PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: fken on July 30, 2005, 11:39:18 pm
-
I just start this thread because i didnt had the time to read the complete information about this act...
I was in Antibes for holidays and I listen to the french radio. It said something like :
-> a mistake of the britanic policemen : a Brazilian has been shot 8 times (with very close shots -> \"? bout portant\" in french). It precizes the Brazilian was innocent and said coldly that Blair was ok with this act and said he regrets nothing... Our (ssssoooooooooooo loooved :rolleyes: ) minister, N. Sarkozy, said (off course... because this one like to speak in front of french news camera) that in France this kind of act cant happen...
Nothing more. And the implicit message was off course that British are behaving violently, losting their nerves and killing innocents...
----------------------
I wasnt ok with that fact and off course with Sarkozy because even him must know he was lying...
I know for example that there are less shot people in GB. I know sometimes french policemen made mistakes and even big mistakes (maybe one month ago news spoke about a man who was discovered dead in a street very close to a policestation... just after exiting the policestation... and all this story was odd).
----------------------
And as I was in Antibes I was able to see GB newspapers...
and TADA !
these ones were speaking about defensive shots...
----------------------
French news hate to be wrong. With the war in Iraq, Blair was shown like a finished prime minister. It was like if noone would like to vote for him... And who has been reelected ? -> Blair !
But French news never realy lye -> if they said that there were 8 close shots, there were 8 close shots and so its a murder...
How are explaining GB newspaper that policemen shot the Brazilian 8 times thinking it was a defensive act while they were something like at one meter of the Brazilian? And what\'s the ideas of the others countries?
-
It\'s indeed a very tragic case. But nothing more then that I believe. No conspiracy. They mistook the poor man for a suicide bomber. I also do believe the police and the authorities have apologized.
It has been in the media here, but not really that much. I remember something about it being a special anti terror police force, trained to instantly kill to prevent the suicide bomber press the button. They also had a training in Israel, if I remember correctly. Well, that\'s about what our media made me believe. :)
-
I dont think about conspiracy but i think policemen has done at best a mistake or in another case a kind of revenge...
but I cant understand why the news are different between each countries...
-
Indeed this hasn\'t had a lot of news coverage around here, which is quite surprising considering that just a few years ago, the police shot a real criminal and received tons of flak for it, with people even laying down flowers for the killed criminal!
Anyway, IIRC, the guy ran from the police, which also explains the relative proximity. This is something very very stupid to do, because it does make you look guilty. Adding to that the problem that a bomber will only need a second to blow up a lot of people, even if it\'s not planned as suicide (if he suspects he can\'t get away, he may still figure that he\'ll be \"better off\" just killing himself).
Therefore, it is quite understandable that they made sure he didn\'t get to push the button. In fact, it is the only viable solution. Immobilising a bomber doesn\'t work.
There is no way he could have missed the bombings, and also no way he could not have been aware of the wariness and nervousity. Running from an armed police squad is almost in any case a very bad idea.
I\'m definitely not saying that they should just shoot anyone who looks somewhat suspicious. However, considering how many people can get killed if they act too late, this is a sad but necessary tradeoff. Tragic, yes, but unavoidable.
-
Anyway, IIRC, the guy ran from the police, which also explains the relative proximity. This is something very very stupid to do, because it does make you look guilty. Adding to that the problem that a bomber will only need a second to blow up a lot of people, even if it\'s not planned as suicide (if he suspects he can\'t get away, he may still figure that he\'ll be \"better off\" just killing himself).
The reason for the man ran away from the police hasnt been well explained. The reason is very basic by the way. The man, a foreigner in the country, had recently beeing spanked by a group of men, who probably done because of his skin colour/nationality, and when he saw the police going to get him (I have the idea that his skin colour could a motive for the police try to \"speak with him\" ) he made the terrible mistake of confuse them with the group that spanked him tryed to run away(what makes me suspicious about the way how the police approached him) beeing then shooted.
-
Was the guys fault for running away, and even worse, into a tube station. They can\'t shoot the body in case it triggers a bomb, so he got shot 5 times (not 8) in the head. (Not sure why this many, probably the adrenaline in the policeman.)
People who blame the policeman saying that it was an awful thing, and that the police are too strict carrying weapons with a shoot to kill policy are exactly the same people who, if there is a terror attack with lots of deaths, say how awful it is that we\'re so lax on security, and how we should have tighter measures.
As for the French media... well don\'t expect the UK media to be very sympathetic if there\'s ever a terrorist attack in France. Probably won\'t be because the French seem give in to the terrorists every demand. (Not speaking about all French. Just the crap leader and his underlings.) :)
-
As for the French media... well don\'t expect the UK media to be very sympathetic if there\'s ever a terrorist attack in France. Probably won\'t be because the French seem give in to the terrorists every demand. (Not speaking about all French. Just the crap leader and his underlings.)
Huh???
Who gives into terrorists? And even if they did give in a little (In which i dont know anything about that) is it better or worse than going to war with a country over trumped up charges of terrorism? And so the guy did run.... you cant just kill him. What are the chances that he is a terrorist? And we cant think that every person who runs from the cops is a terrorist... so for any of you who was going to say, \"What was the cop supposed to do?\" How about not kill the innocent man for acting suspicious :).
-
Valbrandr, sorry, but in case of this sort of danger, acting suspicious is a reason to get killed.
Yes, he was probably about to be questioned due to his skin color. Sounds pretty reasonable to me considering the origin of the terrorists.
Though if he really got beat up by some nazis who looked similar to the police I can indeed imagine that he ran. However, this doesn\'t make the reaction of the cops any worse IMO. It just makes him less stupid.
So Valbrandr, what would they have had to do in your opinion? Let him leave? What would have happened if he actually would have been a terrorist and killed, say, 100 people after he entered the sub station because they let him run for it to not kill a maybe innocent but very suspicious person, hmm?
-
So Valbrandr, what would they have had to do in your opinion? Let him leave? What would have happened if he actually would have been a terrorist and killed, say, 100 people after he entered the sub station because they let him run for it to not kill a maybe innocent but very suspicious person, hmm?
So, I say we amend the Patriot act so that cops can shot to kill if there is a suspicious character.
*Valbrandr signs patriot act that will most definatly take away all of his rights
Would you rather me do this?
And btw, racial profiling is not reasonable. What America did right after 9/11 was and will always be wrong. I was not saying that he should have been not even chased. But no need to kill him. He could have set off a bomb at anytime while running and I am sure that he was not killed after the first shot. What exactly were they trying to do? There is a lesson here. We cannot take action on what \"could\" happen. Preemtive strike is another failure that the USA will pay for, for years to come.
-
Lets all just start with the facts.
Fact # 1.) The man was wearing a heavy coat even though it was hot outside.
Fact #2.) The man ran from police. Into a tube station!
Fact #3.) GB was just the victim of attacks.
Using these simple facts we can find our way to the obvious solution that he was a terrorist or could have been. Then it all seems easy. Though the police made a mistake it was an honest mistake.
In fact it all seems fine until you realize that once you make this decision based on the recent attacks, that the terrorists have already won. One of the goals of terrorists is to cause fear in a country. Causing fear causes another subreaction - that people want to be safe. As a result they will be less likely to be up in arms about a situation where a suspicios man was shot, deciding to air on the side of caution. They will be more apt to give up freedoms in the name of safety. This is what terrorism and people reactions causes. IT eventually puts more power into the governments to protect us, while slowly removing freedoms from the coutries. No matter where you go in the world there are bad people - people who will use this to their advantage. And guess what - some of these people are in power in your countries today. In every country today. Power has the power to corrupt, the same way money does. (odd sentence I know). The result of all this is if you give into terrorism enough to let it govern the decisions of your daily life in that way, then you have already lost. You are going to be giving up personal freedom in the name of safety to people who probabily don\'t really have your best interests at heart.
Anyone who wants to be more safe than free is an idiot. If you disagree in this case then I say you are a complete moron. Offense intended. Sorry. It is true. LIfe is pointless without free will - freedom - the most basic right of all.
Origionally said by George Bush
The American people do not falter under threat - and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.
Sorry ole pal but our reaction to 911 ensured that it does have a bearing on our future.
Look at what happend to the US after 9/11. We signed the Patriot Act. The Citizens cheered as it was signed into law. Hurray for Bush protecting us! We can finally be SAFE!
\"Agents can break into a home or business to take photos, seize property, copy computer files or load a secret keystroke detector on a computer.\"
Hmmm sounds like freedom to me - does it sound like we affected? Sounds to me like the terrorists already were successful in changing our attitude.
-
Who gives into terrorists? And even if they did give in a little (In which i dont know anything about that) is it better or worse than going to war with a country over trumped up charges of terrorism?
Worse. Paying terrorists to free a hostage just gave them the money to make lots of bombs so they could kill more people.
