London shooting
-
For my part, I am very tolerant of honest, even if horrible, mistakes made by those who are trying to defend our civilization from this Islamic terrorism. However, if these guys lied about that mistake, than it is no longer an honest mistake, and, if true, they should certainly be confronted with that and dealth with accordingly. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: defend our civilization from this Islamic terrorism That’s a very us and them attitude and about as useful as "defend our Islamic civilisation from this western oppression" I don’t agree with either but its interesting that you can take these stupid statements from either side and swap a few terms and not tell the difference. Go on Stan, let me have it, I have a quiet afternoon to fill
-
fakefur wrote: The simple fact of the matter is an innocent man was gunned down in the most horrific and uneccesary fashion by a bunch of macho cowboy wannabes trying to get some kind of revenge and send some kind of a signal. I'm interested to know if you've met the cops in question, to know their motives and thoughts so intimately ? Or are you just jerking off, based on reports from a biased media ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian of course I don't think the police officer in question went out that morning thinking "I can't wait to kill me some Brazillian today!". Anybody who says that is a complete idiot. What I do think however is that there was an almighty f**k up going all the way from the cop with the gun up to the chief of police and that f**k up resulted in the death of an innocent man. That to me is unacceptable and demonstrates that for whatever reason the police there are not competent to carry guns or use them properly. The actual people involved (including the man who pulled the trigger 11 times :wtf: ) should be tried for manslaughter at least. Pleanty of people have been tried and found guilty for things they didn't mean to do and were sorry for afterwards. Police are no different. [edit] And no I don't "jerk off" as you put it so eloquently [/edit]
-
David Wulff wrote: That way, when every armed police unit in the country goes on strike and lays down their weapons, leading to a surge in violent and gun crime, I can take glee in The Sun publishing a full written appology for helping to bring our country into exactly what the terrorists want it to become. It seems you want it to become a police state. The police, like the military, must be subject to civilian control. If the police can't accept that, they have no business being police. The loss of civil liberties as a reaction to terrorism threatens to become more damaging than the terrorism itself. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
Um, you need to get your facts straight mate, ideally separating what was reported by the media, now and then, and what was actually reported by the police. The police did not say what he was wearing, eyewitnesses and the media did. The police did not say he ran anywhere, eyewitnesses and the media did. The police did say he entered a train, he did. The police did say he didn't comply with police instruction when subsequently challenged, he didn't comply. The police did say they tried to restrain him, and they did try to restrain him. What has happened here is classic Trial by Media. All motive - all motive - has been speculated by the media. False information was put out by the media (and as it has in the past I believe in some cases willingly), to gorge themselves on all the hype. The police where unable to come forward and give corrections because of the IPCC investigation into the shooting. Ask any lawer, you can't talk about a case in public while it is still being investigated, especially not if there is the possibilitiy it could become criminal. Aside from the legal repercusions it only goes further to create kneejerk uninformed reactions such as yours. This leak will not help Mr. Menezes family get a fair investigation, it is another sad day for them, and for us, where once again public opinion will decide the fate of many lives while the law is casually cast aside. None of this information changes anything. Do not forget that this man was positively identified as a man who had set off one of the eight bombs that had exploded on the London transport network within the previous two weeks. And we now know that as fact, if mistaken. Do you think CCTV footage of each of those bombers doesn't show them calmly walking onto their tube train before they murdered 52 civilians and injured more than 700? Like you, a big part of me wants the police officers involved in this case to be sent to prison for carrying out their sworn duties to protect us. That way, when every armed police unit in the country goes on strike and lays down their weapons, leading to a surge in violent and gun crime, I can take glee in The Sun publishing a full written appology for helping to bring our country into exactly what the terrorists want it to become. :|
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler ::
Thank you for applying common sense to an emotive and media distorted topic. Fake fur and some of his cronies appear as extremist fodder who constantly spew out negative opinions about western society. Perhaps they should go live in Iran and see if they can log on from there.
Stoopid signatures...
-
Thank you for applying common sense to an emotive and media distorted topic. Fake fur and some of his cronies appear as extremist fodder who constantly spew out negative opinions about western society. Perhaps they should go live in Iran and see if they can log on from there.
