I was looking at it in the way of simply torturing that person, then making him "walk the plank" with a bomb and explode himself up.
Seems that even that wouldn't be enough for these people..
Printable View
I was looking at it in the way of simply torturing that person, then making him "walk the plank" with a bomb and explode himself up.
Seems that even that wouldn't be enough for these people..
I agree too. Just seems stupid that we don't :frusty:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
F'king European Human Rights Convention :dry:
Too right Dan......
Stuff the conventions, lets go kick some terrorist ass..!!
[QUOTE=DanB]Do you think that would present a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Bearing in mind that "the society" has rights and if those rights outweigh the right of the individual it's OK.
e.g Everyone has the right to liberty. However convicted criminals can be incarcerated, to protect socerty from them. Everyone has the right to privacy, however in order to detect or prevent crime the Police can invade that right, provided it can be justified.
So I don't think it would cause a particliar problem.
[QUOTE=JPaul]Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
I agree with you privately, but can not publicly. This is due to your poor spelling. I can not and will not be associated with such...such...lowness.
And to think, you wear the mark of the FAG in your sig.....for shame!
Edit: sorry had to fix the spelling mistakes.....*sigh*
[QUOTE=Tikibonbon]Now what are you on about...Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Particliar means particular liar....silly.
[QUOTE=Busyman]Actually when I use it the reference is to "Steve Wright in the afternoon", an old radio show. Well not that old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikibonbon
Words like particliar, ambliance and the like. It was just puerile nonsense, which I didn't particliarly like or oft times listen two. Just that one wee stupid thing stuck with me.
Well well well..... Seems like another suspected bomber was caught in London...
And then there are people like the ones that posted here that said no extra security was needed in the UK, and that they wanted no extra security to live a free life...
Well, seems like a no-no now don't you think?
They've not been caught by extra security you muppet, there's currently an ongoing investigation to try and ferret out the extremists, especially to locate the 4 guys who failed to detonate their bombs on July 21st... :frusty:Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
There have been loads of arrests over the past few days, as part of the investigation into the bombings.
Stop sounding so smug, no wonder everyone hates you.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
I think the British police have done a good job of capturing these guys and, hopefully, we should be moving towards capturing any remaining cells. I think we can hold off the security guards at every mall entrance just for now.
And I somehow doubt that the answer to this problem will be just to beef up security. It will, for one point, be a lot to do with tackling the problem at its roots and ensuring that our youth aren't corrupted into performing these atrocities.
I'm not saying they haven't done a good job, they've done an excellent job.
What I'm trying to get at is that all could have been prevented, and these nutters arrested nearly 4 years ago... It's sad that the British police have only started acting after the blow... :(
Were they going to start investigating the bombings before they happened then? :blink:
Time-machine anyone?
Please to be explaining. Your point (whatever it is) interests me strangely.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
What happened in 2001 that could have possibly alarmed the world that Muslims were trying to target the West?
I'm sure anyone can answer this.....
I mean, there are over 1 million Muslims in the UK, some being extreme... I think that the UK could have, and should have done more to prevent the bombings....
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Our PreCog units aren't as advanced as yours I guess.
It doesn't need to be "advanced". All that needed to be done was to put the level of security to a higher one... Don't you think it would have been better for all if the 7/7/05 would be remembered as simply another day of the year...?
The security was higher and we still had bomb attempts on the 21st. Extra security doesn't mean these things can be prevented.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Can you not refer to them as terrorists or some other term that isn't offensive to the overwhelming majority of Muslims who want nothing to do with the actions enacted in the name of their religion. It would make you sound less prejudiced.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Wow there boy...Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
If more security can't prevent bombers, why not just get rid of them..????
Come on, you must agree that with armed guards down in the Tubes would definately have made these bombers' jobs much more difficult don't you think?
@your second comment... OK, you're right, I shall refer to them as the Muslim Terrorists from now on.
Why not just "terrorists"?Quote:
@your second comment... OK, you're right, I shall refer to them as the Muslim Terrorists from now on.
Patronizing me now eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
I'm not advocating getting rid of all security, and anyone who suggests that as a counter is really deflecting from the good point I made.
Now, if the tubes had had armed guards on and thus had not been a "soft target" I'm sure the terrorists (see?) would have struck elsewhere.
Because if you take the racist elements out he would have no arguments, he isn't against 'terrorists', he's against Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
That is both sectarian bigotry and totally offensive. I for one have no time for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Any semblance of credibility you may have had is lost as far as I am concerned, with that one comment.
That's like saying Catholics waged a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland and in England. I am quite sure that most Catholics in Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales Spain, Italy, Australia, The USA, Canadia ... in fact all over the World had nothing to do with it and decried the violence and murder as totally unacceptable.
