Originally posted by StarrmanI hear the exact precedure is if someone is suspected of being a suicide bomber they are supposed to aim for the head so as not to set of any explosives. One things for sure, if any policeman tells me to stop, i know what i'm gonna do! 🙄
He said that they chased the guy down and shot him 5 times in the chest at point blank range. That's not you average proceedure, that's an execution.
Originally posted by marinakatombim guessing here......run onto the nearest train?
I hear the exact precedure is if someone is suspected of being a suicide bomber they are supposed to aim for the head so as not to set of any explosives. One things for sure, if any policeman tells me to stop, i know what i'm gonna do! 🙄
Originally posted by marinakatombcover your stomach and run for the nearest train?
I hear the exact precedure is if someone is suspected of being a suicide bomber they are supposed to aim for the head so as not to set of any explosives. One things for sure, if any policeman tells me to stop, i know what i'm gonna do! 🙄
EDIT: Bugger beat me too it
I think we need, in the short term, to have some sort of improved security. There are clearly misguided people out there intent on murder, and we need to try and thwart this. However, I think we can do this without compromising civil liberties (otherwises, defeating terrorism is a bit of a pyrric victory).
However, I really don't think there is much we can do to stop this kind of attack in the short term. If these people are willing to kill themselves in the process, trains and busses cannot, in my opinion, be properly protected. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try though.
Maybe we need police officers on every train and bus. Maybe we need technology which can detect explosives.
What we don't need is armed police officers shooting Asian men with rucksacks on sight. We don't need an alienated Muslim community, with more young men driven to terrorism
I think we need to accept that there are suicide bombers out there, protect ourselves as much as we reasonably can, try and identify them etc etc. But the key is preventing more people becoming bombers.
I heard a bit of an interesting debate on radio last night about the need to defeat Bin Laden et al with theology. Apparently there is a massive debate raging within Islam (and even within those taking up Jihad)about when and how a person is allowed to take up arms, and specifically about suicide bombings. We in the West have tended to ignore this, and lumped every Islamic strand together.
The suggestion was that, if we actually engage with the Islamic community, on their own terms, then the mainstream Muslims are more likely to work against the extremists.
Originally posted by RedmikeI have to say that was thoughtfully and well written, therefore I have given you a rec.
I think we need, in the short term, to have some sort of improved security. There are clearly misguided people out there intent on murder, and we need to try and thwart this. However, I think we can do this without compromising civil liberties (otherwises, defeating terrorism is a bit of a pyrric victory).
However, I really don't think there is much we c ...[text shortened]... on their own terms, then the mainstream Muslims are more likely to work against the extremists.
Originally posted by RagnorakI agree with you: the police shouldn't be given carte blanche to blaze away anyone they don't like the look of. At the same time, running away from them the day after a second round of attempted bombings seems a pretty stupid thing to do, unless you have a very good reason to run. That being said, the police had better have a very good explanation.
Are you saying that you should be shot dead at the discretion of a police officer for having the potential to do something?
D
Originally posted by RedmikeSee there can be a good discussion in the general forum... drivel heh.
I think we need, in the short term, to have some sort of improved security. There are clearly misguided people out there intent on murder, and we need to try and thwart this. However, I think we can do this without compromising civil liberties (otherwises, defeating terrorism is a bit of a pyrric victory).
However, I really don't think there is much we c ...[text shortened]... on their own terms, then the mainstream Muslims are more likely to work against the extremists.
Thanks for that.
I also Agree with you about the tigher security on the tubes and buses, the problem is enforcing it. Having lived in london before the security there is a complete joke. No secuirty at the tubes anywhere cept for CCTV.
Not sure how to do the buses or the tubes being the international city that it is with millions of visitors each year. Is a conundrum
Originally posted by craigiebabyThe police had him pinned down and then shot him. They broke their own rules. If he was a terror suspect they were following then what were they doing letting him onto the underground in the first place? As he is dead they can't question him and so other bombers in the ring are left free - assuming that he was anything to do with it; the emphasis being on the word suspect.
Deepthought - I'm sick to death of people like yourself... This guy was a known suspect that the police were actually following. They gave a warning & he ran - go figure.
The circumstances in which the police are allowed to open fire are quite clear, running away isn't one of them - it may be in the U.S. but not here. They are only allowed to open fire if there is an immediate and clear threat to the lives of the public or to the officers themselves. If he was pinned to the ground then any threat was over.
The reason we have procedures like rules of engagement, habeas corpus and due process is so that the police can't do it to innocent people; if you want arbitrary justice then emmigrate to a totalitarian state, as that is what you'll get if this style of justice is allowed. You might think that this is being tough on terrorism, but what it is is turning us into a police state - with no real advantage gained as far as reducing terrorist attacks.