Stoopid signatures...
Dude I won't answer your post because so far this has been a fairly well mannered discussion without too much personal name calling. All I will say is please go somewhere else if you want to lower the tone and turn it into one of those pointless name calling semantic excercises.
-
Christian of course I don't think the police officer in question went out that morning thinking "I can't wait to kill me some Brazillian today!". Anybody who says that is a complete idiot. What I do think however is that there was an almighty f**k up going all the way from the cop with the gun up to the chief of police and that f**k up resulted in the death of an innocent man. That to me is unacceptable and demonstrates that for whatever reason the police there are not competent to carry guns or use them properly. The actual people involved (including the man who pulled the trigger 11 times :wtf: ) should be tried for manslaughter at least. Pleanty of people have been tried and found guilty for things they didn't mean to do and were sorry for afterwards. Police are no different. [edit] And no I don't "jerk off" as you put it so eloquently [/edit]
Do you think that because of 1 mistake (by whatever degree) we should stop any policeman from carrying a gun with which to defend the realm from not just the threat but the actions of bomb-laden islamic terrorists?
Stoopid signatures...
-
Do you think that because of 1 mistake (by whatever degree) we should stop any policeman from carrying a gun with which to defend the realm from not just the threat but the actions of bomb-laden islamic terrorists?
Stoopid signatures...
-
Dude I won't answer your post because so far this has been a fairly well mannered discussion without too much personal name calling. All I will say is please go somewhere else if you want to lower the tone and turn it into one of those pointless name calling semantic excercises.
I didn't call you any names, rather I just alluded to your obvious predilictions. If you don't like that or would prefer to keep those hidden then I suggest it is you, not I, who should refrain from posting.
Stoopid signatures...
-
And I think you should try answering a question that goes to your argument. Evasion and insults do not push the argument forward. Again, you show yourself to be good at posting vitriol but incapable of retorting when questioned.
Stoopid signatures...
-
And I think you should try answering a question that goes to your argument. Evasion and insults do not push the argument forward. Again, you show yourself to be good at posting vitriol but incapable of retorting when questioned.
Stoopid signatures...
It was you who put the strawman into the discussion, not fakefur. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
I didn't call you any names, rather I just alluded to your obvious predilictions. If you don't like that or would prefer to keep those hidden then I suggest it is you, not I, who should refrain from posting.
Stoopid signatures...
-
It was you who put the strawman into the discussion, not fakefur. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
I don't think so - fake_fur wrote: That to me is unacceptable and demonstrates that for whatever reason the police there are not competent to carry guns or use them properly. I asked him to expand on that since he made the assertion, not I.
Stoopid signatures...
-
I don't think so - fake_fur wrote: That to me is unacceptable and demonstrates that for whatever reason the police there are not competent to carry guns or use them properly. I asked him to expand on that since he made the assertion, not I.
Stoopid signatures...
So if it was your brother / father / mother / sister / wife / husband / son / daughter who had been shot in this way you would still be saying the exact same things yes? Sacrifice them to the greater good. Just a mistake. It can happen to anyone. How about if it was you?
-
I don't think so - fake_fur wrote: That to me is unacceptable and demonstrates that for whatever reason the police there are not competent to carry guns or use them properly. I asked him to expand on that since he made the assertion, not I.
Stoopid signatures...
Yes, she said the police there are not competent for carrying guns or use them properly. That may be true or false. But she did not say we should stop them from carrying guns. That was your strawman, although hidden inside a question. Had you really wanted to know her opinions, you would've asked "What should be done with cops that are seemingly incompetent to carry guns?". -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
So if it was your brother / father / mother / sister / wife / husband / son / daughter who had been shot in this way you would still be saying the exact same things yes? Sacrifice them to the greater good. Just a mistake. It can happen to anyone. How about if it was you?
fakefur wrote: So if it was your brother / father / mother / sister / wife / husband / son / daughter who had been shot in this way you would still be saying the exact same things yes? Sacrifice them to the greater good. Just a mistake. It can happen to anyone. How about if it was you? Firstly the use of the word 'yes' at the end of the first sentence is wrong. It implies tacit agreement with your statement where there is none. And I can't see quite where this answers the question. Why are you avoiding it? And to try and trivialise it by personalising it in this emotive fashion is simple and crude evasion.
