PDA

View Full Version : Brazilian tube shooting



imoXu
17-08-2005, 08:11 AM
Mistakes led to tube shooting (http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html?image=1)

Just an update for all the people interested in the performance of your wonderful police in the shooting of the Brazilian 'bomber'

Seems that pretty much everything released by the police has suprisingly turned out not to be true. No baggy jackets, no running, no tripping over. More or less guy gets walks on to train, coppers approach him and as he gets up and moves towards the police (as requested) they push him to the seat (not floor, that was another copper) and shoot him in the head quite a few times (and missed 3 times). Oh and it was all caught on a working CCTV camera despite what we were initially told, only the video footage didnt support the police statements so I guess it took a while to surface. Pathetic.

read it for yourself.

Makes it a bit harder for the gung ho, shoot first ask questions later crowd to defend the coppers actions now doesnt it?

moX

Mr John
17-08-2005, 08:48 AM
Good find mox, the truth will out.

Barfridge
17-08-2005, 09:12 AM
And of course the government would never release this information, due to 'security' concerns.

The question is whose security are they protecting? It's definitely not the security of the people, as one of them was shot in the head for no reason. This is classic arse covering by people in power, and its about time something is done about it.

pacman
17-08-2005, 09:55 AM
What do you mean "your" police?

imoXu
17-08-2005, 10:17 AM
"your police" didnt mean anything, I first posted this to a UK busa forum and cut it out for here.

moX

Scoundrel
17-08-2005, 04:36 PM
It will be interesting to see what the cops say about it.

Its wierd to see cops on the streets in London with guns, coz they usually don't carry.

dugy
17-08-2005, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Scoundrel@Aug 17 2005, 03:36 PM
It will be interesting to see what the cops say about it.
Probably just: "That's what he gets for being a darkie."

Tex
17-08-2005, 05:02 PM
Interesting read !!

Still not convinced !

Sure the police made a mistake.....mistakes happen and mistakes sometimes cost lives, but with them believing he was a terrorist would you prefer the mistake was to not over react and destroy yet another train and kill more innocent people ??
It is a shame as to what has happened, but lets put the whole thing into context.....your a police officer who has just witnessed 57 people killed through a cowardly attack within your own country, you are under the belief that you are following one of these people as they head down into a tube station ? it's a remotley detonated device which means that whilst the subject is alive he is a risk....harsh ....but a fact of life.
As for shooting in the head !! well would you shoot the guy in the chest if you thought he may of had some sort of body bomb on !!! not really a hard question !! and who cares if they missed three times ! they were 9mm rounds that don't go to far when shot into the side of a train !

Lets look at a terrorist UNDER REACTION....lebanon 1983 marines fail to react due to poor understandings of rules of engagement and ONE terrorist kills 220 marines !!!
Now unfortunately this is a WAR on Terror and part of warfare is innocent people being caught up in the crossfire......The Australians in Bali sure as hell didn't ask to be targeted nor did the people in the world trade centre on Sep 11th, Mistakes are made as we are all Human , and yes the police make mistakes ....but when the terrorists attatcked and killed innocent people....they were not making a mistake !! Innocent people were their target !!
Big difference to police attempting to do the right thing and save lives ! The police officers didn't go to work that day thinking ! Geez I might shot some innocent guy in the head today ! And I assure you that the police officers involved are going through hell right now trying to cope with what they have done !

It's not hard to defend the police actions at all.......Put yourself in their shoes

dugy
17-08-2005, 05:24 PM
^WHS^

number9
17-08-2005, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Tex@Aug 17 2005, 09:02 AM
Interesting read !!

Still not convinced !

Sure the police made a mistake.....mistakes happen and mistakes sometimes cost lives, but with them believing he was a terrorist would you prefer the mistake was to not over react and destroy yet another train and kill more innocent people ??


I am going to go out on a limb and say... yes. I'm probably going to be the only one to express this opinion, but oh well. I would rather they not have reacted & not killed someone who clearly had nothing to do with it. I would rather be free & dead than alive & enslaved.


It is a shame as to what has happened, but lets put the whole thing into context.....your a police officer who has just witnessed 57 people killed through a cowardly attack within your own country, you are under the belief that you are following one of these people as they head down into a tube station ? it's a remotley detonated device which means that whilst the subject is alive he is a risk....harsh ....but a fact of life.
As for shooting in the head !! well would you shoot the guy in the chest if you thought he may of had some sort of body bomb on !!! not really a hard question !! and who cares if they missed three times ! they were 9mm rounds that don't go to far when shot into the side of a train !

But that's the thing. With a body shot, at least there's a chance if you hit the guy & you're wrong he might live long enough to tell a tale. But this guy was killed first, and questions were asked later. It's all well and good to say "Terrorists this, terrorists that" as many people do (note that I don't mean you in this instance), but the day we start capping innocents because we THINK they might be involved is the day we should just pack up & go home, `cause that's just nuts.


Lets look at a terrorist UNDER REACTION....lebanon 1983 marines fail to react due to poor understandings of rules of engagement and ONE terrorist kills 220 marines !!!
Now unfortunately this is a WAR on Terror and part of warfare is innocent people being caught up in the crossfire......The Australians in Bali sure as hell didn't ask to be targeted nor did the people in the world trade centre on Sep 11th, Mistakes are made as we are all Human , and yes the police make mistakes ....but when the terrorists attatcked and killed innocent people....they were not making a mistake !! Innocent people were their target !!
Big difference to police attempting to do the right thing and save lives ! The police officers didn't go to work that day thinking ! Geez I might shot some innocent guy in the head today ! And I assure you that the police officers involved are going through hell right now trying to cope with what they have done !

It's not hard to defend the police actions at all.......Put yourself in their shoes

148908


You make good points, which unfortunately makes it hard for me to refute them. :| The problem is that everything you say is true, terrorists target civilians & kill them. But unfortunately that's happening with us now as well, the police shot & killed a guy who had a family and had nothing to do with it. It's too late for an apology, it's too late for a pardon & for him it's too late to do anything at all.

Unfortunately I don't have all the answers, but I do know that this guy's family is probably inconsolable - he was killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (as were practically every victim of the terrorism acts you mentioned), and the British government doesn't seem to give a shit. They have a ridiculous "head shot on sight" policy, and this is the net result.

PrestigeCBR
17-08-2005, 06:58 PM
It's a part of todays life, and if I was that policeman I would of most likely done the same, you would of been shiting yourself.

I'm with Tex on that one as he has had experience in that field.

mystery
17-08-2005, 10:19 PM
And that link is gospel?

For every website that claims it was legit, there is one that screams "conspiracy"

Tex
18-08-2005, 08:42 AM
Number 9 ,
You are entittled to your opinion, and thats fair enough , I for one as you know disagree with you on a few issues, I personally would rather see the odd innocent person shot if it meant something like Bali, Sep 11 or London happening again. I head to London in 4 weeks time, I'll have with me my wife and my two sons aged 13yrs and 8mnths, I would rather the message be out there that if you F%&K with the police you will come off second best, it's a message that may send a terrorist group back into hiding whilst they reconsider a way to do their attack , and each day they wait there is a better chance they will be caught ! being Dead isn't being free....I've seen lots of dead people and not one of them looked free to me ! and as for enslaved....well we are far from that, I've seen lawless countrys where life means nothing, if you think shooting someone in an attempt to save innocent people is bad then try living in a country where they shoot people over a family feud from 3 generations ago....and get away with it.....if thats Free ...well you can have it ! I'd prefer to live in a society with rules and laws.

Body shots as you said may not always kill , and that is why they shoot heads !! Police officers are not trainned to shoot to wound ! and the only time a police officer uses a weapon it is in order to kill, because he has made the assesment that lethal force is required to mitigate the risk. If you trainned officers to shoot to wound then you would have an out of control situation with police using firearms without a need to. Remember you are asking someone to make a life and death decision within a few seconds, and using a firearm should not even be considered unless killing that person is the only way to ensure the situation is maintained safely. innocents are always shot by accident and they don't have to be a terrorist. but as I said mistakes happen. Remember we have a legal system that asks 12 citizens to decide over a long and lenghty process to decide if someone is guilty, and the system still gets it wrong, The police officer on the street is one man making the same decision in a matter of seconds !

i don't think we are targeting innocent people , (if that is what you meant in the 3 paragraph)

look I don't for one second think that killing an innocent man is right, but in the context of the situation I think it is an unfortuate mistake...by no means acceptable ! and the police will be working on ways to ensure there is less chance that it happens again.

