intermittent anomaly 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Police shoot a guy and surround a Mosque on the news now. Link to post Share on other sites
spook 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 yep. it's always reassuring when a suspected terrorist is shot down the road from your house. and the bus station at my work was shut yesterday because of a 'suspect package'. sheesh, i'm pretty unsettled about it all and not really sure what to do, other than just carrying like normal, but in a wary slightly paranoid fashion Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 > It seems that some people almost want these things to happen and get some kind of perverse pleasure out of it out of their hatred for Bush/Blair etc. Well yes, and no. If you had the foresight to predict that Gulf Wars I & II would have nasty blowback at home, you might derive some grim satisfaction in being proved right. Ditto if you also had the foresight before the last election to urge people not to vote for the same thugs again because of the dangers they presented. Personally I derive more satisfaction in being occasionally right than in being persistently wrong. And inasmuch as this terrorism might just prove an incentive and an opportunity to rethink some of the fundamentals of community relations, foreign policy and so on, it would be dishonest and counterproductive to pretend you didn't have some specific hopes for after all the blood has been mopped up. It's certainly sad about all the people that got killed and maimed. But in a democracy, we're all supposed to be responsible for what our government does. Something interesting to note: this time the police used NBC protection when they went to the site. Now why would they do that? Link to post Share on other sites
cheeseman 1 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 What is NBC protection? (I think the answer to all this is Cheese). Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Why NBC? Either (a) for the reason Ocean11 is alluding to. That police are scared and know of a threat that we do not know of. Or, ( because small 'pop' bombs could be seen not as a failed explosion, but the reactive detonation of a Chemical agent, or perhaps localised distribution of a biological substance. I am worried about (a). NBC = nuclear, chemical, bacteria. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 While I am mostly in qualified agreement with you Ocean11, I'm 100% here: "And inasmuch as this terrorism might just prove an incentive and an opportunity to rethink some of the fundamentals of community relations, foreign policy and so on, it would be dishonest and counterproductive to pretend you didn't have some specific hopes for after all the blood has been mopped up." It seems a little hypocritical to ask for Islam to reform itself while While western society is run by criminals. Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Ok here is a thought... why is there now 4 perfect photos of the guys who couldnt blow up anything????? and there are really no good photos of the guys who blew up everything???? sorry to me it smells a bit fishy Link to post Share on other sites
happyhappy 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 There were tons of witnesses for the guys on Thursday. And what are you implying is "fishy" anyway?? For conspiracy theories, I recommend X-Files. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 > For conspiracy theories, I recommend X-Files. Not a very bright thing to say. All these attacks involve more than one person, therefore they are conspiracies. As nobody is aware of all the details, various theories about them need to be tested. Whatever is thereby produced will necessarily be a 'conspiracy theory'. And the 'official conspiracy theory' may just have some conspicuous flaws in it which people who don't waste their time watching fantasy shit on TV might be able to spot. The NBC protection is probably just for training purposes. It's not a credible threat, especially considering the MO of the terrorists. But letting police be seen wearing NBC suits without telling the public very clearly why is yet another horrible mistake in fighting the psychological effects of the attacks... Link to post Share on other sites
me jane 0 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 It now seems the guy they shot was Brazilian and had nothing to do with the attacks...but why wouldn't you stop if the police were chasing you? Link to post Share on other sites
griller 9 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Guilty of something? Stupid? Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Panic. Link to post Share on other sites
me jane 0 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 But why would you panic when first approached by the police unless you were guilty of something? Link to post Share on other sites
r45 4 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Of course. A chase has to start somewhere. Why panic and run if you have nothing to hide. I sure wouldn't. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 It seems rational to stop when requested to do so by an armed policeman, but that's the point. Panic is an irrational response, and all of us are prone to that. We still don't have the full story. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Gosh, I thought they would eventually kill an innocent person with all these guns on the street, but I didn't anticipate that they'd get around to it so fast. Everybody was being very resolute about this shoot-to-kill policy, but they probably forgot how your British copper behaves when you give him a gun. It's ironic how quickly London is becoming a mirror of Baghdad - suicide bombings and mistaken shootings, and probably a bit of 'intensive interrogation' in a cell somewhere too. But let's not 'rush to judgement' on this eh? Given enough sage and measured newspaper editorials, it will be made to seem like quite a good thing after all. Link to post Share on other sites
sava 0 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 My understanding is that they were armed and in plain clothes. Additionally, he was already being held on the ground when he was shot. To make it even worse, one of the shots hit him in the chest where they're not supposed to shoot because it could trigger a bomb. I think that it is a disgrace that this man was killed. Link to post Share on other sites
sunrise 0 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Ocean, it's not Baghdad yet. They're still releasing suspects after they pick them up. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Although they're going to try to change that. This from the Independent: --------------------------------- Why did he run from police when ordered to stop? Being confronted by three armed plainclothed officers, he could have been frightened and fled. Coming from Brazil, he may have been particularly nervous of armed officers. In the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo, police shot dead 1,470 people in 1992. This fell to 272 in 2001, although half were shot in the back. Although his friends and relatives say he was living legally in Britain, it appears he was here on a student visa, and was working illegally as an electrician. He could have been trying to avoid capture. So far the only details of his final moments come from eyewitness accounts, which are often inaccurate. Until CCTV footage is examined and released, we will not know whether he was challenged and if he did - as described - jump over the ticket barrier and run downstairs. --------------------------------- It's not only the Iraqi/Brazilian model we're now following. According to Sir Ian Blair, shooting in the head is the Sri Lankan method for dealing with suicide bombers. And people who look suspicious. The terrorists are providing some very painful lessons in how the other 2/3 live... I think we should develop a moral response before it's too late to stop. Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Im sorry but since when did Sri Lanka become a model country to follow. This case is a true win for the terrorists. This is exactly what they want! They dont need bombs if we can go around killing each other for them. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Sri Lanka: Tamil Tigers. Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 How is all this affecting Japanese (or anywhere else for that matter) tourism to the UK? Any news on that over there? Link to post Share on other sites
giggsy 0 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 It is tragic what is happening. (And a different kind of tragic that whatever the police do, they are going to get criticised). Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Quote: Originally posted by BagOfCrisps: How is all this affecting Japanese (or anywhere else for that matter) tourism to the UK? Any news on that over there? I think one or two more attacks and London tourism might start to slip in the short term, but I can't imagine people simply putting London off their travel list. London is the one city in the world that nearly everyone visits. Having said that: after last weeks 'failed' events, I told my boss that if there are two more attacks this year then I will look to move elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 So in about 3 weeks time then....? Read an article somewhere, can't remember where, talking about look out for another next Thursday. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts