Response to bombings

[Aileron]

I've repeatedly said that I'm a moderate and not a real right-winger, and here's a case where I am actually taking a left-wing side on an issue.

 

After watching the British reactions to the recent terrorist bombings, it seems that they are overreacting a bit. They seem to have gunned down a suspect who turned out not to be a terrorist, and are coming out with a bunch of resolutions, including making it illegal to make statements condoning terrorism, or banning any religious structures with ties to terrorists. (I do hope that the IRA is smart enough to pay attention to this and stay low for a while.)

 

I mean, its good to finally see a nation in Europe finally recognize that the western world is in the middle of a war, but some of this damages ordinary civilians instead of terrorists.

 

Atleast these policies will likely succeed in stopping terrorists though. I guess its mostly the frustration that the terrorists were welcomed into the country and given so much. The British probably feel betrayed.

 

 

 

 

I'd say that the terrorists are choosing targets in response to the Iraq war...they are choosing the nations that are supporting the war but are divided politically. Basically, they aren't attacking the US because we are committed to action and that any attack on us would probably get us to strick back faster and harder. However, nations like Spain, Egypt, and Britain were in the position where they might have given up.

 

That's not to say that going into Iraq was a bad decision for Britain...it was a responsable one, because if noone went into Iraq, all that there is over there would probably be in Europe right now. Basically SOMEONE has to fight these guys. Nations like France correctly !@#$%^&*umed that since other nations are fighting the War on Terror, that they can just stay out of it and not be attacked. It is on their conscience the fact that they are buying their security with British blood.

 

 

I'm glad that Britain made the decision to commit to rather than shrink from the war against terrorists, though I am concerned that they are taking this out on their own civilians rather than the true criminals.

[MonteZuma]

After watching the British reactions to the recent terrorist bombings, it seems that they are overreacting a bit.

In general, I disagree. I think they are handling the crisis very well.

 

They seem to have gunned down a suspect who turned out not to be a terrorist

Yes. This was an apparent over-reaction by those involved, but does not necessaily suggest a systemic problem.

 

... and are coming out with a bunch of resolutions, including making it illegal to make statements condoning terrorism, or banning any religious structures with ties to terrorists

Why is this an over-reaction? Terrorism is barbaric and people or groups that condone or !@#$%^&*ociate with terrorists and terrorism should be shut down. It is treason.

 

I mean, its good to finally see a nation in Europe finally recognize that the western world is in the middle of a war, but some of this damages ordinary civilians instead of terrorists.

Huh. Blair has been towing the Bush line on this from day 1. So have some other European nations.

 

Atleast these policies will likely succeed in stopping terrorists though.  I guess its mostly the frustration that the terrorists were welcomed into the country and given so much.

They may or may not help manage the domestic terror threat. The international problem remains. Three out of the 4 London suicide bombers were born in Britain.

 

The British probably feel betrayed.

Undoubtedly. they were.

 

I'd say that the terrorists are choosing targets in response to the Iraq war...they are choosing the nations that are supporting the war but are divided politically.  Basically, they aren't attacking the US because we are committed to action and that any attack on us would probably get us to strick back faster and harder.  However, nations like Spain, Egypt, and Britain were in the position where they might have given up.

I don't think it is that simple. I think one of the reasons that these countries have been attacked is because they are a refuge for extremist muslims. Elsewhere in the middle east, Indonesia and east africa are also examples.

 

That's not to say that going into Iraq was a bad decision for Britain...it was a responsable one, because if noone went into Iraq, all that there is over there would probably be in Europe right now.  Basically SOMEONE has to fight these guys.  Nations like France correctly !@#$%^&*umed that since other nations are fighting the War on Terror, that they can just stay out of it and not be attacked.  It is on their conscience the fact that they are buying their security with British blood.

Not really. But we've discussed this many times. Iraq represents a waste of resources as far as the war on terror is concerned. But we've flogged that horse many times.

 

I'm glad that Britain made the decision to commit to rather than shrink from the war against terrorists, though I am concerned that they are taking this out on their own civilians rather than the true criminals.

Their own civilians were the criminals.

[Greased_Lightning]

I agree with Aileron on some of this. The incident where British police killed someone not !@#$%^&*ociated with the bombings was an overreaction on their part in that situation, although I haven't heard anything about whether this guy was running from police or if he tried attacking either a policeman or someone else. If he was running from police (and I would think that's a given considering they felt they needed to open fire), then he must have had a reason to, like a past criminal record. Still, was an overreaction if he wasn't actually threatening people at that time.

 

Making statements condoning terrorism illegal doesn't sit well with me even though I find the statements appalling.