As for the riduculos head shot policy....it's the only way to be safe.

It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 !


sorry for the long and boring rant guys ! ;) :D

sathid
18-08-2005, 09:06 AM
something else to remember is that in thier minds, it was possible he has a bomb on him. not much point in shooting in the chest as it may still leave time for him to detonate the bomb, which of course is what they are trying to prevent.
it's a terrible thing to have happen, but theres a lot of terrible things in this world (no doubt i'd sing a different tune if it was my family, but still)
i also feel sorry for the officers who shot him, and those who made the call/gathered the intelligence. i can only imagine the guilt you'd carry with that.

Infusi0n
18-08-2005, 10:27 AM
They fucked up, he got killed, his family got a shitload of money for their story + from the british government. I guess it is just a fine line between being over zealous and having an accidental shooting (like this one) or being to passive and having an incident like the 1st bombings, or bali or twin towers (both times it got assaulted)

azathoth
18-08-2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Tex+Aug 18 2005, 08:42 AM-->
Number 9 ,
I personally would rather see the odd innocent person shot if it meant something like Bali, Sep 11 or London happening again.

149037
[/b]

I for one would feel much more comfortable if I knew the only people trying to kill me were the terrorists and not also the police.

<!--QuoteBegin-Tex@Aug 18 2005, 08:42 AM
I&#39;ll have with me my wife and my two sons aged 13yrs and 8mnths, I would rather the message be out there that if you F%&K with the police you will come off second best, it&#39;s a message that may send a terrorist group back into hiding whilst they reconsider a way to do their attack

149037


Now the bomb attached to me is hooked up to a heart monitor and is set to detonate if my hear rate drops beyond a reasonable level.

Congratulations, you&#39;re now participating in Security Theatre the game where we erode your rights and civil liberties to make it look like we&#39;re stopping the terrorists, when in reality we&#39;ve achieved nothing.

Infusi0n
18-08-2005, 10:31 AM
I am personally the biggest fan of the new ASIO laws (brought in last year) allowing them to remotely access your computer and change information on it without leaving evidence, ie: You can be SET UP legally! Of course it is the Australian government so they would never be involved in anything like that *cough* echelon *cough*. Seriously it is going to take civil liberties groups ~20 years to remove the crap from the patriot act .

dugy
18-08-2005, 10:59 AM
People that choose to criticise so quickly should use their superior wisdom to come up with a better, practical, solution.
Then analyse your idea, find the holes, fix, repeat. (Should apply to anything really.)
Let us know when youíve got something.

Coz we all wanna live in a utopia.

Tex
18-08-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by azathoth@Aug 18 2005, 02:27 AM
Now the bomb attached to me is hooked up to a heart monitor and is set to detonate if my hear rate drops beyond a reasonable level.


Congratulations, you&#39;re now participating in Security Theatre the game where we erode your rights and civil liberties to make it look like we&#39;re stopping the terrorists, when in reality we&#39;ve achieved nothing.

149062


Are you serious !! you have to look at historic data and asses your risks from that ! Never in History has a remote detonated bomb been set off that way, so do you think it&#39;s going to be assesed as a likely risk !!.

What is the point of having civil liberties and rights if you live in a lawless society where any criminal-scum can impeed on those rights and Liberties with no recourse ! sort of defeats the purpose of having those rights in the first place.
looks like we are stopping the terrorists but really achieving nothing ??? I&#39;d be interested in your views on how they should be stopped ? or do you think they don&#39;t need to be stopped ? and if they want to attack innocent civillians then thats their right, and they should be encouraged to do so ?? :rolleyes:

gohan
18-08-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Tex@Aug 18 2005, 12:14 PM
I&#39;d be interested in your views on how they should be stopped ? or do you think they don&#39;t need to be stopped ?

149099




AH OOOOHHHH! :unsure: :)

Mr John
18-08-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by mystery@Aug 17 2005, 10:19 PM
And that link is gospel?

For every website that claims it was legit, there is one that screams "conspiracy"

149000


Hey, try reading a newspaper every now and then, and then try something really crazy and read a foreign newspaper once in a while - strangely our propaganda machine&#39;s version of events often conflicts with other people&#39;s propaganda.

Ok so what is a terrorist, someone who&#39;s beliefs embolden them to indiscriminatley take the lives of innocents - such as Jean Charles de Menezes, late of Brazil, such as the 52 victims of the July London bombings, such as the mangled remains of people of any Iraqi city subjected to bombing campaigns, such as any civilians in any conflict in history. Ain&#39;t no difference, they were all innocent, they are now all dead at the hands of people who felt rightous in what they were doing - that&#39;s what a terrorists do, that&#39;s how you can tell theyr&#39;e terrorists.

I really can&#39;t that believe people are still buying this War on Terrorism crap - how is it not transparently obvious that the concept of a war on terrorism is just hugely bazaar? War is terrorism, no two ways about it and as such Army personnel are terrorists, including any AJs here present. War is state sponsored terrorism, theoreticaly it&#39;s one state&#39;s regieme trying to kick the shit out of another state&#39;s regieme y killing and injuring a shit load of innocent civilians, maiming their infrastructure, spreading disease and misery.
It&#39;s just a matter of who you ask - ask any civilian survivor of any state&#39;s military intervention, it&#39;s terror and make no mistake it&#39;s terrorism. Anything that states otherwise is propaganda and lies.
Wars are primarily driven by competition over resources and over business concerns. War is business, it&#39;s huge business, it&#39;s always been this way and probably always will be.

Apparently war is hell too, though you wouldn&#39;t think it looking at the people who orchestrate them. Why it seems to a picnic for our fearles leaders, sheltered as they are in bomb-proofed palaces, protected by distance, by billions of dollars of armour purchased with misappropriated tax and batallions of the duped. See I disagree that part of war is innocent people being caught in the crossfire, I believe that war targets innocent people, just like regular terrorism.

How to stop terrorism? Stop terrorising.

This &#39;war on terrorism&#39; and the invasion of Iraq have been proven to be based upon a mountain of lies and deception. Yet when the same people who lied to drag us into it suggest that "well, it was worth it" - we don&#39;t stop to think that they might be lying again? Why do so many people swallow their lies over and over - can I get an answer to this question from the members here who still obviouisly believe them?

But look at me rambling on again, back to the point. If they suspected the device was able to be remotely detonated what would shooting him in the head have done? The information the UK cops had was wrong, so wrong it cost a man&#39;s life - in the name of protecting life. See that just doesn&#39;t add up, I&#39;m sure if you ask his family they&#39;d agree. They had options, there was huge doubt, they killed him anyway, this is not justifiable.

Tex, I disagree with you wholeheartedly on so many things, nevertheless I wish you and your family a pleasant journey and a safe return.

Tex
18-08-2005, 01:22 PM
Mr John , it&#39;s all cool to disagree with my opinion ,

It is a very different view to believe that Australian troops in the last few years that have been involved in Timor, Solomon Islands, Bouganville, Afghanistan and Iraq are in your eyes terrorists. And one that I totally disagree with !!
Australian troops DID NOT target civillians , terrorists TARGET civillians in an attempt to turn civillians against their political leaders, a pretty common tactic that is the underlying factor of terrorist attacks.

Ok so what is a terrorist, someone who&#39;s beliefs embolden them to indiscriminatley take the lives of innocents

this is what you think a terrorist is ?? two words in there that show that Australian troops are not terrorists......Indiscriminately !!! and innocents !!!

Aust troops work to strict rules of engagement to minimise the chance of both indiscriminate killings and innocents being killed !

The war on terror isn&#39;t based on lies , it&#39;s based on 3000 people killed on Sep 11th and that was just the culminating point ! it&#39;s based on radical extremists targeting innocent people who didn&#39;t ask to be targeted ! if they targeted troops then thats all well and good , the troops have put themselves in that position , but innocent civillians didn&#39;t.
Is the UN a terrorist organisation ?? As they use armed troops and the threat of force to ensure human rights throughout the world ! No not at all !
What Australian troops did in Timor was to free people from the control of an oppresive goverment who did not respect human rights, Same as what the US is doing in Iraq , And the same as what the US and Australian troops are doing in Afghanistan.
And I&#39;ve asked and lived with survivors of a states military intervention ! and I was taken into their homes and treated like family because of the freedom that Australian and US troops had given the people, Once again it is the vocal minority that will say otherwise.