And I see that nobody you knew were tortured or gassed by Sadam so you don\'t see a reason to get him out. Maybe the reasons they stated were wrong, but the job needed doing by someone. The situation over there before was much worse than it is now, but the media just never reported it.
I also see that nobody you know was ever blown up by a suicide bomber, or maybe you\'d feel differently about allowing the risk of something like that happening.
As for less freedom etc. Yes, to increase security we have to give up some privicy. It must be balanced so we have maximum freedom while making sure we can\'t be killed by terrorists. If we have to give up some privicy to stay alive then I\'m happy with that. Think of it like this:
The more liberal a society the less security there is, and the easier it is for terrorists to attack us. Terrorists use our liberalism as a weapon against us.
The less liberal a society the more security there is, but the less freedom we have. This is the kind of society which terrorists want us to be like.
Gotta have a balance.
-
Originally posted by Xordan
And I see that nobody you knew were tortured or gassed by Sadam so you don\'t see a reason to get him out. Maybe the reasons they stated were wrong, but the job needed doing by someone. The situation over there before was much worse than it is now, but the media just never reported it.
So how come then that those oh-so-honorable reasons were never spoken out loud? Who gave the right to invade a sovereign country to do whatsoever?
Don\'t say human rights or morale now - sending the military to enforce human rights is like using fuel to extinguish fire.
Circumstances don\'t matter. What if a more powerful Russia towards the end of the Cold War had decided that the way workers are exploited in the \"Western Countries\" was not right and decided to \"liberate\" Britain, in a unilateral decision with other nations disagreeing but looking away?
Originally posted by Xordan
As for less freedom etc. Yes, to increase security we have to give up some privicy. It must be balanced so we have maximum freedom while making sure we can\'t be killed by terrorists. If we have to give up some privicy to stay alive then I\'m happy with that. Think of it like this:
The more liberal a society the less security there is, and the easier it is for terrorists to attack us. Terrorists use our liberalism as a weapon against us.
The less liberal a society the more security there is, but the less freedom we have. This is the kind of society which terrorists want us to be like.
Gotta have a balance.
That\'s the very principal of what we define as freedom. While a fork is a good and helpful tool, you can\'t cut your meat with it. They try to fight terrorism with conventional means, while it works so differently. Those who believe that armed forces will be the right tool to wipe out terrorism have not understood how it works.
Terrorism will always be there, one way or the other, the thought of obliterating it is as blue eyed as curing world hunger. Allowing politics or \"the people in charge\" to cut all our rights as they deem fit (and this is what is currently happening, all in the name of the \"war against terror\", a term which in itself is flawed) indirectly makes those suicide bombers achieve their goals. With the media playing right into their hands.
Originally posted by Xordan
I also see that nobody you know was ever blown up by a suicide bomber, or maybe you\'d feel differently about allowing the risk of something like that happening.
Personal feelings, as harsh as it sounds, give you a very subjective perspective and makes people overreact. I can\'t say that I ever lost someone in such a tragic way, but I got stuck in NY in 2001 and could take a look at the smouldering remains of the World Trade Center, which was close enough for me - but I certainly do not intend to let my awe stumble blindly into a future in which the country I live in will treat me like toilet paper and not as the citizen I am.
-
fact 1 : Im french and in france, weather is warmer than UK
-> so I could have to wear warm clothes
fact 2 : Ive algerian (Kabylie) origins...
-> so I could be in the focus
fact 3 : if a terrorist attack happen in the country I\'m spending my holiday, I would be scared by everyone I dunno and especially cops
fact 4 : I dont think Im too original...
-->result : Ill never have holiday in UK. The other foreigner could certainly think like me. Thanks to the british and to the occidental help, terrorists win!
-------------------------
I think Xordan that you never was in Iraq. Dont speak about Sadam, please.
I mean that the main idea of this thread is that news are different relatively to the country you are... I think you could understand some journalist are kind of liars... So dont speak about Sadam, you\'re like me: all you know about him has been told by the news, and in fact we will certainly never know the exact truth. Never forgot occidental countries gave him weapons and helped him to fight Iran. I dont think government believe in someone blindly so there are a lot of hidden facts we dunno.
------------------------
Xordan, do you really speak about 5 shots ? I heard and listen 8 shots in france... I hope journalists arent lying with the number of the shots... it would be childish!
------------------------
Policemen are trained to shot by letting the criminal alive. They must shot in the arms and the legs... normally
------------------------
its impossible to kill someone who is almost 1meter close to you without seeing he has no bomb. Policemen must have lost their nerves and shot... but these men have never recognize it was because of their incapacity to stay calm and to make a good job... People like them require a judgement for murder (especially because they lies to save their job without beeing able to do it correctly) because for me they are real potential bombs, liars, they have no honnor and then... they simply are killers.
------------------------
Who are you guys to say a man could or even shoud (!) be killed? Really you are desappointing (especially the one who live in countries where the death penalty is absolutly forbidden). I live in a country where people judged one day that death penalty is a bad thing which is representing bestiality and not humanity. I refuse to come back to the ideas of a dark past!
All I know is one thing people seems to forgot:
-> I PREFER LET A CRIMINAL GOING AWAY THAN KILLING AN INNOCENT.
Moreover, if you think killing a criminal will save lifes you are wrong... simply because if one man isnt able to drop a bomb another will do it. And the examples arent the good solution because with all the examples of dead or mayhemed terrorists ... you certainly realize there are more terrorist attack...
------------------------
I remember french news spoke about a french guy who has been in London and disappear the day of the first terrorist attack. And Im still wondering if he is well today. He has arabian origins and surely must has been so scared to go back to his home in England because of his origins.
You guys with your incredibly high objectivity will certainly say \"he is guilty because he didnt come back\"... but if I were in London, if a terrorist attack happen and if in my street people are broadcasting my photo saying I could be a terrorist, I really dunno how i could react... really! Especially when you look at the way the USA react with the terrorists to get informations...
-------------------------
Maybe I must find more individual argumentation...
What would you say if it was your brother, your sister or one of your parents who get killed and not an unknow brazilian?
-------------------------
The only real way to defend our countries from terrorism is to really help the foreign countries to develop themselves AND to be sure the government are making what people want! (and its not the path we are following today...)
-
Who gave the right to invade a sovereign country to do whatsoever?
The country with the most guns can do what it likes. The US completely ignoring the UN proves this.
What if a more powerful Russia towards the end of the Cold War had decided that the way workers are exploited in the \"Western Countries\" was not right and decided to \"liberate\" Britain, in a unilateral decision with other nations disagreeing but looking away?
Then I\'d be living in Russia??
Personal feelings, as harsh as it sounds, give you a very subjective perspective and makes people overreact.
True, also not having any experience makes you feel complacent. It\'s easy to talk in hindsight about this kind of thing so lets say this:
if that guy had been wearing a bomb under that coat and the policeman didn\'t shoot him, or shot him in the body so that the bomb went off in the train killing 50 people then would we be discussing why the policeman didn\'t shoot the guy to kill and save those people\'s lives?
Put yourself in the position of the policeman. You see a guy in a big coat on a hot day who you think is a bit suspicous. You ask the guy to stop so you can talk to him and he runs away into tube station, where a terrorist attack took place only the week before. You follow him into the station calling for him to stop but he runs towards the nearest train. You now have a few seconds to react. Either you shoot to kill, or you risk him having a bomb under that big coat and detonating it killing lots of people. I\'d shoot to kill.
so I could have to wear warm clothes
In the few seconds the police had to think, they wouldn\'t have time to consider this possibility.
Photo evidence of mass graves is enough justification to me to invade a country btw. I\'m not saying that the countries doing it did it in the best way, but it certainally wasn\'t a bad thing.
Yes, it was definately 5 shots.
You can\'t shoot in the arms or the legs. Either the shots would set off the bomb or the person would once they\'d been hit.
its impossible to kill someone who is almost 1meter close to you without seeing he has no bomb.
You obviously didn\'t see the size of this coat :) You could easily hide something underneath. One of the passengers on the train said he saw wires sticking out from the coat and thought it was a bomb as well, although this turned out to be headphones or something. This guy was only a meter or so away. So it isn\'t so easy.
especially the one who live in countries where the death penalty is absolutly forbidden
Treason carries the death penalty in the UK.
Moreover, if you think killing a criminal will save lifes you are wrong
Sure, killing isn\'t good once they\'re caught. But when somone is potentially armed who\'s in a public place you don\'t really worry about it. This is the problem. You think that bombers actually care about dying?? A lot of people seem to for some reason. If that guy had been wearing a bomb then he wouldn\'t have let himself been captured once he\'s caught. He\'ll just blow himself up and everything around him with it.
I agree that racial targeting isn\'t good.... but lets look at the facts here, most suicide bombers are asian in bloodline. You can\'t deny that.