Stoopid signatures...
-
Yes, she said the police there are not competent for carrying guns or use them properly. That may be true or false. But she did not say we should stop them from carrying guns. That was your strawman, although hidden inside a question. Had you really wanted to know her opinions, you would've asked "What should be done with cops that are seemingly incompetent to carry guns?". -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
To which I would have replied: "Police officers who shoot people will be investigated thoroughly by independent bodies and could face criminal charges if found to be negligent in their duties or judgement, especially when a death occurs." This would make the police realise that they are not above the law - ever - for any reason.
-
fakefur wrote: So if it was your brother / father / mother / sister / wife / husband / son / daughter who had been shot in this way you would still be saying the exact same things yes? Sacrifice them to the greater good. Just a mistake. It can happen to anyone. How about if it was you? Firstly the use of the word 'yes' at the end of the first sentence is wrong. It implies tacit agreement with your statement where there is none. And I can't see quite where this answers the question. Why are you avoiding it? And to try and trivialise it by personalising it in this emotive fashion is simple and crude evasion.
Stoopid signatures...
So now you won't answer a simple and direct question? Have you ever had someone close to you die? I'm just curious to find out if you have any idea what dead actually means since you seem so cavalier with people getting shot. That's why I asked you to consider it being one of your nearest or dearest. If you truly believe what you say then you would say the same thing if it was no?
-
Because somebody doesn't agree with everything that happens does not mean they support the complete opposite. You should read a little more history and talk less stupidity and you might get a bit further in life.
Actually, I have got quite a long way in life. And I don't feel the need to resort to insults to make an argument. You are being very childish. fakefur wrote: Because somebody doesn't agree with everything that happens does not mean they support the complete opposite I'm flummoxed. If you take a side in an argument it means you agree with the basic tenets of that argument. Hence, to disagree is take the opposite view point. If neither of these suit and you prefer fence sitting you should make that plain so as not to confuse people.
Stoopid signatures...
-
So now you won't answer a simple and direct question? Have you ever had someone close to you die? I'm just curious to find out if you have any idea what dead actually means since you seem so cavalier with people getting shot. That's why I asked you to consider it being one of your nearest or dearest. If you truly believe what you say then you would say the same thing if it was no?
fakefur wrote: Have you ever had someone close to you die? Yes, actually, I have, several times. In particular, my partner died of breast cancer ten years ago and I was at her bedside, in the hospice, for the last 6 weeks of her life having nursed and looked after her for some considerable time prior to that and had to sit and watch as she just faded, painfully, away as the cancer had gone to her brain and bones and, by the end, she didn't even know her own son. She was 38 years old and the morphine just dulled the pain, it didn't take it away. And so I sat and swore I wouldn't cry or break down in front of her. And I didn't, until the end. And one day, near the end, she said to me: I know you know how long I've got but please don't tell me. So, whatever you think you know you know nothing. Until you have seen death up close and personal you know nothing. Until it has ripped your life apart you know nothing. So don't you dare presume to question me about life and death and how brave and selfless people can be and what the meaning of life or death is or the value you can put on anyone's life.
Stoopid signatures...
-
Actually, I have got quite a long way in life. And I don't feel the need to resort to insults to make an argument. You are being very childish. fakefur wrote: Because somebody doesn't agree with everything that happens does not mean they support the complete opposite I'm flummoxed. If you take a side in an argument it means you agree with the basic tenets of that argument. Hence, to disagree is take the opposite view point. If neither of these suit and you prefer fence sitting you should make that plain so as not to confuse people.
Stoopid signatures...
OK. Try to read slowly so you can take in all the complicated words here: 1. If I do not agree 100% with your point of view it does not follow that I 100% agree with the opposite point of view. 2. You seem to think by questioning the shooting of the man on the tube train I support Osama Bin Laden and think we should all be blown up. Where you get that from I can only try to imagine. 3. If I wanted to insult you personally I could do a way better job.