I respect your opinion Mr John , it&#39;s just that I&#39;m seeing it from the other side of the fence, and I believe that the stance I took and the decision i&#39;ve made have been for the greater good, and if I had the choice i would do it all over again. If I had not done what i have done and seen the things that I have seen then i believe i would be making a judgement that would be based purely on media interpretations, I&#39;ve read the media and walked the ground that they are reporting about, so I&#39;ve got both sides of the story , not just one ! So please excuse me if I stick to what I believe is fact :)

All in all I love these forum debates !! It&#39;s great to hear what people have to say, people are not all meant to agree....otherwise the world would be a boring place.

And yes Mr John I&#39;m hoping for a pleasant trip and a safe return....but isn&#39;t the world a sad place when you have to wish for that rather than take it for granted that it will be safe ?? :unsure:

azathoth
18-08-2005, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Tex+Aug 18 2005, 12:14 PM-->
Are you serious !! you have to look at historic data and asses your risks from that ! Never in History has a remote detonated bomb been set off that way, so do you think it&#39;s going to be assesed as a likely risk !!.

149099
[/b]

So that means it can never happen in the future? Technology is always improving, for good and for bad. In fact with my rudimentary knowledge of electronics I could make such a device right now for under a hundred dollars.

<!--QuoteBegin-Tex@Aug 18 2005, 12:14 PM
What is the point of having civil liberties and rights if you live in a lawless society where any criminal-scum can impeed on those rights and Liberties with no recourse ! sort of defeats the purpose of having those rights in the first place.
looks like we are stopping the terrorists but really achieving nothing ??? I&#39;d be interested in your views on how they should be stopped ? or do you think they don&#39;t need to be stopped ? and if they want to attack innocent civillians then thats their right, and they should be encouraged to do so ?? :rolleyes:

149099


Lawless society? Where the fuck did I claim that we need to get rid of laws? I just don&#39;t agree with your &#39;hey if we kill a couple of innocent people it&#39;s okay&#39; reasoning. How many innocent people is it okay to kill?

Do you really believe that I might think &#39;they shouldnt&#39; be stopped&#39; or even that they should be encouraged? Do you believe we should just kill everyone of a different ethnicity to the queen so your kids can be safe? (No, I don&#39;t think you believe that)

Tex
18-08-2005, 01:43 PM
No Azathoth i don&#39;t believe we should kill people just because they are of a different ethnic race !
And the lawless society is the end result of giving you all the civil liberties and rights that you or any other person wants ! our society has over time decided on what is right and what is wrong......hence the RIGHTS and civil liberties that people now have. Society is not eroding your rights and liberties it&#39;s just asking you to live within them !

And you&#39;re right , I&#39;m sure a device can be set up that way....but it hasn&#39;t , hence the reason it&#39;s not assesed as a likley risk.....it&#39;s called probability !! :rolleyes:

azathoth
18-08-2005, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Mr John+Aug 18 2005, 12:48 PM-->
Ok so what is a terrorist, someone who&#39;s beliefs embolden them to indiscriminatley take the lives of innocents - such as Jean Charles de Menezes, late of Brazil, such as the 52 victims of the July London bombings, such as the mangled remains of people of any Iraqi city subjected to bombing campaigns, such as any civilians in any conflict in history. Ain&#39;t no difference, they were all innocent, they are now all dead at the hands of people who felt rightous in what they were doing - that&#39;s what a terrorists do, that&#39;s how you can tell theyr&#39;e terrorists.

How to stop terrorism? Stop terrorising.

149112
[/b]

Mr John. I agree with you for the most part, but as Tex has argued, the definitions of War and Terror are more nuanced than you make them out to be.


Originally posted by Tex@Aug 18 2005, 01:22 PM
The war on terror isn&#39;t based on lies , it&#39;s based on 3000 people killed on Sep 11th and that was just the culminating point ! it&#39;s based on radical extremists targeting innocent people who didn&#39;t ask to be targeted ! if they targeted troops then thats all well and good , the troops have put themselves in that position , but innocent civillians didn&#39;t.

149123


Attacking Afghanistan, maybe - they were supporting terrorists, I&#39;ll give you that one. But Iraq? Documents have been out for some time which continue to prove that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist orginizations. They&#39;ve also not found any WMDs. Why does the reason for being in Iraq continue to change?

By the way, what the fuck is a &#39;war on terror&#39;. How does a war on an idea work?


Originally posted by Tex@Aug 18 2005, 01:43 PM
No Azathoth i don&#39;t believe we should kill people just because they are of a different ethnic race !
And the lawless society is the end result of giving you all the civil liberties and rights that you or any other person wants ! our society has over time decided on what is right and what is wrong......hence the RIGHTS and civil liberties that people now have. Society is not eroding your rights and liberties it&#39;s just asking you to live within them !

149126


I don&#39;t believe in giving people all the rights they could ever want. I&#39;m just a really big fan of innocent until proven guilty, as I&#39;m sure you are.

<!--QuoteBegin-Tex@Aug 18 2005, 01:43 PM
And you&#39;re right , I&#39;m sure a device can be set up that way....but it hasn&#39;t , hence the reason it&#39;s not assesed as a likley risk.....it&#39;s called probability !! :rolleyes:

149126


So my example hasn&#39;t happened yet, but I believe plenty of bombs have been set off remotely before. Shooting someone in the head isn&#39;t going to stop that from happening. :blink:

Tex
18-08-2005, 02:39 PM
WMDs in Iraq were NOT the reason the coalition troops entered Iraq, It was one of the factors , but not the main reason....otherwise the US would of gone into Nth Korea a long time ago,
Sure there are heaps of susspect things in regards to militry intervention in Iraq, and yes war is a very profitable bussiness for certain people, and the troops on the ground are not the ones who make money out of it!....even though it paid for my house :D
Saying Iraq has NOTHING to do with terrorist activity is a pretty big call. Seeing as Iraqis have been paying reward bonuses to suicide bombers families for over 15 years now. They have also harboured several nasty people who had no where else to go in the world, along with the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons on their own people killing thousands....all links them to terrorism in my eyes...add to that the training, funding and harbouring of known terrorists ! Remember the Achille Lauro , the only terrorist to escape prosecution was the head of the terrorists....Why ...because he had an Iraqi diplomatic passport and had to be released after american fighter planes forced his aircraft to land in Italy.

I&#39;m also a fan of innocent until proven guilty.....just tell that to the radical extremist in regards to the innocent women and children who want nothing to do with his Holly war !
In a perfect world innocent until proven guilty would work !! we&#39;re far from perfect.

Your example hasn&#39;t happened yet because it would be lucky to make it to the target , Rf hazzards have a hell of an influence on anthing electrical, and by remote device I mean what they call a button bomb , as in you push a button and it detonates, 80% of body bombs are detonated this way. so shooting the guy in the head has a fantastic effect on stopping that.

azathoth
18-08-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Tex+Aug 18 2005, 02:39 PM-->
Saying Iraq has NOTHING to do with terrorist activity is a pretty big call.

149137
[/b]

My mistake - nothing to do with September 11. Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorists as well, I wonder why we haven&#39;t attacked them?

<!--QuoteBegin-Tex@Aug 18 2005, 02:39 PM
Your example hasn&#39;t happened yet because it would be lucky to make it to the target , Rf hazzards have a hell of an influence on anthing electrical, and by remote device I mean what they call a button bomb , as in you push a button and it detonates, 80% of body bombs are detonated this way. so shooting the guy in the head has a fantastic effect on stopping that.

149137


Bombs are unstable, it&#39;s their very nature. Can we really know how terrorist bombs have been detonated? After all the effects of an explosion usually wipes away any evidence. You can&#39;t be certain that shooting someone in the head isn&#39;t going to cause it to explode and it should not be blanket policy.

Terrorism is the symptom of a disease, and you don&#39;t cure a disease by treating symptoms.

Infusi0n
18-08-2005, 03:28 PM
I think what Tex is saying is that you cannot buy into the argument that we went to Iraq purely over WMD charges but that you cannot also buy into the argument we only went into Iraq to ensure Americas supply of oil from the region. There is most likely going to be a little from column A and a little from column B. And he is right about that.

PS: If you want to check out what looks to be a nice hollywood satire about corporate greed and war. http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/lord_of_war/ The trailer for the new nicholas cage movie Lord of War looks awesome.

azathoth
18-08-2005, 03:37 PM
But that&#39;s not what our fearless leaders told us!


Originally posted by Infusi0n@Aug 18 2005, 03:28 PM
I think what Tex is saying is that you cannot buy into the argument that we went to Iraq purely over WMD charges but that you cannot also buy into the argument we only went into Iraq to ensure Americas supply of oil from the region. There is most likely going to be a little from column A and a little from column B. And he is right about that.

149148


The columns that support this war would put the Coliseum to shame, but like that ancient roman building most of them have decayed and no longer support their original purpose.

xavo
18-08-2005, 03:37 PM
wow this thread has really gone off on a tangent
i feel that it is my duty to take whateva i see on tv or read in the paper or even better, what i find on the internet and spit it back out as if it is my own thought! (sound familar) thats right even though i have never been to these countries or fought in the war against extremeist islam (cause that is what it is) i beleve that my opion is right and that who ever stands up against what i think is as ass
DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILAR?? :P

well tex you got my vote you have been there and done that and your view (even though slighly right wing) seems logical
no-one is right or wrong in war and lots of people loose out on both sides of any conflict
but as some famous guy once said (i can&#39;t remember who)

you sleep well at night because men stand ready to visit violence to those that would do you harm

we enjoy our standard of living and society because of this

and body bombs with heart rate moniters i wouldn&#39;t be shooting my mouth off that you could build one BIG BROTHER may be watching ;)

Hailwood
18-08-2005, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by azathoth@Aug 18 2005, 03:37 PM
But that&#39;s not what our fearless leaders told us!
The columns that support this war would put the Coliseum to shame, but like that ancient roman building most of them have decayed and no longer support their original purpose.

149150


Your metaphor (simile?) runs deeper than that dude.......the coliseum was destroyed by war......

Tex
18-08-2005, 04:12 PM
At the end of the day I for one am totally against any unnessercary war !!
Yes people will say all wars are unnessercary...I don&#39;t agree.

Wars suck and affect lives both in the short term and the long term, if we had the perfect world then this would be fantastic .....But it doesn&#39;t matter how many miss Universe contestants want WORLD PEACE....it just ain&#39;t gonna happen.

and yes my views may be a bit right wing.....just right of centre :D but i have a very jilted impression of some people in this world.


Train for the day the old men say will never come again
Pray the night when peace takes flight and the dogs of war decend !


Now to throw everyone into a spin !

What is the difference between september 11th and Hiroshima ? I actually think Hiroshima is the largest terrorist attack ever !! Goes back to targeting innocent people !

PrestigeCBR
18-08-2005, 04:14 PM
People watch a lot of 007 James Bond and NCI movies ;)

Dingo
18-08-2005, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Tex@Aug 18 2005, 04:12 PM
What is the difference between september 11th and Hiroshima ? I actually think Hiroshima is the largest terrorist attack ever !! Goes back to targeting innocent people !

149160


Ooo Ooo let me field this one!

Sept 11th was peacetime and the attack started a "war"

Hiroshima/Nagasaki was in wartime and was necessary to force the Japanese to surrender so there would be peace.

And now for something completely different (apologies Monty Python):

Dingos big conspiracy theory! ™
with credits to Farenhite 911 and The end of Suburbia (both documentarys, watch end of suburbia anyway you can)

A certain young redneck from Texas, got the job as the most powerful man in the world. He enjoyed this position of power, but unfortunately seemed to be very ineffective and not very bright. He ended up spending a lot of time on holidays as he didnt know what to do when he was in the office. The only thing he knew how to do was fight, and steal and squander oil profits. So when he got tired of being on holidays, he called some very good friends of his father, and asked if they could make life more interesting for him.

September the 11th came, and this young redneck all of a sudden had a reason to live. There was a fight! So he went looking for the perpertrator of September 11 and couldnt find him, and besides the country he was in had no Oil to steal and squander. So a campaign was started whereby another country, which the young rednecks father had beaten a few years ago and that looked like an "easy beat", would allow the fight to continue and also give the young redneck his Oil! So he sent the children of his fellow citizens in, who were then maimed and killed, and who also maimed and killed people of this easy beat country, and finally they got the oil. Unfortunately the people of the country that were invaded didnt like having this army around (just like how you wouldnt like being hit in the head by a sledgehammer) and decided to show their displeasure in the same manner that this army had come into the country.

[aside:Can anyone else see the similarities between the pre iraq rape and pillage Ranting and Raving that was going on then and compare to whats happening now with the Ranting and Raving over Iran ... and what do Iran and Iraq have in common, ill give you a hint, its black and when refined fules our bikes, oh and the Iranian government also has an "unacceptable" viewpoint of the world]

In the meantime this war for oil profits gave the young redneck a great public prescence in his home country and showed that he was a worthy leader that should be re-elected to continue his campaign of war. Now you see, The redneck leader needed to secure oil supplies as his country was extremely dependent on oil energy and without which they would return to the pre industrial age within the next 15 years.

But then the young redneck ran out of money chasing after oil, just like he had done when he was in diapers and in charge of the family company. Only this time he had ruined not his companies books, but his countries economy! He needed a distraction and reason for why all this money went missing and he already had a plan which he had used before, which surely would work this time ??

*to be continued !!! *
(the above does not necessarily represent the views of the author, mainly its the views of a long freaking week and im really tired)

The whole war on terror is a grab for oil, because oil equals energy and energy equals production and production equals the big bucks.

And from what Ive seen on the "suicide bomber" shooting, on the BBC world service, it was a terrible, horrible mistake, that oh so conveniently told the terrorists in language they understand ... "DONT F$%# WITH US, WERE BRITISH". Of course then leaking the chain of errors that caused the mistake kind of lessens the impact of the "message"...

Its all coming back now why i dont think ... my head hurts im going to lie down ...

9zero
19-08-2005, 01:44 AM
Its very interesting and most amusing to see people opinions based on NOTHING more than what they have seen on the news / paper / documentaries / written in history etc...

How many of us have a PERSONAL involvement and or reliable information source apart from the above mentioned with any of this stuff?

I have my own opinion based on the above but I cant prove any opinion I have about this issue and I think most of you would have a difficult time doing the same.

As I said, its just quite interesting

Mr John
19-08-2005, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by 9zero@Aug 19 2005, 01:44 AM
Its very interesting and most amusing to see people opinions based on NOTHING more than what they have seen on the news / paper / documentaries / written in history etc...

How many of us have a PERSONAL involvement and or reliable information source apart from the above mentioned with any of this stuff?

I have my own opinion based on the above but I cant prove any opinion I have about this issue and I think most of you would have a difficult time doing the same.

As I said, its just quite interesting

149296

Dude, they&#39;re opinions, something we&#39;re all entitled to, if you have some feel free to express them.

xphread
19-08-2005, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by xavo@Aug 18 2005, 03:37 PM
but as some famous guy once said (i can&#39;t remember who)

you sleep well at night because men stand ready to visit violence to those that would do you harm

we enjoy our standard of living and society because of this

149151But, if those men who control the "men standing ready" are left unchecked...

we have to deal with the standard of living that includes the fear and uncertainty that comes with "terrorist attacks". :unsure:

Medling with others affairs can have intersting outcomes. :mellow:

Tex
19-08-2005, 10:22 AM
xphread , I agree with you ! our politicians should be held accountable by their actions, and they are....thats why we are a democracy !
Ever time i went overseas it was at the say so of a politician, and each time I went I could always find 1 good point as to why I was going,
believe it or not the majority of Afghanis want U.S intervention because they are aware that their country is in a totally unfit state, it has been in conflict, both internal and external for the last 200 years, they are more than aware that the way forward is with the help of the U.S. It is a vocal and violent minority that oposse the US because they are losing their corrupt powerbase on which they established their wealth and lifestyle. And believe it or not (I don&#39;t really care) Iraq is very similar !

medling with others affairs will sometimes have dire consequences , but so will sitting back and watching it happen unchecked !

And Dingo , I for one don&#39;t really agree with the story of &#39;we&#39;re at war so it&#39;s ok to wipe a city off the map&#39;
The innocent civillians in those cities were not at war , their goverment and their armed forces were at war, the 2 year old children killed wouldn&#39;t of even been able to say the word !

Is the oil in Iraq a contributing factor in the invasion of Iraq ???? Maybe ! are WMDs a &#39;factor&#39; ?? Maybe ..is the oppresion of an entire country ....???? Maybe ..is the slaughter of innocent people by a dictator ??? Maybe!! Is the amassing of the most powerful army in the region, when you have shown intent to use it and invade other countries for oil ??? Maybe is having that army in the hands of a power hungry dictator ??? What about harboring, trainning and financing terrorist organisations ???? All of these things and heaps more have to be taken into consideration as to why the invasion happened, it&#39;s not put down to one single reason.....come on people....you have to give the leader of the free democratic world more confidence than that ! These are educated people supported and advised by educated people, We (the coalition) have never invaded a country purely for oil.......But Iraq did !!! when they went into Kuwait !!

