# Disgusted by London Shooting



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/i...&en=746c0082e3985aa4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

If the goal of the terrorists was to bring terror to London, they have done it. Citizens of London now live in fear of being gunned-down their own police, for the crime of acting suspiciously.

Cops typically are entitled to use deadly force to deal with suspects in the process of commiting violent acts. Allowing the police to execute people who appear to be suicide bombers leaves everyone's live-and-death in their hands.

This man did little else to warrant suspicion than come from a house they were monitoring (it was suspicious) and go for a ride on the subway in a bulky coat.



NYT said:


> The shooting shocked many of the country's 1.6 million Muslims, already alarmed by a publicly acknowledged shoot-to-kill policy directed against suspected suicide bombers. And it has dealt a major setback to the police inquiry into suspected terrorist cells in London.
> 
> "This really is an appalling set of circumstances," said John O'Connor, a former police commander. "The consequences are quite horrible." Azzam Tamimi, head of the Muslim Association of Britain, said: "This is very frightening. People will be afraid to walk the streets, or go on the tube, or carry anything in their hands."


I cannot speak from experience, but I must say this: if bombings come to Canada, I would rather live in fear of the terrorists than live in fear of our police.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

If the police are asking you to stop, you stop.

If I'm emerging from a house where police believe terrorist activity originated, wear a freakin' heavy coat in the middle of summer, run into the underground given recent terrorist activity in the city's subways, and don't stop when police ask me to, I wouldn't blame the police for shooting me. Of course, I'd be dead, but....

A regular public transportation user, here's one still more afraid of religious nuts with bombs in their backpacks than the police popping me one.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

lpkmckenna, you live in fear already. This guy ran for no reason, during a very tight time of security already. What on God's Green Earth did you expect to happen? 

I guess you are going to say 'hold a vigil in the name of freedom'? Absolutely pathetic. 

This kid attracted attention to himself, jumped the turnstyles when he had a pass, had questionable behaviour that attracted officials' attention...yadda yadda yadda.

I guess he'll never know how stupid he was, will he? 

You know, people like you and him create the insecurity in cities to begin with. You whine and whine about your freedom but expect safety because 'you are a tax payer'. Perfectly healthy animals in groups, running across Africa, still get eaten, because predators are always able to sustain themselves. Noah's Ark is a farce, because 1/3 of them would have eathen the other 2/3rd's. But since that's 'disgusting behaviour', you fail to accept reality?

That kid essentially said 'HEY I'M A FRICKIN TERRORIST, SO CHASE ME AND MAKE SURE LONDON DOESN'T GET BOMBED'. 

That kid deserves a Darwin Award.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

BeeRich said:


> That kid deserves a Darwin Award.


He already has what he deserves. For once stupidity received an appropriate reward. We really don't need this kind of turd bobbing around in the gene pool.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

My thoughts exactly! This guy got what he deserved!


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

Yay, I'm not the only one with the Conservative view. The police are the enforcers of Law, I have abosolutely no problem with a cop telling me to stop what i was doing. There job is to protect the citizens. And that does come at the cost of personal freedom. Running from police is never a good idea, EVER. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I highly doubt anyone will run from the police in London now. Very distasteful and a tragedy, but...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well... so much for any sort of cultural sensitivity. 

A Brazilian wearing a "bulky coat" (have we seen pictures yet?) in summer. Well, I have a friend from Trinidad who's lived in Canada for most of his adult life (now in is 30s), who wears a coat on days when I'm down to a t-shirt and jogging shorts. That's no excuse to kill a man.

According to today's BBC report, Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year old electrician who had been living as a <b>legal</b> immigrant in the UK, grew up in a slum in Minas Gerais province, where the murder rate is higher than most war zones (<small>Source</small>).

He was approached by up to 20 <b>plainclothes</b> officers, brandishing handguns.


> "They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him. He's dead," witness Mark Whitby told the BBC.
> <div align="right"><small>Source</small></div>


That eyewitness account doesn't jibe with police statements that he was shot while running onto a Northbound train.

One report cites police as saying he "looked suspicious':








So, being brown and "looking like" someone of middle east descent is enough to get your head blown off. Hmmm.

Hopefully, the surveillance tapes of the platform will become public so that we may see some aspect of how this awful event occurred.

M.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

If you ask me.. the just set the precident for more terrorist attacks.

There's always 3 sides to a story.. 1) What you hear from Defendant, 2) What you hear from Procecution, and 3) THE TRUTH.

No matter how you look at it.. things are going to be twisted and manipulated into an event that will NOT be accurate. This happens in most cases.. especially in commercial media.

Shooting a person for running.. from a GANG of "plain-clothed officers" is rediculous. No matter how you look at it. I'd run.. you're damn right.. Anyone can say they're a COP.

Truly SAD.. so much power in this world is being wasted on only things that dillute.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> "They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him. He's dead," witness Mark Whitby told the BBC.


how very KGB/Gestapo

i have a tan, a moustache and very short hair and i speak a foreign language
i don't "look" like i belong
i'd better stroke England off my list of places to visit



> Anyone can say they're a COP


good point, especially since they were in plain clothes

if they had him pinned to the ground why did they have to shoot him in the head or even shoot him at all?

it really is true; "Payback's a bitch"


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> how very KGB/Gestapo


And your suggestion as to how to deal with someone who 1. RAN and 2. was suspected of having explosives attached to him would be what? Run him down and ask him over for tea.
Large groups of people DO NOT identify themselves as police in broad daylight in front of many witnesses if they are not.
I'm not a Cop, but I know they had to make a spit second judgement and had he been a terrorrist we would not even be having this conversation. We would be applauding the good police work for saving many lives.

DON'T RUN!!!!


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vexel said:


> I'd run.. you're damn right.. Anyone can say they're a COP.


And you would be dead! Good choice, given what you know today.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

iPetie said:


> And you would be dead! Good choice, given what you know today.


The point being.. I shouldn't be killed.. by POLICE.. for running. Lazy F#@K's, what ever happened to a good chase? There's are far better ways in which this situation should have been handled.

Also.. It was the intent of not "knowing" at the time.. he didn't.. if he did.. he probably wouldn't have ran. As he probably would have known it was actually a gang of police in plain clothes. If he had the chance to read this thread.. I'm sure he wouldn't have ran.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

Let's review, shall we?

He looked suspicious, because he wore a coat in hot weather. (I'm sure the cops didn't care if he was cold)
Cops asked him to stop to ask him questions.
He ran when they asked him to stop.
He jumped over the entrance in the Tube, when he had a pass. The Tube...where 6 bombs have gone off in the past week? Hidden in casual items.
He continued to run when many officers were chasing him, probably telling him to stop. He didn't. 
He got onto a train. 

Honestly, you people seem to think because he's Brazilian, he was chosen and shot. That's rediculous. I'm sure if Zsa Zsa Gabor did the same, they'd shoot her as well. Who belongs in London when bombs are going off 4 at a time? Who belongs in London when they first realized the first 4 bombs were set off by British citizens?

Why did they have to shoot him? Because they might have thought he would have set off a bomb he was wearing? Ever think of that? How do you think these bombs go off? 

Having multiple bombs detonated in public transit, due to the 'right' of having a backpack or coat loaded with an explosive (but not obvious) is what is killing people. What's not right is that you think apprehending someone that raised suspicions is against people's rights. Who is respecting the rights of those innocently killed up to now? 54 people die and you want to respect the rights of someone who blatantly ran away from multiple people, no matter who they are, asking them to stop in public, during such a sensitive time? 

Yes, perhaps you would run too. At that point we'd be writing about your sorry ass as well. 

Even better yet, what would you have done if you were a cop? "Oh, he seems foreign, so to be politically correct, I should let him go on his merry way on this warm day in his coat, because we wouldn't want to offend anybody by perhaps filtering for more bombs." Ya that would go over really well with the citizens of England. And of course if the situation were reversed when caucasians were setting bombs off somewhere else, race obviously wouldn't be brought into it. 

As the chief of police said, it might happen again, because security is really high right now. I don't think many would expect things to change. Have your opinions, but that kid is right about his rights. Dead right.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vexel said:


> The point being.. I shouldn't be killed.. by POLICE.. for running. Lazy F#@K's, what ever happened to a good chase? There's are far better ways in which this situation should have been handled.
> 
> Also.. It was the intent of not "knowing" at the time.. he didn't.. if he did.. he probably wouldn't have ran. As he probably would have known it was actually a gang of police in plain clothes. If he had the chance to read this thread.. I'm sure he wouldn't have ran.


If you have a bomb attached to you , you should be killed if any lives are threatened.
I don't like it any more than anyone else but people in London now know what this guy didn't. I suspect they act responsibly from this point forward.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Ok.. well.. here's a good question. Why are the police in plain clothes in the first place? If they're there to protect the place, one would think they'd make it apparent. 

How does it justify the shooting him for running? IF this happened all the time.. demonstrations and marches would be blood baths. It's one thing to take force in the situation.. IE: Tasers, skip disks.. etc.. the sole idea of Shoot to Kill.. is beyond comprehension for running.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

iPetie said:


> I suspect they act responsibly from this point forward.


Too little.. too late.

Don't you think even 1 bullet.. to take him down would have sufficed?(I don't think guns were even necessary) Even in the leg? These "police" are trained for this. Shooting him until he was dead.. should never have been an option.

Far too much Power.. for people who can't make use of it Properly.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711779.stm

Imagine you were the family of this man. Then try to justify this ludicrous policy of "shoot the suspicious."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The fact remains that had he heeded their command to stop, he would be alive and free today.

One who makes a decision to run from police in any country makes a mistake that could, and in this case did, cost their life.

Unfortunate? Yes.

Tragic? Yes.

Preventable by the victim himself? Yes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Plain clothes........what if he had gambling debts - could just as well been a loan shark bunch trying to collect.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

True, MacDoc. Even more likely, what if he was Muslim? Many Muslim Londoners are now terrifiied of their own police.

I can remember running from the police. When I was younger, we would go to the "Valley" to drink. Some kids there would smoke pot. If the cops showed up, we would scatter. Want if it were a group of young Muslims doing that? They would run, especially since their traditionalist parents would ream them out for smoking pot and getting arrested.

Don't smoke pot in the valley, young Muslims. Especially if you wear a heavy coat.

As for whether he ran, media reports are not conclusive. Some witnesses have said they didn't see him run. And if he was a bomber, why would he run? He would have just set it off then and there.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

When I first heard the initial reports of this story, I had a funny feeling. Like this guy might have been running because he had drugs on him or something minor... not because he was a terrorist.

My impression of the story is that he jumped the gate because there were guys chasing him, NOT that police were chasing him because he jumped a subway gate.

As for heavy clothes... cities have been global villages for a long time now. We who live in Canada know very well that people from Southern climates dress heavily here even in times when the locals wear shorts and strap shirts.

I didn't realize until this thread that the officers were in plain clothes. No wonder the guy ran from strange men, yelling, and carrying guns.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

All this reminds me of an episode of Law and Order. A young guy coming back from a late night working for a bookie helped a guy change a tire. When he continued walking home he passed a scary dude.

Well, the young man spent half the episode as a suspect in the shooting. His suspicious behaviour, motivated by his illegal activities at the bookie, made him a suspect. Later, the authorities needed his help to apprehend the real killer, which was the scary dude he saw on the street.

The young man, after all the harrassment of the authorities, still was willing to incriminate himself on the stand in order that he could testify in court about having seen the scary dude.

The moral: everyone makes mistakes, but they can still willing to do good things, provided you don't gun them down in the streets for be suspicious.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> All this reminds me of an episode of Law and Order. A young guy coming back from a late night working for a bookie helped a guy change a tire. When he continued walking home he passed a scary dude.
> 
> Well, the young man spent half the episode as a suspect in the shooting. His suspicious behaviour, motivated by his illegal activities at the bookie, made him a suspect. Later, the authorities needed his help to apprehend the real killer, which was the scary dude he saw on the street.
> 
> ...


Good analogy lpkmckenna... if we all lived on Television...


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

MacDoc, what if he had a bomb full of screws and nails and then blew himself up and killed another 50 people. The fact is we can't judge this because we can't understand the enviroment the police are in right now or even london'ers. Secondly the man ran from police for no known reason, he fit a profile and acted irratically. London has been the victim of two terrorist attacks in two weeks. The police are under extreme stress, remember they are people too. This is extremely tragic yet it could have been alot worse if he had indeed had a bomb. Does the man deserve to have lost his life? No. Did he choose to make a bad decision which to most of us made us assume he was trying evade or hide something? Yes. 

I can't stress that you've got to step back and look at all the facts there are so many variables that we don't know. To me I believe this was a mistake that happened at the wrong time, he created a threat and the police eliminated that threat. Its that simple. A man lost his life because he created a threat that warrented the use of deadly force to save lifes. Would this have happened hadn't almost 60 people died two weeks ago from a terrorist attack, not to mention a 2nd failed attempt? Not likly, but things change when there is a present threat and knowledge that it could happen again. The police were proactive in this case rather then reactive. To me it was a choice of 1 life or possibly 50 lives. 

Its quite easy for us to reflect and judge on this after the fact, yet its entirely different if we were there as it was happening and being forced to make a decision immediately on what little we knew.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Did you support the invasion of Iraq based on a maybe.??

Ends do NOT justify the means.

Mistakes happen. This clearly was a mistake with fatal consequences.
I don't hold the police as "guilty of a criminal act" in this case. Accidents happen, especially under stress.

I'm sure every officer involved is asking how they might have earned a different outcome.
But to blame the victim is in my mind very wrong.
There is a reason for uniforms.
Identifiable authority.

Undercover offers risks and rewards.....a risk was realized here.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Jacklar said:


> the man ran from police for no known reason, he fit a profile...


Actually, from the media reports to date, he <i>ran from a group of armed men</i>, who may or may not have identified themselves as police to a person whose first language is not English.

It will be interesting to see the sequence of events that finally comes to light.

I do appreciate the state of mind in London these days, but that's no excuse if this turns out to be an unjustified killing.

M.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Mugatu said:



> Good analogy lpkmckenna... if we all lived on Television...


I guess you don't watch L&O. Most of their story lines are inspired by actual events.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

> He already has what he deserves. For once stupidity received an appropriate reward. We really don't need this kind of turd bobbing around in the gene pool.





> My thoughts exactly! This guy got what he deserved!


I am completely surprised and somewhat disgusted by these comments. This guy was COMPLETELY innocent of anything that would warrant getting shot five times in the head. What about HIS civil liberties? This man's death marks the downward spiral of western culture as we know it. Terror comes from both sides now those who will aim to do you harm and those who are responsible for protecting you.

Where does it stop? Both sides have succeeded in creating an atmosphere of fear.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i am quite suspicious of why the police had to shoot him in the head 5 times AFTER he was pinned to the ground

this has all the hallmarks of an execution
perhaps he knew too much?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

There seems to be a disconnect on this issue. This issue is not about whether the police acted appropriately. By all accounts so far, they followed their orders.

The issue is whether this policy of using deadly force against suspected bombers is approriate.

This is not about second-guessing the decisions of a police officer, made in the heat of the moment. Long before this individual ran (if he did) or put on a heavy coat (if he did), the house he left from was under surveillance. He was already a suspect, presumably for acting suspiciously like a terrorist. There was a long and timely sequence of events leading up to this man's execution.

The issue at hand is: should the police be using deadly force to deal with suspected terrorists, as they have been ordered? If the cops had reason to believe that this house was a den of terrorists, why didn't they kick down the door?

Let's think rationally about this. Suppose this was a suspected abortion clinic bomber. Would the police be justified is gunning-down every individual entering a clinic in a bulky jacket who just left from the home of known pro-lifers?



Jacklar said:


> The fact is we can't judge this because we can't understand the enviroment the police are in right now or even london'ers.


Rubbish. The Brits lived thru the IRA bombings, they handled the bombings in Palestine, and they were bombed by the Germans. They are more than capable of fashioning an appropriate response. The notion that "we can't judge" is simply a rationalization for stuffing one's head in the sand. The world is filled with evil. That fact that we enjoy peace and saftey in our country doesn't mean we mustn't speak out against injustices elsewhere.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> Rubbish. The Brits lived thru the IRA bombings, they handled the bombings in Palestine, and they were bombed by the Germans. They are more than capable of fashioning an appropriate response. The notion that "we can't judge" is simply a rationalization for stuffing one's head in the sand. The world is filled with evil. That fact that we enjoy peace and saftey in our country doesn't mean we mustn't speak out against injustices elsewhere.


When they bomb the TTS or some other major Canadian target, and they will, you will feel very differently.

Deadly force needs to be met with deadly force.

Disobey police commands at your peril.

The world is no place for wimps any longer. Stand up and protect society or allow terrorists to rule you.

I'll take deadly force every time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good post IPK My only caveat....... 'The world is filled with evil. "

I disagree. There are defective people and cultures, and desperate people and peoples, and some method of dealing with them while maintaining a"peaceable" world that is free and not subject to suspicion is the goal.

Your phrase is far too biblical and fear inducing for my comfort and seems at odds with your post.

•••

The usual bull**** view from the right - boogie men under the bed hire more cops, soldiers...etc 

Reap the whirlwind......... go watch Bloody Sunday .........then repeat your nonsense.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i am quite suspicious of why the police had to shoot him in the head 5 times AFTER he was pinned to the ground
> 
> this has all the hallmarks of an execution
> perhaps he knew too much?


This details of this news story has changed many times. I'm not any more ready to believe the cops held him down and killed him any more than I'm ready to believe he ran or was dressed too heavy or whatnought.

Regardless of the actual circumstances of this killing, I'm disturbed about this "shoot-to-kill" policy.

And I too am completely disgusted by many of the comments I've read here. I can't believe these things are being said by Canadians. The fact that some "conservatives" here believe that law and order means wild west-style shootouts in the subway has left me dismayed. I'm something of a "blue liberal" myself, so I tend to be aligned with "conservatives" on most things. But when so-called conservatives think limited government is compatible with the execution of suspects, I start to wonder what kind of government they really want. The fact that they can stand-by this policy after an innocent man has been killed demonstrates a shocking degree of gullibility. How many innocents need to be killed before this stops? And what kind of man wants to join the police, knowing he's going to be ordered to execute suspects?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Good post IPK My only caveat....... 'The world is filled with evil. "
> 
> I disagree. There are defective people and cultures, and desperate people and peoples, and some method of dealing with them while maintaining a"peaceable" world that is free and not subject to suspicion is the goal.
> 
> Your phrase is far too biblical and fear inducing for my comfort and seems at odds with your post.


So you don't believe in evil? Do you believe in good? 

And the phrase may sound "biblical" to your ears, but that's you're preconceptions. When men band together to hang other men from trees because of their skin colour, or march entire families into ovens over unfounded superstitions, or bury women up to the neck and stone them dead because of their unfaithfulness - that's evil. These people are not "defective" or "desperate." Men with power who murder the powerless are not desperate.

Give another watch to The Killing Fields.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

This tragedy is another small victory for the terrorists. At this rate, they won't need to blow themselves up to cause the deaths of innocents. While the police may be under extreme stress, so are hundreds of thousands of Londoners. 

This death will likely be used by the extremists to convert others into fanaticism. A double blow for civilized society.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> When they bomb the TTS or some other major Canadian target, and they will, you will feel very differently.


Either you can read my mind, see the future, or have some kind of pyschological issue. Or, you're simply grasping at straws.



SINC said:


> Deadly force needs to be met with deadly force.


I agree. Being suspicious or running from the police doesn't remotely qualify.



SINC said:


> Disobey police commands at your peril.


If you're suggesting that the police should be allowed to gun down all fleeing suspects, I suggest you never take a politically obscure position. The killing of a perceived Muslim suspect has put the entire Muslim community in fear.



SINC said:


> The world is no place for wimps any longer. Stand up and protect society or allow terrorists to rule you.


The world is no place for bullies. Stand up and protect society or allow the tyrants to rule you. As they say in Isreal, if I change my life, they win.



SINC said:


> I'll take deadly force every time.


Then I hope it's you and not me that gets gunned down in the subway.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> Then I hope it's you and not me that gets gunned down in the subway.


We don't have a subway so it won't be me.

My father was a police officer and I have an acute understanding of how they think and work.

Give your head a shake. If the guy had simply obeyed the stop command he wouldn't be dead. Simple as that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

IPK - I'll say it again there are defective cultures and people that are a threat to a peacable society and methods civil societies have to deal with them.

I do not believe in "absolutes" as lynching a was a moral obligation for a cattle thief in a different time and a different culture and likely served the existing community which like the greater world right now lacked "due process".

"Evil" is generally a biblical or religious term so don't tell me it's MY perceptions at play. You use demonizing language and you are in the same thought mode as the right wingers who are so fond of it. It's out of step with the rest of your post.

•••



> My father was a police officer and I have an acute understanding of how they think and work


That's kinda obvious...so are the blinkers that go with it.
Simple solutions again eh Sinc........just obey the jackbooted and all will be well. 

Little wonder where Calgary sits on the "immigrant" choice list.........that would be nowhere.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Simple solutions again eh Sinc........just obey the jackbooted and all will be well.
> 
> Little wonder where Calgary sits on the "immigrant" choice list.........that would be nowhere.


Police forces in democratic countries are there to protect society as a whole. They are subject to the scrutiny of elected officials and the London police are no different. They were suspicious of the man and tried to investigate his behaviour. He alone chose the path to his death. No jackboots either, but they were plain clothes police officers. That is because "Bobbies" are not allowed to carry firearms, only those in plain clothes, hence no uniform.

As for Calgary's place on any list, I could care less. Edmonton is full of immigrants.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bull****....."he alone chose the path."  What an enormous crock. Last time I checked he didn't pull the trigger.
Cop uber alle.........HALT....or die when shouted at by armed people in civilian clothes!!!!
They wore trenchcoats in Germany too.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Sounds to me like the cops and the victim were both panicking. Too bad, but none of us were there, so we can't judge. It will be interesting to see how the inevitable inquiry comes out.


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

A couple of posts back there was a mention of why not just shoot him in the leg or something.

Simple reason really.

The thinking would be if he was a suicide bomber, oh crap, i can't finish my mission i'm going to blow up here. he wouldn't have the opportunity to do blow up when shooting in the head.

Yes it sucks, but what can you do about it? If he had nothing to hide there was no point in running.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gerbill...exactly.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> There are defective cultures and people that are a threat to a peacable society and methods civil societies have to deal with them.


I agree that there are defective cultures. A defective culture is one whose political system is evil, or whose dominant intellectual habits are evil. How do you define defective?


MacDoc said:


> I do not believe in "absolutes" as lynching a was a moral obligation for a cattle thief in a different time and a different culture and likely served the existing community which like the greater world right now lacked "due process".


Nonsense. While indeed lynching may have "served the existing community," that doesn't make it right! An act is not right or wrong because is serves some community "need." The appropriate way to view our uncivilized past is to view them as morally ignorant. They didn't know morally right from wrong, any more than they knew what was scientifically right or wrong. To suggest that they were "right" in their time is to excuse the evils of the past.

Want would you say to a would-be suicide bomber from Afghanistan, if he told you that what he is was planning to do is right in his culture, if not "right" for your culture?

We don't have a system of due process in the world precisely because there is no belief in an objective standard of right. Someday, we will have one. But we will not have one while people believe there isn't one to look for. Good and evil are objective.



MacDoc said:


> "Evil" is generally a biblical or religious term so don't tell me it's MY perceptions at play. You use demonizing language and you are in the same thought mode as the right wingers who are so fond of it.


I suppose we need to stop using other terms because they are "demonizing." Can we still use murderer? How about rapist? What about sadist?

There is no such thing as a "biblical" word. I find it ironic that you feel free you use the word "demonizing" when I cannot use the word "evil."


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SINC,

The notion that the uniformed Metropolitan police don't carry arms is somewhat out of date. While the typical London "beat bobbie" is unarmed (aside a truncheon, etc), one does not have to travel far in London (or any other major city in the UK) to see armed police. Teams of armed police officers are specially trained (Specialist Firearms Officers). 7% of police have specific firearms training and are widely distributed.

It is possible that the group that killed the Brazilian gentleman on Friday were members of a military anti-terrorist group operating in concert with the Met. Too few details as yet to know what really happened but it would be good to hear from eye-witnesses.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

IPK you have a mishmash of ideas and language use you are tumbling around.
Sadist, psychopath, rapist are criminal and sociological terms - defective humans that are a threat to others and peaceable society. Is an FAS person "evil".

You're muddling them up with some sort of "handed down" absolute right and wrong system. From your response here, the REST of the post was an abnormality.

Of course I used "demonizing" it's contextually correct in light of your use of a term like "evil" - those are religious terms which I was pointing out. Black and white thinking, absolutes ......far more fitting the far right mind set than the rest of the post would indicate.

It's "right" or "wrong"....."evil" or "good" because YOU think so???.......try again.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

Why are there undercover cops? To obviously find people that are suspicious. If they announced they were there, who would look suspicious? Their ability to protect is to catch people that might do this, which might lead to finding who is behind all this. Not to simply say 'no, don't do that' by wearing a normal uniform. That doesn't solve the problem. 

Second, who cares what they are wearing? 

Vexel, this doesn't happen all the time. Nor did anybody say this did. And I certainly wouldn't ask a cop to 'tazer' somebody that's acting that strange, given they might have a bomb underneath thier clothing. That would only...blow him up, the cop up, and everybody around them up. How kind. 

Yes, the cops have power. I think the police assume all responsibility for the safety of the community. If it were in Toronto, I'd salute them if they pulled extraordinary stuff. You know, kind of like how thoze insane ambulance drivers do by running stop lights. Can you believe how irresponsible they are? They should wait like everybody else. </sarcasm>

LP: Don't get me wrong. It IS a shame that this kid died. It's a shame anybody has died in the past month. I bet the first question they had for this poor kid would be "Why the hell didn't you stop when they told you to stop, given you had nothing to hide?". If your answer could possibly be "Well I was scared." then he shouldn't have been out in public.

Jonesy, get real. There's bombs going off in London, and you bring up civil liberties. That's hilarious. Well this kid is dead. He has no rights now, because he's dead. He's dead because he attracted attention to himself and ran into a subway. They told him to stop, and he didn't. There's probably cops crawling all over that town. 

Civil liberties. That's the disgusting part. Why is it people want protection, but aren't willing to give anything up for it? Why do people rant on about privacy and rights? You want privacy and rights? Don't live in a city. Compliance is part of living in communities, in order to make them safe. No different than having to stop for red lights. But I suspect you argue your right to 'travel where and when you want' because it's in the Charter of Rights? You'll kill someone or yourself in the future if that's the case. 

Spectrum: "perhaps he knew too much". Um, he was shot because he had a lot of signs of attempting to blow something up on a subway car. The problem was, he knew too little. Dumb kid pulled a stunt that went way overboard. He wasn't executed, no more than the people travelling the Tube were executed. 

So in order to stop potential bombers, we 'suggest' through poetry read aloud in subways that crime is bad? Maybe put up signs that say 'please, no bombs'. Or bobbies speaking to suspects ... "Might I suggest that you vacate the premises"? I'm sure that would have curved the actions within the past month. Or a good tazer onto someone holding kilograms of explosive. Nice deal. Or some night stick. "I say old chap, you wouldn't happen to be hiding incindiary devices in your rucsac, would you?" "Yes, yes, you got me. Please don't assault me with any insulting haiku's, as we in Al Quaeda just can't seem to manage those."

For those that are all soft on this, perhaps get out and see the way the real world works. Life isn't pretty at times. So don't run in the subway, when there's a terrorist alert about.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MacDoc, 

Yes there is such of thing as evil and you don't have to be religious to know that. 

Hitler was evil. 
Pol Pot was evil. 
Stalin was evil. 
People who rape and murder children are evil. 
Murders are evil. 
9/11 was an act of evil. 
7/7 was an act of evil. 
IRA Bombings, Bali, Spain, Egypt and suicide bombings in Israel are evil. 
And the list goes on and on and on. 

And I'm damn comfortable calling these things evil, as are most rational human beings. 

This is why postmodernism will fail (best case scenario) or it will destroy Western civilization. 

Because there is good and there is evil. 

How many times do we read the headline: "men die while trying to rescue child from fire" or do we see people risk their own lives to help others. Others whose sacrifices last a lifetime, from parents to teachers to your local clergy. 

There is good in this world. 

Sorry for the chap in London, I don't have all the facts (ie were he was shot, there are conflicting reports about location and number of shots), nor was I in the police officers shoes when he/she made the choice to take the other persons life.

But they did make that decision. They did so with the best information they had at that time and acted with the intention of preventing a greater harm to others. That's what police do. 

Is this a tragedy? Absolutely. Was it preventable? If the man had stopped, yes. 

Can there be justice and closure? Yes, thankfully our western civilization is relatively good at dispensing justice, even on those who make mistakes. 

Back to good and evil though, just to be clear. Am I the absolute judge of good and evil? 

No. But I am smart enough to call it when I see it.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MacDoc, 

A follow up, 

As Gerbil said, know of us were there, so we'll have to wait for the inevitable inquiry to find out. 

But that doesn't stop one from hauling out the inevitable fascist comparison does it?

Maybe we can all put away our big rhetorical sticks, and for once just say it's a shame this kid died, I hope they get to the bottom of it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> If he had nothing to hide there was no point in running.


not like police (and undercover ones to boot) ever do harm to civilians

see: African Americans, First Nations

also, when you are authorize to carry a weapon and "shoot to kill" you need to take responsiblity for your actions

with great power comes great responsibility

otherwise you're just a better equipped terrorist


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

BeeRich said:


> Jonesy, get real. There's bombs going off in London, and you bring up civil liberties. That's hilarious. Well this kid is dead. He has no rights now, because he's dead. He's dead because he attracted attention to himself and ran into a subway. They told him to stop, and he didn't. There's probably cops crawling all over that town.


He's dead because he was brown, had english as a second language and attracted attention to himself by fleeing when confronted by armed plain clothed men.

This situation was totally tragic and you completely and utterly fail to understand how this incident has completely terrorized every visible minority in England. Now not only do they have to fear reprisal from intolerant assh*les running rampant across the country, the people who are supposed to be protecting them are popping them for NO justifiable reason other than he was brown and failed to stop when confronted by armed men. This is completely and totally about civl liberties



BeeRich said:


> Civil liberties. That's the disgusting part. Why is it people want protection, but aren't willing to give anything up for it? Why do people rant on about privacy and rights? You want privacy and rights? Don't live in a city. Compliance is part of living in communities, in order to make them safe. No different than having to stop for red lights. But I suspect you argue your right to 'travel where and when you want' because it's in the Charter of Rights? You'll kill someone or yourself in the future if that's the case.


Civil Liberties are disgusting? what nonsense is that? So you think that society has the right to do whatever it wants at the expense of your civil liberties? What society do you live in? Thanks for the update Stalin-Boy. What's next?

What are you suggesting? That we give up our Charter Rights? That you deny people the right to travel? Are you new at this or do you even know the definition of totalitarian and fascism did you miss? Do you need a dictionary?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> IPK you have a mishmash of ideas and language use you are tumbling around.


More rubbish. A word can be used in any discussion it is relevent to. This complaint is without merit.




MacDoc said:


> Sadist, psychopath, rapist are criminal and sociological terms - defective humans that are a threat to others and peaceable society. Is an FAS person "evil".


So what if they are criminal and sociological terms? If you mean fetal alcohol syndrome, are you saying that every sadist, psychopath, and rapist was a FAS baby? You can't be serious.



MacDoc said:


> You're muddling them up with some sort of "handed down" absolute right and wrong system. From your response here, the REST of the post was an abnormality.


Just about everything I know has been "handed down to me." I know murder and rape are wrong for the same reason I know about gravity and atoms: it was taught to me. Have you discovered any great scientific principles lately? No? I suppose it's all irrelevant because it was "handed down."

The is no such thing as "relative right and wrong," either. There is no act that is morally wrong for one culture (or person, or time period), but morally right for another.



MacDoc said:


> Of course I used "demonizing" it's contextually correct in light of your use of a term like "evil" - those are religious terms which I was pointing out. Black and white thinking, absolutes ......far more fitting the far right mind set than the rest of the post would indicate.


There is no language more "fitting the far right mind set." Arguments are evaluated in terms of their content, not terminology.

While I don't think "left-wing" and "right-wing" are very accurate or useful terms, left-wingers speak in absolutes, too. How do most leftists think about crossing picket lines? How do they feel about about restricting abortion access? What about the war in Iraq? How about a pipeline to the Alaskan wilderness? 



MacDoc said:


> It's "right" or "wrong"....."evil" or "good" because YOU think so???.......try again.


So not only can I not use the term "evil," I can't use the word "wrong!"

Who are you to determine what is "more fitting the far right mind set?" Who are you to determine what is a "mishmash of ideas and language?" Who are you to say what is a "threat to others and to peaceable society?"

I am against the killing of innocents - because it's wrong. I am against the execution of suspect - because it's wrong. Why are you against them? Because it's "relatively wrong?" Because it's "contrary to the good of society?"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

"Fascism is on the march today in America. Millionaires are marching to the tune. It will come in this country unless a strong defense is set up by all liberal and progressive forces... A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government, and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. Aboard ship a prominent executive of one of America's largest financial corporations told me point blank that if the progressive trend of the Roosevelt administration continued, he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism to America."

former U.S. ambassador to Germany William Dodd in 1938

it's all about money


"fascism - A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

American Heritage Dictionary, 1983


"To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them."

Michael Parenti, author

and last, but certainly not least

*"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wait until you see the author of this quote
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Adolph Hitler*


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Macspectrum, 

People can call the U.S. government fascist (I think they're dead wrong, but that's me) but to haul out the fascist card after a shooting in London (which we don't know all the facts off) is irresponsible.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Really? This was the "National Socialist Workers Party" we're talking about?

The truth is, Hilter had very little in the way of political philosophy. The only thing he wanted was power.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nor hauling out the "cops can do no harm" rhetoric either which I was responding to.

As I said a fatal *mistake* was made in this interaction between a civilian and undercover law enforcement.

NBi you are welcome to your world view but it's intensely flawed for a variety of reasons not the least is "everyone would agree" which offers no validation at all.

When did Hitler change from saviour of Germany to "evil dictator" - when you undertake that exercise effectively you'll know what I'm about.

The world is not "simple"....it's unimaginably complex and much "evil" is hindsight........

Lose the religious and absolutist language and discuss event in sociological and anthropological terms.

When you know why a Inuit elder or baby was left out to die as a survival necessity that *served* the culture for millenia then you'll see my point.

YOUR villain...the suicide bomber is another's hero and martyr.

The west's "do gooder regime toppler" is another's invading menace.

Think about why the US refuses to recognise the World Court and again you'll know my point.

Acceptable behaviour changes with circumstance......that in a life boat with too little food and water is very different than in a town square.

Is cannabilism as a human practice "good" or "evil"????

•••

Trying to sort the realpolitick of the world into simplistic boxes is just where the species came from in managing to kill 1.2 billion humans since 1950 in acts of violence.

Managing and tolerating "differences", dealing with destructive memes and individuals in search of a peacable pluralistic world is not going to accomplished by demonization and absolutes.

It MIGHT be managed by understanding historical forces, defective human traits, and root causes of strife and violence and fear.

••

NiB I suggest this to understand the connection





> *Police and Democracy*
> This version appeared in M. Amir and S. Einstein (eds.) Policing, Security and Democracy: Theory and Practice, vol. 2
> Back to Main Page | References | Glossary | Unresolved Critical Issue
> 
> ...


http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/dempol.html 

It's a good outline of the issues just this sort of incident can exemplify.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> Macspectrum,
> 
> People can call the U.S. government fascist (I think they're dead wrong, but that's me) but to haul out the fascist card after a shooting in London (which we don't know all the facts off) is irresponsible.


the killing of an innocent civilian by police (they killed him on purpose, 5 shots to the head after it appears he was subdued) smells like fascism to me, but hey, that's just me

How very KGB/Gestapo

Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang you're dead.
No bomb or weapons? Oops! My bad.

state sponsored terrorism


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> NBi you are welcome to your world view but it's intensely flawed for a variety of reasons not the least is "everyone would agree" which offers no validation at all.
> When did Hitler change from saviour of Germany to "evil dictator" - when you undertake that exercise effectively you'll know what I'm about.


Hitler was never the saviour of Germany he led it to absolute ruin. Period. Anybody who thinks else-wise is far too lost in their "complex" world. 

He was evil when he wrote "My Struggle", he was evil when he took power and began the Holocaust, he was evil when he plunged the world into conflict. 



MacDoc said:


> The world is not "simple"....it's unimaginably complex and much "evil" is hindsight........
> 
> Lose the religious and absolutist language and discuss event in sociological and anthropological terms.


My faith in god might be my failing, but your absolute faith in science and sociology is yours. The world is indeed complex, far more so than science alone will ever explain. 

Science can't qualify good or evil, but human beings can, when raised in a healthy, loving home in a caring community. 



MacDoc said:


> When you know why a Inuit elder or baby was left out to die as a survival necessity that *served* the culture for millenia then you'll see my point.


No I don't see your point. Did they survive? Yeah, was it good what they did? No. Was it evil? Damn right, particularly in the case of the baby. 

You see the world differently then I do, and perhaps I am an idealist. But dammit, what world would you rather live in? The world were people abandon the elderly and babies to die? 

That's where my weakness, my faith comes in. I'd rather die trying to live a good life, then live an empty existence after sacrificing my child or my grandparents. 
[/QUOTE]



MacDoc said:


> YOUR villain...the suicide bomber is another's hero and martyr.
> 
> The west's "do gooder regime toppler" is another's invading menace.
> 
> Think about why the US refuses to recognise the World Court and again you'll know my point.


Everyone should see a suicide bomber who targets innocent civilians as evil. Sorry you don't see it that way. 

As for GWB, one man's gunslinging Texan is another's great American president, to each their own. 
{/QUOTE]



MacDoc said:


> Acceptable behaviour changes with circumstance......that in a life boat with too little food and water is very different than in a town square.
> 
> Is cannabilism as a human practice "good" or "evil"????


You don't eat other people. Period. 

But hey, we're not going to agree on anything are we? But one does enjoy the effort. 

I want to live in a better world MacDoc. We have alot of work to do. But at the end of the day, I'm willing to die rather then exist because of evil. 

Because I believe in something more than this. 

Got faith?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There we go - scratch the absolutist and HE is prepared to judge all things. :clap:
Thank you for the illuminative illustration of my point.

•••

I find it most interesting that such a righteous "I know what's right and wrong" type would condemn 24 young rugby students to lingering death.
Are you after all ...."evil" .....perish the thought.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MacDoc, 

Engage the postmodernist and he claims victory where there is none. 

As well as refusing to offer any defenses to the criticism of your particular world view. Not that one can defend Hitler, or abandoning the elderly or infants. 

I find it most interesting that someone with such morally ambiguous views is quick to pass judgement on me. I would not condemn 24 young rugby students to a lingering death. Nor would I ever put such people in such a situation. 

Nor will I be the one to judge them. All I can say is that were I one of the survivors, I would choose death over eating another human being. Because death is a lot less worse than living with the consequences of that action. 

So stick in your clapping icons and pat yourself on the back. Oh what a great victory. 

But MacDoc, were I you, I would hope to whatever you believe in, that you don't ever met evil. Because when you do, you'll know it. But you won't be prepared for it.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Lose the religious and absolutist language and discuss event in sociological and anthropological terms.


Why, exactly? Because I sound like a right-winger?



MacDoc said:


> When you know why a Inuit elder or baby was left out to die as a survival necessity that *served* the culture for millenia then you'll see my point.


I know why. They prefered to let their loved ones die than commit community resources to their care. Many cultures commited murders for supurious reasons. I suppose when I'm done studying the Inuit, you'll be done studying the Aztec, the Romans, and the Chinese today on why they kill their children. Then you can come back and tell me how "culturally right" it was. 
If there was inadequate resources, they should have moved! I can't believe that community could cross the Bearing Strait but still not travel far enough to feed their own families.



MacDoc said:


> YOUR villain...the suicide bomber is another's hero and martyr.


I don't give a crap what the admirers of suicide bombers think. After all, even Pol Pot had Chomsky as one of his defenders.



MacDoc said:


> The west's "do gooder regime toppler" is another's invading menace.


Were we the invading menace in Afghanistan? How about France?



MacDoc said:


> Think about why the US refuses to recognise the World Court and again you'll know my point.


Quiet, I'm trying to think...



MacDoc said:


> Acceptable behaviour changes with circumstance......that in a life boat with too little food and water is very different than in a town square.


This statement makes a mockery of moral philosophy. The real philosophers knew that humans don't live in a boat. Aristotle wrote an entire book on ethics without mentioning this example of Sophistry.



MacDoc said:


> Is cannabilism as a human practice "good" or "evil"????


Neither. The treatment of corpses is an arbitrary practice, like the facts that we eat cows but not dogs.



MacDoc said:


> Trying to sort the realpolitick of the world into simplistic boxes is just where the species came from in managing to kill 1.2 billion humans since 1950 in acts of violence.


My method of thinking is not the cause of the death of 1.2 billion people. It's the reduction of murder and tyranny into "lesser evils" or "cultural differences" that allow despots to get their way. If you can justify murder for "the needs of society," you can do anything.



MacDoc said:


> Managing and tolerating "differences", dealing with destructive memes and individuals in search of a peacable pluralistic world is not going to accomplished by demonization and absolutes.


I believe in a pluralistic world, not you. The only way all people can live in peace is by living under a common set of rules. Rules like not killing, torturing, raping, and stealing from each other. Rules like freedom from censorship and freedom of expression. Liberal Democracy is the only basis of a peaceable, pluralistic world. Those rules are objective truths: morality. I hardly this that constitutes a destructive meme.



MacDoc said:


> It MIGHT be managed by understanding historical forces, defective human traits, and root causes of strife and violence and fear.


You clearly cannot teach that. You are very capable of providing easily refutable arguments, though.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

You know, MacDoc, it's really hard to understand why you think it is appropriate:
1. To criticize my choice of vocabulary; and
2. To not criticize the admirers of suicide bombers;
-and-
1. To criticize the defenders of an execution of a suspect; and
2. To not criticize a culture that euthanizes infants and the aged.

It seems the only evil you recognize is a disagreement with your cultural relativism.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I think I have pounded on MacDoc enough. Your turn, NBiBooker.



NBiBooker said:


> My faith in god might be my failing, but your absolute faith in science and sociology is yours. The world is indeed complex, far more so than science alone will ever explain.


There is no such thing as "absolute faith in science." All proofs of science are objective truth; that means what's accepted is based on evidence. When new evidence becomes known, conclusions are updated or expanded. Religious beliefs are beliefs based on the absence of evidence. Scientific beliefs rejected claims without evidence and focus on what is known.



NBiBooker said:


> Science can't qualify good or evil, but human beings can, when raised in a healthy, loving home in a caring community.


Can reason qualify good and evil? Can people raised in abusive homes in dilapidated communities learn right and wrong?
Science is not the discipline that studies morality any more than geography studies disease. Moral philosophy can qualify good and evil, however.



NBiBooker said:


> You don't eat other people. Period.


The manner in which we treat corpses is arbitrary. The estalished conventions surrounding dead bodies say nothing about us as moral actors. 



NBiBooker said:


> Got faith?


No, I'm an atheist. I have no desire to believe in god, because I don't want him to keep me from doing what is right.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> You know, MacDoc, it's really hard to understand why you think it is appropriate:
> 1. To criticize my choice of vocabulary; and
> 2. To not criticize the admirers of suicide bombers;
> -and-
> ...


lpkmckenna, you just made the most devastating critique of MacDoc's intellectual dishonesty. I am glad someone else recognizes it.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I don't think he is dishonest. He just wants a world without intolerance and takes it too far.

I wouldn't be too smug, planethoth. I don't think we've debated on these forums, but your reputation precedes you. When I saw you posted in this thread, I rolled my sleeves up.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

There is a big difference when supporting assisted suicide of the aged and terminally ill and condeming the execution of a _suspect_.

Pluralism, and cultural relevatism go hand in hand.

I think MacDoc just find's "evil" a strong word with alot of undesirable connotations. We think rape and murder is wrong, even evil. Others think gay marriage or adultery is evil.

The problem comes into play when evil is used as a blanket term and thus entire peoples and cultures are considered evil... once the "other" or the "enemy" is considered evil, almost any punishment can be seen as justified.

Adultery is some countries is evil, a capital offence with punishment as execution by stoning. It's evil right... so any action against it is appropriate. Luckily in our society that's not the case.

Blacks marrying whites, was considered by some as "evil". Thus hanging was justified in the eyes of those people.

Anyway, MacDoc doesn't seem to like the word. No biggie. Cutural relevatism and pluralism can handle multiple terms, right and wrong, good and evil.... but by degrees, not absolutes.

Personally I think evil and hate are strong words and I don't use them loosely.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*In other words:*

One man's evil is other man's fulfilling loving relationship.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> I don't think he is dishonest. He just wants a world without intolerance and takes it too far.
> 
> I wouldn't be too smug, planethoth. I don't think we've debated on these forums, but your reputation precedes you. When I saw you posted in this thread, I rolled my sleeves up.


What is that, a threat in exchange for my compliment? That's pretty harsh, I guess I won't make that mistake again...


----------



## blue sky (Oct 24, 2003)

Apologies for being late to the party, as direction seems to have changed.



> Was it preventable? If the man had stopped, yes.


I would really, really, really, really like to believe that line.

Reading different reports, anywhere from 3 to 20 people were chasing him. Some with guns in plain sight.

Are all of you sure of how you would react in that situation ?

I would like to believe that if he had stopped running that he would still be alive. Why am I not positive that he would be ?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth, I think you took my sarcasm too hard. I am rather engaged in this thread. I was just letting you know that I anticipated a good debate. I guess I should've put a smilie in my post.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

blue sky said:


> Reading different reports, anywhere from 3 to 20 people were chasing him. Some with guns in plain sight.
> 
> Are all of you sure of how you would react in that situation ?
> 
> I would like to believe that if he had stopped running that he would still be alive. Why am I not positive that he would be ?


I might not have run. I probably would have s**t my pants.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> He's dead because he was brown, had english as a second language and attracted attention to himself by fleeing when confronted by armed plain clothed men.


He doesn't look very brown to me...

Photo on BBC Site 

Photo on The Telegraph of India site


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

Seems you need a dose of reality, jonesy freak. Go sing your anthem somewhere else, and realize this is about a kid that was under surveillance, and did many things wrong. Also learn how to read. 

Anybody with an FAC can walk the streets with explosives. I guess you want to guard their rights until they blow several people up in public, as only at THAT point have they done something wrong. 

Just wait until something happens in Canada. I'm sure you'll back up the terrorists saying they had all the right to do what they did. THEN, you'll attack the police when they turn their sirens on in a hospital zone, because it's illegal and an amazing abuse of power. OR, you'll say 'now people are stereotyping because brown people are being blamed for it'. 

Let's see here. This is an Islam thing. All researched and investigated people in this aren't white. Why do you think this is a hatred thing? It's 100% statistics. Get real, drop your emotion and perhaps re-read the news a bit more.

At a time like this, do you not think police would be about in plain clothes? You can't get your head around that? Do you think at this time, primary goal of the UK police force is to protect visible minorities? If that's the case, aren't you saying that is ignoring everybody else? Their goal is to stop the bombing and to find out who did it and to apprehend them.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> There is no such thing as "absolute faith in science." All proofs of science are objective truth; that means what's accepted is based on evidence. When new evidence becomes known, conclusions are updated or expanded. Religious beliefs are beliefs based on the absence of evidence. Scientific beliefs rejected claims without evidence and focus on what is known.


Wow, you sure do sound smarter then me. The flaw in science is that proof is based on the evidence at hand. There are plenty of examples were new proof leads to new truths. Absolute faith in science is, despite your argument, quite possible. Because people believe science can provide the way even in instances when it can't. 

Like religion, science relies on a certain degree of faith. 


lpkmckenna said:


> Can reason qualify good and evil? Can people raised in abusive homes in dilapidated communities learn right and wrong?


Yes and yes.



lpkmckenna said:


> The manner in which we treat corpses is arbitrary. The estalished conventions surrounding dead bodies say nothing about us as moral actors.


They way we live is more important than death, but that's my moral belief. I would rather die than eat another human being. 


lpkmckenna said:


> No, I'm an atheist. I have no desire to believe in god, because I don't want him to keep me from doing what is right.


I said "got faith". 

Your faith is atheism. You have no proof there is no God. Thus you to rely on faith.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Pluralism, and cultural relevatism go hand in hand.


I don't agree. Pluralism is a characteristic of a liberal society with intellectual liberty. There are many religions, many political parties, many viewpoints. There is tolerance (i.e. non-violent interaction) among those who disagree. They don't have to like each other, but no one is getting shackled or strung-up for advocating their beliefs.

Cultural relativism is a philosophical point-of-view which claims moral truth is created by society. Whatever standards that society embraces are right. The Aztecs, for instance, are a good example of a society with very unusual moral beliefs. But in no sense could they be considered pluralists.

The only thing that keeps a liberal democracy functioning are those commited to the belief that free speech, participatory government, the rule of law (etc etc) are morally right. The notion that the state has ethical obligations that define its true role is the motivating force in these people's hearts. Liberal Democracy is not the result of cultural relativism. Cultural relativists are usually motivated to undermine the liberty of those they wish to exploit.



Paul O'Keefe said:


> Personally I think evil and hate are strong words and I don't use them loosely.


Neither do I. I don't think calling the execution of suspects and the bombing of public places evil to be using the word loosely. Hate is also a word with a real meaning. I love freedom. I hate tyranny.

I generally don't like to use "hate" in a political context; I much prefer bigotry, intolerance, or racism. I think hate is an appropriate emotion to great evil, provided you still act with reason and prudence. Regardless, if people use "hate" in political language I don't object. Hate is often the source of political beliefs, though not always. I don't think the people on this board who are defending this shooting are motivated by hate; I think they will naively embrace anything to hold back the terrorists. Desperation is the root of absolute government.

It's interesting to note that cultural relativists, who are quick to criticize the use of the word "evil," are the most likely to accuse others of "hate."



Paul O'Keefe said:


> One man's evil is other man's fulfilling loving relationship.


I generally don't like this kind of statement, because it equates the homosexual's love for each other with the intolerance of an antiquated religious outlook.

When I hear someone tell me that homosexuality is evil, I tell them that they clearly don't know what evil is.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

> I generally don't like this kind of statement, because it equates the homosexual's love for each other with the intolerance of an antiquated religious outlook.


Actually, I didn't mean anything homosexual by that. I was really thinking of heterosexual adultery, living in sin, one night stands, etc.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> Your faith is atheism. You have no proof there is no God. Thus you to rely on faith.


That is a non-sequitur. There is no proof (or even inconclusive evidence) of God, therefore, there is no God.

Just like, there is no evidence that unicorns live on Mars. What would you conclude? That maybe there is?

There is no requirement to prove a negative. That's called "onus-of-proof."



NBiBooker said:


> The flaw in science is that proof is based on the evidence at hand. There are plenty of examples were new proof leads to new truths.


Um, how's this a flaw? You're saying is that science leads us to new truths. So learning more and more about our world is a flaw?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Ok, gotcha lpmckenna. Was too quick to get offended...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

As Fink Nottle pointed out earlier, all the illiterate bleeding hearts on this board take note: this guy who was shot in the Underground was NOT BROWN.

Brazillian does not = brown.

Brazil is a multiethnic society, much of which is descended from WHITE EUROPEANS.

So I guess, this makes the British cops racist against... white people?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> this is about a kid that was under surveillance, and did many things wrong.


just what "many things wrong" did he actually do?

running from men with guns doesn't seem to be a far fetched notion

and if he was pinned down by the "police" why did he have to be shot in the head 5 times?

and please, stop this "wait until it happens here" alarmism
it almost sounds like you're cheering for it to happen just so you can say; "see, i told ya so"

violence begets violence
the murder of that Brazilian only feeds the agenda of the extermists


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Makr said:


> A couple of posts back there was a mention of why not just shoot him in the leg or something.
> 
> Simple reason really.
> 
> ...


And so.. your thoughts are... "He might have bombs strapped to him.. or guns.. or dope. Might as well shoot him now."

This doesn't (or should I say SHOULDN'T) fly in the real world. Great thinking... why don't they just go shoot all the people who pirate music while they're at it.. then they could just kill everyone that owns a computer!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

BeeRich said:


> Seems you need a dose of reality, jonesy freak. Go sing your anthem somewhere else, and realize this is about a kid that was under surveillance, and did many things wrong. Also learn how to read.


What did he do wrong other than panic and flee from armed assailants. Please show me where he was smuggling contraband, planning to blow up a train or being an illegal immigrant... This kid did nothing wrong other than fit the "visible profile" of a bomber. 

Take a look around any major city and there are hundreds if not thousands of kids that could match his description.

I think you are one in need of a reality check buddy or haven't you been to the city in a while?



BeeRich said:


> Anybody with an FAC can walk the streets with explosives. I guess you want to guard their rights until they blow several people up in public, as only at THAT point have they done something wrong.
> 
> Just wait until something happens in Canada. I'm sure you'll back up the terrorists saying they had all the right to do what they did. THEN, you'll attack the police when they turn their sirens on in a hospital zone, because it's illegal and an amazing abuse of power. OR, you'll say 'now people are stereotyping because brown people are being blamed for it'.


Look, without going into the detail anyone with the remotest bit of intelligence and a little reading can make some pretty destructive things by going down to their local hardware/grocery store. The fact that this knowledge and material being completely available for so long doesn't say something to you? Or do you miss the completely obvious?

Anyone can and could kill a lot of people without much effort if they put their mind to it. What this says is that the fact that it happens so infrequently means that their is no HUGE Islamic conspiracy. There are isolated pockets of crazies that go out and kill people. If the threat was as wide spread as the media portrays it we'd already have bombings and more in North America.




BeeRich said:


> Let's see here. This is an Islam thing. All researched and investigated people in this aren't white. Why do you think this is a hatred thing? It's 100% statistics. Get real, drop your emotion and perhaps re-read the news a bit more.
> 
> At a time like this, do you not think police would be about in plain clothes? You can't get your head around that? Do you think at this time, primary goal of the UK police force is to protect visible minorities? If that's the case, aren't you saying that is ignoring everybody else? Their goal is to stop the bombing and to find out who did it and to apprehend them.


Oh it is an Islam thing is it? lest you forget the Oklahoma City bombing, or the King David Hotel bombing... terrorists come in all shapes sizes and colours. 

Your pursuit of your safety directly impinges on the freedoms of my family because they happen to be visible minorities. I am more concerned about the loss of my and my families civil liberties than I ever would be about them being killed by terrorists.

Yes I do think it is exactly the duty of the UK police to protect peoples civil liberties right now more than ever. You would let the terrorists win by having us change what is important in our society.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

My posts were never racial at all. I was talking about ANYONE who gets shot... for running.. is completely sad.

Why does color or religion have anything to do with this conversation.. I think it's pretty irrelevant.

This makes me sad.. that someday.. I may be scared to walk downtown in my city.. thinking I "may" be shot.. if I wear baggy pants in the summer. OR.. What about my Laptop bag? Could be bombs in there!.. or my cellphone? yada yada yada... yada.. ...

How much power should "Police" have? How do you ensure.. all of your policemen are clinically sane? Something should be done with these officers.. obviously they've gone through training.. to handle situations like these.. and I doubt pulling out the gun and shooting a runner was the answer in the textbook.

How about.. since they knew they might have to deal with suicide bombers.. they might have a tranquilizer ready? The could knock him out.. before he even knew what hit him.. and definitely before he could "blow up."

Running.. is no justification for killing..


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

BeeRich said:


> I guess you want to guard their rights until they blow several people up in public, as only at THAT point have they done something wrong. [...] Do you think at this time, primary goal of the UK police force is to protect visible minorities? If that's the case, aren't you saying that is ignoring everybody else? Their goal is to stop the bombing and to find out who did it and to apprehend them.


Listen, BeeRich. It is not THEIR rights, it is OUR rights. And, these are MY rights that you're arguing away. I do not wish to live in fear of the police. I do not want the cops granted judge/jury/executioner powers in response to these religious zealots.

If the cops were so suspicious of this guy and had him under surveillance, why wait until he was in the subway?

I could live with the cops kicking down the doors of suspected havens of terrorists. I cannot fathom them waiting for the terrorists to leave, following them to the subway, and then killing them.

No good can come of this shoot-to-kill policy. You say they should be allowed to gun down suspected suicide bombers? No matter what, they will see the cops before the cops. But a lot more innocent people are goinng to die regardless.

Think about it this way. We could reduce our rights of the accused. We could cutback on the accountability of the police. We could let the police inspect homes without warrants and make arrests without charge and even allow a little more strongarming of the perps. We could give the jury a peek into the criminal background or shady pasts of the accused. It could all be done in the name of cutting down on crime. Perhaps it even would.

More likely, suspected but innocent people will be roughed up and mistreated. Much more likely, we'll send innocent people to jail while the guilty walk. We'll create a mistrust of the cops in the population at large. People would begin to prefer dealing with crime thru vigilanteeism rather than open their homes and lives to the inspection of the police. More people would run from the cops, knowing that the boys in blue might beat the piss outta ya if they dislike you enough.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

A Londoner expresses his defiance (with 19,000 of his closest friends): http://werenotafraid.com/
CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/24/not-afraid050724.html?ref=rss


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Here is dajonesy again, trying to take the King David Hotel bombing (already almost 70 years ago!) as equivalent to the Islamic atrocities of today.

Jonesy, you should get an award for stupidest moral equivalences of all time.

First of all: the British literally commandeered the hotel for operational purposes. In their hands this hotel was NOT a civilian target. First problem with the equivalence, isn't it?

Second: the British, using the 1939 White Paper--a complete violation of earlier agreements--essentially ensured that the millions of Jews would be murdered in the Nazis' concentration camp, since they had few possible options for immigration once the war started! You think in 1947 the Jews were going to let themselves be screwed over AGAIN by the British, who they by and large supported during the war against the Germans, to their own detriment?

Third: it is proven that they warned the King David Hotel and the French consulate next door that this bombing was coming. There is no equivalence between a surprise explosion in the middle of non-combatants and a warning about one beforehand.

Fourth: notice the Jews are not the ones bombing Brits today--who is? And therefore, what is the more appropriate object of scrutiny?

As far as McVeigh goes, who made apologies for him? He was executed for his unpardonable crimes, and good thing too. Still, it is likewise stupid to compare a guy who represented a fringe of unorganized militia freaks and had listed as one of his grievances the imperialism of the federal gov't to a worldwide movement of Islamist imperialists who want to bring back the Caliphate.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Here is dajonesy again, trying to take the King David Hotel bombing (already almost 70 years ago!) as equivalent to the Islamic atrocities of today.
> 
> Jonesy, you should get an award for stupidest moral equivalences of all time.


Sure thing buddy, and you get the award for stupidest comment of the year for completely missing the point of learning anything from history. So by your feeble logic 70 years from now every attack made by Islamist and other terrorists will be meaningless?

What a reactionary world view you have... I suppose in your case ignorance is bliss.



planethoth said:


> First of all: the British literally commandeered the hotel for operational purposes. In their hands this hotel was NOT a civilian target. First problem with the equivalence, isn't it?


In February of 1944, under the new leadership of Menachem Begin, Irgun resumed hostilities against the British authorities. The purpose of these attacks was to bring public attention to the cost and ineffectiveness of the British mandatory rule. It included attacks on prominent symbols of the British administration, including British military, police, and civil headquarters at the King David Hotel and the British prison in Acre. Although these attacks were largely successful, several Irgun operatives were captured, convicted, and hanged. Refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the British courts, those accused refused to defend themselves. The Irgun leadership ultimately responded to these executions by hanging two British sergeants.



planethoth said:


> Second: the British, using the 1939 White Paper--a complete violation of earlier agreements--essentially ensured that the millions of Jews would be murdered in the Nazis' concentration camp, since they had few possible options for immigration once the war started! You think in 1947 the Jews were going to let themselves be screwed over AGAIN by the British, who they by and large supported during the war against the Germans, to their own detriment?


And some more non-important history for you...

From 1940 through 1943, Irgun declared a truce against the British, and supported Allied efforts against Nazi forces and Arab allies in the area by enlisting its members in British forces and the Jewish Brigade. A small group group lead by Avraham Stern, who insisted on continuing to fight the British, broke off and formed and independent group (see Lehi). In 1941, the Irgun leader, David Raziel volunteered for a dangerous mission in Iraq to assassinate Amin al-Husayni, but was killed by a German bomber before the operation could be finished.



planethoth said:


> Third: it is proven that they warned the King David Hotel and the French consulate next door that this bombing was coming. There is no equivalence between a surprise explosion in the middle of non-combatants and a warning about one beforehand.


Here is a little more history for you...

Irgun, shorthand for Irgun Tsvai Leumi (also spelled Irgun Zvai Leumi), Hebrew for "National Military Organization", was a paramilitary Zionist group that operated in the British Mandate of Palestine from 1931 to 1948. In Israel, this group is consistently referred to as Etzel, an acronym of the Hebrew initials. It was classified by British authorities as a "terrorist organization" but many considered it to be a "liberation movement". Its political association with Revisionist Zionism rendered it a predecessor movement to modern Israel's "right-wing" Likud party/coalition

Following is a list of attacks that have been attributed to Irgun that took place during the 1930's.

November 14, 1937 - 6 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Jerusalem.
April 12, 1938 - 2 Arabs and 2 British policemen were killed by a bomb in a train in Haifa.
April 17, 1938 - An Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe in Haifa
May 17, 1938 - An Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus in the Jerusalem-Hebron road.
May 24, 1938 - 3 Arabs were shot and killed in Haifa.
June 23, 1938 - 2 Arabs were killed near Tel-Aviv.
June 26, 1938 - 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa.
June 27, 1938 - An Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in Haifa.
July 5, 1938 - 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel-Aviv.
On the same day, 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem.
On the same day, an Arab was killed in another attack in Jerusalem.
July 6 1938 - 18 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
July 8, 1938 - 4 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jerusalem.
July 16, 1938 - 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem.
July 26, 1938 - 27 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
August 26, 1938 - 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa.
May 29, 1939 - 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem.
On the same day, 5 Arabs were shot and killed during a raid on the village of Biyar 'Adas.
June 4, 1939 - 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem.
June 12, 1939 - A post office in Jerusalem was bombed, killing a British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs.
June 16, 1939 - 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem.
June 20, 1939 - 78 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa.
June 26, 1939 - 19 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks around Jaffa.
June 30, 1939 - An Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem.
On the same day, 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta.
July 3, 1939 - 18 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
July 4, 1939 - 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem.
July 20, 1939 - An Arab was killed at a train station in Jaffa.
On the same day, 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Tel-Aviv.
On the same day, 3 Arabs were killed in Rehovot.
August 27, 1939 - 2 British officers were killed by a mine in Jerusalem.


Does this even look remarkably familiar to you? Are you blind or illiterate? I will guess you are just uninformed of the history of the region.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

While your little tiff is interesting, you two lovers should take this back to the Isreali/Arab history thread, so that the rest of us can talk about the London bombing and the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> While your little tiff is interesting, you two lovers should take this back to the Isreali/Arab history thread, so that the rest of us can talk about the London bombing and the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.