 

Edit: Just thought I'd throw this out there to illustrate...There was a Marine from my state killed in Iraq who was buried last week. A church group from Kansas drove up and protested at the funeral with signs saying things like "God Hates Gays" and "He Got What He Deserved". Now, this Marine wasn't a homosexual, but their rationalization is that since their church was bombed by something like an IED some years ago, the IEDs in Iraq are God's punishment. Things like that remind me that some people lack compassion and decency. Anyways, Edit complete.

 

Just SAYING that you condone the attacks is not the same as being an accomplice. While on the one hand I think it's a good idea to keep close tabs on those who are saying those things, I don't think you should make the act of saying them illegal. I'm sure as the shock factor wears off, there will be more disapproval of that as happened in the US.

 

For the ins!@#$%^&*utions that condone these attacks, be they private organizations, religous groups, or what have you, the same thing should apply. If they only SAY they condone the attacks, just keep a close eye on them. But if they contribute even one penny to someone who had even the slightest connection, then you come down on them like the hand of God.

 

Terrorism is for cowards who target the weak and innocent and those who commit these acts should be targeted with the same regard. However, you can't target those who have nothing to do with it even if they say they support it because that isn't justice. What they say may be unpopular and sound treasonous, but they have the right to say it as much as we hate it. The IRA said they would stop attacks now didn't they?

 

Kinda weird to be making the traditional left argument but I guess it shows I'm at least somewhat of a moderate.

[MonteZuma]

I agree with Aileron on some of this.  The incident where British police killed someone not !@#$%^&*ociated with the bombings was an overreaction on their part in that situation, although I haven't heard anything about whether this guy was running from police or ...

I've followed this story fairly closely. A guy with olive complexion walks out of an apartment block that is also home to suspected terrorists, wearing a thick 'padded' parka on a warm summers day. He boards a bus, then goes to board the subway. When he is confronted by armed police he bolts for the train, jumping ticket barriers to do so. Hindsight tells us that shooting the guy was wrong, but if I was in their shoes at the time, I'd be inclined to expect the worst and might have done exactly what they did.

 

Making statements condoning terrorism illegal doesn't sit well with me even though I find the statements appalling.

Why? Terrorism is violence against innocent civilians. On what grounds can that behaviour be justified?

 

Edit: Just thought I'd throw this out there to illustrate...There was a Marine from my state killed in Iraq who was buried last week.  A church group from Kansas drove up and protested at the funeral with signs saying things like "God Hates Gays" and "He Got What He Deserved".  Now, this Marine wasn't a homosexual, but their rationalization is that since their church was bombed by something like an IED some years ago, the IEDs in Iraq are God's punishment.  Things like that remind me that some people lack compassion and decency.  Anyways, Edit complete.

That kind of a disturbance at a private funeral should also be illegal.

 

Just SAYING that you condone the attacks is not the same as being an accomplice.

Yes it is and yes you are. I can understand that some people might support a terrorist cause (eg removal of a foreign occupational force), but I cannot accept the fact that people can support terrorist's methods (eg killing civilians). Anyone that condones violence against innocents should be punished and silenced. Bring on the new laws.

 

While on the one hand I think it's a good idea to keep close tabs on those who are saying those things, I don't think you should make the act of saying them illegal.

That is a case of fiddling while Rome burns. By allowing it, the government is tacitly legitimising extremism.

 

For the ins!@#$%^&*utions that condone these attacks, be they private organizations, religous groups, or what have you, the same thing should apply.  If they only SAY they condone the attacks, just keep a close eye on them.  But if they contribute even one penny to someone who had even the slightest connection, then you come down on them like the hand of God.

By condoning the behaviour they are contributing to the cause. These terrorists don't need money. All they need supporters who are willing to blow themselves to bits. You get that support by manipulating people with words, not cash.

 

Kinda weird to be making the traditional left argument but I guess it shows I'm at least somewhat of a moderate.

The freedom of speech argument gets in the way and complicates things. I don't think anybody should be free to do or say anything that is likely to incite/encourage/condone/legitimise/whatever violence against civilians.

[protoman.exe]

Gunned him down. Why? If the police are yelling at you to stop , I think you should stop , not keep running. They shot him down because he was wearing a bulky coat a warm summer day , if he was a terrorist he could have detonated his bombs.

[SeVeR]

The guy was an idiot, i don't like speaking bad of the dead but he was. The bulky coat on the summers day that could easily conceal explosives, the running away from the police, the aim to get onto the tube train. I think he was guilty of something if he was running away like that, probably nothing to do with terrorism but why run if you haven't commited some sort of crime?

 

The fact is if he was a bomber and suceeded due to the police not head-shotting him then we'd all be saying that the police are not doing enough to protect us. From the situation that the police were in they had no choice. I don't know why they shot him that many times in the head... once or possibly twice would have been enough.