Infusi0n
19-08-2005, 10:47 AM
No offense but saying afghanistan has no oil is a little bit short sited, you might want to read up on it because afghanistan is one of the worlds biggest oil hubs, as well as having huge natural reserves. Because of its location afghanistan allows control of oil reserves from a large number of countries (they have to pipe it through).

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan.htm

*back in my box*

Tex
19-08-2005, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Infusi0n@Aug 19 2005, 02:47 AM
No offense but saying afghanistan has no oil is a little bit short sited, you might want to read up on it because afghanistan is one of the worlds biggest oil hubs, as well as having huge natural reserves. Because of its location afghanistan allows control of oil reserves from a large number of countries (they have to pipe it through).

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan.htm

*back in my box*

149354



Quite right !
Thats the reason the Russians invaded !

Daise
19-08-2005, 11:40 AM
I have asked my friend (who&#39;s ex-pat) who&#39;s a bobby in the UK for his thoughts on the whole thing and what&#39;s it&#39;s like to be an officer there at the moment:


I don&#39;t think anybody will know the full facts of what actually happend... If it hasn&#39;t already been mentioned the media will latch onto any news that will sell (Evidenced by the fact the cop that did the shooting was being hailed as a hero on the day it happened). And the fact that most of the info in the news has been from "statements" I would ask who has made these "statements" and were they even there, and are they just saying things coz they don&#39;t like cops? I know the pictures obviously show that he was not wearing a big jacket - and stating that he was wearing one was either an error or a lie... But the way that professional standards work these days if it is a lie you can guarentee that somebody&#39;s ass will be nailed to the wall - I know I lot of people won&#39;t believe that but you I can assure you that they do not leave any stone unturned and it&#39;s a lot more detailed for a cop that it would be for any criminal.

And from my limited experience of dealing with public order (fights/brawls/verbal altercations) situations and situations when peoples stress levels and adrenaline levels are really high to accentuates the variations in peoples stories. You can have 2 people who were standing in almost the same spot when something happened looking in the same direction and they can give you two almost conflicting accounts as in the end it comes down to individual interpretation.

As to the number of times he was shot, when you make a decision to take someone down in that manner you don&#39;t fuck about. You either all or nothing. You don&#39;t leave any grey area&#39;s e.g. fire once and ask "Did I get him?". Officers had been order to shoot to kill suspected bombers and other officers have since been critisied by the Prime Minister for using a taser on one of the failed bombing suspects instead of shooting him! I conceed that 11 shots (8 hit him and three missed) is probably excessive but what price do you put on the lives of carrige full of commuters?

And that brings me to the world famous "shoulda squad". I think instead of just saying what the cop (or cops I am unsure of how many officers have actually fired) should&#39;ve done you have to put yourself in his position... A suspected bomber getting on a tube train just a day after others have attempted to blow up more trains and buses - and you have to make a decision on whether or not he is an enough of a risk that you have to shoot him or let him go - putting the lives of the passengers at risk? A stituation that took probably took less than 10-15 seconds to play out is going to be analysed by 100&#39;s of people for many years? How many thoughts can you process under extreme stress in 10-15 seconds - and how clear might you thought process be?

I know that opens questions about how come he&#39;s carrying a gun then and all that, but there is a hell of a lot different from a training environment to when you are doing things for real. In my opinion you just can&#39;t train for a situation like this. Even if the cop was in the wrong he needs some kind of protection in making a decision like this, otherwise other cops aren&#39;t going to have enough confidence in the process to draw their weapons and it&#39;s going to end in many, many people losing their lives... and then the cop that didn&#39;t shoot will probably get strung up anyway!

number9
19-08-2005, 05:11 PM
President Bush isn&#39;t from Texas, he&#39;s from Connecticut.

Dingo
19-08-2005, 11:42 PM
oops i forgot to activate the "sarcasm buttons" before my earlier post...

or more to the point, I forgot that sarcasm is lost on the interweb :huh: :rolleyes:

ima sucha noob

in the main i agree with tex tho.

And i thought the russians invaded cos of extremist muslims (mujahadeen?) threating neighboring stans of the USSR ?

Scoundrel
20-08-2005, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Dingo@Aug 19 2005, 10:42 PM
And i thought the russians invaded cos of extremist muslims (mujahadeen?) threating neighboring stans of the USSR ?

149523


The Soviets occupied Kebabistan (Afghanistan) because the Soviet-backed Communist government which was "running" Afghanistan was failing miserably. And because the Mujahideen were being a pain in the ass in allowing the said Soviet-backed Communist government becoming properly established. As I recall, the United States seriously thought it was the beginning of a larger campaign to invade Iran (which at the time was aligned with US; the Shah of Iran was in control then) so the Commies could have a warm water port and some influence in the Middle East region (control over middle east oil fields). In response, the US boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympic games. Boo Hoo (Jimmy Carter was the US president then). There was also an apocalyptic movie made a few years afterwards called T.H.R.E.A.D.S. by the BBC which used the Afghanistan/Soviets/Iran/US confrontation as a scenario. Its worth watching.

As for the shooting on the Tube...welll..I dunno. I was sceptical when I heard the reports when it initially happened that he "vaulted the ticket barriers to get away." I mean, anyone who has been to London would have seen and used the ticket barriers at the tube stations. They are not something that someone can jump over as a matter of course. The media over here at the moment are dribbling all sorts of shit about the Met. You can just imagine what the tabloids are publishing. However the CCTV does not lie; only when the camera footage becomes available to the public will we be able to form a sound judgement as to who has been dribbling shit and who hasnt. At the moment all we have to go on is media sensationalism and half baked statements leaked from a "source" or an officer who is in the loop (who has since been suspended). That isnt enough to convince me i&#39;m afraid - whichever way.

onikage
20-08-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by azathoth@Aug 18 2005, 02:13 PM
innocent until proven guilty

149134


nice concept...

don&#39;t really think it applies though...

I mean in a criminal court who has 1st say?? The prosecution, which sets up the "this person did this" etc...

placing all their evidence on the table leaving the now presumed guilty party to refute.

innocent until proven guilty???

pah!

more like guilty until proven innocent...


still, that&#39;s my opinion...

also my opinion, Tex has made some damn good points, and given he&#39;s actually BEEN there and most of us haven&#39;t, arguing with him&#39;s pretty stupid as we don&#39;t have the experience to back it up where as he does.

if this offends, sorry, but like I said.


my opinion! :P

PS - on the topic of peace etc, consider my sig...


sic vis pacem para bellum - if you want peace, prepare for war

Ceasar said it and it&#39;s still appropriate today

azathoth
20-08-2005, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by onikage@Aug 20 2005, 09:57 AM
nice concept...

don&#39;t really think it applies though...

I mean in a criminal court who has 1st say?? The prosecution, which sets up the "this person did this" etc...

placing all their evidence on the table leaving the now presumed guilty party to refute.

149565


Seems sound to me, the defendant enters the court presumed innocent and the prosecution has to make an effort to prove that they are guilty. If their is no evidence against them they have nothing to refute and the case dissolves. Remember, evidence provided must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which is fairly difficult to do if the defendant is actually innocent.

The court system is full of flaws I&#39;ll agree, but I still think this one works reasonably well.


Originally posted by onikage@Aug 20 2005, 09:57 AM
also my opinion, Tex has made some damn good points, and given he&#39;s actually BEEN there and most of us haven&#39;t, arguing with him&#39;s pretty stupid as we don&#39;t have the experience to back it up where as he does.

149565


Has Tex actually been a police officer pursuing a suspect bomber on the underground rail system in the UK after a terrorist attack? Otherwise I don&#39;t think he has unique enough experience that disqualifies the rest of us from making judgement calls. (If you have Tex, please enlighten us)

P.S. the problem I had with Tex&#39;s post was that he implied that a policy of indiscriminately shooting innocent people who might be suspected of carrying a bomb would make the rest of us safe. I have yet to give an opinion on this particular shooting.

PrestigeCBR
20-08-2005, 12:48 PM
Has Tex actually been a police officer pursuing a suspect bomber on the underground rail system in the UK after a terrorist attack? Otherwise I don&#39;t think he has unique enough experience that disqualifies the rest of us from making judgement calls. (If you have Tex, please enlighten us)

P.S. the problem I had with Tex&#39;s post was that he implied that a policy of indiscriminately shooting innocent people who might be suspected of carrying a bomb would make the rest of us safe. I have yet to give an opinion on this particular shooting.