What would you say if it was your brother, your sister or one of your parents who get killed and not an unknow brazilian?
Would have served them right for running away. Nobody in my family is stupid enough to run away from armed police into an area which was recently targeted by suicide bombers.
The only real way to defend our countries from terrorism is to really help the foreign countries to develop themselves AND to be sure the government are making what people want! (and its not the path we are following today...)
Agreed. Development helps a lot. Unfortunatly you have the leaders of those countries who are more intrested in making weapons with the money we give them.
-
Originally posted by Xordan
Who gave the right to invade a sovereign country to do whatsoever?
The country with the most guns can do what it likes. The US completely ignoring the UN proves this.
And this makes it right?
With that argument, Saddam was also right to randomly kill people in his country. Why? Because he had more power. ?(
Originally posted by Xordan
Personal feelings, as harsh as it sounds, give you a very subjective perspective and makes people overreact.
True, also not having any experience makes you feel complacent. It\'s easy to talk in hindsight about this kind of thing so lets say this:
if that guy had been wearing a bomb under that coat and the policeman didn\'t shoot him, or shot him in the body so that the bomb went off in the train killing 50 people then would we be discussing why the policeman didn\'t shoot the guy to kill and save those people\'s lives?
Put yourself in the position of the policeman. You see a guy in a big coat on a hot day who you think is a bit suspicous. You ask the guy to stop so you can talk to him and he runs away into tube station, where a terrorist attack took place only the week before. You follow him into the station calling for him to stop but he runs towards the nearest train. You now have a few seconds to react. Either you shoot to kill, or you risk him having a bomb under that big coat and detonating it killing lots of people. I\'d shoot to kill.
In dubio pro reo. If the police would shoot anyone who looks suspicious, all tube stations would be full of corpses now. Of course the discussion would be there then as well, but the murder is then on the hands of the terrorist, not on the policeman who swore to serve the citizens in his country.
Shooting on suspicion is to me like imprisoning three people, just because one of them commited a crime and you can\'t be certain which one it was. This is against the very principles of judicature as we know/have it.
Originally posted by Xordan
so I could have to wear warm clothes
In the few seconds the police had to think, they wouldn\'t have time to consider this possibility.
Yes, I totally agree with you here.
Originally posted by Xordan
You can\'t shoot in the arms or the legs. Either the shots would set off the bomb or the person would once they\'d been hit.
There\'s also triggers that work on relaxation on the muscles, so shoot to kill is not a good option either. Fortunately this information seems to have not reached the next best terrorist cell yet - so please, if you are a terrorist and read this, ignore what I just said.
Originally posted by Xordan
Treason carries the death penalty in the UK.
Not anymore. Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Abolishment of capital punishment for treason, also: European Convention of Human Rights 1999. :)
-
And this makes it right?
With that argument, Saddam was also right to randomly kill people in his country. Why? Because he had more power.
Didn\'t say it was right :) Was just stating the fact.
Something I find funny is that the US is enforcing democracy on Iraq... :rolleyes: Oh the irony :P
In dubio pro reo. If the police would shoot anyone who looks suspicious, all tube stations would be full of corpses now. Of course the discussion would be there then as well, but the murder is then on the hands of the terrorist, not on the policeman who swore to serve the citizens in his country.
Shooting on suspicion is to me like imprisoning three people, just because one of them commited a crime and you can\'t be certain which one it was. This is against the very principles of judicature as we know/have it.
You\'re completely ignoring the situation. It wasn\'t just suspicion, it was a few second decision with a guy running away after you\'ve told them to stop into a place full of people which is the area where terrorists aim for. If it was just a guy standing on the streets doing nothing who\'d been shot then that\'s bad.
Fortunately this information seems to have not reached the next best terrorist cell yet - so please, if you are a terrorist and read this, ignore what I just said.
Not easy to make a good one in a basement. :)
And btw, if someone uses something like this in a attack, I\'m blaming you :P
Not anymore. Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Abolishment of capital punishment for treason, also: European Convention of Human Rights 1999.
That\'s not what they told us... <.<
*starts plotting* ;)
-
Originally posted by Xordan
And this makes it right?
With that argument, Saddam was also right to randomly kill people in his country. Why? Because he had more power.
Didn\'t say it was right :) Was just stating the fact.
Then why isn\'t this sufficient reason for you to oppose that action?
Originally posted by Xordan
You\'re completely ignoring the situation. It wasn\'t just suspicion, it was a few second decision with a guy running away after you\'ve told them to stop into a place full of people which is the area where terrorists aim for. If it was just a guy standing on the streets doing nothing who\'d been shot then that\'s bad.
In a place full of people. (I wasn\'t there, so I can\'t know. I\'m just provocatively asking this now because I think the matter is not a black/white right/wrong decision) What if he thought the policeman meant someone else? Could he not have overheard the policeman? What if he didn\'t speak English? Whatever the situation have been in the most precise details, I strongly oppose the justification of such actions. The reason is always to \"fight terrorism\" when in fact you play right into its hands, and let yet another piece of freedom go down the drain.
Originally posted by Xordan
Fortunately this information seems to have not reached the next best terrorist cell yet - so please, if you are a terrorist and read this, ignore what I just said.
Not easy to make a good one in a basement. :)
Hmm perhaps I wasn\'t clear before, I just meant a trigger that fires on the release of a button, not on pushing it. You press it, things get armed, you release it, bam. Much like a grenade. And such a trigger/switch is easy to make.
Originally posted by Xordan
Not anymore. Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Abolishment of capital punishment for treason, also: European Convention of Human Rights 1999.
That\'s not what they told us... <.<
*starts plotting* ;)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/answers/deathpenalty.shtml and http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/timeline.html , had to look it up myself because I just rememered vaguely (\"Wasn\'t there something...\" ).
-
Originally posted by fken
Who are you guys to say a man could or even shoud (!) be killed? Really you are desappointing (especially the one who live in countries where the death penalty is absolutly forbidden). I live in a country where people judged one day that death penalty is a bad thing which is representing bestiality and not humanity. I refuse to come back to the ideas of a dark past!
The very only reason why I oppose death penality is that there currently is no way of ensuring that you in fact got the right one. Nothing else. Once this problem is solved, I will support reinstating the death penality. Why? Because I am not willing to pay to feed a criminal who would love to kill or otherwise severely harm innocents, risking that he can escape or get set free by exploiting some dumb flaw in the law or having the best attourney.
A civilization must defend itself, because once it ceases to, it will be smashed. This is something all these well-fed and perfectly safe \"good guys\" prefer to overlook when promoting their ideas of \"even the worst man deserves to live\".
Originally posted by fken
Moreover, if you think killing a criminal will save lifes you are wrong... simply because if one man isnt able to drop a bomb another will do it.
Not quite. Maybe in case of terrorism, but then again, killing a man who is out to plant the bomb will ensure that this bomb doesn\'t go off. If you don\'t kill him, you maybe still have the chance for the second one, but it won\'t matter, because they already have blown up a lot of people, and the second in line will be happy do go to the next spot.
It is not the only thing that is necessary, but it is parto of it.
However, yes, I agree that giving up all freedom is not the answer. Yet, in order to have a viable society, there are some freedoms that, when granted, diminish the freedoms of others, which is why some things are forbidden. Having the police spy on or raid the homes of people at will certainly is far from reasonable, though. There must be a very good reason to do so, because there is no immediate danger, unlike in the situation the thread is about.
-
Then why isn\'t this sufficient reason for you to oppose that action?
Because it was a good idea to get him out of there. The reason for them going in wasn\'t because they could. Even if the reason for going in wasn\'t a good idea, it\'s better for him to not be running that country than for him to be running it.
In a place full of people. (I wasn\'t there, so I can\'t know. I\'m just provocatively asking this now because I think the matter is not a black/white right/wrong decision) What if he thought the policeman meant someone else? Could he not have overheard the policeman? What if he didn\'t speak English? Whatever the situation have been in the most precise details, I strongly oppose the justification of such actions. The reason is always to \"fight terrorism\" when in fact you play right into its hands, and let yet another piece of freedom go down the drain.
Any of those might have been the case. But the policemans job was the protect the general public, and he did that job. I\'m sure the policeman didn\'t have time to ask himself all of those questions. :) Imo, justification is easily given. If I\'d have been on that train then to me it was even more given.
Hmm perhaps I wasn\'t clear before, I just meant a trigger that fires on the release of a button, not on pushing it. You press it, things get armed, you release it, bam. Much like a grenade. And such a trigger/switch is easy to make.
This should really be deleted before a terrorist reads it. :P
-
Because it was a good idea to get him out of there. The reason for them going in wasn\'t because they could. Even if the reason for going in wasn\'t a good idea, it\'s better for him to not be running that country than for him to be running it.
Because????