Very poor form indeed.
@MChesh: If they were stopped from bombing the Tubes, they may have struck elsewhere.. With security elswhere they would have been stopped too, thus making their mission so much more difficult.
@Rio: Welcome back to the thread..
I am not a racist. Just for your info there are also Jewish terrorists who tried and also succeeded to murder a number of innocent Palestinians in the Territories (they were settlers).
@JP:
I said i had made a mistake... Did you miss that post?
Is this where you said you made a mistake "@your second comment... OK, you're right, I shall refer to them as the Muslim Terrorists from now on." Coz it doesn't look like it to me. Saying "I made a mistake" is normally more apologetic than sarcastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
I do however agree that you are not a racist, being Muslim is not a race. You are a bigot.
The "second-wave" were still able to strike despite increased security after the first attacks. London was in a heightened state of security and they still got to their targets and would have killed more if not for faulty bombs. More security didn't prevent further terrorist attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
So even if we had this extra secuirty you say we should have had four years ago I think these attacks would have occurred as they did.
Edit: Post 666 bitches. :01:
So what's your suggestion then, MChesh, to prevent terrorists (see?) from attacking and killing us on the streets?
We already stated.
You have lots of security and men with guns stopping them killing you on the streets... your in favour of that so you have answered your own question too.
We dont want lots of men with guns around stopping them killing us in the streets thanks. Whether its a terrorist that shoots or a police mistake is immaterial to a corpse.
I find that statement extremely odd.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
You say you wouldn't mid having hundreds of supposed bombers loose on the streets rather than a slight distortion of your life to make sure none of them will detonate..?
Extremely unusual, I must say. :huh:
I feel much safer; and have done for decades, with the threat of terrorism over the sight of Armed Police, there for my "protection".
If i die by the bullet, I at least want to know that it was on purpose.. whoever shoots me ;)
I've told you before, I wouldnt trust half our squaddies with guns, never mind our coppers. :unsure:
Aye about that... wouldn't trust 'em that much after bulleting someone 7 times (!!!) in the head..... :unsure: I'd think 1 would be enough.... maybe even a shot to the legs at first....
What are you talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Shoot a suspected suicide bomber in the leg, what the feck for.
Are you stupid as well as bigoted. A shoot to kill policy does not naturally suggest the leg as a target. Unless it's you, where the 7 shots would be in the arse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Ours are not as inept as your own coppers....
It was 8 times from about 4 ft away, just to make sure... :snooty:
....after they'd already allowed him to travel on the bus 1st...
Its still out whether he was wearing a heavy coat and jumped a barrier 1st... and for some strange reason, the police wont release the video..
However they have been blasted by the coroner and the police complaints authority for releasing "partial" information only, which is designed to show a good light, prior to the investigation..... so thats alright then.
Once the decision to kill someone has been taken the number of shots to the head is actually irrelevant.
It may be emotive to say that they shot him 8 times from 4 feet away. However it does not really make any difference.
The point is whether, under the circumstances, they were justified in their "shoot to kill" policy.
No, they are not.
Just as i disagree with the other thread re: The Death Penalty.
Cool, so we stick with that as the discussion then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Rather than whether or not it was right to "take him out with 8 head shots at point blank range".
(Not intended as parodying you btw.)
Well, as the 1st shot killed him... the argument would be:
"Is it right for the police to mutilate a Corpse"
Which is a different topic :P
:lol: :git:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Interestingly, the would be bomber caught in Rome has said the explosives weren't meant to go off, just to cause panic. He also said they had no connection with the previous bombers. This would tie in with the fact that all four bombs failed to explode, somewhat unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
Source:Quote:
According to the reports, Hussain claimed the men did not talk about al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. 'We had no contacts with the organisation of bin Laden. We knew it existed - we accessed its programmes through the internet - but nothing directly,' he is reported to have claimed, adding that the bombings of 7 July took them by surprise: 'We never had any contact with the Pakistanis.'
Second source:
He also claimed the attacks were in response to the War in Iraq.
He would say that tho', wouldn't he. That would make for a lesser offence one would have thought. Perhaps they even had a script to that effect. Particularly with regard to distancing themselves from mass murderers.Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Two terrorist attacks, involving 4 people, in London, on the underground / bus system, within a week, not linked, somewhat unlikely.
Maybe they failed to go of because home made explosives (if that's what they were) degrade fairly rapidly. I think RF posted that.
Why would the Police, or anyone else, believe the word of a terrorist (which he is, even if his ridiculous claims are true).
Actually it's quite good, because in making these claims he has admitted to being the "bomber", so all that is left to decide on is his intent. Personally I don't give a feck, life in prison either way.