149575


Any experience good or bad is a lot more than a TV / news paper lounge chair critic. He has for fact seen and experienced more than we all will in our life times. Have YOU been in a position where you had to shoot someone or make that decision that you where about to end someone life? Tex has for over 15 years!
Food for thought ;)

azathoth
20-08-2005, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by PrestigeCBR@Aug 20 2005, 12:48 PM
Any experience good or bad is a lot more than a TV / news paper lounge chair critic. He has for fact seen and experienced more than we all will in our life times. Have YOU been in a position where you had to shoot someone or make that decision that you where about to end someone life? Tex has for over 15 years!
Food for thought ;)

149591


I&#39;m sorry, I apologize, you&#39;re right. We should destroy this topic and all others like it because none of us (except Tex) are qualified to hold an opinion or discuss with others our own held beliefs. This event will not be investigated by a jury or a judge but by other police (only those that have shot a terrorist please), because only they are qualified to make a decision. In the end us &#39;couch critics&#39; must submit our humble will to our benevelont leaders who only have our best interests in mind and are infallible. :blink:

Taz
20-08-2005, 06:28 PM
MrJohn

by your account the australian government were acting as terrorists when they sent australian terrorists (troops) to our north in 1943 to stop the advance of the japanese armies on australia.


Those soldiers are the reason you speak english today and enjoy the standard of living you do.


my opinion is that you are a fuckwit for saying soldiers are terrorists.

sleep easy at night knowing that the state sponsered terrorists are the ones who will be on the frontline defending australia while you sit around drinking coffee and hopefully staying alive.

PrestigeCBR
20-08-2005, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by azathoth@Aug 20 2005, 09:39 AM
I&#39;m sorry, I apologize, you&#39;re right. We should destroy this topic and all others like it because none of us (except Tex) are qualified to hold an opinion or discuss with others our own held beliefs. This event will not be investigated by a jury or a judge but by other police (only those that have shot a terrorist please), because only they are qualified to make a decision. In the end us &#39;couch critics&#39; must submit our humble will to our benevelont leaders who only have our best interests in mind and are infallible. :blink:

149614


Well bugger me, did you not ask the question "Has Tex actually been a police officer pursuing a suspect bomber on the underground rail system in the UK after a terrorist attack?"
All I&#39;m saying is your / our openion is based on the media (TV - Papers - web sites) which all rely on profit so the truth can be compromised. Unless your there, we can be lead like the blind.
Think about it.

Gryphen
20-08-2005, 07:23 PM
Okay, I for one have gone in harms way, I have chased and apprehended violent armed persons, not knowing if I was about to wear a bullet or what.

Tracked criminals through industrial areas and also tropical forrest, with a police Dog, a handgun and no body armour.

All I can say is that from now on if a Cop calls out HALT or STOP, well you had better freeze to the spot.

If I was chasing somebody who I believed might be about to detonate a bomb, and I called Halt/STOP and they kept going or paused then moved.... I&#39;d be answering questions as to why I shot the person in the head as well.

azathoth
20-08-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by PrestigeCBR@Aug 20 2005, 07:17 PM
Well bugger me, did you not ask the question "Has Tex actually been a police officer pursuing a suspect bomber on the underground rail system in the UK after a terrorist attack?"
All I&#39;m saying is your / our openion is based on the media (TV - Papers - web sites) which all rely on profit so the truth can be compromised. Unless your there, we can be lead like the blind.
Think about it.

149631


Hey no hard feelings I&#39;m just pissed off at being dismissed with invective such as &#39;armchair critic&#39;.

The media is biased yes, but all sources of information are biased. The government is particularly biased, and the information soldiers are given (in warlike scenarios) is far more biased than the information given to us by the media. Why do you think we have terms like &#39;enemy combatants&#39; and &#39;targets&#39; - because they dehumanize people so they&#39;re easier to kill. Soldiers and police officers are less focused on morals and ethics than politicans and thinkers because they focus on goals and simple solutions rather than the bigger picture.

In the end, if I was in the same situation as these police officers - I probably would have done the exact same thing! Fuck yes I would have shot someone in the head if I thought they had a bomb on them.

azathoth
20-08-2005, 08:00 PM
Taz, Mr. John did not say that soldiers are terrorists - he used the specific phrase &#39;by your account&#39;. Sit the fuck down. :angry:

Gryphen
20-08-2005, 08:02 PM
Have to agree Az re the dehumanizing terminology to make it easier to stomach killing people.

My favorites have always been the pair of Collateral Damage and Friendly Fire. Two very interesting ways of describing the wrong perople being killed.

Gryphen
20-08-2005, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by azathoth@Aug 20 2005, 08:00 PM
Taz, Mr. John did not say that soldiers are terrorists - he used the specific phrase &#39;by your account&#39;. Sit the fuck down. :angry:

149640


Az sorry dude but he did in fact make the statement:- "War is terrorism, no two ways about it and as such Army personnel are terrorists, including any AJs here present. "

Taz
20-08-2005, 08:33 PM
azathrth what fucking right do you have to say soldiers and police have less morals


in saying that you must have been both and have less yourself.


The people yes people i served with actually have very high morals and standards.


and get your eyes checked MRjohn did call soldiers terrorists...

Read the whole lot not what suits you.

Gryphen
20-08-2005, 09:02 PM
Whoa, hey Taz, he didn&#39;t say that service personnel etc had less Morals, his statement reads they are less focused on morals and more on goals and simple solutions. He wasn&#39;t saying we had less maorals, just not focussed on it in the same manner as Pollies etc.

In that he is wrong, yes we are (or in my case were) focussed on Solutions/Outcomes to actions but Moral implications were a major part of our decision making process, as unlike a lot people (and one nation in particular&#39;s forces) we are/were all signatories to the Geneva Convention.

For those unaware, ALL Aussie Service Personnel are made to read and sign that they will abide by the Geneva Convention, if you choose not to sign you are discharged from the service.

USA personnel are NOT signatories of the Geneva Convention in the same way.

Taz
20-08-2005, 09:18 PM
yep grypho but my comment still stands.

morals is what keeps us from reactive killing in a given situation the green and the blue. I think at times it is harder for the blue ones. more things to sway them.





some peeps also watch too much tv.


ie marine films ,,, we must take that hill at all costs... looks good in the movies for john wayne

Gryphen
20-08-2005, 09:40 PM
At least with Servicemen generally the Enemy is in front, with the Boys in Blue the enemy is possibly anyone.

number9
20-08-2005, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Mr John@Aug 18 2005, 04:48 AM
I really can&#39;t that believe people are still buying this War on Terrorism crap - how is it not transparently obvious that the concept of a war on terrorism is just hugely bazaar? War is terrorism, no two ways about it and as such Army personnel are terrorists, including any AJs here present. War is state sponsored terrorism, theoreticaly it&#39;s one state&#39;s regieme trying to kick the shit out of another state&#39;s regieme y killing and injuring a shit load of innocent civilians, maiming their infrastructure, spreading disease and misery.

149112


A Prussian general named Karl von Clausewitz, a man much smarter than any of us, said "War is merely the continuation of [politics] by other means".

As much as I think the moniker of "the war on terror" is stupid (and it is), war and terrorism are not mutually inclusive. You are naÔve (and wrong) to equate the two.


Originally posted by Gryphen@Aug 20 2005, 11:23 AM
I can say is that from now on if a Cop calls out HALT or STOP, well you had better freeze to the spot.

If I was chasing somebody who I believed might be about to detonate a bomb, and I called Halt/STOP and they kept going or paused then moved.... I&#39;d be answering questions as to why I shot the person in the head as well.

149633


He was being chased (if in fact a chase occured, which is still disputed) by plain-clothed agents. They were guys in civilian clothing, not easily-identifiable police officers. There is a big, huge, monumental difference.

Daise
20-08-2005, 10:39 PM
Uh, did ANYONE read my post? <_<

Azathoth I have an email from a UK POLICE OFFICER who I asked for their opinion and an idea of what it&#39;s like there. I think what he says is fair and accurate.






And number9, who let you near a computer? :P ;)

Gryphen
20-08-2005, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by number9@Aug 20 2005, 10:16 PM
He was being chased (if in fact a chase occured, which is still disputed) by plain-clothed agents. They were guys in civilian clothing, not easily-identifiable police officers. There is a big, huge, monumental difference.
149671


I would suppose that certain rules will always apply, if it was the same as Police operate under here they would have to be attempting to identify themselves as Police etc.

number9
20-08-2005, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Gryphen@Aug 20 2005, 02:41 PM
I would suppose that certain rules will always apply, if it was the same as Police operate under here they would have to be attempting to identify themselves as Police etc.