The people are more free? They have taken out a bad man? He possibly could have had bio/chem weapons? He killed many of his own people... in 1992? Though I did not like Saddam, taking over that country was , to put it bluntly, stupid. Yea Saddam was a murderer... but he prevented terrorism in his country. He wanted total power. So we take him out for *cough *cough oil, so now the country is free if they are not killed by the thousands of terrorists that have moved to Iraq.
And now it is spreading throughout the world. American allies are being singled out and attacked for being in this war.
Basically the policeman messed up. I would say that he should no longer be on the force. If you mistakenly kill someone for something that was only speculation then you should be brought up on charges. And I cant believe how Blair talked about it afterward.
-
I\'ve heard once: \"Remove the power from Sadam and the groups he support will grow like ants, fighting for keeping themself alives. Doing everything just to get more well-known around the world..\" Tell me what happened to Iraq now..
Put yourself in the position of the policeman. You see a guy in a big coat on a hot day who you think is a bit suspicous. You ask the guy to stop so you can talk to him and he runs away into tube station, where a terrorist attack took place only the week before. You follow him into the station calling for him to stop but he runs towards the nearest train. You now have a few seconds to react. Either you shoot to kill, or you risk him having a bomb under that big coat and detonating it killing lots of people. I\'d shoot to kill.
Speaking that way, the action that the guy taked was stupid. I think that no one will ever start to run when a cop aproaches him, speaking normaly, asking him to stop.
There are several options to how the cop aproached the man:
1? Shouting, pointing a guy..
2? Shouting.
3? Speaking normally.
4? Running to the suspect, shouting (or not), poiting a gun (or not).
- If the frist one happened I cant say that I would act like the suspect, I would probably run, scared.
- If the second option happened I don\'t see any reason for the suspect run. But, he might confuse the cops with the group that spanked him in the past days, and then runned. (The confusion with the group that attacked him might have been done in the frist option too).
- If the third option happened, there is no reson for the suspect started to run.. Wich makes me think that this way of aproache the suspect hasnt been done (the man probably wouldnt run if someone said to him: \"Err Sir, may I speak with you for some moments please?\" ).
- If the fourth option happened, it would deppend on what the police men were doing at the moment while they where running: Shouting could scare the suspect and make him enter in panic, starting to run. Pointing a gun would do the same (or wrost). The suspect might have done the confusion with the group of men that attacked him (I know I\'m always talking this \"group\" but his existence might be important on the story).
My two cents about what happened before the shoots, and in my opinion the most credible option of what happened before. Hanging out with a gun requires a huge preparation, mostly mental. Most of the men dont have such capacity, like they say here in my country, \"? necess?rio manter o sangue frio\", It\'s important to keep our blood cold, wich means think before act and dont let us take by emotions, just like the police men havent done.
Just like Val said, the police messed up. It\'s wrong to call stupid to a person that dyed without having any fault, because commited a mistake that costed his life.
-
I am reading over everything right now about it. Did everyone else know that the cops were in plain clothes? Not in uniforms. No wonder why he ran. I will update this soon.. still reading :).
\"Witnesses said the man appeared to be South Asian and was wearing a heavy padded coat when police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso.\"
I got this from the New York Daily News site. This story makes me sick.
-
Who is stupid now huh?
Frist chace, then shoot..
Great job..
-
Originally posted by Valbrandr
\"Witnesses said the man appeared to be South Asian and was wearing a heavy padded coat when police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso.\"
If (but only if) this is true this is not even slightly justifiable, and indeed plain murder, for which the ones who committed it, as well as the ones who probably ordered / allowed it, must be held responsible. I don\'t know what Blair said about it, but I guess it\'s not along the lines of \"investigating and bringing the guilty ones to justice\".
I hope it isn\'t true, but yeah.
-
Here is the adress to the New York Daily News : http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/330716p-282606c.html
Im not sure how creditable it is but I havent seen this much detail at many of the other sites I have visited.
-
the same was reported during the Oriley factor today - which many consider conservative -and thus more credible (not my opionion) But my best guess is that is accurate
-
@xordan: I think there is a problem in what you are saying and I dunno why I didnt realize it before... It\'s so obvious !
I simply think you must clearly give your point of view because you said:
1) a terrorist like man tried to go away when he saws the policemen
AND
2) he has a big coat which could have help him to hide a bomb...
AND
3) policemen only have a few seconds to react...
It\'s so big, dont you realize?
You are thinking a guy with a big bomb hidden under his coat, trying to runaway from the policemen is a threat!
I could understand that policemen shot him seeing he would try to explode his bomb. And so I\'ll be able to understand why you say they have only a few seconds... BUT why would he runaway? Did he realized he wasnt on the good place before lightening his bomb? lol
Choose your version:
-> policemen were scared he could explode in front of them
OR
-> he was running away
---------------
@xordan: I think like you that this guy was completely dumb and why not thinking that everyone in Brazil are simply stupid and dumb: policemen are in front of him and he runaway...
or maybe...
maybe am I thinking this guy was simply terryfied and not dumb... Of course he chose the bad way but Nobody know how people can react in such situation... Anyway, I dunno what I would do in such situation! So I wont judge him.
Moreover if you are right, I think you have a nice family Xordan because even if Ive a good family with intelligent members, Im not sure they would react nicely once they are scared...
----------------
@Seytra: do you know guy that you are scaring me with your ideas? really and sincerely, your extremist ideas are scaring me.
In fact I think you are like the terrorists: you have a common idea about freedom and you are following what your neighbourhood think blindly. But one day you will wake up and realize that you didnt follow the others because the others were following you: so you will understand that everyone were following each others without knowing where their steps drove them...
Just understand people dont born with a good side or a dark side. We arent in Star Wars, we arent in a videogame! If I were in front of a terrorist I wouldnt want to kill him, I just would want to ask him \"why?\". People who kill before having the answer are simply weak because they arent strong enough to change the situation. And moreover, they react exactly like the terrorist: they kill! Really, if I could speak to a terrorist and turn him into a person able to defend his opinion against occident with intelligence and not with bomb, I would be happy... but I swear you it would be a better threat for occident!
And dont tell me terrorists are terrorists. The governments which are accusing terrorists are commiting awful acts at the same time!
ie: Bush government which wants a legal immunity for american soldiers while american soldiers are killing journalists, british soldiers, iraq civilians or simply lost their soul in a so famous iraq jail...
ie: governments which wage wars in weak country to control their oil
ie: french government which is selling every good companies of France and spend all the money to be sure they could be reelected...
Please think the terrorist has a soul, a family, a story... just try to imagine why does he think that commit a suicide is the better way to reach freedom, to help the world... And never forget that before judging you need to know everything: you cant say \"he became a terrorist because of the muslim fundamentalist education\" because another question will appear: \"why is it so simple to transform anyone into a human bomb?\" and Im sure you dont want to find the answer...
----------------
By the way, I just read a french newspaper known to be an objective and satyrical one... and I\'m scared because of one word: \"God\"...
For you this word isnt any problem but for me it\'s another step to the anti USA ideas:
Explanation:
Until now french hasnt done any difference between \"american god\" and \"french god\". Everyone said there is a unique god (bla bla bla... you know the stereotypes). And sometimes... people speak about \"Allah\" exactly like if the \"french god\" and the \"muslim one\" were different...
the translation of \"God\" in french is \"Dieu\"
but
When the newspaper spoke about american god they say satyrically \"God\" (and not \"Dieu\") like if there were a difference...
a way to say American has their own god, it\'s not ours...
and it is scarying because it\'s another part of our relationship which is beeing shattered. I think that today, french arent looking at american like the savers of 1945 but like a simple threat.
I hope every americans here understand there is a real problem. I hope nobody think about a good side and an evil side. I hope people here can understand that everyone need to walk together and not only think about individualism. Because I really dont want to have to kill someone one day because of a stupid war and realize after that it was a man I know called Seytra, Ashamn, Induane, Valbrandr or Xordan. (and if it would be Karyuu I would commit a suicide just after... snif Karyuu... ;( )
Today I\'m understanding all the evil I saw in the american movies I watched before: everytime a good side and an evil side opposition... a good hero who kill a big bad evil boy.
-
The irony in this all, is that not only did america help in 1945, france helped america all the way back to revolutionary times, sending their navy, officers, general\'s ect..
You would think we would have a great relationship, but we really dont
-
And even... I learnt a lot of bad things about the two WW about Americans...
Americans said they have to help France because of the fact France helped them for their revolution...
but learnt a lot of american weapons has been sold to the Germans during the two WW... I learnt American wait a lot before helping, I learnt Allies were able to come before. I learnt allies dropped bombs on Dresdes killing poor civilian with no reasons, I learnt America drops the nuclear bombs for testing purpose, I learnt the Marshall plan was a way to find new exportation trades, I learnt the Marshall plan forced french to accept american product especially american movies to show the american way of life to the people of France...