Sorry... you are right. He just tried to slip one past me over here.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

*Regrets but not racism*

LPK: Why do you think your rights are being threatened if you do nothing wrong? You make it sound like this thing happened cause white cops were bored and decided today was a good day for racism. Why is it that when something happens that has international attention, it's about racism? Didn't racism go out with the hoola hoop? In light of what's happened recently, you think this kid was shot cause he was from Brazil or looked foreign? I think that's the last thought that went through anybody's mind. This guy didn't listen to many people telling him to stop. I just don't get why he would do that. That was the last dumb mistake he ever made. I don't think it's due to his skin colour at all. I have friends from Brazil and I don't see them as being brown or any other skin colour. I have several South American friends, and I we joke all the time, but I've never found South Americans, or Mexicans, to be 'brown' or anything close to Al Quaeda 'looking', if there was such a term. 

Second point. Look at the pic I found TODAY online. Canada, Britain, and the US, aren't communities of whitebread folk. 

Just as the chief of police and many that aren't speaking up against what happened, we don't see this as anything outside of somebody that suggested they were going to blow something up. If you think your rights are threatened because you choose to suggest the same, then what kind of protection do you think you can get from anybody?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

BeeRich said:


> You make it sound like this thing happened cause white cops were bored and decided today was a good day for racism. Why is it that when something happens that has international attention, it's about racism? Didn't racism go out with the hoola hoop?


Re-read the thread. I never accused the police of racism. I don't think this shooting was motivated by racism. I'm angry that some members of the free world still think that shooting suspicious-looking suspects is an appropriate form of policing. 


BeeRich said:


> This guy didn't listen to many people telling him to stop. I just don't get why he would do that. That was the last dumb mistake he ever made.


I don't know what I would do if a bunch of people waving guns at me told me to stop. I know I'd be terrified. I might run, I might freeze, I might faint. 


BeeRich said:


> Why do you think your rights are being threatened if you do nothing wrong?


Following your reasoning, why should police need warrants? After all, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. Perhaps the entire populace should submit blood samples, semen samples, and fingerprints to the state. After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.

I simply believe in a few liberal principles. Like due process. And the division of powers. And measured response. None of those elementary ideals allows for the police to execute suspects.

As for "doing nothing wrong," a great many individuals have been mistreated by the authorities but were in fact completely innocent. The state must preserve its worst penalties following a conviction in a fair trial to minimize that possibility. This man did not deserve to be executed for acting suspiciously.


BeeRich said:


> Just as the chief of police and many that aren't speaking up against what happened, we don't see this as anything outside of somebody that suggested they were going to blow something up. If you think your rights are threatened because you choose to suggest the same, then what kind of protection do you think you can get from anybody?


You need to re-phrase this question. I have no idea what you are trying to say.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Sure thing buddy, and you get the award for stupidest comment of the year for completely missing the point of learning anything from history. So by your feeble logic 70 years from now every attack made by Islamist and other terrorists will be meaningless?
> 
> What a reactionary world view you have... I suppose in your case ignorance is bliss.
> 
> ...




Hey dude, nice decontextualization. Did you get this all from Palestine Remembered or some other Arab agitprop site? Hey: don't forget who massacred Jews in 1920 and 1929--the latter case a complete Judenrein cleansing of Hebron. Guess who?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Guess who worked for the Germans during World War II, Jonesy... I am waiting.

Hint: same guys who did the massacre of Jews in 1920 and 1929...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Hmm, could you also tell me the understandable moral rationale for the latest Islamist handiwork, the Sharm e-Sheikh bombings in Egypt?

Surely, it must be understandable that these guys bomb tourists on vacation?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A personal reflection upon the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz

The horror of Auschwitz is a stark challenge to many to try and understand not only how this overt act of genocide could have happened, but how we allow this sort of violence to continue to take place in various parts of our world even today. Let no one think that the Holocaust was a unique event in human history, in that while it exceeded other genocides (e.g., Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) in the numbers of innocent persons murdered, it was not different in the basic intent underlying these crimes against humanity. I think that this is why it is important to take a moment and recall the reality that was Auschwitz to ensure that deep within our own humanity we do not forget the unforgettable. For in remembering, one is forced to integrate these many lives - these trapped souls - into one's consciousness. Auschwitz must become a place that reminds the world of not only “man’s inhumanity to man”, but also the dignity of people that makes each of us responsible for world peace. The philosopher George Santayana is quoted as stating that “The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again”. To this end, we must all bear witness to what takes place within our world each day of our lives.

It is a custom in the Jewish religion to leave a pebble atop a gravestone when visiting a loved one's resting place. May this short passage serve as a pebble of remembrance for those who died in Auschwitz, as well as for those distant members of my own family who I never knew and who died in Dachau (http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0075/dachau-39). “Never Again”. Shalom, Paix, Peace.

Dr. Marc Glassman
Professor
Faculty of Education
Memorial University of Newfoundland


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

God bless Dr. G., and thank you for writing something I should have. That you took the time, that you bothered, that's all that matters to me right now.
Great words.
Thank you brother.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

BeeRich said:


> Just as the chief of police and many that aren't speaking up against what happened, we don't see this as anything outside of somebody that suggested they were going to blow something up. If you think your rights are threatened because you choose to suggest the same, then what kind of protection do you think you can get from anybody?


Where I don't die.. because I was scared and ran. Protection.. where if I look suspicious.. it doesn't give anyone the right to pump me with 5 bullets. Protection who's actions fit the CRIME.

Listen.. if they "knew" he had a bomb.. there would be no dispute. The fact is.. this guy could have ran for ANY reason in the world. This is no reason to KILL him!

I suggest you re-read the thread as well... this isn't about racism.. some will make it that way.. but I don't.. and most others don't either. This was never a racial fight for me.. it's about "Crime and Punishment" and what the hell.. gave these officers the right to shoot the victim 5 times.

"Shoot to Kill" for Running! 

edit: By the way.. please quote me in this one.. cause.. you've yet to do it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thank you for the kind words, gwillikers. I must admit that I struggled with writing this piece for our University Faculty Newsletter, at the request of my Dean. Each draft was not what I wanted. It was not until I came upon the Dachau URL that the ending for this personal reflection came to me.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> A personal reflection upon the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz


Dr. G. thank you for a moment of reflection. I can't imagine what it would be like to have to go through such an ordeal. My heart aches.

Your heart and wisdom astound me.. Paix.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Thank you for the kind words, gwillikers. I must admit that I struggled with writing this piece for our University Faculty Newsletter, at the request of my Dean. Each draft was not what I wanted. It was not until I came upon the Dachau URL that the ending for this personal reflection came to me.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


It was what was needed. Lest we forget.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thank you too, Vexel, for your kind words. I am glad that my short piece was able to be received by you in the manner in which it was written. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gwillikers, I just thought that the rhetoric was getting a bit strong in this thread. I did not want to derail its intent, since some important thoughts were being exchanged. I just thought that my reflective piece might prove helpful in bringing about a momentary period of reflection. We shall see.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Hey dude, nice decontextualization. Did you get this all from Palestine Remembered or some other Arab agitprop site? Hey: don't forget who massacred Jews in 1920 and 1929--the latter case a complete Judenrein cleansing of Hebron. Guess who?


Dr G has got it right... He understands and you do not. It is that simple. In tribute to his eloquent words I should also put into context some of the events against Jews in the same region during the same time period. There were atrocities constantly being perpetrated against the Jewish people in the region.

During the Great Uprising (1936-1939), in which about 400 Jews were killed in Arab attacks, Irgun resumed its reprisal attacks against Arabs. Following the killing of five Jews at Kibbutz Kiryat Anavim on November 9, 1937, Irgun launched a series of attacks which lasted until the beginning of World War II, in which more than 250 Arab civilians were killed.

On April 13, a convoy of 10 vehicles, mostly consisting of unarmed Jewish doctors, nurses, medical students and lecturers set off for the hospital in the early morning. At approximately 9:45, the leading vehicle was hit by a mine and the convoy came under attack by Arab irregular forces. Five of the vehicles were able to flee, but five others, including two buses and an ambulance, were unable to escape the ambush and were subject to constant machine gun fire from the surrounding Arabs, despite passengers waving a white flag. After the buses began to leak gasoline, they were set on fire by Molotov cocktails (petrol bombs) thrown by the irregulars, their inhabitants still inside.

For nearly seven hours, the British refused to intervene, and failed to even bring Jaques de Reynier, the Red Cross representative in Jerusalem, to the scene to negotiate a cease-fire. The British also attempted to stop the Haganah from mounting a rescue operation, and the eventual attempts by the Palmach (an arm of the Haganah) to rescue the convoy were unsuccessful. The attack continued for over six hours before the British finally stopped it at around 4:30. Altogether approximately 77 Jews were killed by gunfire or were burnt when several vehicles were set alight.

In fairness to my position that both sides are equally capable of horrible atrocities you can clearly see that Arabs during that time were equally capable of harming Jews as the Jews were in terms of harming Arabs. I would challenge you to try and look at this issue with something even remotely appearing as moderation and open-mindedness.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Guess who worked for the Germans during World War II, Jonesy... I am waiting.
> 
> Hint: same guys who did the massacre of Jews in 1920 and 1929...


Or how about this guy?

Avraham ("Yair") Stern was originally an adherent of the Revisionist Zionist movement founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the early 1920s and a member of Irgun, but separated from these groups in 1940 to form his own group, which he called Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel).
Specifically, Stern believed that the Jewish population should focus its efforts on fighting the British rather than supporting them in World War II; and that terrorist methods were an effective means to achieve those goals. He differentiated between "enemies of the Jewish people" (e.g., the British) and "Jew haters," (e.g., the Nazis), believing that the former needed to be defeated, and the latter neutralized. To this end, he initiated contact with Nazi authorities offering an alliance with Germany in return for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Or how about this guy?
> 
> Avraham ("Yair") Stern was originally an adherent of the Revisionist Zionist movement founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the early 1920s and a member of Irgun, but separated from these groups in 1940 to form his own group, which he called Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel).
> Specifically, Stern believed that the Jewish population should focus its efforts on fighting the British rather than supporting them in World War II; and that terrorist methods were an effective means to achieve those goals. He differentiated between "enemies of the Jewish people" (e.g., the British) and "Jew haters," (e.g., the Nazis), believing that the former needed to be defeated, and the latter neutralized. To this end, he initiated contact with Nazi authorities offering an alliance with Germany in return for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.



I'm waiting Jonesy... why go off on another tangent? Don't like the answer?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Jonesy, you are straining reeeeeeeal hard to avoid the fact that most terrorists in the world TODAY are motivated by a belief in Islam.

If only you and your kind could just be honest. Instead you look for multiculti reasons to not say the obvious.

Did the Jews do suicide terrorism against non-combatant Germans? Maybe THAT would have been justified?

Look Muslims aren't oppressed, far from it. They have over 50 states in which they are the power establishment ruling the countries, 22 of those states are Arab. The Arab Muslims control the greatest share of the world's petroleum. They are FAR better off than Black Africans of all different religions, who, by the way, were victimized by the marauding Arab Muslim conquerors well before the Europeans came to push them around.

Yet, yet--despite the black man's deep grievance against Arabs and whites, I have yet to see a black african suicide bomber!

Why is this? Is it just a coincidence? Is it merely coincidental that Tibetans don't suicide bomb commuters in Beijing in retaliation for the Chinese's deliberate, continuing colonization of Tibet with ethnic Chinese to destroy its ethnic character?

Or is it perhaps an ideology particular to the suicide terrorist, say, the belief in jihad, a holy war, that makes this type of terrorist DIFFERENT?

Oh, but never mind all that. You wouldn't want to tell yourself the truth. That might feel bigoted.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I'm waiting Jonesy... why go off on another tangent? Don't like the answer?


Dude that isn't a tangent... the fact was that some Arab and some Jews fought for both sides during WWII or are complete loss of all your faculties?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

And since you brought up Lehi, aka, the Stern gang, let us take some facts into account:

1. Lehi went after British and UN government targets, not random civilians on their way to work or praying at their temples.

2. Lehi was forcibly disbanded by the Jewish establishment in Israel in 1948. I await the disbandment of any terrorist organization by any Muslim state. Even Mubarak didn't disband the Muslim Brotherhood, did he?

3. The British, with their sellout 1939 White Paper barring Jewish immigrants from the mandate, effectively ensured that Jews would end up in gas chambers.

4. I can easily say that, were it 1947 at this moment, with my uncles and cousins dead in the concentration camps only a couple of years before this, a third of our entire nation dead, it was not the time for pussyfooting around with liars.

5. There is zero comparison of threat levels with Jews who wanted their own state in a sliver of their ancestral homeland and Islamists who want to return to a global Islamic Khalifah. Zero.

6. NONETHELESS, notwithstanding all that, do I think everything that Lehi did was good? Absolutely not. Were they terrorists? In some cases, at least, absolutely yes. But, their terrorism, while not good, was not the same kind of terrorism we are facing now. That isn't apologetics for it, but it is a call to recognize the danger of lamebrained, facile comparisons.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Stop the disinformation: No self-respecting Jew, including those in Lehi, FOUGHT FOR THE NAZIS!

During a war that would see six million of us, give or take, murdered, Stern had imagination potential, regrettably not realized, that perhaps the Nazis would let the Jews go to the Holy Land and thereby getting rid of their "Jewish problem".

The Nazis never went for it, and you know the rest. You can't fault any Jew for the attempt to save fellow Jews from oppression and misery, and it wasn't until the Wannsee Conference that the Germans decided that they would murder the Jews in death camps. Stern's last attempt to communicate with the Germans was in 1941---before the "Final Solution" started in motion.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*As an excuse, it's a poor one...*

Although I disagree with people baiting each other here, and the language used, and flogging the proverbial deceased equine, saying that people bomb others in the name of religion is a fallacy. This awful activity takes place for political reasons, and as well it is because they are evil and those who motivate them are evil (yes, there is evil in this world) and because they do not respect human life, their own and others.

Anyone who blows up a plane or a building or a children's pizzaria or a bus or any place full of people and then cites some religious reason isn't just a murderer, they are a lying murderer. Religion may be a cause for war and injustice and poverty, but indiscriminate killings are not religious acts.

To the topic at hand, passing judgement on why this man was shot, from thousands of miles away and with none of the facts is a pointless exercise. It is probable that of the scores of witnesses, you will have scores of theories about why this man was shot. Only he knew why he ran into the subway. Only the police who shot him can answer why they did. I'm against locking this thread since it would be interesting to see what happens to it after months of testimony at an inqiry which will likely be held.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Re-read the thread. I never accused the police of racism. I don't think this shooting was motivated by racism. I'm angry that some members of the free world still think that shooting suspicious-looking suspects is an appropriate form of policing.
> 
> I don't know what I would do if a bunch of people waving guns at me told me to stop. I know I'd be terrified. I might run, I might freeze, I might faint.
> 
> ...


After reading this entire thread, from on topic to off topic, I must voice my opinion on the matter.

Yes, it is sad that the young man died. Is this the first time anyone has been chased and shot to death? No. It happens in the US and Canada as well. 

We have to look at how the media plays the story here. How do we know the police didn't identify themselves? We don't. The media only tells us what we want to hear to make the story exciting. Basing opinions on witnesses alone shouldn't be done. If you ever watch any news story where they interviewed witnesses, or if you had the opportunity to interview witnesses, well you know that the outcome of everyone seeing or hearing the same thing is not going to happen. Witnesses at a crime scene are a funny bunch. You can easily get half a dozen different stories, so why anyone here would use a witness statement in this case as judgment is beyond me. 

A lot of comments here are based on TV shows and non experience of being in any police force. 

There is never a night that goes by here in Canada where police have to identify themselves and then put to chase because the innocent or non innocent person flees from the police for whatever reason. Some people who flee inflict death upon themselves like crashing a stolen or non stolen vehicle and dying. Some like to wave a fake gun at police, and then wonder why they get shot. Others like to run and hop fences only to deal with a K9 officer and his partner on the other side, and then wonder why the police dog has them by the arm. These people who run, have in all cases inflicted their own deaths, injuries and getting arrested all because they ran instead of just stopping and allowing the police to do their jobs. Yes innocent people like to play a game called chase and out run for the heck of it with police officers. Usually young people do this for kicks, so humans aren't all that innocent when it comes to being good citizens and imagine what must be going through the officers mind when the chase starts?

When I look at the facts only, not what the media wants me to hear and read, I think the police at the time did what they thought was right, considering the situation. If the young man turned out to be another bomber and killed 120 more people, then this thread wouldn't be titled "Disgusted by London Shooting" but it would be called "Why didn't the police stop the suspected man?"


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Or is it perhaps an ideology particular to the suicide terrorist, say, the belief in jihad, a holy war, that makes this type of terrorist DIFFERENT?


What are you saying? Are you implying in some sort of obtuse manner that one form of terrorism is more justified than an other? 



planethoth said:


> Oh, but never mind all that. You wouldn't want to tell yourself the truth. That might feel bigoted.


Please, feel free tell what the "truth" is, because at no point in your hate filled ranting have I seen anything even remarkably close to the truth. You point your finger, you say those are the bad guys, we are the goods guys it is black and white. 

Well the real world is not black and white. The real world is full of varying shades of grey (to borrow a cliche).

All I have been saying is that there are and have been issues on both the sides of this argument that are and are not valid. Each side has a point of view and if they did not feel as strongly as they do about their point of view this conflict would not be happening.

Terrorism comes from the barrel of a gun just as much as it comes from explosives belt. You are to blinded to see the truth in that statement that you are doomed to repeat every failure that history has shown us.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Good lord jonesy, you are killing me with cliches!

Honestly, can you just deal with what I say and not give me lessons for living?

First of all, I never EVER said the world was black and white. This is a lame rhetorical device people have been using against me that I don't really even want to comment on, on account of it being so dumb. OF COURSE the world is "grey"--so what?

The existence of a gray scale also means that you make distinctions between one type of action and another, even when they appear superficially the same. Thus, I would say only that the terrorist tactics used by the Stern Gang was not good, but it was less bad than the kind the jihadist uses. That's grey.

The existence of "grey scale" does not rule out a black or a white, either! I don't have to empathize with my enemy, I just want to get stop him from killing me. I don't need to give in into the enemy's demand just b/c he wants me to and is willing to kill me to do it. If that's "black and white", go ahead and label away.

When it comes down to life itself, you are either alive or dead. I prefer the former. That's black and white, too.

But if your only point is that things are "grey" and I should see that, why do you even bother arguing? I take it for granted that some things are grey, and some things are closer to black or white. Really, it is a banal pseduo-philosophical point to state that the world is grey. Ok, grey. Now what? We have guys blowing up subway trains. I don't know about you, but that looks pretty black to me.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGYVER said:


> We have to look at how the media plays the story here. How do we know the police didn't identify themselves? We don't. The media only tells us what we want to hear to make the story exciting. Basing opinions on witnesses alone shouldn't be done. If you ever watch any news story where they interviewed witnesses, or if you had the opportunity to interview witnesses, well you know that the outcome of everyone seeing or hearing the same thing is not going to happen. Witnesses at a crime scene are a funny bunch. You can easily get half a dozen different stories, so why anyone here would use a witness statement in this case as judgment is beyond me.


I have already stated that we aren't sure of the details of what happened. That doesn't preclude the discussion here. 



MacGYVER said:


> A lot of comments here are based on TV shows and non experience of being in any police force.


So I have to have police force experience in order to have an opinion about the execution of suspects? I suppose I need to have army experience to decide whether the U.S. should be in Iraq? And I suppose I should have some experience as a hangman before voicing my opinion on capital punishment? I have to ask: if I want to have an opinion on abortion, do I need to be a pregnant woman or an abortion doctor? I was once been a fetus; is that good enough?

And I brought up the Law & Order episode only because some people here needed to be reminded that even though individuals can have suspicious activities doesn't merit them being treated like dirt, or gunned down like dogs.



MacGYVER said:


> There is never a night that goes by here in Canada where police have to identify themselves and then put to chase because the innocent or non innocent person flees from the police for whatever reason. Some people who flee inflict death upon themselves like crashing a stolen or non stolen vehicle and dying. Some like to wave a fake gun at police, and then wonder why they get shot. Others like to run and hop fences only to deal with a K9 officer and his partner on the other side, and then wonder why the police dog has them by the arm. These people who run, have in all cases inflicted their own deaths, injuries and getting arrested all because they ran instead of just stopping and allowing the police to do their jobs. Yes innocent people like to play a game called chase and out run for the heck of it with police officers. Usually young people do this for kicks, so humans aren't all that innocent when it comes to being good citizens and imagine what must be going through the officers mind when the chase starts?


I can't read minds, but I hope they are thinking "I want to arrest this guy" and not "I wanna gun this guy down for making me run after him."



MacGYVER said:


> When I look at the facts only, not what the media wants me to hear and read, I think the police at the time did what they thought was right, considering the situation.


And where are you getting these "facts" from, if not from the media? I have stated several times that the total facts of how this went down are still hazy. Did he run? What was he doing that was suspicious? Why was his home under surviellance? Did the cops actually hold him down and kill him?

The fact remains that none of the details about this incident matter. This is about whether the policy of "shoot-to-kill suspected terrorists" is morally right.

I don't know whether the police thought they were doing the right thing (again, I can't read minds), but they did do what they were told: gun down suspected suicide bombers. You claim that you read the whole thread, but you seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion. This is about whether the police should be killing suspects.