149675


Given that this guy was shot, at the last report (from News.com.au today) 8 times (including 1 in the shoulder) I tend to think, no, they weren&#39;t following regular procedures. It was panic-inspired, and that itself is tragic.

If there were all sorts of explosions going off all over the place, I was of a different ethnic background to the country I was living in & a bunch of guys with guns in plain clothes started chasing me... I wouldn&#39;t hang around either.

Daise: Does that mean you missed me? :P

dugy
21-08-2005, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by azathoth@Aug 20 2005, 06:52 PM
I&#39;m just pissed off at being dismissed with invective such as &#39;armchair critic&#39;.

What&#39;s an armchair critic?
Isn&#39;t that someone who&#39;s not in the game but sitting there making judment calls.
Isn&#39;t that what you lot are doing?

Would you take riding tips from someone who&#39;s never been near a motorbike?

Taz
21-08-2005, 12:24 AM
well put dugy

9zero
21-08-2005, 01:13 AM
yes that was very well put Dugy

azathoth
21-08-2005, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Daise@Aug 20 2005, 10:39 PM
Uh, did ANYONE read my post? <_<

Azathoth I have an email from a UK POLICE OFFICER who I asked for their opinion and an idea of what it&#39;s like there. I think what he says is fair and accurate.
And number9, who let you near a computer? :P ;)

149673


I haven&#39;t said anything about your post, it was useful input from an experienced person - thanks for contributing.

Would I take tips from someone who hadn&#39;t ridden a motorcycle? If they had knowledge of the physics behind how it worked and the technology - most definitely. A person who&#39;d studied enough about motorcycles could probably give better advice then Rossi himself.

9zero
21-08-2005, 04:26 AM
hate to say it dude but your clutching at straws there

you can have as many degrees and as much booktime as you want but in the end nothing beats experience - period.

Gryphen
21-08-2005, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by number9@Aug 20 2005, 11:06 PM
Given that this guy was shot, at the last report (from News.com.au today) 8 times (including 1 in the shoulder) I tend to think, no, they weren&#39;t following regular procedures. It was panic-inspired, and that itself is tragic.

If there were all sorts of explosions going off all over the place, I was of a different ethnic background to the country I was living in & a bunch of guys with guns in plain clothes started chasing me... I wouldn&#39;t hang around either.

Daise: Does that mean you missed me? :P

149677


If the bastard was still moving.... he&#39;d have as many bullets in him until he STOPPED moving.

If you believe (that is the Police Officer) that the guy has a bomb strapped to him, of course you are going to do whatever it takes to stop him, if he keeps moving after you start to shoot you keep going until he is no longer moving, I&#39;d much rather that than not doing it and having your suspicions confirmed and there being another suicide bomber succeed in a crowed subway.

Gryphen
21-08-2005, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by 9zero@Aug 21 2005, 04:26 AM
hate to say it dude but your clutching at straws there

you can have as many degrees and as much booktime as you want but in the end nothing beats experience - period.

149697


Admittedly in this case Az is spreading it a bit thin, but I will take you to task on the booktime Vs experience.

A nurse can have a LOT of Experience......


... a Doctor has plenty of Booktime.


I would prefer a LOT of Booktime AND Experience.

dugy
21-08-2005, 08:20 AM
Not the perfect analogy, but you&#39;re dodging the point, but we can run with this track.

What theoretical experience has anyone got here?

Even if I&#39;d read:

How to be a good soldier 101
Defending your country 156
Negotiating with zealots 211
&
What makes terrorists tick tick boom 243.

That&#39;d give me enough theoretical experience to realise I have N.F.I.

IMHO

azathoth
21-08-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by dugy@Aug 21 2005, 08:20 AM
Not the perfect analogy, but you&#39;re dodging the point, but we can run with this track.

What theoretical experience has anyone got here?

Even if I&#39;d read:

How to be a good soldier 101
Defending your country 156
Negotiating with zealots 211
&
What makes terrorists tick tick boom 243.

That&#39;d give me enough theoretical experience to realise I have N.F.I.

IMHO

149707


This is all tangential to my original point &#39;we should not have a policy of indiscriminately shooting people who may be suspected as being terrorists&#39;! If I had said &#39;they should have ...&#39; then I might understand why Tex has more qualifications than me to make a call - but I haven&#39;t! If only people in the military were qualified to make such moral calls and policies - we would live in a violent autocracy.

imoXu
21-08-2005, 11:29 AM
to all those people who say that shooting this lad so many times was neccessary coz he may have had a bomb hidden can you please explain why the cops let him ride the fuckin bus to the train station.

If im not mistaken they had only just recently had a bus bombing.

Explain to me why he was allowed on the bus by this proffessional group of police whos only interest is protecting us civilians.

Surely if they suspect this guy has a bomb they are under some obligation to put an end to his movements the moment they are aware of the fact.

moX

The coppers screwed up in this case, pure and simple.
Does that mean they dont have a diffiucult job, no
does it mean they are evil, no
does it make this all part of some bizzare conspiracy, no

does it mean they are not perfect. YES

and in light of this level of imperfection I would prefer that there wasnt a standing shoot to kill order in place until they have had some sort of inquiry and sorted out whatever prblems led to this monster balls up.

The other thing I would like to know is why the coppers story turned out to be far from the truth. Surely they had a number oif witnesses to the incident that would have verified what actually happened but instead they decided to bend the truth to make themselves look better.

moX

xavo
21-08-2005, 03:10 PM
yep it was a balls up but i dont think that the blame can lie all with the police,
cause if some jurno isn&#39;t quite sure of what is going on they will make up shit to fill the gap sorta like what az does
they dont care what they say as long as it sells

azathoth
21-08-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by xavo@Aug 21 2005, 03:10 PM
cause if some jurno isn&#39;t quite sure of what is going on they will make up shit to fill the gap sorta like what az does

149792


What? Where?

Edit: In fact I&#39;ll buy you a frosty cold beer if you can prove anything i&#39;ve said is made up.

azathoth
21-08-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Taz@Aug 20 2005, 08:33 PM
azathrth what fucking right do you have to say soldiers and police have less morals
in saying that you must have been both and have less yourself.
The people yes people i served with actually have very high morals and standards.
and get your eyes checked MRjohn did call soldiers terrorists...

Read the whole lot not what suits you.

149645


Well it&#39;s hard to argue for someone else, because everyone takes away their own interpretation. But reading through Mr John&#39;s post I believe he is making an argument that the definition of terrorism is one that can be applied to all kinds of combatants - not that they are terrorists necessarily (Mr John. feel free to correct me.) You may note that I actually disagree with him to some extent in a later post about his argument, specifically stating that the definition is more nuanced than he makes it out to be.

Do I believe that soldiers and police have less morals? Words are being put into my mouth yet again, if morals were quantitative it&#39;s entirely possible that soldiers have more than me. But morals aren&#39;t absolute, they&#39;re subjective principles for dealing with &#39;right and wrong&#39;.

Dyno
21-08-2005, 04:25 PM
I hesitate to wade into this debate but I will anyway

I think the shooting was tragic and unfortunate yet I think the reasoning behind the police actions were sound.

They were ultimately trying to prevent the deaths of many with the death of one.

It&#39;s sad that the world isn&#39;t a nice place but it&#39;s true. The police made an error but one that I think should be forgiven in the current climate.

Taz
21-08-2005, 08:19 PM
Dyno

only one thing to add to your post


in the current climate forgiven.......but the incedent not forgotten so that


- procedures are upgraded

- lets the terrorists know that if detected they will be shot

- an also brings a bit of needed authority back to police for when told to stop
to stop.

the last one is not a let off for dickhead police we have all seen our share.

xavo
21-08-2005, 10:06 PM
Bombs are unstable, it&#39;s their very nature. Can we really know how terrorist bombs have been detonated? After all the effects of an explosion usually wipes away any evidence
Watching a little too much T.V.heaps of stuff is left after once bombs have gone off it just takes a while to find it and with the nature of 90% of exploseives is that i would play soccer with a hand grenade


So that means it can never happen in the future? Technology is always improving, for good and for bad. In fact with my rudimentary knowledge of electronics I could make such a device right now for under a hundred dollars.
SURE under 100 good one

look i know your right, you havent made shit up you just dribble it. and your just a little one eyed on your view of the world and you ARE an armchair critic i mean if you haven&#39;t been in a situation what real right do you have to condem anyone?
oh yeah and one more thing
in your posts you have more or less agreed that soldiers are terrorists
and that they are brainwashed killing machines

If only people in the military were qualified to make such moral calls and policies - we would live in a violent autocracy.
that these people who are just like everyone else in the country except they dont just sit behind computers playing BF1942 and gobbing off about how things should be they are out trying to make a differance
maybe you need to take a long hard look at yourself

and gryph
do you think that the poor soldier in down town baghdad can tell if which dirty muj was shooting at him from the crowed market place??
i think that they are now in a similar situation that most law enfocement are in where the lines between who are the bad guys and who are the innocents get blurred.


