1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightThat's what make no sense to me...
OK fine. Yes you say assume most people aren't terrorists.
Except perhaps if one runs toward a crowded subway where bombs have already killed people in spite of being ordered to stop and etc.
He thought to get away by running on to a crowded non-moving train?
Edit: and would not this be the exact actions if he was a bomber.
Originally posted by jimslyp69i have no quibble with whatever you want to call it - training, fact finding, whatever - what i wanted to establish is that police were sent to Israel where they learned the technique for dealing with apparent suicide bombers that they put into effect on Friday. Deep Thought is quibbling over terminology in a bid to avoid acknowledging this. that's why i called him/her for hair-splitting.
You were calling someone for splitting hairs with whom you were splitting hairs with.
Originally posted by dfm65Okay, fair do's. Just ignore me for I am waffling again. 😛
i have no quibble with whatever you want to call it - training, fact finding, whatever - what i wanted to establish is that police were sent to Israel where they learned the technique for dealing with apparent suicide bombers that they put into effect on Friday. Deep Thought is quibbling over terminology in a bid to avoid acknowledging this. that's why i called him/her for hair-splitting.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtso there we have it: you've been paranoid about police all your life - this is the very prejudice that has determined your response to these events right from the outset. i suspect you are incapable of making objective judgements in cases like this.
The terrorists are new, I've been feeling threatened by the police all my life.
Originally posted by dfm65That's not quite fair. Given the situation we're discussing I'd say a sensible fear of the police is in order. The only people who won't fear them are the terrorists.
so there we have it: you've been paranoid about police all your life - this is the very prejudice that has determined your response to these events right from the outset. i suspect you are incapable about making objective judgements in cases like this.
Originally posted by xsAssuming he did run away from police in civilian clothes who were waving guns at him, there are numerous possibilities of why he would do that only one being that he was a suicide bomber. Some have been discussed here: he didn't realize it was the police being one, he panicked being another, etc. etc. You are assuming the facts are as the police gave them to you; I am waiting for a full review of all evidence (I presume there are security cameras). It's just too early to kneejerk assume that the police were right or that the police were wrong; the actual interactions between the police and the man will be important, as will be what EXACTLY he did and what EXACTLY they did. Why people have to jump to conclusions based on contradictory eyewitness accounts and one-sided police press releases is beyond me.
That's what make no sense to me...
He thought to get away by running on to a crowded non-moving train?
Edit: and would not this be the exact actions if he was a bomber.
3 edits
Originally posted by dfm65Also in answer to a slightly earlier post:
so there we have it: you've been paranoid about police all your life - this is the very prejudice that has determined your response to these events right from the outset. i suspect you are incapable about making objective judgements in cases like this.
I am a he. I am not paranoid about the police, they are not out to get me specifically, but they do behave in a threatening fashion. Frankly I've never found the police to be polite or to act in a manner that you'd hope to expect from them. This is not prejudice it is experience. I should add I have never been arrested or given them cause to arrest me.
I have made careful arguments and you are trying to undermine them on the basis of personal insults rather than strength of logic - because you can't - they acted unlawfully.
A fact finding mission is significantly different from training. Training happens to individuals to make them work better, fact finding missions produce policies for organisations and in this case they produced a policy that was patently poor.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes. This is very true. None of us were there. None of know all the facts. We are all debating something that we don't know all the facts about, apart from secondary evidence, hearsay tabloid newspaper scare mongering and propaganda. Lets hope a full, unbiased enquiry is performed. And if there were any shortcomings on behalf of the met, let's prey that they learn from this, and that it never has to come to this sorry end again.
Assuming he did run away from police in civilian clothes who were waving guns at him, there are numerous possibilities of why he would do that only one being that he was a suicide bomber. Some have been discussed here: he didn't realize it was the police being one, he panicked being another, etc. etc. You are assuming the facts are as the police ...[text shortened]... ons based on contradictory eyewitness accounts and one-sided police press releases is beyond me.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's beyond me too, but I'm not surprised he got shot if he did act the way he was reported to act, given the situation there at that time.
Assuming he did run away from police in civilian clothes who were waving guns at him, there are numerous possibilities of why he would do that only one being that he was a suicide bomber. Some have been discussed here: he didn't realize it was the police being one, he panicked being another, etc. etc. You are assuming the facts are as the police ...[text shortened]... ons based on contradictory eyewitness accounts and one-sided police press releases is beyond me.
But I'll wait and see what comes out.
Funny how this has diverted attention from the fact that somebody planted some bombs and killed a whole lot of innocent people-ON PURPOSE