MacGYVER said:


> If the young man turned out to be another bomber and killed 120 more people, then this thread wouldn't be titled "Disgusted by London Shooting" but it would be called "Why didn't the police stop the suspected man?"


No one expects the police to be omnipotent. I just want the police to act within the bounds of legality and morality. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth, da_jonesy

Please, don't derail this thread! Go back to the Isreal thread! Look, it's right here: http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=29094


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> I have already stated that we aren't sure of the details of what happened. That doesn't preclude the discussion here.
> 
> 
> So I have to have police force experience in order to have an opinion about the execution of suspects? I suppose I need to have army experience to decide whether the U.S. should be in Iraq? And I suppose I should have some experience as a hangman before voicing my opinion on capital punishment? I have to ask: if I want to have an opinion on abortion, do I need to be a pregnant woman or an abortion doctor? I was once been a fetus; is that good enough?
> ...


Thank you, for responding.

This now allows me to ask you the most important question of this whole incident.

Why do you think the police shot the young man in the head instead of the leg, arm, chest etc...? I already know the answer as to why, the question is do you and the others who questioned this understand why?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

<b>Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, may have run from police because of his visa situation, BBC correspondents say. </b> <small>Source: BBC</small>

Menezes, who had gone to the UK to earn money to support his family back home in Brazil, had recently returned to the UK after going home to be with his father, who was undergoing cancer treatment. Menezes had not renewed his work visa, and was possibly concerned that he would be deported.

Sad, sad, sad. 

M.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I am going to assume that you mean.. if he lives.. he blows everything up. But still.. not justified.. as they didn't know for sure.

Why didn't they take him "out" before he got to the subway.. if he was suspicious?

Also.. dealing with Terrorists.. you would assume there would be something on hand to disable an assailant without killing him.. be it tranqs, gas... etc.. KILLING shouldn't be an option.. especially.. when uncertain of this mans intentions.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I can't believe you think I don't know why.

They suspected he was a suicide bomber. If they don't shoot to kill, he can still set off the device while wounded.

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes is a clear demonstration why we have concepts like due process and rights of the accused: they might be innocent!

Giving the police the power of judge/jury/executioner based on their suspicions is a clearly flawed policy. One innocent man has been killed. If this policy is maintained, many more will be killed. I have serious doubts that any suicide bombers will be stopped by this method.

There are so many more avenues the police can pursue over gunning down suspects. The only result if this course is maintained is:
1. A large number of London police will be burdened with the guilt of murder;
2. A number of honest and ethical men will choose against being a police officer, out of fear of being forced into executions of suspects;
3. A number of not-so-honest men will become attracted to the force for the wrong reasons;
4. This policy will spread to other types of law enforcement. Can you not see the execution of "pro-life" protesters, IRA-suspected agitators, and union activitists?

The hard truth: we must not let these fanatics undermine our freedom. It is better to walk the ethical path though the risks are greater, than to commit ourselves to the murder of our own citizens in a vain hope that we can stop a suicide bomber in process.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> <b>Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, may have run from police because of his visa situation, BBC correspondents say. </b> <small>Source: BBC</small>
> 
> Menezes, who had gone to the UK to earn money to support his family back home in Brazil, had recently returned to the UK after going home to be with his father, who was undergoing cancer treatment. Menezes had not renewed his work visa, and was possibly concerned that he would be deported.


Oh man. This keeps getting worse.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Nice hyperbole. "This keeps getting worse"

It's not like they killed him again, so in fact it's not worse. Perhaps more tragic from a certain point of view, but it also could be seen from the angle of he was the master of his own demise. 

Not that I'm saying illegal immigrants / visitors should be shot. To be clear. But he sure as hell wasn't making the situation better by violating the laws of a country in the midst of a heightened state of security. 

Bottom line: What a stupid, tragic and preventable death. Will there be others? Perhaps. Is there anything that can be done about it? Sure, tell the cops not to shoot suspected terrorists. But when one kills 100 people in a subway because police had thier hands tied, don't complain or point fingers at them. 

Hell of a choice to make. Risk being wrong and killing an innocent man, or risk a dozens of dead bodies if you were right and failed to act. 

I know which one I would choose and I'd live with the guilt the police in London will probably have for the rest of thier lives. 

To engage MacDoc, this would be a situation that is not as cut and dry and good and evil. 

It's really neither, but that doesn't mean Good and Evil don't exist.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> It's not like they killed him again, so in fact it's not worse. Perhaps more tragic from a certain point of view, but it also could be seen from the angle of he was the master of his own demise.


This fellow was apparently sending money he was earning home for the treatment of a relative with cancer. He was likely faced with the dilemma of following the law or caring for a sick relative. That is more tragic, so it is worse. That's not hyperbole. (You seem to have an issue with vocabulary. An example of hyperbole would be "this couldn't get any worse," or "this is the worse thing that has ever happened!")



NBiBooker said:


> Not that I'm saying illegal immigrants / visitors should be shot. To be clear. But he sure as hell wasn't making the situation better by violating the laws of a country in the midst of a heightened state of security.


But you are looking to dump as much blame onto the victim as you can manage. And you are saying that suspected terrorists should be shot.



NBiBooker said:


> Bottom line: What a stupid, tragic and preventable death. Will there be others? Perhaps. Is there anything that can be done about it? Sure, tell the cops not to shoot suspected terrorists. But when one kills 100 people in a subway because police had thier hands tied, don't complain or point fingers at them.


You blame the "stupid" and "preventable" part on the victim. You blame the circumstances for the tragedy. You place no blame on this policy of executing suspects. As for tying the hands of police, that is hyperbole. The police have many avenues to deal with terrorists that don't require executions.

I have no faith that this policy will achieve anything other than the death of innocent people and create fear of the police. You want to justify this policy and this murder by claiming it could save the lives of hundreds of people.
We've heard promises like this before. We've heard that censorship can make society more ethical. We've heard capital punishment can reduce crime. We've heard stronger government can bring peace, or prosperity, or justice. None of these things ever come to pass. 

The empty promise that executing "suspected terrorists" can save hundreds of lives is a lie. 



NBiBooker said:


> Hell of a choice to make. Risk being wrong and killing an innocent man, or risk a dozens of dead bodies if you were right and failed to act.


That isn't the choice at all. The choice is having an ethical government or not.



NBiBooker said:


> I know which one I would choose and I'd live with the guilt the police in London will probably have for the rest of thier lives.


I'm sure you could live with the guilt. Jean Charles de Menezes isn't so lucky.



NBiBooker said:


> To engage MacDoc, this would be a situation that is not as cut and dry and good and evil. It's really neither, but that doesn't mean Good and Evil don't exist.


All political discussions are issues of good and evil. Political philosophy is the discipline that investigates the nature and implementation of good government.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Jean Charles de Menezes ran when told to stop by police. Given the temper of the times and the subway setting, the outcome was predictable. The consequent destitution of his relatives is in no way germaine to arguements concerning rightness/wrongness/legality/or even, dare I say, wisdom of the police action. That destitution is soley the product of the actions of Jean Charles de Menezes. The consequences of his stupidity were received rather more swiftly, and with greater finality, than is perhaps usual. However, those consequences were predicable *from his position in the situation*.

Caveat emptor, baby.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> All political discussions are issues of good and evil


.....total and utter and useless nonsense. 



> po·lit·i·cal P Pronunciation Key (p-lt-kl)
> adj.
> Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
> Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).
> ...





> dis·cus·sion P Pronunciation Key (d-skshn)
> n.
> Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
> A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.


Learn to use the language accurately or don't postulate such glaringly inane statements. You have useful ideas with a poor underlying conceptual framework to support them.

••••

What don't people understand about "mistake".
Both parties used their judgement in how to proceed under the circumstances and the result was a life lost under circumstances the police mistook as threatening to them and/or the general public.
The upcoming inquiry will look into procedures and make recommendations and MAY in the future reduce the likelihood of a similar occurrence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The upcoming inquiry will look into procedures and make recommendations and MAY in the future reduce the likelihood of a similar occurrence.


Not if the next guy chooses to run and disobey the stop command. You can expect the very same tragic result again and again if they run.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> This fellow was apparently sending money he was earning home for the treatment of a relative with cancer. He was likely faced with the dilemma of following the law or caring for a sick relative. That is more tragic, so it is worse. That's not hyperbole. (You seem to have an issue with vocabulary. An example of hyperbole would be "this couldn't get any worse," or "this is the worse thing that has ever happened!")


I don't have a problem with vocabulary, I called your statement hyperbole because that's the way I saw it. You can disagree with on whether you think it is hyperbole or not. But save the cheap shots, smart guy. 



lpkmckenna said:


> But you are looking to dump as much blame onto the victim as you can manage. And you are saying that suspected terrorists should be shot.


I'm not looking to dump as much blame as I can on the victim. I'm pointing out the mistakes the victim made that contributed to his own death. Fact. 

Also suspected terrorists should be shot if police believe they are about to murder others and refuse to obey police commands. Get used to it, that's the world we now live in. 



lpkmckenna said:


> You blame the "stupid" and "preventable" part on the victim. You blame the circumstances for the tragedy. You place no blame on this policy of executing suspects. As for tying the hands of police, that is hyperbole. The police have many avenues to deal with terrorists that don't require executions.


I place some of the blame on the victim, yes, and I leave it to the investigative bodies to determine if some of the blame belongs to the police.

Having said that, I think it's premature to say who was more at fault. But certainly the victim didn't help himself here. 



lpkmckenna said:


> I have no faith that this policy will achieve anything other than the death of innocent people and create fear of the police. You want to justify this policy and this murder by claiming it could save the lives of hundreds of people.
> We've heard promises like this before. We've heard that censorship can make society more ethical. We've heard capital punishment can reduce crime. We've heard stronger government can bring peace, or prosperity, or justice. None of these things ever come to pass.
> 
> The empty promise that executing "suspected terrorists" can save hundreds of lives is a lie.


Lose the sarcasm around "suspected terrorists" and face fact. If someone is wearing explosives strapped to thier chest and is determined to kill innocent people there is but one way of dealing with it. Shots to the head, particularly to a two inch band centred around the eye will prevent reflexes from setting off an explosive device, or pulling the trigger on a gun. How do I know this. 

Because I was a soldier once and that was something we needed to learn about. Did I ever want to have to do that to another human being? No, that's one of the reasons I left that job. Do I sympathize with the person who had to do thier job, yes. 



lpkmckenna said:


> That isn't the choice at all. The choice is having an ethical government or not.


Ethical government? What kind of ethical government leaves its citizens at the mercy of suicide bombers? 

Bottom line here is that the guy could have saved his own life if he'd just stopped. Leave out the sending money to his cancer stricken relative guilt trip.

He made a choice and a damn poor one. The police made a choice and in hindsight it seems they shot an innocent man. They made a choice, a tough choice, and it was the wrong one. 

The question is, will they be wrong next time? I hope not. Was thier intention to murder an innocent man, I certainly hope not. But that will be up to an inquiry and the courts to prove. If they acted in good faith with the best information available, then the victim's death was tragic, but shouldn't deter England from defending itself. 



lpkmckenna said:


> I'm sure you could live with the guilt. Jean Charles de Menezes isn't so lucky.


I really struggled with how to reply to this. One part of me wanted to have a very short response, the other one just wanted to point out the rhetorical cheap shot. But save the melodramatics. Guy's dead and it's tragic. But he's not a matyr.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

OK a bit of info from the frontline here...

(missed this thread as I still have no broadband connection 6 weeks on!)

1) It IS a tragedy. All involved recognise that.

2) There IS a shoot to kill policy on suspected suicide bombers. I approve of it for the reasons below.

3) On Thursday four bombs failed to go off (problem with the volatility of the mix; it looks like the bombs were beyond their 'sell by date'). Had the bombs gone off, you would have had another 60 dead/700 wounded.

4) All four perpetrators of the attempted bombings left the scene. Not all bombs were recovered at the scene. In other words, by Thursday afternoon you had four suicide terrorists in London with one or more bombs at their disposal.

5) Throughout Thursday night the police tried to identify and arrest the four bombers. By Friday morning they had not been found. One of the suspicious houses (linked to the terrorists but not necessarily harbouring them) was the house from which our Brazilian friend came out.

6) The rest is an unfortunate chain of events described elsewhere.

So please let conspiracy theories lie low for a while. This is no W Neocon long term scare story. This is about a live manhunt to protect us from very dangerous people over a 16 hour period. As I said below it is a tragedy. And the real culprits - if you want to designate somebody - are the bombers, nobody else.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Well said Moscool.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I find it hilarious that people were actually questioning whether police are police. If you don't believe police are police, ask to see their badge. But under no circumstances do you run from the police (It would be a totally different story if in the last few days there was a serial killer going around pretending he was a cop.) That's like keeping on driving when the police are trying to pull you over, or saying the word "bomb" when your at an airport security screening, or taking a knife onto a jet, or crawling over a US fence that has a sign that "deadly force will be used against trespassers". Stupidity has results. As is shown by the court case of the Canadian boy accused of planning to blow up his American school. Sure, in this case it's a trajedy that he was killed, but what if he had a trigger for a bomb, everybody would be praising that cop right now for saving hundreds of lives.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

rgray said:


> Jean Charles de Menezes ran when told to stop by police. Given the temper of the times and the subway setting, the outcome was predictable. The consequent destitution of his relatives is in no way germaine to arguements concerning rightness/wrongness/legality/or even, dare I say, wisdom of the police action. That destitution is soley the product of the actions of Jean Charles de Menezes. The consequences of his stupidity were received rather more swiftly, and with greater finality, than is perhaps usual. However, those consequences were predicable *from his position in the situation*.
> 
> Caveat emptor, baby.


That has to be the most callous and vicious post I've ever read on these boards. Congratulations  If the outcome was predictable, then every time someone runs for a train, has a prank with their friends, is hearing impaired, mentally disabled or acts in some other manner that might be construed as unusual (not even threatening), they might expect to receive an express ticket off the planet? Get real. It was a horrible mistake by the officers. Dumping the responsibility of his death onto the victim is unbelievable.

These are extraordinary times but a civilised society does not suspend its principles.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

UTBW,


> These are extraordinary times but a civilised society does not suspend its principles.


well said
I would add that if a civlised society does suspend its principles the terrorists have won

Peace and prosperity take care of terrorism.
Opression, invasions and wars only fan the flames.

Check out inner city America in the 60s
"Burn baby burn" ring any bells?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Now it turns out that Mr. Menezes was privileged to have had 8 shots fired into him (Coroner's findings today). He must have been a very, very bad lad indeed then.

This really is a thoroughly disgusting business. What fascinates me is the rapidity with which the "he deserved it" meme has spread around the "civilised" world. We've had the high and mighty scrambling to offer their regret, but …
Here's a snippet from the BBC's web-site:


> Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair has apologised to the family of the Brazilian man shot dead by police in south London on Friday.
> He said the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a "tragedy", but admitted more people could be shot as police hunt suspected suicide bombers.


The Plods bungled this, badly, but my money is on them coming up smelling of roses.
As in previous cases of fatal shootings of innocent people by the Police in the UK, the Establishment closes ranks rapidly, and a goodly portion of the lumpen ad-mass falls into line.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

Very interesting. 8 bombs or attempts in two weeks, and you bring up 2 events in the past how many years? They are not even close to eachother other than your label 'terrorism'. But you won't ask yourself why THIS time around, there's 20 plain clothes police officers hanging about the subway. No reason at all.

You obviously miss the obvious. The cops know it, the majority of the world knows it, but you don't seem to see it. Blind like the kid. 

Spectrum: The kid was a perceived threat. That's what he did wrong. He didn't run from assailants, they were cops, right out. Perhaps get into today's world of fighting crime of any nature. Unmarked cars are all over Toronto, not because they're out to shoot non-white people, but because that's the very nature of policing. 

In light of all the discussion, what would others have done? I mean, why even have cops on the street, if people's rights are broken, even by stopping them to ask them questions? What does that leave us with...BOOM! "Oh, that was not legal, let's clean it up and have a funeral for 53 people. It's a good thing we didn't have to break anybody's civil liberties by asking them if they had a bomb in their back pack." What a road to anarchy.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> The Plods bungled this, badly, but my money is on them coming up smelling of roses.
> As in previous cases of fatal shootings of innocent people by the Police in the UK, the Establishment closes ranks rapidly, and a goodly portion of the lumpen ad-mass falls into line.


...and recently a guy was charged for throwing a backpack into a crowd and saying it was a bomb. Another subway incident. 

I guess they shouldn't arrest him because there WAS no bomb, and he has the God given right to toss anything anywhere, and to speak freely as any free citizen of the world should. Now I see where you are coming from. 

How about I wave a gun around in public, as it's my right, as I have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate? It might not be loaded, but I don't have to tell anybody, because that would be outright interrogation, wouldn't it? How disgusting that someone would actually think of asking me questions when I'm going about my free ways.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

SQ, I would agree in principle with you on this: 


Snapple Quaffer said:


> As in previous cases of fatal shootings of innocent people by the Police in the UK, the Establishment closes ranks rapidly, and a goodly portion of the lumpen ad-mass falls into line.


However, in this specific case – and assuming the truth is close to what we have been told – I would support the policy to shoot and chalk this death to 'collateral damage'. Not a pretty word but the best I can think of. In a way this chap was unlucky and yes you can get frightened and not heed calls to stop, but he was just as unlucky as the poor woman from Hull (PQ) who was killed instantly when someone decided to commit suicide by jumping from the towers of Notre Dame in Paris and proceeded to land on her. A tragedy. And nothing else.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the big difference between those two examples is that the police wilfully did this on purpose and they have the great responsibility of having firearms

with great power comes great responsibility


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Calm, BeeRich, calm. I can assure you that you, Sir, most certainly do not see "where I am coming from". You are, undoubtedly, seeing something though.

This is what fascinates me. People are polarising over this issue really quickly.

Would you do me a little favour and Google "Harry Stanley", and then post back with your opinions afterwards? I do not wish to seem anything other than genuinely interested in 'reaction' as an effect. (Pondering over 'cause' is about as witless as a dog chasing its tail.)


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> with great power comes great responsibility


Hmm Spiderman or Karate Kid?

This is another interesting debate. Does the responsibility lie with those who design the shoot to kill policy or with the trigger happy policemen who got 'release' and turned the poor guy into a colander? My guess is the former.

Another point is the reality of the 'ambiance' in the streets of London: things are pretty clam and race relations are still good. But everybody is really jumpy. Personally I am switching to the bus for the next three days. Not because there is a statistical difference with the Tube, but because my family is away and I want to reassure them as much as possible. Also because on the bus you can always jump if you don't like somebody's attitude (at least from the few remaining open double deckers).


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

Snapple:

After 3 lines of the first article I brought up...

"DETECTIVES who yesterday questioned two police marksmen on suspicion of murder after they shot dead Harry Stanley six years ago are to submit a file to Crown prosecutors."

...I can refer to the differences already. Granted there are similarities, but you don't think that in London right now the difficulty at hand really dictates a different situation? If not, perhaps you should take another look. That's where the obvious information lies when running from anybody telling you to stop, not to mention jumping security barracades, while wearing a big coat in warm weather, into a subway where (approx) 6 bombs have already gone off within a 14 day period.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Does the responsibility lie with those who design the shoot to kill policy or with the trigger happy policemen who got 'release' and turned the poor guy into a colander? My guess is the former.


I believe that precedent has already been set.
"I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse as shown at the Nuremberg trials.

As for responsibility of the "higher ups," I would look at Blair and his imperialist foreign policy of invading Iraq. Of course, he'll never see the inside of a jail cell.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Moscool, good to hear from you again!

I would certainly agree with you that both the Brazilian guy and the woman from Hull were damned with bad luck. You can't get much unluckier than being quickly rubbed out because of someone else's actions, whether they be intentional or not.

You're closer to the danger than I am, and so I understand (I think) your sentiments about the shoot to kill policy and will not argue with you, since that would seem antagonistic. But, and with great respect, I can't give way to the 'collateral damage' argument.

Take care.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> because that's the very nature of policing


Undercover and unmarked are NOT the nature of policing. It has attendant risks to democracy because there is a clear need for "visible" authority NOT secret police.

I'm going to repeat this link cuz I'm not sure ANYONE took it to heart or read it.



> *Police and Democracy*
> This version appeared in M. Amir and S. Einstein (eds.) Policing, Security and Democracy: Theory and Practice, vol. 2
> Back to Main Page | References | Glossary | Unresolved Critical Issue
> 
> ...


http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/dempol.html 

A bit more



> *It is ironic that police are both a major support and a major threat to a democratic society.* When police operate under the rule of law they may protect democracy by their example of respect for the law and by suppressing crime. Police are moral, as well as legal, actors.
> 
> But apart from the rule of law and public accountability, the police power to use force, engage in summary punishment, use covert surveillance, and to stop, search and arrest citizens, can be used to support dictatorial regimes, powerful vested interest groups and practices. When non-democratic regimes are toppled *a prominent demand is always for the elimination of the secret police.* The term "police state" as represented by Germany under National Socialism and the former Soviet Union under communism suggests the opposite of a democratic state. Police are subservient to a single party, not a legislature or judiciary. The policing of crime and politics merge and political dissent becomes a crime. Here *the police function may not be clearly differentiated from and may overlap that of the security services (e.g., as with the military or national intelligence agencies). This may also involve cooperation with citizen vigilante groupsgroups or they themselves becoming vigilante groups. groups or the police becoming vigilantes themselves.*
> 
> The meaning of the term "police" has changed over the last 5 centuries. The word police comes from polity", meaning the form of government of a political body. In Europe in the 15th century it referred broadly to matters involving life, health and property. There was no distinct police force. Policing was done intermittently by the military and society was largely "un-policed". With the formation of modern states with clear national borders beginning in the 18th century, policing became concerned with internal security With and with the expansion of the law over the next several centuries, police also came to be increasingly concerned with the prevention of public dangers such as crime and disorder … and the prevention or redress of breaches of law. They also themselves came to be more controlled by the law.