Whoa, hey Taz, he didn&#39;t say that service personnel etc had less Morals, his statement reads they are less focused on morals and more on goals and simple solutions.
Gryph have you actully read what you wrote i mean maybe your fingers were moving faster than your brain

Tex
22-08-2005, 11:11 AM
Damm , you get off the computer for the weekend and look what happens !! :D

Ok , Now just to sort out a few things , I&#39;m not saying that my OPINION is right, All i&#39;m saying is that it is based on more than what I read in the media, I have lived in most of the countries that we are actively discussing and I have spent 15 years of my life training and experiencing the life threatening situations that the police officer in the UK was exposed to. I can fully understand the reasons behind why the UK police officer pulled the trigger. And yes , regardless of the outcome I believe at the time he made the correct choice.

Has Tex actually been a police officer pursuing a suspect bomber on the underground rail system in the UK after a terrorist attack? Otherwise I don&#39;t think he has unique enough experience that disqualifies the rest of us from making judgement calls. (If you have Tex, please enlighten us)

No , I haven&#39;t , been a UK police officer in this role, But I believe that the extensive training and experience that I have gainned will place me in a much more enlightened position to offer relevant feedback on certain situations. As for my unique experiences, well needless to say , that chasing a single potential bomber throuigh a train station would of been put in the &#39;Easy&#39; basket compared to situations and choices that I have already had to experience.
Azathoth, I&#39;m not saying that your opinion is not relevant, All i&#39;m saying is that my opinion is based on practical experience as well as the media reports, and I for one have been misrepresented by the media on several ocassions, so I don&#39;t hold much faith in the media. But I am saying that I am far more informed to make a judgement call on weather or not to pull a trigger to kill someone that you are !!

Azathoth , your assesment of what information troops are given.........
The government is particularly biased, and the information soldiers are given (in warlike scenarios) is far more biased than the information given to us by the media

Is tottaly incorrect, I&#39;d like to know when you have been privy to the information that troops are given .....or once again are you basing this off what the media has told you ! Troops are given relevant information to allow them to make an effective judgement of any potential situations. I think troops are well aware of morals and ethics, and sometimes they hinder the decisions that troops make, I&#39;ve seen obvious bad guys who have shown the intent to kill after attacking Aust troops NOT be shot in the back as they were running away, Only to stop running to shoot at the Aust troops who were not shooting at them !! Now Morally and ethically the troops made the right choice, but it put them in harms way and risked their lives, They should of shot them in the back as they ran away !

8 shots into the suspect is not what I would call Panic inspired , A UK SAS soldier shot a suspect female terrorist 13 times, 8 times in the head before she even hit the ground, when asked why he shot her 13 times he responded "I only had 13 rounds in my pistol" The female was unarmed and was not in the process of a Terrorist attack , but she was going through a full rehersal of the car bombing they were to execute the next day ! All in all a good result I think.
When you pull a trigger on a weapon it is to subdue using leathal force, and you pull the trigger as many times as you believe you need to !

azathoth
22-08-2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by xavo+Aug 21 2005, 10:06 PM-->
Watching a little too much T.V.

149943
[/b]

Give this shit a rest, I haven&#39;t owned a TV for four years.


Originally posted by xavo@Aug 21 2005, 10:06 PM
heaps of stuff is left after once bombs have gone off it just takes a while to find it and with the nature of 90% of exploseives is that i would play soccer with a hand grenade

149943


Hand grenades are designed to be stable, home made terrorist bombs made with rudimentary access to impure chemicals aren&#39;t necessarily so. The bombs terrorists make are called IEDs for a reason.



Originally posted by xavo@Aug 21 2005, 10:06 PM
SURE under 100 good one

149943


http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=heart%...ial&sa=N&tab=wf (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=heart%20rate%20monitor&hl=en&hs=jy1&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wf)

Pick one of the cheap monitors in the list, most of them have an alarm feature for when the heart rate drops too low. Hook two wires up to the speaker and up to your bomb trigger.

<!--QuoteBegin-xavo@Aug 21 2005, 10:06 PM
look i know your right, you havent made shit up you just dribble it. and your just a little one eyed on your view of the world and you ARE an armchair critic i mean if you haven&#39;t been in a situation what real right do you have to condem anyone?
oh yeah and one more thing
in your posts you have more or less agreed that soldiers are terrorists
and that they are brainwashed killing machines

149943


I don&#39;t think soldiers are terrorists, I have been explicitly careful in this entire thread to show my opinions as little as possible but people like to draw conclusions when they see me dissagreeing. FYI I have the utmost respect for those in the armed services and in the police who allow me to be an armchair critic without having to pick up a gun to say what I want. That includes those on PSB who I might disagree with (and have quite possibly pissed off).

Tex
22-08-2005, 11:27 AM
Azathoth , I for one haven&#39;t been pissed off by your opinion , you are entittled to it and it has been put across in an educated and well thought out way ! And it&#39;s a much better way to hear that someone has a different opinion rather than being shot at (and yes I&#39;ve had opinions voiced that way!)
IF terrorists are making explosives from scratch then they can tend to be unstable , If they are using manufactured explosives then they are quite stable.
As for the monitor , Yes it could work , but what happens when the conection from the monitor to your chest breaks due to movement of your body ! :blink: I wear one when I train , and it&#39;s a few years old , maybe they are of better quality now, but I sure as hell wouldn&#39;t want to rely on the conection :blink:


And more importantly ......How the F%&K have you survived four years without a TV !!!!!! :D

Mr John
22-08-2005, 12:28 PM
Taz, that&#39;s fine if I&#39;m a fuckwit in your opinion, if I had any respect for your opinion I&#39;m sure I&#39;d need a tissue right about now.
I speak English because my home country was colonised by the British a long time ago, the native language/traditions etc were suppressed and mostly lost.

I will take a moment to clarify my earlier point. Soldiers are people trained to hurt/kill/maim destroy infrastructure etc, they are tools of the state. If they are on our side they are heroes - if they are on the other side they are terrorists. The state decides who is a terrorist based on the state&#39;s (note - not the population’s) interests. You&#39;ve heard it before, one man&#39;s terrorist is another man&#39;s freedom fighter. It&#39;s a matter of propaganda - and evidently you&#39;re still swallowing it by the bucket-load.

You&#39;re from Tasmania right? I&#39;ll refrain from the usual senseless Tasmania jokes and ask: roughly how long has English been the spoken language there? English/Japanese - I doubt it makes any difference to the original inhabitants, oh that&#39;s right Trugannini(sp?) passed away, there&#39;s no one left to ask.

I can understand and respect a person&#39;s desire to enlist to protect their country from danger, it is an honourable intention. States can and do abuse this trust for their own ends, propaganda is what allows them to get away with it. Note that I deliberately used two different words: country and state, there is a difference.

Here&#39;s something I don&#39;t understand. All day long people bag politicians, they lie, cheat, evade, self aggrandise, bully, bribe etc to get their own way & pay themselves handsomely with our tax dollars too. When it comes to domestic issues we don&#39;t believe a word they say. Yet send some boys off to war and to question them is tantamount to treason. Please explain.

Here&#39;s the part where I apologise for my part in taking this off track into blah-blah-blah land. Sometimes I just don&#39;t know when to put the brakes on - ask Nath, I&#39;ve tried, I even culled some of this rambling before posting.

Sometimes this world sucks because inside every one of us is an asshole trying to get out and some succeed more that others. Sometimes this world is awesome - like the roads around Dwellingup on a sunny day.

I&#39;m officially over this thread now.

xavo
22-08-2005, 06:31 PM
I agree with MR JOHN on ONLY one thing, I too am over this thread! Enough politics, more riding.

PrestigeCBR
22-08-2005, 08:57 PM
It&#39;s been good reading, I&#39;ve enjoyed it ;) better than alot of crap posted lately.

Every one has an opinion, and they all differ.