 

It amused me when the BBC on the day after described a police raid as "a group of elite police officers using TAZER GUNS to incapacitate the suspects"... and then proceeded to go into an in depth anaylsis of tazer guns saying how great the police are and so on. It was obviously to make the police look skillful, proffessional and merciful in response to the killing the day before. News should be reported as it is, not editted to sway the publics opinion even if in this case that "swaying" is pretty much harmless. Also the BBC stopped saying terrorist and changed the word to "bomber" at some point in their reports which angered alot of people... apparently the word terrorist wasn't acceptable for some reason.

 

I mean, its good to finally see a nation in Europe finally recognize that the western world is in the middle of a war

Complete rubbish, we always knew that it was a war. Is your opinion that America was the only country that recognised it? Britain knew, every person in this country knew, it has been big news since it started. This terrorist attack was expected and it certainly doesn't surprise me either being British. It doesn't change my opinion on how involved we are in this war because it was clear how much we were involved from the start.

 

I'd say that the terrorists are choosing targets in response to the Iraq war...they are choosing the nations that are supporting the war but are divided politically.

Oh, you didn't say this couple of weeks ago. I agree, we kill innocent Muslims so they kill us. I heard an extremist muslim say on a television do!@#$%^&*entary: "In Christianity they turn the other cheek, well in my philosophy if someone slaps me on the cheek then i'll slap him twice back".

 

Christianity also has the message: " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

[Paine]

Comment withdrawn on light of new evidence. Edited August 19, 2005 by Paine

[Greased_Lightning]

Okay I didnt hear about the bulky coat on a summer's day, so yeah, the cops made the right call.

[MonteZuma]

Okay I didnt hear about the bulky coat on a summer's day, so yeah, the cops made the right call.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interestingly, the news is reporting that he was actually wearing a light jacket and casually entered the subway using a valid ticket after picking up a newspaper . He was shot in the head after he had casually sat down on the train by one police officer after another had already pinned him down by both arms. The police did not identify themselves before the shooting. When he left the apartment block, police should have taken video footage to help identify the man, but the officer meant to take the footage was taking a leak and missed the opportunity.

 

If half of this is true, this could become very embarr!@#$%^&*ing for the police involved.

[LearJett+]

If a suspect is running, police are taught to shoot to maim - Not shoot multiple times.

 

 

 

QUOTE

I mean, its good to finally see a nation in Europe finally recognize that the western world is in the middle of a war

 

Complete rubbish, we always knew that it was a war. Is your opinion that America was the only country that recognised it? Britain knew, every person in this country knew, it has been big news since it started. This terrorist attack was expected and it certainly doesn't surprise me either being British. It doesn't change my opinion on how involved we are in this war because it was clear how much we were involved from the start.

 

When he said that he didn't literally mean realize that we were in a war. He meant that it actually hit home to a different country than the US. Some nay-sayers in Britain are pulling a 180 and now like the war. After all, approval ratings of the war went up in Britain.

[MonteZuma]

If a suspect is running, police are taught to shoot to maim - Not shoot multiple times.

Maybe in the US. In some countries I think the standard response to a dangerous escapee or a runner is to shoot to kill or not shoot at all. But the situation in London was special because the police wanted to avoid the possibility of a suicide bomber or a bullet detonating a bomb.

[LearJett+]

They don't want a bullet to detonate a bomb, so they shoot him five times? If it was a suicide bomber wouldn't he run toward the closest group of people, instead of running away from everything?

[AstroProdigy]

Well maybe you are right learjett. Unfotunately, the police did not have that kind of time to analyze the situation. Also, they did not want to shoot him once and not kill him immediately with that shot so he detonates the bomb before he dies.

[SeVeR]

NEWS FLASH! IT'S A COVER-UP!

 

The guy who got shot was not wearing a bulky coat because it was in fact just a denim jacket! He was not running onto the train with officers in hot-pursuit because he got on and sat down in a seat after walking onto the carriage. He was never identified as a bomber... although the officers were "unsure" and said "he deserved another look".

 

The reason he was suspected was because he came out a house to which a car was registered that was linked to a terrorist cell. At the time he exited the house the guy who was supposed to be watching it was "taking a leak" and therefore said that the rest of the team needed to "take another look". He was subsequently followed, not chased onto the train where he sat down and was continually watched by the surveilance team who had boarded the train. Suddenly armed police officers from special ops approached the platform, one of the surveilance guys !@#$%^&*umed they were after their suspect and said "he's here" after which the surveilance guy tried to restrain the suspect (probably the wrong thing to do), the special ops guys then shot him and the surveilance guy reported this as "a bullet flew past my left ear". None of this explains why he was shot 8 times (yes 8 now, not 5 or 7) and it seems like the armed officers panicked in response to the surveilance guy saying "He's Here".

