement.
Anything else will only create a greater pool of disaffected people for evil-doers to recruit from.

PS: I wonder how soon some kids messing about on some estate, running about, and making a nuisance of themselves, as kids do, get shot by police because they tried to run off. Not because they were terrorists, or had anything to hide, but because they were afraid of their parent reactions if they got caught.

This way lies madness.

Sorry but that just smacks of the typical bleeding heart liberal scare-mongering BS. We have an isolated incident that has been hands up admitted as a mistake, and up pop the aren't we so clever this isn't the way brigade.telling us they'll be shooting our kids on the estates next. Did you serve in N. Ireland? Doubtful, then I wouldn't go there speculating on what you "know" to be the policies in operation.
The vast majority of suicide bombers will be nobodies, they will have no previous credentials, suicide bombing is not something you build up a CV around, it's a one time event.
Clearly the police have to act responsibly, and have to be accountable for their actions. That precludes them behaving in a manner of you TV characters.
Security personnel who work in this line of work have a thankless task as it is, they could likely do without the backstabbing of the people who swan around under the blanket of the security they provide.

 

[sulong]

It depends what you're talking about.

If "general" criminals then the answer is "no", they don't as a rule - I think its a "shoot to incapacitate" policy, unless they are pointing a weapon back at them - I'm not sure about their anti-terror legislation but i would imagine so, yes.

.

Not true. The pigs in the US can shoot to murder anyone who is too slow to follow their barked commands.
The mere fact that a citizen is in the presence of a copper make that citizen under restraint, and thus under the obligation to follow all commands. If the citizen refuses, that refusal put's the pigs life in danger, and cause enough to be murdered. It happens all the time.

 

[rossored]

Not true. The pigs in the US can shoot to murder anyone who is too slow to follow their barked commands.
The mere fact that a citizen is in the presence of a copper make that citizen under restraint, and thus under the obligation to follow all commands. If the citizen refuses, that refusal put's the pigs life in danger, and cause enough to be murdered. It happens all the time.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Not one to mince your words, are you, Sulong?

 

[sulong]

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Not one to mince your words, are you, Sulong?

I do wish your description was closer to the truth than mine, but as we've learned from our current political environment, propaganda works.

Like "challenged police officers", by running away?