I know that America find its \"boys\" tanks to the poverty of a big part of its nation, I know black people were sent the first to the front line (I know that algerian people and others french colonization people were sent the first to the front line too :rolleyes: ), I know the one who save France were poor people sent to a real Slaughterhouse to get killed (poor people are only name written on the paper) and to help rich people to trade once the peace came back.
Sometimes Im wondering if Im the only one who think his ideas are only utopia because the real world is awful...
There is no need to compare the french and the american because Im sure France didnt help USA with no reason in the 18th century. Unfortunately, my teachers never find it was interesting to teach what\'s happened during the american revolution so I still dunno what really happened there... its only something like Americans who wanted to become independant toward UK in my mind... nopthing more...
-
Originally posted by Valbrandr
total power. So we take him out for *cough *cough oil, so now the country is free if they are not killed by the thousands of terrorists that have moved to Iraq.
First: This is not a clever point of view. You do know it would have cost the US much less just to buy all the oil off Iraq than to invade? If it was for oil then they\'ve made a huge loss.
As for everything else:
It\'s obvious we all have different points of view. It\'s also very obvious that we\'ve only got the media to rely on, who each tell a slightly different story to bend the viewer/reader/listeners way of thinking. With all these different bits of info it\'s very hard for us to compare our views, because we are all talking about different situations. Imo, what I am saying is perfectly logical and 100% correct. To another person, and another situation what they are saying is also perfectly logical and 100% correct. We should all try to read lots of different news sources and take them all into consideration before giving a point of view. Each news source is written in a way which tries to convince you it is true, so by reading different ones, you see the conflicts and piece together something more factual. I never quote any news sites because I know that the report is biased and not completely accurate.
As for the US and France, the bad relations is due to both countries having bad leaders who piss each other off. It\'s quite a recent thing. The french leader (Can\'t spell his name) is just a very crap leader. He keeps insulting the UK all the time, which really doesn\'t help things. George W Bush thinks he\'s doing good at heart, but doesn\'t have the brains to back up the will. He gets annoyed because France keeps getting in the way of the good he thinks he\'s doing, and because France keeps insulting the UK. (Imo GWB would make a brilliant baseball coach. :)
It\'s the UK and France which have a long line of bad relations, so any conflict is to be expected :)
Oh, and Tony Blair is t3h pwnest Prime Minster we\'ve ever had. :) I don\'t expect non-UK people to think so because your media hates him and never reports all the good things he does. And UK people voted him in 3x in a row by large margins... so he must be liked. (Either that or all the opposition are really, really crap. But then they\'d get voted in anyway if Tony Blair was doing such a bad job as everyone non-UK seems to think.)
Oh, and the independance of US from UK was because the UK goverment kept charging stupidly high taxes. So the US revolted, and the UK sent in about 1/5 of it\'s army. This got repelled and the UK couldn\'t be bothed getting it back because they thought it wasn\'t worth enough. France helped the US by giving it supplies and stuff during this time, and France nearly sank a UK ship as well. If France had sunk it then the UK would have sent it\'s army into France and France would be a part of the UK today (Remember that the UK had the most powerful navy and army in the world at this time. Nothing could stand in our way if we made an effort.).... and that\'s a very short history.
-
First: This is not a clever point of view. You do know it would have cost the US much less just to buy all the oil off Iraq than to invade? If it was for oil then they\'ve made a huge loss.
Actually it is a good point just not in the sense of cost. The US realizes that its ifastructure is fossile fuel dependant. Without Oil the America as we know it does not exist. Changing to alternative fuel sources is a slower and costly job for a country of our size. As a result our transistion will be much slower. I think the US was smart enough to realize how much oil is in that region, and didn\'t want some of the worlds richest oil fields left in the hands of a sadistic evil leader who is completely anti-US. Thus he wanted to make sure that during our transitional times we would not have to have any reliance on that region of the world since any puppet government we install will obviously support US interests. We won\'t allow otherwise of course.
It\'s obvious we all have different points of view. It\'s also very obvious that we\'ve only got the media to rely on, who each tell a slightly different story to bend the viewer/reader/listeners way of thinking. With all these different bits of info it\'s very hard for us to compare our views, because we are all talking about different situations. Imo, what I am saying is perfectly logical and 100% correct. To another person, and another situation what they are saying is also perfectly logical and 100% correct. We should all try to read lots of different news sources and take them all into consideration before giving a point of view. Each news source is written in a way which tries to convince you it is true, so by reading different ones, you see the conflicts and piece together something more factual. I never quote any news sites because I know that the report is biased and not completely accurate.
Your best point in quite some time Xordan and quite on track. I agree that news is biased because all people have inherit biases that they can\'t get around. No one person can be completely impartial.
(Remember that the UK had the most powerful navy and army in the world at this time. Nothing could stand in our way if we made an effort.).... and that\'s a very short history.
There is more too it than that - at that time it was a long and tough journey just to cross the ocean - even for GBs navy. Upon arrival they were often tired, and malnourished. The US people fought differently too. They weren\'t lining up on a battlefield using \"Gentlemans Tatics\" They knew they couldn\'t win that way. So they did raids, small things very efficient, as one brittish soldier claimed during a retreat - it seemed even the women and children were all armed. There was little chance of escape. We won becaue it was a costly war and because we were using tatics that were considered barbaric at the time. Much like guirella tatics of insurgents in iraq today. That kind of war is tough to win, because you can be number1 in firepower, and still lose. THe US leaned that in Korea.
-
Originally posted by Induane
First: This is not a clever point of view. You do know it would have cost the US much less just to buy all the oil off Iraq than to invade? If it was for oil then they\'ve made a huge loss.
Actually it is a good point just not in the sense of cost.
Yes, it is, because it\'s not the same entity who pays the price.
Who paid the war? The state = the people.
Who would have had to buy the oil? The oil refining companies = the \'oil lobby\'.
Who gets the oil for free now? ....
EDIT: Anyway, the discussion is rather drifting away from the thread title ;)
To stay on topic: Regardless of the situation, you cannot, must not shoot on sheer suspicion. You have to know for a fact. I have no idea what the British law says about it, and I don\'t care, this is not about legality, this is about morale - no law is above morale.
There was just one incident now, which is surprisingly few given that the whole city is (justly) on edge. But just let this become a weekly incident and let the shooter get away with it, then the baby gets a name - martial law.
-
First: This is not a clever point of view. You do know it would have cost the US much less just to buy all the oil off Iraq than to invade? If it was for oil then they\'ve made a huge loss.
I am not saying that it is the only reason but I dont think we would be there if they had no oil.
It\'s obvious we all have different points of view. It\'s also very obvious that we\'ve only got the media to rely on, who each tell a slightly different story to bend the viewer/reader/listeners way of thinking. With all these different bits of info it\'s very hard for us to compare our views, because we are all talking about different situations. Imo, what I am saying is perfectly logical and 100% correct. To another person, and another situation what they are saying is also perfectly logical and 100% correct. We should all try to read lots of different news sources and take them all into consideration before giving a point of view. Each news source is written in a way which tries to convince you it is true, so by reading different ones, you see the conflicts and piece together something more factual. I never quote any news sites because I know that the report is biased and not completely accurate.
We do agree on this however. I dont want this to be taken to a personnal level. We disagree... and there is nothing wrong with that because by disagreeing we are atleast bringing out two sides of the arguement.
And even... I learnt a lot of bad things about the two WW about Americans...
Americans said they have to help France because of the fact France helped them for their revolution...
but learnt a lot of american weapons has been sold to the Germans during the two WW... I learnt American wait a lot before helping, I learnt Allies were able to come before. I learnt allies dropped bombs on Dresdes killing poor civilian with no reasons, I learnt America drops the nuclear bombs for testing purpose, I learnt the Marshall plan was a way to find new exportation trades, I learnt the Marshall plan forced french to accept american product especially american movies to show the american way of life to the people of France...
I know that America find its \"boys\" tanks to the poverty of a big part of its nation, I know black people were sent the first to the front line (I know that algerian people and others french colonization people were sent the first to the front line too ), I know the one who save France were poor people sent to a real Slaughterhouse to get killed (poor people are only name written on the paper) and to help rich people to trade once the peace came back.
Sometimes Im wondering if Im the only one who think his ideas are only utopia because the real world is awful...
There is no need to compare the french and the american because Im sure France didnt help USA with no reason in the 18th century. Unfortunately, my teachers never find it was interesting to teach what\'s happened during the american revolution so I still dunno what really happened there... its only something like Americans who wanted to become independant toward UK in my mind... nopthing more...