The perceived threats have unleashed a re-evaluation of the power vested in "police" and "security services" and have started to blur them in a manner which in my mind could be dangerous in the long term.

Local policing versus "national security" has in my view different practice - the local police having a clear obligation to be perceived as a part of the community and engaged visibly with it while the likes of MI5/6 CIA CSIS etc is far more a covert role and "shadowy" and usually perceived to be both more powerful and also held to a far higher standard.

The local community aspect is one reason I firmly approve of strong civilian oversight in local police boards.

In the case of the shadow world - it's a parliamentary and PMO/Executive Branch function for oversight in that more difficult area ( Arar for instance ).

When the national security world intrudes into the community...... 

There WILL be mistakes as there are at all levels where authorized force confronts perceived risk or force or threat in society and the risks of mistakes happening rise as occurred here.

NOT to lose sight of the delicate balance between police power and civil liberties is in mind critical when these events occur so as to preserve the balance over time.

I think the US has failed in that or is failing in preserving human rights and societal freedoms when confronting terrorism. 

How Britain is doing in this "not easy" task is something I'd like to hear about from those living it. 
Is there confidence in the police and national security forces or fear of increased powers and loss of rights???

I think Canada is walking the difficult line reasonably well.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

SQ:

Yup still breathing... Thanks for your good thoughts and let's agree to disagree.

MS:

The Nuremberg analogy is disingenuous to say the least - we are talking about policemen who think through a specific problem about a fanatic self triggering an explosive device. This is neither a final solution issue nor is there coercion: these policemen are doing a paid job.

If you really want a conspiracy try this one for size: the Metropolitan Police Service (London) has apparently received advice from the Israelis on dealing with bombs in public transport. So there you have it: a Zionist plot to kill as many Moslems as possible!

Regarding Blair's idiotic foreign policy I think that most of the world agrees. But this does not exactly justify brainwashing youngsters into blowing themselves up. There is very little in common between a Yorkshire raised British-Pakistani and whether or not fewer people are dying in Iraq today than under Sadam.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Moscool;


> There is very little in common between a Yorkshire raised British-Pakistani and whether or not fewer people are dying in Iraq today than under Sadam.


And that is the scariest part of all. Home grown terrorists. It set off alarm bells in my head. How do you defend against suicide bombers that are already living in your country?

It boggles the mind that it has come to this.
And through it all the mantra is; "They hate our way of life."

The Nuremberg example is valid.
Following orders is NOT an excuse.
How many must be killed before it is too many?
1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000?

Secret police (aka "undercover") killing innocent people is equivalent to the horrors perpetrated by the Gestapo and KGB.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Moscool - any change in view of police - welcome?? feared?? too much power??, too little??


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I think Canada is walking the difficult line reasonably well.


We haven't had anything yet MacDoc. We'll see what happens when four or more suicide bomber detonates on the TTC and kill 60 Canadians and injure more than 700. 

After then, and only after then, will we know if Canada is walking the line well or not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You missed my point ENTIRELY. 

You can stuff your fear mongering where the sun don't shine 

IT's ALREADY HAPPENED - to Arar and to the Indian woman who had her passport shredded by an "authority figure" out of control



> Thursday, February 20, 2003
> 
> US INS destroys Canadian woman's passport, sends her to India
> Zed sez: "An Indian-born Canadian citizen was flying home from India to Toronto, and transferring at O'Hare. INS decided her passport was funny-looking, destroyed it, denied her access to the Canadian consul, and deported her to India via Kuwait with her papers in such disorder she might not have been able to get into India if Kuwaiti and Indian authorities hadn't been so co-operative


THAT'S the risk to Canadian society I and others like JW speak of...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

For those who haven't been staying on top of this story, the count is now <b>seven shots to the head</b> and one to the shoulder (apparently one of the cops has bad aim).

And remember that "house" that they had under surveillance? We have now learned that it's an apartment block.

Um-hmmmm....

M.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> You missed my point ENTIRELY.
> 
> You can stuff your fear mongering where the sun don't shine
> 
> IT's ALREADY HAPPENED - to Arar and to the Indian woman who had her passport shredded by an "authority figure" out of control


MacDoc, you can stuff your rhetoric...  forget it, I'm not going to insult or get mad when someone doesn't agree with me. It's not worth it. 

I didn't miss your point, I made a counterpoint. We'll know how Canadian society deals with terrorism when we are actually confronted with it on home soil. Whether the response by our politicians will be just and correct. We'll see how far we'd walk in the shoes of the Brits or the Americans. 


That's my point. 

Stop getting mad when others don't agree with you. We can both have our opinions and for the sake of Canada, let's hope it stays at heated opinions on an internet forum. 



MacDoc said:


> THAT'S the risk to Canadian society I and others like JW speak of...


You know the Arar stuff sucks. Nobody's going to argue with you on that.

But I'm not in a thread discussing Arar. I'm in a thread discussing the victim of a tragic situation. 

One's whose death has sparked heated debate about shoot to kill and suicide bombers. 

And again, given the situation and the information police had on hand, barring further evidence, I'm going to have back the police on this one. 

But MacDoc, I respect your opinions, and in the words of the very wise Dr. G, peace. 

As for Cuba Mark, yeah he was shot in the head alot. Really doesn't matter to him if it was one or seven, he's dead. That it was seven shots really shows the desperation of the officers. 

I leave it to the inevitable inquiry to determine if they did what was right, despite the hindsight is 20/20 nature of it all.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

There's really two central questions here:

1. Is a 'shoot to kill' policy justified when dealing with suicide bombers?
-I think a lot of people who have posted think yes and I would lean towards agreeing.

2. Did the police have legitimate grounds for thinking this man was a suicide bomber?
-The evidence seems to be that he lived in the same house (or apartment block) as suspected bombers, he was wearing a heavy coat and he ran from plain clothes police officers in a subway system on high alert. That's not really enough but unfortunately, I don't think the police officers on the platform had much choice once he ran from them... they did what they had been trained to do. The real mistake made by the police here, I think, was in letting a person they considered to be a suspect into the tube station at all. Why wasn't he stopped at some point before he entered the station, and told to remove his coat? What were they hoping to gain by letting him enter?

Macdoc,



> lpkmckenna: "All political discussions are issues of good and evil" (lpkmckenna)
> 
> Macdoc: ".....total and utter and useless nonsense.... Learn to use the language accurately or don't postulate such glaringly inane statements. You have useful ideas with a poor underlying conceptual framework to support them."


I'm surprised that you focus your fire on what is clearly an opinion. Not everyone looks at political issues this way but lpkmckenna does. You're definitely out of line criticizing his/her use of language. I may choose to regard all discussions of what to eat for breakfast as issues of good and evil and that's perfectly valid.

MACSPECTRUM,



> As for responsibility of the "higher ups," I would look at Blair and his imperialist foreign policy of invading Iraq.


I've challenged you before to show how Blair's foreign policy is imperialist... answer any time you're ready.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There's been a undercurrent here that I has been touched on but I don't think has been limned completely - I think CubaMark noted "he was from Brazil!!"...why is that a critical factor??



> In 1993 Brazil and the international community were appalled by two massacres of unarmed and defenceless civilians that took place within weeks of each other in Rio de Janeiro city. Eight "street children" and young adults were attacked and killed as they lay sleeping outside a church in central Rio in what became known as the Candelária massacre on 23 July 1993. Little over a month later on 29 August 1993 *twenty one residents of Vigário Geral, a poor community on the city’s outskirts, were slaughtered by a group of heavily armed and hooded men.
> 
> The shock of these brutal and senseless killings was made all the worse when evidence emerged that both massacres had been carried out by members of Rio’s military police force, the very individuals paid, trained and equipped by the state to protect society from crime and violence.*


Might just cast some light on his reaction.
and there is further Brazil specific incidents that inform Brazilian views - Bus 174 likely has the same impact as a phrase on Brazilians as Kent State does on those who lived with it.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001598.html

••••

NB you fuel fear of bombs while completely avoiding the threat to civil liberties and *incidents derived from that threat have already occurred.*

Doing all we can to bring warring parties to a resolution, treating ALL peoples with respect, trade and aid is THE best defence so that ALL communities in Canada can both maintain their culture without threat from others and share a set of common principles the Charter represents.

Fear mongering about "furrein bombers" breeds bigotry and suspicion. Torontonians speak 170 some languages and in a few years caucasians will be the visible minority.

We have only to look south to see what NOT to do.

I'm VERY impressed with Londoners getting on with "life as usual" :clap:

Strong and ongoing support for efforts like this
http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/resources/2005-1q-enl.htm
and providing a model for peacable cultural diversity should engage our attention and passion.

NOT the breeding of suspicion and isolation.....and fear.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> All political discussions are issues of good and evil. Political philosophy is the discipline that investigates the nature and implementation of good government.





MacDoc said:


> .....total and utter and useless nonsense. Learn to use the language accurately or don't postulate such glaringly inane statements.


Your dictionary definitions are very interesting, but irrelevant.

From the Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy:
Political philosophy has its beginnings in ethics: in questions such as what kind of life is the good life for human beings. Since people are by nature sociable – there being few proper anchorites who turn from society to live alone – the question follows as to what kind of life is proper for a person amongst people. The philosophical discourses concerning politics thus develop, broaden and flow from their ethical underpinnings.
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/polphil.htm

(Sorry about my source. IEP isn't bad, but I'm not at home so I don't have the direct quotes from the references I would prefer to use.)

Yes, all political discussions concern issues of good and evil. Is it evil for the state to censor opposing political, scientific, or religious viewpoints? Is it evil for the state to punish a criminal without allowing him a chance to defend himself fairly? Is it evil for members of society to be obstructed from participating in their own government? Is it evil for the state to meet its goals by torture of suspects, executions without trial, threatening to harm friends and family?

It is immoral for the state to censor, hence we are entitled to freedom of speech. It is immoral for the state to impose religious views, hence we are entitled to 
freedom of religion. I think you get the point. Documents like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are moral codes which limit the powers of government. A government might violate these rights, but it cannot claim moral justification while doing so, any more than a rapist or a torturer can claim such.

The purpose of moral philosophy is to identify what the individual must and must not to do. The purpose of political philosophy is to identify what the state must and must not do.

This is why moral philosophers are often political philosophers too. Mill's moral theory of utilitarianism impacted on his political views. Russell's moral theory of justice influenced his political views. Plato discussed the issue of justice extensively to arrive at his political views. Examples are easy here.

Counter-examples are easy here, too. Marx generally dismissed moral reasoning as "ideology." Freud (a contemptible liar if there ever was one) dismissed moral reasoning as a repressive psychological phenomenon. Spencer believed that moral thinking was an evolutionary consequence of the environment. None of these individuals or their followers have contributed much to the philosphical world. (They did harm it, though, as well as the real world.) None of these men are philosophers, just pompous sophists.



MacDoc said:


> You have useful ideas with a poor underlying conceptual framework to support them.


I'm sorry, but I will never see the world the way you do. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what I have gathered from your postings you don't think words like good, evil, right, wrong, moral, immoral, ethical, unethical have any meaning. People aren't "evil" but psychologically defective. People aren't "wrong" but "hate-mongers." One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's patriot is another man's apostate.

I want to convince the suicide bomber and the suspect-executioners of the wrongness of what they do. You want to tell them "there isn't any wrong."

Your "underlying conceptual framework" is a falsehood: the denial of the possibility of objective morality.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> Also suspected terrorists should be shot if police believe they are about to murder others and refuse to obey police commands. Get used to it, that's the world we now live in.


I will not get used to police executing suspects. Yes, I suppose the world has changed. But the difference between right and wrong hasn't.



NBiBooker said:


> Because I was a soldier once and that was something we needed to learn about. Did I ever want to have to do that to another human being? No, that's one of the reasons I left that job. Do I sympathize with the person who had to do thier job, yes.


I am a soldier now. If I was ordered to executed suspect, I would refuse. I don't know what nation you were a soldier in, but in Canada the individual soldier is obligated to refuse unethical orders. The CF Statement of Ethics is posted in every military building. Since it is the order of the Chief of Defence Staff it has higher authority than any other order. (That way, no soldier can disavow moral responsibility by saying "I was just following orders.")



NBiBooker said:


> Ethical government? What kind of ethical government leaves its citizens at the mercy of suicide bombers?


You make it sound like this is the only way to deal with terrorism. It isn't. Just like the rights of the accused isn't a real obstacle to catching and convicting criminals. And to my mind, I am not leaving anyone at the mercy of the suicide bombers, because this policy isn't likely to help stop them anyway.



NBiBooker said:


> He made a choice and a damn poor one. The police made a choice and in hindsight it seems they shot an innocent man. They made a choice, a tough choice, and it was the wrong one.


I am not criticizing the choices of the police. They simply did what they were told. I am criticizing this execution of suspects policy.



NBiBooker said:


> I really struggled with how to reply to this. One part of me wanted to have a very short response, the other one just wanted to point out the rhetorical cheap shot. But save the melodramatics. Guy's dead and it's tragic. But he's not a matyr.


It's not a cheap shot. The guy is dead, but you get to live thru the "guilt and tragedy." The fact that the world seems ready to live with this guilt has angered me.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Moscool said:


> So please let conspiracy theories lie low for a while. This is no W Neocon long term scare story. This is about a live manhunt to protect us from very dangerous people over a 16 hour period. As I said below it is a tragedy. And the real culprits - if you want to designate somebody - are the bombers, nobody else.


No one has stated anything about any neo-con conspiracies. There are no conspiracy theories being advocated here. What myself, Macspectrum, MacDoc, and a couple others are against is the deliberate killing of a suspect. There is no reason to believe this policy will work, but this policy will erode the faith in the police, act as a strawman for the critics of the western world, and leave much innocent blood in the subways of London.

The truth is, if Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrorist, stayed home that day making pipebombs and answering the phone from his contacts in Syria or wherever, he'd still be alive.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> That has to be the most callous and vicious post I've ever read on these boards. Congratulations  If the outcome was predictable, then every time someone runs for a train, has a prank with their friends, is hearing impaired, mentally disabled or acts in some other manner that might be construed as unusual (not even threatening), they might expect to receive an express ticket off the planet? Get real. It was a horrible mistake by the officers. Dumping the responsibility of his death onto the victim is unbelievable.
> 
> These are extraordinary times but a civilised society does not suspend its principles.


Awesome post. Just awesome.

(Just don't tell MacDoc. He thinks words like "principles" sound too biblical.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Originally Posted by used to be jwoodget


> That has to be the most callous and vicious post I've ever read on these boards. Congratulations If the outcome was predictable, then every time someone runs for a train, has a prank with their friends, is hearing impaired, mentally disabled or acts in some other manner that might be construed as unusual (not even threatening), they might expect to receive an express ticket off the planet? Get real. It was a horrible mistake by the officers. Dumping the responsibility of his death onto the victim is unbelievable.


Wrong, it is totally believable. A simple "stop and explain your actions" you live. You run without stopping when ordered to do so, you die.

Pure and simple and suicide as a decision.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> A simple "stop and explain your actions" you live. You run without stopping when ordered to do so, you die.


He did stop eventually, after running in fear from the plainclothes men who from reports, appeared to be skinheads and was pinned to the floor of a subway train. Then he was summarily executed with several bullets to the head.

If he had stopped immediately, would he have been executed? They still suspected that he was a suicide bomber. It sounds like he was bound to be executed the minute he entered the tube station. I doubt if surrendering immediately would have saved him.

Bad luck? Bad luck to look like a Muslim and have the police suspect you are a bomber. Is this how they plan to get the British Muslim community to co-operate in their investigations?

One more question comes to mind. If you were a suicide bomber, and were aware of the shoot-to-kill practice, would you not just then fashion a deadman switch, designed to go off in such an event?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

"Wrong, it is totally believable. A simple "stop and explain your actions" you live. You run without stopping when ordered to do so, you die. Pure and simple and suicide as a decision."

Except he had no reason to believe he would be killed for running. UK police are not known for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. It was not widely known that this "shoot-to-kill" policy had been adopted.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> He did stop eventually, after running in fear from the plainclothes men who from reports, appeared to be skinheads and was pinned to the floor of a subway train. Then he was summarily executed with several bullets to the head.
> 
> If he had stopped immediately, would he have been executed? They still suspected that he was a suicide bomber. It sounds like he was bound to be executed the minute he entered the tube station. I doubt if surrendering immediately would have saved him.
> 
> ...


Excellent post! Man, it took time but the forces of reason have arrived.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MacDoc, 

In my heart I wish you were right. But I fear the enemy we are facing believes in a creed that thrives on the hatred of infidels and no amount of non-violent communication is going to pacify him. 

Perhaps one of the most peaceful ways to diffuse radical Islam is a peaceful one. I believe more empowered women in these societies would temper the radicalism among some of the men.But that's one of many issues for the Muslim community to work out. 

As for the current fight, when faced with those who intend to use horrific violence to achieve their evil aims, one had better be prepared with more than kind words. 

But as always, that's just how I see it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> (Just don't tell MacDoc. He thinks words like "principles" sound too biblical.


Missed again, IpK it's *exactly* the right word to use, JW is talented at that....perhaps as befits someone in his last thoes of his doctorate 

The problem is YOU haven't percieved the difference.
Accurate and *appropriate* language use helps dialogue immensely and yes it was a very well written and passionate post by JW.....as ever.

He's an admirable writer both for his language use and it's import and relevancy and conveyance of both his thought on the matter and his feelings about the subject. 
He gets many :claps: from me.

HIS language use which you admire, and YOUR thinking I might object, is EXACTLY limns the issue I've taken you up on a couple of times. Good posts with erratic language consistency at odds with content.

It mars your effectiveness......Jim's ability enhances his. Capice?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> In my heart I wish you were right. But I fear *the enemy we* are facing believes in a creed that thrives on the hatred of infidels and no amount of non-violent communication is going to pacify him.





> As for the current fight, when faced with those who intend to use horrific violence to achieve their evil aims


Who is WE....and can't you see the very language and sentiment you express demonizes and "judges".

In my mind you are very correct in the assessment that it is the Muslim community in the larger sense that is best equipped to deal with extremists in their midst.

OUR role outside the community is to provide for support for the moderates and withdraw the "lightning rods" of meddling in the affairs of other nations even with the best of intentions.

Provide a model of a diverse, tolerant and at the same time peaceable society.

It's not just Islamists - it's all extremist fundamentalist forces that are intolerant of diversity.
Demonizing just one - when extremists like PETA, violent Prolifers, Timothy McVeighs et al exist within western democracies, where inequalities and racism and bigotry exist...simply reinforces the extremists message in the Islam community that there is good reason for their views. Feedin the impression of the US as the "Great Satan".

There is international criminal activity that needs being dealt with.
There are also radical violent extremist of a wide variety that also need to be reduced and effectively disarmed both in an "appeal" manner and denied access to arms.

While the great powers still sell arms to brutal regimes....what message is that???

How much international good will has Canaga earned in the peoples of the world by authoring and seeing through the International Landmine Treaty. :clap:

How much ill will has the US earned in not being a signatory. 
How much ill will by abrograting the Nuclear Proliferation treaty just this week with India.....what message does it send to extremists??

It's OUR WMDs.........Ways of Meaningful Demonstration as in the Landmine treaty and other Canadian efforts at world peace......that are effective and meaningful in the long term.

You say " I wish I could"....
Henry Ford said " If you think you can, or think you can't...you're right" 

Individuals CAN.......just ask this Canadian








http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/women/jody.asp :clap:

••••

BTW for the law uber alle types......Jack Straw just offered to entertain sympathetically a compensation claim from the victim's family. 

A *mistake* was made and now acknowledged and to a degree possible some compensation in the works. Good on the Brits. :clap:


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Man, careful, everyone! MacDoc alerts you to a serious problem: You wouldn't want to JUDGE anything, would you?

You wouldn't want to discern one fact from another, would you?

You wouldn't want to distinguish what is best for you and what is not good for you, would you?

You wouldn't want to dare having an opinion about anything that involves having an opinion, would you??

It's nice to know, in these troubled black and white times, there are always the wise prophets of non-truth just like MacDoc.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PT - Learn to read. 
Judgement in no way implies absolutes ...take your nonsense and stuff it.
The following is your ilk......and roundly and rightly condemned as playing exactly into Al Qaeda's wished for result.....just as you do.
••••



> Italy and Islam
> 
> Oriana's thread
> Jul 21st 2005 | ROME
> ...


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Undercover and unmarked are NOT the nature of policing. It has attendant risks to democracy because there is a clear need for "visible" authority NOT secret police.