 

Whatever it was, it was wrong and it was a cover-up. He wasn't wearing a bulky coat, he wasn't running away and he wasn't ignoring police warnings.

 

All that will happen probably is some guy in the police leadership will take the fall and be fired only to get a job in customs or the bbc. Then it'll all blow over. This man died for nothing. However this report conflicts with the eye-witness account i heard live on the bbc after the shooting. Who knows whether the current story is likely to change again...

[AstroProdigy]

Where did you hear this? You know theres video footage of him running right?

[MonteZuma]

NEWS FLASH! IT'S A COVER-UP!

Not quite a news flash. It was reported a few days ago

 

However this report conflicts with the eye-witness account i heard live on the bbc after the shooting. Who knows whether the current story is likely to change again...

Yeah Apparently 2 eyewitnesses reported seeing the man run onto the train followed by armed police. The man ran onto teh train because it just pulled into the station and he didn't want to miss it. I believe that the eyewitnesses probably misinterpreted this as him running from the police. Whatever the case, it would have all happened too fast for the eyewitnesses. The cctv footage seems to tell the true, !@#$%^&*ing story.

 

It does seem to be a huge blunder. Eyewitnesses incorrectly reported what happened. Senior police recounted their version of events to the media. Afterwards, they wanted to cover-up the story, either because they wanted to make sure that an investigation into the incident did not interfere with their ongoing investigations into the suspected terrorists in the apartments, or because of the embarr!@#$%^&*ment the bungle would cause, and the inep!@#$%^&*ude it would reveal.

[LearJett+]

BooYa

[AstroProdigy]

BooYa

 

Very useful post lear

[LearJett+]

BooYa

 

Very useful post lear

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like that one and this one?

[AstroProdigy]

Yes.

[Aileron]

I guess the reason why the suspect was shot multiple times is because the officer had an MP5. (I saw a picture, that's the gun that was in his hands.) They have three settings: semi-auto, 3-round burst, and full auto. They are only set on semi-auto on rifle ranges. The officer probably had it on three-round burst and pulled the trigger twice.

 

 

Monte...American police officers hardly handle matters like that, hence why the Americans in this forum are the ones concerned. For the British police officer, this was probably the first time he carried a firearm in about 5 years (British officers don't usually carry sidearms) so he was probably not used to using a weapon in the field.

[LearJett+]

Wasn't he shot eight times? Three three-round burst shots seems excessive to me.

[MonteZuma]

I guess the reason why the suspect was shot multiple times is because the officer had an MP5. (I saw a picture, that's the gun that was in his hands.)  They have three settings: semi-auto, 3-round burst, and full auto.  They are only set on semi-auto on rifle ranges.  The officer probably had it on three-round burst and pulled the trigger twice.

The way I understand it now, he was shot in the mouth 8 times using a Glock 17. But I don't think the exact details have been confirmed.

 

Monte...American police officers hardly handle matters like that, hence why the Americans in this forum are the ones concerned.

I never said anything about how the US handle tehse matters. How do US authorities handle suspected suicide bombers in subways after a series of suicide bombings in subways? Hopefully we'll never find out.

 

For the British police officer, this was probably the first time he carried a firearm in about 5 years (British officers don't usually carry sidearms) so he was probably not used to using a weapon in the field.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Menezes was shot by the Force Firearms Unit (SO19). They are considered to be an elite squad and are very highly trained. The problem in this case seems to be poor communications between the surveillance team and SO19.

[Aileron]

That report must have been innacurate then...law enforcement agencies never use Glocks...the primary advantage of a Glock is that they don't show up on metal detectors. Law enforcement personel do not have any use for such a feature, and would opt for something more effective.

 

I'd especially have an easier time believing the picture I saw because MP5s are standard issue amongst SWAT teams, anti-terrorist teams, certain military teams, etc.

[MonteZuma]

That report must have been innacurate then...law enforcement agencies never use Glocks...the primary advantage of a Glock is that they don't show up on metal detectors.  Law enforcement personel do not have any use for such a feature, and would opt for something more effective.

SO19 (the division of the London Metroplitan Police that did the shooting in the Menezes case) use Glocks. It says so on their website.

 

http://www.met.police.uk/so19/arv.htm

 

In fact Glocks are used by many law enforcement agencies around the world (including the US).

 

I'd especially have an easier time believing the picture I saw because MP5s are standard issue amongst SWAT teams, anti-terrorist teams, certain military teams, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SO19 carry Glocks and MP5s.