Before this topic dies I would like to address a few of your statements fken. First I dont know anything about America selling weapons to Germany During the second World War. Second, about waiting to get involved.. yes we did wait in the first World War but it was because of Americas policies which had nothing to do with Europes problems as they viewed it. We were under the Monroe Doctrine which set up realms of influence in a way. The USA did not want Europe influencing South America as it was so the Monroe Doctrine was created. So when WWI came about America stayed out until the Zimmerman Note/Telegram. Which was a message from a German general, if I am not mistaken, that was intercepted by the US.. telling Mexico to invade us. Thats when the US got involved.. and yes the USA was selling weapons to both sides during that war.
World War II could have been avioded. No America did not jump right in. But what really pushed America out of the situation was the Treaty of Versailles. America was apart of the talks.. our president Woodrow Wilson came up with a 14 points program which would not have punished Germany as much and would help rebuild them. But it was rejected. Wilson ended up leaving the situation to France and the UK. France wanted Germany to pay dearly and that is what happened. This is why the WWII even happened. Germany fell into a great depression after this which decimated the country. People looking for someone to make them strong again... and eventually they get Hitler not that they knew what he would do.
This led to Germany invading Poland in which I think was 1939 and WWII really taking shape. Yes America did not get involved until Dec 7th 1941.. Pearl Harbor. But it was because of the Monroe Doctrine again.. isolation. And the American people did not want to do it not to mention Franklin Roosevelt, possibly Americas greatest president ever, promised not to send our boys to war. We were just coming out of the great depression btw. Its not like America was not going to help or allowed Germany to use their Blitzkrieg tactics against France. But it was all of our failures that it came to this in the first place.
If you are wondering if what I say is true just look it up... I am a student of History.. nearly finished. Finally get to use it :D.
-
First Xordan just imagine that USA government never react for the complete USA nation...
And in fact it\'s not only the problem of USA: it\'s the same problem with a lot of others government...
I mean that there is no problem to wage a war bought by every US citizens and then earn money thanks to your oil raffinery and other oil companies. Then there are a lot of others goals like supremacy, be proud to do what dady wasnt able to do (a bad issue of the Koweit war... do you remember?) or building companies interest...
Otherwise, tell me why USA hasnt wage a war to Korea? I think they have more problem with their government and Im sure they represent a bigger threat than a country who suffered the american embargo for so long...
----------------------
Xordan dont say french president is dumb, it would be really dumb to say that.
Why?
Because the fact you wasnt able to remember his name (it\'s president Chirac) show us you dont even try to get information about him before expressing yourself and then because (and I must admit it even if I dont like him...) he is an intelligent guy. Believe in me.
If you wanna know the name of a real mad guy who could become the next french president remember this name: Sarkozy. This guy is a real threat in my mind. But you might understand that in the future...
-
Had Iraq not had any mojor natural resource then it would seem likely that we wouldn\'t have gone there in the first place. There are plenty of countries who were probabily worse than iraq, especially in africa, but the US isn\'t going to enter a war there because they have no intereststs there as we already own all their diamond mines.
The point is that terrorism has already succeeded in reshaping the face of the world, and in changing the foreign policies of the US and Social policies of the US - and actually of the world. Every time a country gets so scared they enact laws to keep themselves safe, each time taking a few more freedoms away from the people, and thus moving more and more towards a facist state. The problem with reacting the way we have to terrorism is that its lead us to mimick some of their behaviors in the name of safety - the cops shooting this guy is just an example that made headlines. Probablly there are many more we\'ll never hear about.
Otherwise, tell me why USA hasnt wage a war to Korea? I think they have more problem with their government and Im sure they represent a bigger threat than a country who suffered the american embargo for so long...
1.) They have no oil, and their only big industry is submarine ballests. So we\'re not that interested.
2.) The US needs china in an economic way, so we have to be careful about what we do on their border. While we as a country aren\'t afraid of them militarily, we do fear what could happen if we lose them as a trading partner.
SO in short terrorism is winning because of countries like the US. We slowly become them, or less of the democracy we love, every time we attack them. Our country has fallen into a foreign policy that is condusive to terrorist recruits, because many people see our involvement in places world wide as attacks on cultures and contries who don\'t want us there. Our foreign policy went beyone \"premptive strike\" it was more a \"preventative strike\" It said to Iraq - we think maybe sometime in the future you COULD become a problem so we\'\'ll invade you on that suspicion. Oh and becuase we like Israel and you\'re kinda close to that. Iraq wasn\'t a direct threat to the US as a soverign nation.
And partway through the war in Iraq, the Bush administration changed the focus from weapons of mass destruction to \"Operation Iraqis freedom\" How nice. Sorry about the dead people. Also he redefined what WMD\'s were, going from a nuclear focus, to include chemical and biological weapons. A broad defination that still didn\'t help us as we found nothing.
I say we stand up to terrorism by not losing our resolv to do what is RIGHT and MORAL (loaded words I know). If we can take the time to look at the underlying problems that lead to terrorism like hatred and violence, perhaps we could better fight it if we understood it. To the US, terrorists get no Geneva Convention rights, and according to the convention they shouldn\'t. But I hold the US to a higher moral standard than that - and I believe that if we are going to be critical of peoples treatments, then we should warrant them rights of the Geneva convention also - thus putting ourselves on the moral high ground.
-
Originally posted by fken
Because the fact you wasnt able to remember his name (it\'s president Chirac) show us you dont even try to get information about him before expressing yourself and then because (and I must admit it even if I dont like him...) he is an intelligent guy. Believe in me.
I didn\'t say I couldn\'t remember it. I said I couldn\'t spell it. :)
And yes he is dumb, unless he\'s trying to start a war between France and the UK for some strange reason, because that\'s the way he\'s heading. Insulting the UK constantly isn\'t the path to good relations.
Isn\'t Sarkozy that right-wing guy? I\'d be happy if France was pulled a bit more towards the center instead of being hard left. :rolleyes:
I am not saying that it is the only reason but I dont think we would be there if they had no oil.
No, even if there wasn\'t any oil, Iraq would have been the target. George Bush Senior still had a bone to pick with Saddam. This gave him the opportunity to finish what he stated in the gulf war. I see now your point about oil, but I do not think you can give that as the only single reason for the war. Other private contractors gained massive amount of money from this. There were many things which contributed, and not one thing which would have singly effected the target.
Otherwise, tell me why USA hasnt wage a war to Korea?
The very second the US lands a troop on north korea the US will have a nuke dropped on it and then we\'ll have a nuclear war. That\'s why.
To stay on topic: Regardless of the situation, you cannot, must not shoot on sheer suspicion. You have to know for a fact. I have no idea what the British law says about it, and I don\'t care, this is not about legality, this is about morale - no law is above morale.
So if that guy would have been carrying a bomb, you would have rather it go off and kill lots of people?
There is more too it than that - at that time it was a long and tough journey just to cross the ocean - even for GBs navy. Upon arrival they were often tired, and malnourished.
And that\'s exactly one of the reasons why the whole thing started and ended. Why should America say taxes to a country which is so far away and hard to get to? And UK didn\'t bother sending enough troops to take America back because they didn\'t see the point in using the resources for something which is too far away and hard to get to which didn\'t give back enough to make up for that resource loss.
The point is that terrorism has already succeeded in reshaping the face of the world, and in changing the foreign policies of the US and Social policies of the US - and actually of the world.
Gotta agree with that.
While we as a country aren\'t afraid of them militarily, we do fear what could happen if we lose them as a trading partner.
Please remember that China could destroy the whole US in a matter of hours. :) Every country with nuclear weapons capibility is a threat. And yeah, China\'s economy is massive and growing fast. It will overtake the US in the next decade, so the US wants to keep trade links strong.
-
No, even if there wasn\'t any oil, Iraq would have been the target. George Bush Senior still had a bone to pick with Saddam. This gave him the opportunity to finish what he stated in the gulf war. I see now your point about oil, but I do not think you can give that as the only single reason for the war. Other private contractors gained massive amount of money from this. There were many things which contributed, and not one thing which would have singly effected the target.
Yep - its just another reason along with many more that were the real reasons we went.
The real reasons were obviously facads from the start. Only people brought up to be mindless sheep believed it (unfortunately this is a good deal of the population of the US)
Please remember that China could destroy the whole US in a matter of hours. Every country with nuclear weapons capibility is a threat. And yeah, China\'s economy is massive and growing fast. It will overtake the US in the next decade, so the US wants to keep trade links strong.
Yep, but I think that it would take a desperate China to start something that would mean their own total destruction as well. I (hope) that it would be a last resort thing, and that by that time we either have a missile defense system, or the ability to prevent them from launching ( if we were in an offensive).