So you want all police to be marked? You realize this basically disallows undercover operations which is the best way of policing for terrorists, drugs, arms, organized crime... etc. The theology is nice, but the practicality is totally different. And undercover does not mean secret police - secret police are police that defend the government or state as noted in this definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_police . In most cases secret police are quite identifiable.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

fink nottle;


> I've challenged you before to show how Blair's foreign policy is imperialist... answer any time you're ready.


invading a sovereign country (Iraq) under false pretenses without any provocation or threat to Britain

good enough?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> fink nottle;
> 
> 
> invading a sovereign country (Iraq) under false pretenses without any provocation or threat to Britain
> ...


Really Macspectrum, "... without any provocation... "? That is a pretty black and white statement, and not precisely true is it?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Hey MacDoc, good posting of the text of someone else's article about Ms. Fallaci. That too is a special kind of talent for which surely there would be a market for, if it weren't for heartless capitalist tools like search engines, news aggregators, etc. At least you still have the comedy and the computer biz to fall back on! 

But you always leave me with a smile, regardless of whether you are just yanking my chain or being downright intellectually dishonest! Good jab, saying I play into "al Qaeda's wished for result"!

Now, others might not see the humour readily, but I am an astute student of your craft: you are the same one a few weeks ago who told us that hilarious one, you know the one, that bin Laden's manifesto has a message for the Americans to, and I quote you, "go home and be safe".

"Go home and be safe"! Osama is like an amiable Smokey the Bear with a keffiyeh and Kalishnikov! Hahahahaha!

In other words, you yourself openly professed your wish for Americans to give al Qaeda their "wished for result"! 

Sly punchline, man... now you manage to go one better! Planethoth, oh he plays into al Qaeda's hands by pretending he is against them--so let me condemn him for stealthily playing into al Qaeda's hands while I advocate doing everything al Qaeda says!

LOLFR, maaaaaaan!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

But seriously, what really makes my days is those condescending little handclapping emoticons that MacDoc gives every time he sees something he likes, gets me every time. He's like a comic genius.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

planethoth said:


> Really Macspectrum, "... without any provocation... "? That is a pretty black and white statement, and not precisely true is it?


i don't recall Iraqi forces invading Britain
I don't watch every newscast and do on occasion sleep, so I may have missed it
perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i don't recall Iraqi forces invading Britain
> I don't watch every newscast and do on occasion sleep, so I may have missed it
> perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?



Hmm, well, don't think me too Clintonesque for saying, I guess it depends on what your definition of "provocation" is. I suspect, perhaps uncharitably, that you would not consider shooting at British planes with antiaircraft guns patrolling the "No-Fly Zone" which was part of the terms of the Gulf War I's ceasefire agreement a provocation. But rules are rules, and it would seem it is arguable that such actions would constitute provocation.

Invading is not the only form of provocation, is what I am saying.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

there was never any threat to British soil or its citizens with the obvious exception of military forces in the area

I am still waiting for that first WMD to be found in Iraq
After all, that was the justification for unilaterally invading Iraq


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> there was never any threat to British soil or its citizens with the obvious exception of military forces in the area
> 
> I am still waiting for that first WMD to be found in Iraq
> After all, that was the justification for unilaterally invading Iraq


Didn't Bush backtrack and state they were there to liberate the Iraqi people?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PT your not astute period, no modifer needed. 
Why do you think you're getting dissed......your intellectual or language skills......????
How about no.....

You're a fundamentalist with a puerile world view that plays perfectly to Al Qaeda's needs.
In that you succeed, nought else.

••••

As to provocation - don't you mean the US/British induced "spikes" :rolleyes" what a naif.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> there was never any threat to British soil or its citizens with the obvious exception of military forces in the area
> 
> I am still waiting for that first WMD to be found in Iraq
> After all, that was the justification for unilaterally invading Iraq



Don't think me rude for pointing out that you are incorrect on this last point. ONE of the justifications was that Saddam may be developing "WMDs", and indeed, most of the intelligence services thought this was likely. Jacques Chirac himself, in giving one of his rationales for opposing the war (really, the conclusion of a war on simmer, but OK), said that Saddam might use WMDs when backed into a corner and this was not worth the risk.

But, this was by far not the ONLY justification given for war. Indeed, it is public knowledge that there were several others publicly stated and debated as well, including regime change (a long standing policy since 1991), the need to shake up a dangerous Middle East status quo, a threat, both factually and potentially, that Saddam was aiding terrorist organizations hostile to the United States and its allies, an attempt to bring democracy to an Arab country, the increasing failure of the sanctions regime as policy, etc.

Now, you can dispute any or all of those reasons given, but you cannot claim it was the only reason given. That is a historical inaccuracy.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> PT your not astute period, no modifer needed.
> Why do you think you're getting dissed......your intellectual or language skills......????
> How about no.....
> 
> ...


So you mean, you didn't really mean it when you recommended we follow bin Laden's manifesto?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Actually, as of May, 2004, there were 27 "reasons", none of which made it a legitimate invasion.

According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the war violated the U.N. charter. It was an illegal invasion. Neither did the Security Council decide to invade Iraq - the United States did so unilaterally, without explicit support from council members.

And the overriding reason for invading Iraq -the one that "sold" the war to the American people - was the issue of imminent threat against the United States by Weapons of Mass Destruction which Saddam, they were told, possessed.

The reality, despite what the chickenhawks continue to natter on about, is that Iraq had <b>no</b> WMDs, and there was <b>no</b> "imminent threat" to the United States or its citizens.

How on earth can any intelligent being defend that course of action, when alternatives were available?

M.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Dudes, Nobody "Deserves" to die. I don't have time to read all thses posts, but we really seem to have some misguided folks here. Just think and try to put yourself in the situation before you post, that is all I would ask.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> Actually, as of May, 2004, there were 27 "reasons", none of which made it a legitimate invasion.
> 
> According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the war violated the U.N. charter. It was an illegal invasion. Neither did the Security Council decide to invade Iraq - the United States did so unilaterally, without explicit support from council members.
> 
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Yes, Cuba Mark, because if there's two things we know:
> 
> 1. Kofi Annan, a non-jurist, is a judge of what is "illegal", and
> 
> 2. China, Russia and France determine whether something is right or not.


And the US and Britian are more qualified?
Even after not finding any WMDs and lying about Uranium in Niger?
Give us all a break and leave the forum like you promised. Please!


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> No one has stated anything about any neo-con conspiracies. There are no conspiracy theories being advocated here. What myself, Macspectrum, MacDoc, and a couple others are against is the deliberate killing of a suspect.


My point was about something slightly different: the deliberate construction of a climate of fear that some say the Bush admin and Neocons have created and maintained since 9/11. There was an attempt at that in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, particularly when David Bluncket was in charge of the police, but Blair has now become much more reasonable in his communications with the public. Perhaps something to do with the departure of Alistair Campbell (for those of you who know of him). 

To answer MacDoc's questions: yes there are many more police on the streets and many are visibly armed, although usually in special uniforms. Most policemen wear flack jackets, even those who are not armed. There is no army presence at all. My feeling is that the Brits continue to trust and respect their police more than in any other country I can think of, particularly after the exemplary behaviour of all emergency services on 7/7. This makes the killing on Friday all the more shocking but, as I argued above, I think it was a very specific response to very specific circumstances. The police have now arrested 2 or 3 of the 4 suspects for last Thursday's attacks, so the tension is lowering a bit.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> And the US and Britian are more qualified?
> Even after not finding any WMDs and lying about Uraniun in Niger?
> Give us all a break and leave the forum like you promised. Please!



Just because you asked... no!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

A lot of people are trying to justify this. It makes me sick. The cops sumarily executed an innocent man (who has darker skin) seen leaving an appartment block where it was believed there might be terrorist(s). He was told to stop by people who apparently looked like skinheads and ran. They tackled him and shot him 8 times, 7 in the head. 

Q "What if he was a bomber?"
A He wasn't and we all know that.

There is no excuse for killing innocent people. How many more innocents need to be killed to protect us from these innocents?


Cops have a job to do and they are well paid. They are expected to be professional as part of the deal. Part of being professional in your police work is NOT killing innocent people.

Since this policy is now know, all suicide bombers will use dead switches if they weren't already. 


The use of dead switches will make this policy of shooting suspected terrorists irrelevant except that it will continue to chalk up innocent deaths.

Yes I know that the cops wish they didn't kill an innocent but that doesn't change the fact they did. Who's next?
Bet he isn't white.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> A lot of people are trying to justify this. It makes me sick. The cops sumarily executed an innocent man (who has darker skin) seen leaving an appartment block where it was believed there might be terrorist(s). He was told to stop by people who apparently looked like skinheads and ran. They tackled him and shot him 8 times, 7 in the head.
> 
> Q "What if he was a bomber?"
> A He wasn't and we all know that.
> ...



Martman, you are slipping again... this guy WAS white. Not an "indigenous" brazilian native, not a black brazilian... a white european brazilian! I think it is time to give the race narrative some rest here.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Bet he isn't white.


Actually, he doesn't appear to be ethnic, in my eyes at least. I have friends who look similar to him (hair, complexion, etc.) and they're about as "white" as you can get (English/Scottish heritage of course.)

Maybe people should put the race card back in their wallets and save it for another discussion.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> HIS language use which you admire, and YOUR thinking I might object, is EXACTLY limns the issue I've taken you up on a couple of times.


I have no idea what you just said. Your poor diction and grammar have obscured your meaning and intent. And I'm sure "limns" is not a word, and I have no clue what word you were trying to spell. Very clever use of capitalization, though; do I need a doctorate in something to learn how to do that?



MacDoc said:


> Good posts with erratic language consistency at odds with content.


Oh, the irony!

When you said consistency, did you mean consistently? My language is not "erratic." You simply do not agree with my word choices. I don't really think you can be consistent and erratic at the same time, unless you mean I am consistently erratic. Maybe I'm erratically consistent?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So sure are you???



> limn P Pronunciation Key (lm)
> tr.v. limned, limn·ing, (lmnng) limns
> To describe.
> To depict by painting or drawing. See Synonyms at represent.


Perhaps I'm correct on other counts as well


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

fine I'll take back the white comment but I stand by the rest.

This is more than certain right wingers in this thread who will go unnamed would do given a similar situation.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, re your question "do I need a doctorate in something to learn how to do that?", a Ph.D. in psycholinguistics at Harvard might be helpful.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> So you mean, you didn't really mean it when you recommended we follow bin Laden's manifesto?


You know, I've pretty much had my fill of you, planethoth.

I think reasonable people can disagree on difficult issues and be polite about it. But reasonable people cannot deal with the unreasonable.

Your method of argumentation largely consists of name-calling, putting words into people's mouths, offering unanalogous analogies and incomparable comparisons, setting up and knocking down straw men, and making histrionic screeches about us leading the west into the hands of the terrorists.

You dump a mountain of details which may or may not be relevent to the issue, may or may not be accurately represented by you, and may or may not support the conclusions you draw from them.

Most of us here get a little sarcastic or condescending here. But you are another creature altogether. You are always sarcastic. Almost every paragraph you post is insulting someone.

The whole point of a debate is to convince your opponents to see things your way, by telling them why you see things your way.

I have no desire to convince you of anything anymore. I would simply prefer not to be seen as being in agreement with you on anything. You could manage to misrepresent even the most enlightened viewpoint by making it sound like the ravings of an inbred scoundrel.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> You know, I've pretty much had my fill of you, planethoth.
> 
> I think reasonable people can disagree on difficult issues and be polite about it. But reasonable people cannot deal with the unreasonable.
> 
> ...


Argeed. He promised to leave the forum in the first thread I ever saw him in and has proven only to be a lier. Why do I say this?
He is still here and won't go as promissed.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> So sure are you??? Perhaps I'm correct on other counts as well


You this is what you said:
"HIS language use which you admire, and YOUR thinking I might object, is EXACTLY limns the issue I've taken you up on a couple of times."

And this is what you meant?
"His language use which you admire, and your thinking I might object, is exactly describes the issue I've taken you up on a couple of times."

Diction and grammar are still quite obscure. Perhaps you meant this:
"His language use (which you admire), and your language use (which I abhor), is exactly the issue I've taken you up on a couple of times."

I think this thought is perhaps too complex for a single sentence. I've structured your sentence fragments into parathetical remarks for clarity, but it's still too muddled. Sounds like something planethoth might write.

Of course I substituted "your thinking" with "your language," since you clearly are not aware of my thinking, and we were in fact discussing my vocabulary. 

I will admit that I was familiar with the word "limn," so you got me there. I doubt you will admit to being unable to write a clear and concise sentence with it. 

And as usual, you have yet again ignored my critique of your words. I have filled this thread with a clear defence of moral philosophy. You have ignored all of it. I defended my view by referencing the ideas of actual philosophers. You defended your view with "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I will struggle to stand with the heroes of our intellectual tradition. You go ahead and settle for the support of ignorance and barbarism.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Vinnie Cappuccino said:


> Dudes, Nobody "Deserves" to die. I don't have time to read all thses posts, but we really seem to have some misguided folks here. Just think and try to put yourself in the situation before you post, that is all I would ask.


Your right, it's a tragedy that he's dead, he should be in jail. But, it was his actions that got him killed. If he had stopped, and obeyed the police, he would not be dead today. How can anyone think that running from police who had their guns out is a good idea, especially after London had been through what it had been.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> You know, I've pretty much had my fill of you, planethoth.
> 
> I think reasonable people can disagree on difficult issues and be polite about it. But reasonable people cannot deal with the unreasonable.
> 
> ...



Sorry to say, your outsized ego is a laugh. You talk as if you are a flawless philosopher king! You have met your match with MacDoc, bro, he is a great self-regarder in the lpkmckenna tradition.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

martman said:


> Argeed. He promised to leave the forum in the first thread I ever saw him in and has proven only to be a lier. Why do I say this?
> He is still here and won't go as promissed.


He's not a liar. I don't like to characterize people. I asked him to take the history of Isreal discussion back to its thread, and he did. I never asked him to leave this discussion altogether and didn't expect him to.

As far as I'm concerned, all threads are open to all members. I would reject anyone telling me to leave and I would never ask it of anyone.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

...that being said, I call a truce on personal attacks with anyone who will agree to it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Your right, it's a tragedy that he's dead, he should be in jail. But, it was his actions that got him killed. If he had stopped, and obeyed the police, he would not be dead today. How can anyone think that running from police who had their guns out is a good idea, especially after London had been through what it had been.


How can you say this when the policy is to shoot to kill suspects? They probably would have shot him if he stopped too.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> He's not a liar. I don't like to characterize people. I asked him to take the history of Isreal discussion back to its thread, and he did. I never asked him to leave this discussion altogether and didn't expect him to.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, all threads are open to all members. I would reject anyone telling me to leave and I would never ask it of anyone.


I'm not telling him to leave. I'm asking him to honour his promise.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> ...that being said, I call a truce on personal attacks with anyone who will agree to it.


The outsized ego of this philosopher-king is having difficulty agreeing to a truce. However, if it made this place more civil, I'd agree.

After all, I have nothing to lose. I don't call anyone nasty names. Truce.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> The outsized ego of this philosopher-king is having difficulty agreeing to a truce. However, if it made this place more civil, I'd agree.
> 
> After all, I have nothing to lose. I don't call anyone nasty names. Truce.



Truce, then, it is, as long as you do not insult my intellect, imply my mental health is bad, or call me ignorant or any other form of personal attack, I will adhere to it.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> (Blair's imperialist policies are demonstrated by) invading a sovereign country (Iraq) under false pretenses without any provocation or threat to Britain
> 
> good enough?


No.

There are several reasons for invading Iraq. If we take Blair at face value (which I know you don't) we would accept the threat of WMDs, the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people and neighbours and the non cooperation with the UN. You could also mention a general policy to support US initiatives, both for historical reasons and to gain leverage against the EU. You could even suggest that Blair was after a Falklands style war to boost his popularity and electability. However, apart from yourself, I don't know of anyone who thinks he wanted to paint Iraq Imperial pink on the maps of the world or take control of its economy or resources. Do you honestly think they could? That may have been the goal of some Americans but I think even they would love to be out of there now... they're not gaining anything.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

From the New York Times:

Then Mr. Menezes began to enter the station, witnesses said, he was surrounded by plainclothes officers who shouted at him to stop.
According to the police accounts, the officers identified themselves and were suspicious partly because he was wearing a bulky jacket in the summer weather, suggesting that he was concealing something.

Mr. Menezes ran. He jumped over the turnstile, ran down an escalator and stumbled into a train, where he fell face down. Witnesses said the police then shot him five times in the head and neck, killing him.

He made a damn poor choice and it's a damn shame he's dead. I've said enough on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN - Yeah I would agree contemporary imperialism ( rapidly becoming tradtional imperialism of occupancy) may well have shadowed US policy but Blair's reasoning is harder to fathom.

I suspect the infamous "memo" casts just a glimmer on Britain's role in abetting what clearly was a long planned US action. Hard to see a strong return for him other than attempting to maintain Britain as a "player" along with the other big power blocs.

It certainly did not improve relations with Europe and this latest incident coming home to roost at the same time as the "invading Iraq poses risks to Britain" report really is damning.

One wonders the results of the election had this occurred a few months back. He got dinged for it as it was.
I do believe working closely with the British Muslim community and going out of their way NOT to be seen to profile or be heavy handed with "minorities" will reap rewards.
I truly think this event was very disturbing to moderate Muslims as they rightly fear repercussions, perhaps from gov and certainly from the hooligans.
A least Blair can perhaps do something about the former.
The latter ........?? 

Too many people, not enough planet, little elbow room left.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

What witnesses have said:
Then Mr. Menezes began to enter the station, witnesses said, he was surrounded by plainclothes officers who shouted at him to stop. (...) Witnesses said the police then shot him five times in the head and neck, killing him.

What the police said:
According to the police accounts, the officers identified themselves and were suspicious partly because he was wearing a bulky jacket in the summer weather, suggesting that he was concealing something. (...) Mr. Menezes ran. He jumped over the turnstile, ran down an escalator and stumbled into a train, where he fell face down. 

I know all media accounts are suspect by default. However, I have yet to hear of any witnesses saying the police identified themselves. I find that suspicious.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah IPK, that's key element and perhaps it relates to a phenomena called tunnel vision that affects police in high speed chases leading to reckless or "out of character" responses when the adrenaline hits and they finally "catch their prey".
One of the science programs covered it.
You would think undercover officers would be rigourous in identification in the heightened tension but I guess if you are used to being behind a badge perhaps you don't see yourself being viewed as a "plain clothes gunman".

Sad mistake for the deceased and his family.....hard on the officers involved as well.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah I would agree contemporary imperialism ( rapidly becoming tradtional imperialism of occupancy) may well have shadowed US policy but Blair's reasoning is harder to fathom.


I read the words, and I know what they say, but I can't help but hear "I agree that the reactionary neo-cons have dominated US policy, but why would an enlightened, progressive social democrat like Tony Blair blindly cow-tow?"

I am no fan of Dubya, but I like Blair as a person. The NDP haven't had a man of such integrity and moderation since, well, never. They would be advised to look for one.

I think Bush and Blair jumped into Iraq for the same reasons: they thought Hussien was a threat. Do some of their advisors have more mercantile notions? Certainly. But I think these two men really believed they were trying to stop another 9/11.

But what they believed is morally irrelevant. Pol Pot may have believed he was building a paradise on earth. He wasn't, and the mass of bodies proved it.

If you are curious at to why some "progressive" minds have supported the war on Iraq, I'm currently reading Micheal Ignatieff's latest book "The Lesser Evil."



MacDoc said:


> Too many people, not enough planet, little elbow room left.


I don't think that is our problem. Too little liberty, too little rationality.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Sorry, I must object to the use of the gratuitious and incorrect usage of the term "neocon". Half of the people I have seen described with this term (in pejorative usage) on here are in fact not neoconservatives.

The so-called neoconservatives do not run the United States, this is a complete fallacy. George W. Bush is not much of a neocon, nor is Condeleeza Rice nor was Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld might arguably be late converts to the game yet, but not really. Neoconservatism is a large, broad ideology that has foreign policy as merely one component. The term is used with abuse by people on the left and Buchananite right, but it is just a cheap term they throw around.

I'm not a neoconservative, why do people keep calling me that? Because I support a war on jihadism? Am I also on here supporting other neoconservative initiatives? If anyone can name any that I have described, do your best. They are guaranteed to fail. And if you can't name a single other neoconservative policy that I advocate, then you were sorely wrong in calling me one. Ditto for most of the people you talk about.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

Actually I think Britain's position in Europe is probably better now than it has been for thirty years. They've always wanted an economic union rather than a political one and the rejection of the constitution by the French of all people plays very well into that. Also undermining French and German opposition to his European policies are the weakness of their own economies.

On the domestic front, he probably would win an election today... the Conservatives are still split and currently leaderless and aside from Iraq (admittedly a biggie), Blair is pretty much in step with public opinion. If he goes it will be like Thatcher... brought down from within his own party.

I didn't like Blair in 1997 but he's converted me... I find him both an idealistic and pragmatic leader who has followed in Thatcher's footsteps while correcting her excesses.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

A reminder of history: Justification for the invasion of Iraq in the words of Colin Powell.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah fair assessment FN and I concur on pragmatic and on the split opposition tho I do believe had the timing been different Labour would have had to "go to the alternative" within the party. ( Brown is it??// Too lazy to look it up ).

I did indeed mean it as an end of Blair himself not Labour - their positioning like Labour in Australia and unbelievably the Libs still here seem unassailable while the economies are good.