-
Originally posted by Induane
The real reasons were obviously facads from the start. Only people brought up to be mindless sheep believed it (unfortunately this is a good deal of the population of the US)
I wouldn\'t say that. I can see perfectly good reasons for them going in to Iraq. I still don\'t discount the possibility that there are WMD in Iraq, as it\'s almost impossible to find something buried in a hole in a country of that size. I just don\'t discount that there are reasons which weren\'t given for it as well. I also think that if France hadn\'t have veto\'d like they veto everything which doesn\'t benifit them, and the rest of the UN agreed to help go into Iraq then the situation would be much better than it is now. That decision proved the UN useless, caused a split in global relations, and furthered a split in the EU relations. A big win for terrorists. If the UK had not stuck to the US (something I\'m very thankful that Tony Blair did. It was a great decision.) Then the US would be split diplomatically from the EU, something which terrorists want. The more we divide ourselves, the more we are allowing them to change the way we live.
Yep, but I think that it would take a desperate China to start something that would mean their own total destruction as well. I (hope) that it would be a last resort thing, and that by that time we either have a missile defense system, or the ability to prevent them from launching ( if we were in an offensive).
If China launched everything they had, no missle defensive system could save you. Any military action against China would cause this to happen, because the situation would be desperate. :) And yes, something like that would kill everything on Earth.
-
I wouldn\'t say that. I can see perfectly good reasons for them going in to Iraq. I still don\'t discount the possibility that there are WMD in Iraq, as it\'s almost impossible to find something buried in a hole in a country of that size. I just don\'t discount that there are reasons which weren\'t given for it as well. I also think that if France hadn\'t have veto\'d like they veto everything which doesn\'t benifit them, and the rest of the UN agreed to help go into Iraq then the situation would be much better than it is now. That decision proved the UN useless, caused a split in global relations, and furthered a split in the EU relations. A big win for terrorists. If the UK had not stuck to the US (something I\'m very thankful that Tony Blair did. It was a great decision.) Then the US would be split diplomatically from the EU, something which terrorists want. The more we divide ourselves, the more we are allowing them to change the way we live.
I was just saying that the origional reason for going in isn\'t valid - \"We see a growing threat to our nation in the nation of Iraq! I saw we act now to protect ourselves rather than wait for more innocent American lives to be lost.\" Sorry bush but I consider our troops to be innocent (at least most of them, there are always bad apples). I also agree that France abuses veto power in a way that paralyzes the UN, but it is the fault also of the UN\'s structure. A better idea would be to limit the number of veto\'s in any given say 4 year period to just one veto per country - that would force a more fair vote, and the veto would be saved for extreme situations. You are also right that dividing us is what the terrorists want, but the issue is polarized by politcs, and disagreements on how to solve the problem. A United front is more important, but only if its the right way of going about things. I was completely against going into Iraq from the beginning, but now that we\'re there I say we\'d better win, so I want them to conduct the war on terror in a way that will actually have a chance of success. Its something we need to be able to finish since we started it.
If China launched everything they had, no missle defensive system could save you. Any military action against China would cause this to happen, because the situation would be desperate. And yes, something like that would kill everything on Earth.
I pray that day doesn\'t befall us all.
...but it probabily wouldn\'t killall bacteria and stuff. Some thrive on radiation. It would just set back evolution by about a trillion years, giving rise to a new earth. Perhaps its supposed to happen anyways - a natural progression.... lol now I\'m really getting \"out there\"
-
Having read through this thread I find it highly amusing that we (british police) are being slammed for accidently shooting an innocent man, considering the fact that except in special circumstances the Police are NOT armed with anything other than a nightstick.
There (IIRC) are more shootings in Washington DC in a month than in the whole of the UK in a year and you can\'t tell me that they are all justified.
And if the gentleman in question had been carrying a bomb we would all be asking why the police didn\'t do something.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/firearms_stats.pdf
The statistics for 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 show that the number of police operations in which firearms were issued was 16,657. The number of times a conventional firearm was discharged by police was 8 which covered 4 incidents. A baton round was discharged on 15 occasions and a Taser was fired on 13 occasions as less lethal alternatives to conventional firearms.
Armed response vehicles were deployed on 13,218 occasions and there were 6,096 authorised firearms officers in England and Wales
Good job we\'re not excessively gung ho :)
anyway just my tuppence worth.
-
Originally posted by Induane
I was just saying that the origional reason for going in isn\'t valid - \"We see a growing threat to our nation in the nation of Iraq! I saw we act now to protect ourselves rather than wait for more innocent American lives to be lost.\"
lol, yeah that would have been a good reason if they\'d given other reasons as well. North Korea posed and poses a far greater threat than Iraq but it was ignored pretty much, so you can\'t give \'Iraq is a threat, therefore we must smash\' as a reason :)
I agree that the stucture of the UN is flawed. 1 veto per year per major country is enough imo. It actually makes the veto worth something.
-
Quote:Otherwise, tell me why USA hasnt wage a war to Korea?
The very second the US lands a troop on north korea the US will have a nuke dropped on it and then we\'ll have a nuclear war. That\'s why.
I am pretty sure he meant before we went into Iraq. We did not know they had any nukes at that point. Kim Jong Il came out after we went into Iraq and said he had nukes because he knew the USA could not do anything because their hands were full with Iraq. And btw, North Korea only has the delivery capability to hit Hawaii.. and there is a possibility of the west coast but that is doubtful. We think that there is a good chance that they can hit Hawaii.
Before we knew they had nukes.. why not go in there? Because they dont have anything. Why dont we help the poor African nations? Because very few have any resources like Diamonds and oil mostly in Nigeria. We do things that benefit us.. not for the good of the world. Nations normally act selfish.
And yes the UN is flawed.. but what hurts it the most is that the most powerful nation (US) in the world feels as if it is exempt from international law. If we dont play by the rules who else will?
-
@Xordan: Everything you said about french policy were mistakes, wrong ideas and odd things...
First, President Chirac is a right president not a left one: if you wanna something more right than UMP you will just find Jean Marie Lepen an extremist who think muslim must be send back to the frontiers with every \"foreigner\". This guy think that France must let the euro down and come back to the franc. He said in his presidential ad:
\"Je suis economiquement de droite et socialement de gauche...\"
-> I am economicaly form right and socially left...
And when you know right is (almost) the side of the economy and left the side of the social... you understand this guy had no campaign...
This kind of guys are dangerous extremly dangerous and dont worry if someone if stupid enough to wage a war against UK and kill Europa he would be the good one...
-------------
Our actual government is selling every public enterprise, changing the fees in favour of the richest and increasing the poverty of the poorest people... I think it\'s a real right policy...
-------------
N Sarkozy is a real mad guy. A real threat.
First he is young and proud -> he is able to change France tranquility by waging wars...
Then everything he did were mistakes. When he was a \"minister of police\" (ministre de l\'int?rieur), he simply erased some police station in hot place for economical purposes... but thanks to him, policemen were in the city (you were able to see policemen every 30 meters in Metz once... I swear!). Of course the policemen\'s mistakes (bavures polici?res) increased dangerously. The number of judgement toward policemen has increased dangerously... aso...
When Sarkozy was a minister of trade (ministre de l\'?conomie et des finances), he did his ads to get the job of the president of the UMP (taking the place of Chirac).
Nicolas Sarkozy swore publicaly he wont sell public enterprise like EDF and GDF... When he was a elected president of the UMP he organized a party of 6M?... (just one night).
Nicolas Sarkozy is everytime in front of the camera: a child is killed in a hot street and he come to give to the family all his sympathy... off course policestations has been closed in this kind of street...
And last time I saw him, he said there could never be an act like the murder of the brazilian in France because french policemen are allowed to shot only in self defense purpose... But, in France a lot of people died because of mistakes from policemen. And if I\'m well remembering, Sarkozy were here to give his opinion... But he certainly forgot that when he spoke about english policemen shooting...
And never forgot french politics reproached some reactions of Sarkozy publicaly (especially people from his own party) saying they were wondering why Sarkozy want to destruct his own party...
Sarkozy is what I call a opportunist (i dunno if the word is the same in english. Ive no english dictionary close to me... the french word is \"opportuniste\".
@Induane: I think like you about terrorism subject. But I dont think the France abuse of his UN veto... I think the only goal was to show to the world that USA doesnt care about the rest of the countries of the world... It was shown by Bush and now USA will have to pay for that... only because of the pride of their president... it\'s a shame.
And moreover, I think sometimes terrorist attack help government to react like they want to react (data retentions, immunity of the government or of the politics or of the policemen (now you can kill someone just by saying you thought he had bomb on him and tried to runaway...). Sometimes I even am wondering if Ben Laden really exists...
NB: USA have enough of bombs to destruct the entire world 40 times minimum... I dont know if China is the only threat with its bombs...
-
fken: My mistake then. :) My French politics knowledge isn\'t good. Doesn\'t make me non-hate Chirac any more though. Imo he\'s a right jackass :P
And I think: US, UK, France, China, Russia all have enough to blow up the world several times over. Altogether I think the stockpile is ~150,000 nukes.
-
But I dont think the France abuse of his UN veto... I think the only goal was to show to the world that USA doesnt care about the rest of the countries of the world... It was shown by Bush and now USA will have to pay for that...
Well thats not entirely accurate. When Colin Powell was doing negotiations France promised to back the US if they decided to take military action. Then when they didn\'t it was a stab in the back. This isn\'t propeganda, its a commonly known fact and France made no attempt to hide it at all. All they said publically was that they changed their minds at the last minute.
only because of the pride of their president... it\'s a shame.
Not just pride, but definately a part of it I think. I\'m sure he probabily just wasn\'t smrart enough to figure out that he was being manipulated by his cabinet. I don\'t think he personally is a liar, I just think he wasn\'t smart enough to realize he was being puppeted. This isn\'t really uncommon, so the only thing I can blame him for is pride like you said and his sense of revenge. ;)
-
WARSAW, Oct 3 - Polish troops in Iraq have found four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles which according to the military were built this year, a Polish Defence Ministry spokesman told Reuters on Friday. \"Polish troops discovered an ammunition depot on September 29 near the region of Hilla and there were four French-made Roland-type missiles,\" Eugeniusz Mleczak said. \"It is not the first time Polish troops found ammunition in Iraq but to our surprise these missiles were produced in 2003,\" Mleczak said. The Roland anti-aircraft system is a short-range air defence missile in service with at least ten countries, including France and Germany. It is mobile, usually mounted on a vehicle, and defence experts say the missiles are highly effective against aircraft attacking at low and medium altitude. Under a strict trade embargo imposed by the United Nations, Iraq was barred form importing arms since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Mleczak said Polish troops were notified about the missiles by a local Iraqi, who received a reward for the information...
.... not saying I dislike french people, but I\'d say the corruption in their gov rivals that of Americas. Not acompliment to us either. I\'m afraid of the direction the entire world is taking. Sometimes I consider whether or not I should have brought a child into this world, but I realize we\'re born to our time, and we need children as they are our future.
-
\"As for less freedom etc. Yes, to increase security we have to give up some privicy.\"
if privacy was all we were talkin about then id say open the blinds and keep me more secure.but what we are talking about is the presidents ability to now remove the citizenship of any single citizen based on nothing, absolutley nothing, then once thier citizenship is removed they are up the creek and canb be detained forever. well only until death would be more accurate.
mind you im a hypocrite as my wife works for the department of homeland security so my rent is paid thanks to all the new legislation here in the great old USA.
about the police in the UK: of course they killed the guy because of the recent bombings and of course that means the terrorists attacks were effective. there is no way around that. if people could truley just not react to terrorism then it wouldnt be done.
no i dont think we should have taken out iraq as a warning to the world, and no i dont think the patriot act is anything but the begining of the end. but the sheeple voted yes, and the sheeple never even questioned.
this very debate is a sign of the effectiveness of terrorism and also perhaps a sign for more authority. people want to be lead, they just dont want to be tugged too hard by thier leash.
perhaps thats crude of me to say, or insensitive but the whole world hasnt gone mad, its gone soft.
example? and this one is a win for the french:
why hasnt anyone asked where the jetliner that hit the pentagon is? where are the pieces? why was the hole so small (before the roof collapsed the hole was about 16 feet wide and 30 high )
i can really stir things up and ask why the new york jetliners didnt have windows, what was the flash before impact seen from 4 angles? why didnt they ever show frame by frame footage even though they show frame by frame of kennedy\'s head coming off?
people spend all day arguing over reaction and it makes them totally over look and take for granted the cause.
i love my country , not my leadership but my country.
i love ideas, concepts, and i pay attention to detail in order to preserve that concept. my leadership hates people like me even to the point of saying :
\"let us not tolerate outlandish conspiracy theories that pull the blame away from the real peratrators of these terrorist attacks\"(thats a memory quote)
here is where i swing a 180 again
dont blame my cops or anyone elses cops for overreacting to a situation like some perp in a longcoat dashing away into a crowd. the are the true public servants trying to protect. they dont get any extra power from things like the patriot act, they get extra responability.
and stress
-
@breetai: I could easily understand Luxembourg citizens and Monaco citizen (for example) can think they really love their country but I cant understand a French guy who is able to say that because France is too big to be entirely visited and known. It\'s even worse for USA because its 20times bigger than France... And I cant love anything I dunno so I cant understand how you could love your country without beeing endoctrinated by your education.
@Xordan and Induane: It\'s hard to say that there are more corruption in France or not because everything is watchable. I meant for example, like \"Big One\" movie show, money of american policy can come from everyone. In France, it\'s impossible, we know where our policy money come from...
But a lot of politics already abused of the government money and a lot have to be judge (especially Chirac and some of his friends)
I dont like Chirac because he isnt a good politic in my mind. I dont like his ideas about economical policy, I dont like his ideas about almost everything. But I recognize he still has a moral sometimes, especially when he oppose himself to Bush or when he choose to ask to the french if they would like to accept the european constitution : the politics were something like 90% in favour of it and even if it was his idea he ask to the people what they think about it: result 55% said they dont want this constitution...
German government didnt ask it to his country but what I heard about Germans is that they could have been the first to refuse the constitution if government ask to the people what it think about the constitution...
So Chirac isnt a big old evil guy... he still has good main ideas... even if he\'s called \"supermenteur\" (superliar) in France... even if he stole money of HLM... even if he require 300? per day for tea consummation (Im not sure but it\'s something like that...)...
In France the Colin Powell and Bush speech has been understood as very very bad speech. Something like \"our big Dady Bush and our uncle Powell are showing what we MUST do\"... I still remember the fact Bush didnt recieve Chirac in his rach because he refused to help America to wage a war...
-
@Xordan and Induane: It\'s hard to say that there are more corruption in France or not because everything is watchable. I meant for example, like \"Big One\" movie show, money of american policy can come from everyone. In France, it\'s impossible, we know where our policy money come from...
Believe me I watch who \"donates\" to people - http://www.opensecrets.org
In France the Colin Powell and Bush speech has been understood as very very bad speech. Something like \"our big Dady Bush and our uncle Powell are showing what we MUST do\"... I still remember the fact Bush didnt recieve Chirac in his rach because he refused to help America to wage a war...
Alot about france I don\'t know but the more I live the more I realize media itself cannot be trusted to deliver the true picture. Things get trumped one way or another and unfortunatly it comes upon us to try to weed through the bull. I saw a couple of Powells speaches which were extremely well done but I think alot of people got the impression that Bush even didnt\' back the idea of going to the UN in the first place.. Course that could all be the media talking.... Sad times.
-
btw, I forgot to mention this stuff:
The brazillian ran from the police because he didn\'t have a VISA; meaning that he was an illegal immigrant. He knew they were police and ran to the tube station to try and get a quick get away. If he hadn\'t run into the tube station then I doubt the police would have shot him.
Maybe that\'s a bit more helpful? :)
-
The news here said that watchers saw the brazilian guy fell down on the pavement by itself and then the policemen came to him and shot...
it doesnt look very very like a self-defense-like shot
----------------------------------------
I think that news and journalist cant be trusted.
----------------------------------------
@induane : so if you watch the donations it\'s nice! no problem... What did you think about the donation of the comity of the amical of the pedophilia organization (maybe it was not the same name but it was something like that... cf: \"Big One\", maybe the movie which gave Michael Moore the right to be considered like an ennemy of the USA...)?
Michael Moore said that Politics send a letter back: something like \"We, xxx, thank comity of the amical of the pedophilia organization for their help and wish them good luck for their future actions\"... (same thing than upside : it wasnt exactly what they said but it was the same meaning)
Moreover, I think it would be hard to know everything about each government of each states... but if you like illusions...
-
Originally posted by fken
The news here said that watchers saw the brazilian guy fell down on the pavement by itself and then the policemen came to him and shot...
Well your news was very wrong. The guy jumped into a train, tripped while being pushed by the policeman and was then shot. And btw, our police use semi-auto handguns I believe, so pressing the trigger once and holding will fire multiple shots in a pattern. In this case, 5 shots.
Michael Moore
Is a left-wing moonbat who produces crap every time he opens his mouth. :evil:
-
Originally posted by Xordan
police use semi-auto handguns I believe, so pressing the trigger once and holding will fire multiple shots in a pattern. In this case, 5 shots.
Sorry Xordan but a semi auto fires one shot for each pull on the trigger.
In the suicide bomber scenario the police are trained to \"double tap\" two shots in quick sucession to the head, for two reasons
1. to prevent activation of any explosive device by the suspect
2. to prevent the impact of a bullet from igniting the suspected device
according to the inquest 8 rounds were fired if all 4 policemen fired that makes a double tap each.
Just trying to help clear some confusion :) and totally agree about MM he is only interested in his own self-promotion
*typo