Yes, I would agree the rejection of the constitution was positive for Tony, not so sure that his war position was. I suspect there were many OTHER forces at play in Europe with regard to Saddam that has left lingering tensions.

•••


> like Blair as a person. The NDP haven't had a man of such integrity and moderation since, well, never. They would be advised to look for one.


IPK - I too like Blair for similar reasons and that's why it seemed just plain out of character given him and his party and yes your "rewrite" was accurate.

There ARE machinations globally the Brits certainly still undertake, they are strong militarily and I simply have to put it down to some combo of that and US 'suasion .
In hindsight that appears to have been cleverly spun "information".

It may always be a question how much Powell was "spun" as well, tho I know from reading Woodward's Plan of Attack he was very uncomfortable but played "good soldier" for his CinC.

Certainly the indications in Woodward's book is that the Iraq project took on an unstoppable momentum dictated by the war plan and shoved forward by Cheney intothe "fast track".

Who knows except Tony himself why the initial decision but that apparently has had unpleasant consequences for his nation.

One wonders if the consequences for him personally is an early retirement......which in other respects would be a shame for Britain and other nations as well.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Sorry, I must object to the use of the gratuitious and incorrect usage of the term "neocon". Half of the people I have seen described with this term (in pejorative usage) on here are in fact not neoconservatives.


I haven't called you that.

While you're correct that the term tends to be used pejoratively, it would be incorrect to deny that "neo-conservativism" is not the dominant influence in the Republican party and the Conservative party in Canada.

The neoconservatives were men like Irving Kristol, a liberal journalist in the US. As much of the liberal media were starting to sound like apologists for the Soviet Union, Kristol and others felt their party was moving away from them. They were staunch defencers of civil rights and democracy, and they perceived that the growing "new left" and its tolerance for communism would endanger these rights and freedoms.

The defining characteristic of the neocons was an aggressive foreign policy to clamp down on the spread of communism. At any cost. In the spirit of working with Stalin in order to defeat Hilter, the neo-cons pushed for supporting corrupt "right-wing" despots rather than letting those nations stand alone against the Soviet-backed revolutionaries. The neo-cons didn't deny that these overlords were bastards, but they quoted an old American expression: "no, but they're our bastards."

The advocacy of stopping communism by allying with tin-pot tyrants was the essence of neoconservatism.

(Some have decided that the economist Milton Friedman and his followers were neo-cons too. They may have been, but their focus was on domestic policies of smaller government.)

It has been observed that neo-liberal might have been a better word than neoconservative, and both terms are in use (and misuse).

So is anyone really a neo-con today? I think so.

The fact that the US has such close cooperation with Saudi Arabia (the most oppressive state in the Middle East) in order to pursue it's war against Iraq, Afghanistan, and likely Syria next) resembles the old ties to the tyrants of Chile or Argentina, for example. Widespread human rights violations are ignored or denied as a "lesser evil" in the cause of defeating communism then and Islamism now.

No matter what, I don't think neo-conservativism is much of a movement in Canada. While Canada has participated in military actions with the US, it is tough to perceive any kind of pattern in regards to supporting despots. A great many dictatorships have received money from Canada to feed their people, but Canada hasn't abused that influence for any political goal.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

You are correct, you never personally called me a neocon. Others, like MacDoc did.

But you are absolutely incorrect to claim there is any legitimate claim to Milton Friedman being a neoconservative. This is absolutely false, as Friedman is very agnostic and skeptical about foreign interventions. BTW, I happen to count Milton Friedman as a general intellectual influence, personally.

You are even more incorrect when you claim that neoconservatives support the parasitic relationship that the Saudis currently have with the United States. This is simply, absolutely false. The neoconservatives are constantly hammering home the point that we should have less cozy relations with the Saudis. Neoconservatives are the most scathing critics of Saudi Arabia. You should retract that statement in the interest of intellectual honesty.

You have regrettably and erroneously conflated realpolitik of the Nixon-Kissinger school with neoconservatism. The essence of the neoconservative foreign policy is not one of convenient alliances with "our bastards". It is not "Stability" which Kissinger and all the other elite apparatchiks had an unfortunate tendency to bow before like the golden calf. The essence of neoconservative foreign policy is that the promotion of universal values like democracy and liberty abroad are worthy goals for American foreign policy. Sure, that meant attacking Communism, not just containing it.

The idea that the Bush administration is purely a neoconservative enterprise is nonsense. Bush came in as a semi-isolationist with realist foreign policy ideas. Rumsfeld is accused of being a big-government neocon with the love of the "military-industrial complex", when in fact Rumsfeld has never wavered from his stated goal of SHRINKING the military, planning troop redeployments and closing bases, which unfortunately was sidetracked when the need for the military all of a sudden was relevant again. Can you imagine the irony of someone who is accused of being a warmongering neocon being constantly hectored by the neocons that he won't send enough troops to finish the Iraq job? That's Rumsfeld's position.

And Colin Powell, was he a neocon? His "Powell Doctrine" was hardly a neoconservative paradigm. It was not robust or ambitious at all. It was conservative, period. Consequently, his ideas are frequently ridiculed by neoconservatives.

All I am saying here is, we need to stop throwing that term around. It is very inaccurate, and some who use it in certain context also have demagogic intentions.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> But you are absolutely incorrect to claim there is any legitimate claim to Milton Friedman being a neoconservative. This is absolutely false, as Friedman is very agnostic and skeptical about foreign interventions. BTW, I happen to count Milton Friedman as a general intellectual influence, personally.


Did you even read what I wrote? I didn't claim he was, but might have been. Since I know his specialty and influence was on economics, not foreign policy, I didn't state an opinion one way or the other. But I was aware that he visited Pinochet in Chile and offered economic advice to him. A few of his students became members of Chile's government. I don't know how Friedman viewed this, but I think it was reprehensible. I have no fault of Friedman's visit, however. I didn't know one way or the other, and said as much.

And my point was some people think he and the supply-side/flat-tax/free-trade movement were a part of the neo-con movement. I don't, and most thinkers don't, but it's often viewed that way nonetheless.



planethoth said:


> You are even more incorrect when you claim that neoconservatives support the parasitic relationship that the Saudis currently have with the United States. This is simply, absolutely false. The neoconservatives are constantly hammering home the point that we should have less cozy relations with the Saudis. Neoconservatives are the most scathing critics of Saudi Arabia. You should retract that statement in the interest of intellectual honesty.


Before I retract anything, do you have any examples? I haven't heard of any. Or should I just take your word for it?



planethoth said:


> You have regrettably and erroneously conflated realpolitik of the Nixon-Kissinger school with neoconservatism. The essence of the neoconservative foreign policy is not one of convenient alliances with "our bastards". It is not "Stability" which Kissinger and all the other elite apparatchiks had an unfortunate tendency to bow before like the golden calf. The essence of neoconservative foreign policy is that the promotion of universal values like democracy and liberty abroad are worthy goals for American foreign policy. Sure, that meant attacking Communism, not just containing it.


I never mentioned Nixon, Kissenger, or stability. And it's ridiculous to suggest that US support of Chile, the Philipines, Argentina, and so on were not related to the opposition to communism. That was the only reason.

Jean Kilpatrick was very frank about supporting despots like Pinochet. She called them "moderately repressive regimes," and were preferable over any allies of the Soviets.



planethoth said:


> The idea that the Bush administration is purely a neoconservative enterprise is nonsense. Bush came in as a semi-isolationist with realist foreign policy ideas. Rumsfeld is accused of being a big-government neocon with the love of the "military-industrial complex", when in fact Rumsfeld has never wavered from his stated goal of SHRINKING the military, planning troop redeployments and closing bases, which unfortunately was sidetracked when the need for the military all of a sudden was relevant again. Can you imagine the irony of someone who is accused of being a warmongering neocon being constantly hectored by the neocons that he won't send enough troops to finish the Iraq job? That's Rumsfeld's position.


I don't care how they came in, I'm judging them according to what they do. And i'm not too concerned about what the neo-cons say today (whoever they are), but the similarities in the US/Chile or US/Philippines relationships then and the Saudi/US relationship now.



planethoth said:


> And Colin Powell, was he a neocon? His "Powell Doctrine" was hardly a neoconservative paradigm. It was not robust or ambitious at all. It was conservative, period. Consequently, his ideas are frequently ridiculed by neoconservatives.


I never pointed out any particular member of Bush's cabinet. But Powell was clearly frustrated with the foreign policy of Bush, and decided to participate no longer.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> I know all media accounts are suspect by default. However, I have yet to hear of any witnesses saying the police identified themselves. I find that suspicious.


Well of course, any media, police, authority, or eyewitness accounts would be highly suspect, simply because they aren't complely opaque with respect to challenge. Media, never ever tell the truth as it is. Authority, takes their position PURELY in the name of exercising the reminding of their own importance. Eyewitnesses are always hired by one of the other 3 forementioned groups to help support such a clever public story delivery. And last but not least, police are nothing but a group of schoolyard thugs that have grown into uniforms, looking to control people out of their personal selfish interest. 

</sarcasm>

I know that all accounts say this kid ran from 20 people telling him to stop. If he had nothing to hide, he had nothing to hide. Do the math. You challenge the integrity of communications, policing, decision-makers, and innocent bystanders in a quick whim. But of course, on the balance, a single Brazilian kid couldn't have made some very stupid decisions. It seems your perception of the world rests hard in your insecurity. You think the world is out to get you.  To be honest, the world couldn't care less.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

martman said:


> How can you say this when the policy is to shoot to kill suspects? They probably would have shot him if he stopped too.



1. I can easily say that I fully support a police force that saw exactly what was reported. A kid wearing a coat that made little sense, that could have covered something as relevant as a bomb. He ran from cops, identified or unidentified. He jumped a barrier going into a subway. He entered a subway with members of the public on it. Even pinned to the floor, he could have set off a bomb. If a bomber is ready to die, what else do you think he'd do? Even moreso, with cops chasing him. 

2. You cannot predict the future. "Probably" used on your message, is pure speculation. Like many other suspects that they chased and caught, they would have questioned him and released him. Oh, and probably reminded him how stupid his coat decision was. 

3. Shoot to kill doesn't mean shoot people outright if they raise any doubt. It means implementing 100% due diligence by managing the situation. It would be a lot easier if they just set up marksmen at transit entrances, so they can pick off anybody that doesn't "fit". The Chief of Police stated that, but I guess it's missed by those that haven't read the statements.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna: Fair enough about Milton Friedman. That clarifies what you were saying.

Jeane Kirkpatrick may have indeed preferred Pinochet. That is not the same as supporting what he did. Pinochet was a bastard, but it wasn't neoconservatives who pushed to support what he did--it was Nixon and Kissinger and the realists, from whom you took the line about "our bastards." Neoconservatives did not have a real ear in any administration until Ronald Reagan and then not again really until W. BTW, I think Kirkpatrick's mild opinion on Saudi relations sucks.

Saying neoconservatives and realists (I know you did not mention them--but you were effectively describing their policies as being neocon) of course agree that communism was wrong and should be opposed. So do many libertarians and liberals. That is not the same thing as saying that they all had the same strategy for dealing with it. You cannot blame neoconservatives for the United States' foreign policy in the past. You cannot even blame them for all of the real or potential mistakes of Bush.

Does this mean I support everything Bush or neoconservatism stands for? Of course not--but let's be honest about stuff here. Since you asked for examples of actual neoconservative opposition to the Saudi-U.S. relationship, I will do the thing I hate most and post blocks of text here... I am trying to keep this short so nobody accuse me of hypocrisy:


Michael Ledeen: “Since the liberation of Afghanistan, I thought the four biggest and baddest terror masters were the despotic rulers of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.”

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22711,filter.all/pub_detail.asp


Richard Perle: “Saudi Arabia must be told to stop funding extremist groups that preach holy war against us or expect us to lose all interest in the current regime's tenure.”

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2050


William Kristol, son of Irving Kristol and editor of The Weekly Standard: “The crown prince has serious questions to answer about where he and the rest of the House of Saud stand in this war. The repressive Wahhabi strain of Islam is the Saudi state religion and has been the prime source for spreading Muslim irredentist thought throughout the region; it is no surprise that 15 of the 19 September 11 terrorists were Saudi citizens.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/171awawv.asp


Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post: “Well, look, I think what's really quite remarkable is that we are seeing the Saudis as part of the solution instead of part of the problem. You would think after September 11, and everything that we've learned about Saudi Arabia, how it funds the madrassas, how its influence - - anti-American influence has been spread in Pakistan, Afghanistan, around the world, how, as we saw here, its own media are spreading a terrible message, the way that we've been courting them is just remarkable.”

http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=23702http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=23702


Daniel Pipes: “The Saudis are engaging in an underhanded propaganda campaign that subverts the U.S. debate concerning Arabian issues. It is vital to prevent such corruption, especially on the delicate issue of Riyadh's self-proclaimed role as America's "friend" in the war against Islamist terrorism.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2006


I could go on and on, but it is not necessary. About Colin Powell: if Powell and his other buddies like Brent Scowcroft and James Baker did not advise against toppling Saddam in 1991, much of this Iraq problem could have been avoided. If anyone deserves blame for screwing things up, he is a candidate.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Jeane Kirkpatrick may have indeed preferred Pinochet. That is not the same as supporting what he did. Pinochet was a bastard, but it wasn't neoconservatives who pushed to support what he did--it was Nixon and Kissinger and the realists, from whom you took the line about "our bastards." Neoconservatives did not have a real ear in any administration until Ronald Reagan and then not again really until W. BTW, I think Kirkpatrick's mild opinion on Saudi relations sucks.


Actually, I think the expression is much older. Didn't FDR say this of Somoza? The policy of supporting ruthless dictatorships goes back far further than Nixon. And you're right about one thing: the neocons came into influence with the with the Reagan administration. They claimed that supporting tyrants for national interest was a common American practice and that the New Left and isolationist conservatives were against it.



planethoth said:


> Saying neoconservatives and realists (I know you did not mention them--but you were effectively describing their policies as being neocon) of course agree that communism was wrong and should be opposed. So do many libertarians and liberals. That is not the same thing as saying that they all had the same strategy for dealing with it. You cannot blame neoconservatives for the United States' foreign policy in the past. You cannot even blame them for all of the real or potential mistakes of Bush.


I know that. Yes, I know. I didn't say that. I didn't say that either.



planethoth said:


> Does this mean I support everything Bush or neoconservatism stands for? Of course not--but let's be honest about stuff here.


Sure, I'd support a fresh start.



planethoth said:


> Since you asked for examples of actual neoconservative opposition to the Saudi-U.S. relationship, I will do the thing I hate most and post blocks of text here. (...)


It's great that you found criticism of Saudi Arabia among neocons. I haven't really heard of any of these guys (except Richard Perle, of course) but then again I don't read the Weekly Standard. I put you on the spot because I knew something you didn't: Kilpatrick is for close ties with Saudi Arabia. She is the essense of the neo-con movement, both as an intellectual and as a member of government. Hence, I knew I was not being intellectually dishonest.

But my point was really something entirely different: the close ties the US has with Saudi Arabia for the purpose of dealing with rogue and terrorist nations very much resembles the previous close ties with Chile, Argentine, Panama, and so on for the purpose of dealing with communism.



planethoth said:


> If Powell and his other buddies like Brent Scowcroft and James Baker did not advise against toppling Saddam in 1991, much of this Iraq problem could have been avoided. If anyone deserves blame for screwing things up, he is a candidate.


When you are the leader, everything is your fault. Powell was merely an advisor. He cannot take the blame for the decisions of George Bush Sr.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Colin Powel is not a neocon that is why he is out of there.
Bush definatly is.
Infact if you go to the Project for a new American Century web page these are the people who signed the statement of principals.


> Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
> 
> Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
> 
> ...


http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

I'll hear no more of this Bush isn't a Neocon stuff. It flies in the face of the facts. Notice the list is like a who's who in the Bush admin.

I called you a Neocon PT because I 've never seen you criticize Bush for anything. I'll admit it was an assumption but you still haven't shown anyone why this assumption is wrong.



> June 3, 1997
> 
> American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
> 
> ...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

BeeRich said:


> Well of course, any media, police, authority, or eyewitness accounts would be highly suspect, simply because they aren't complely opaque with respect to challenge. Media, never ever tell the truth as it is. Authority, takes their position PURELY in the name of exercising the reminding of their own importance. Eyewitnesses are always hired by one of the other 3 forementioned groups to help support such a clever public story delivery. And last but not least, police are nothing but a group of schoolyard thugs that have grown into uniforms, looking to control people out of their personal selfish interest.


Who says this? Not I. You're putting these words into someone's mouth, but I just can't figure out who.


BeeRich said:


> You challenge the integrity of communications, policing, decision-makers, and innocent bystanders in a quick whim.


I never challenged the integrity of media. I reorganized the information they reported because it appeared peculiar. I haven't criticize the police; by all accounts, they did what they were told (I keep saying that, but no one believes me...). I haven't doubted the statements of witnesses at all.

You are correct on one thing: I am challenging the integrity of the decision-makers. (I suppose even the blind archer hits the bull's eye by accident sometimes.) I am stating that this execution of suspects is wrong because it will definitely lead to innocent deaths, but very unlikely to stop any suicide bombers. It is at a trial the the integrity of the police and media and witnesses and suspects is challenged. But if the suspect have been executed the truth will never be known.


BeeRich said:


> But of course, on the balance, a single Brazilian kid couldn't have made some very stupid decisions. It seems your perception of the world rests hard in your insecurity. You think the world is out to get you. To be honest, the world couldn't care less.


You have no justifiable reasons to think that I have issues with insecurity or paranioa. Nothing I have said supports that. And you have no business telling me what the world cares about. But you have clearly stated what you couldn't care less about: the rights of the accused and a single Brazilian kid.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

BeeRich said:


> Oh, and probably reminded him how stupid his coat decision was.


{sarcasm}That's right because people who wear heavy coats on warm days are just asking for it.{/sarcasm}


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> But my point was really something entirely different: the close ties the US has with Saudi Arabia for the purpose of dealing with rogue and terrorist nations very much resembles the previous close ties with Chile, Argentine, Panama, and so on for the purpose of dealing with communism.


Well, neoconservatives are not happy about these close ties. Jeane Kirkpatrick does not represent the bulk of neoconservatives, not at all. She in fact represents one of the I am actually shocked you don't know most of the people I found quotes of; these are some of the most prominent neoconservatives around, Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, etc. The Weekly Standard is only one outlet, and only one of them comes from there. These people are famous in the world of political journalism. I could have also given you quotes from Norman Podhoretz, etc. I don't want to dwell on that though.




lpkmckenna said:


> When you are the leader, everything is your fault. Powell was merely an advisor. He cannot take the blame for the decisions of George Bush Sr.


I can't disagree with that, true. But the president is only as effective as his advisors. I don't think much of George Bush I's decisions to keep Saddam there. He should have finished the job. I think it was right for his son to correct this grave mistake. 



lpkmckenna said:


> Actually, I think the expression is much older. Didn't FDR say this of Somoza? The policy of supporting ruthless dictatorships goes back far further than Nixon. And you're right about one thing: the neocons came into influence with the with the Reagan administration. They claimed that supporting tyrants for national interest was a common American practice and that the New Left and isolationist conservatives were against it.


In saying this, you begin by admitting that the policy of supporting ruthless dictatorships goes back further than even Nixon. In fact, supporting Saudi Arabia started with Franklin Roosevelt. But so now, how does this support that any of this is a neoconservative policy?

The neoconservatives want George W. Bush to be harder on Saudi Arabia, not softer. That's my point, that neocon is a word not applicable to what you are saying. The neoconservatives had some influence in Reagan's time, but they were still fighting the establishment of realists. For W.'s first administration, at first having been relegated to the second tier of the administration, they returned to prominence with 9/11, and now it appears they are losing influence again.

As for the New Left and the isolationist conservatives, they have a different set of bastards.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> "Wrong, it is totally believable. A simple "stop and explain your actions" you live. You run without stopping when ordered to do so, you die. Pure and simple and suicide as a decision."
> 
> Except he had no reason to believe he would be killed for running. UK police are not known for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. It was not widely known that this "shoot-to-kill" policy had been adopted.


Really? 

Let see what past events happened within a 2 week period. First there are explosions that go off in the underground a week earlier. A bus gets its top blown off from more bombings. A week later or more two more attempts of explosions in the underground and one more on a bus once again.

The first time it happened the country was on high alert. Police and military were out in full force all over London. This means that you don't go around acting or looking like a suspect for kicks or games or to be some sort of hero no matter what race you are. The second time it happened the stakes just got higher in securing London. Any normal human being living in London knew not to pull any stunt or game with the local police and military or they would have been caught, arrested or in this case shot at and possibly killed. 

That is a known fact for even here in Canada should anything like that ever happen. The Canadian military has a shoot to kill policy as well, or should I say the Canadian Airforce now that they are working closely with the US in keeping the skies clear. I don't know if you remember when the Sept. 11 events happened, but there were some stupid people who decided to fly their private aircraft through no fly zones just to test the US military out. They came pretty close to being shot out of the sky, but were soon arrested when they landed. 

The point is, this person decided to go out in public on a hot day, wear clothing that was inappropriate not only for the weather, but also for the time considering London was just attacked for the second time. He didn't stop after 5 undercover officers told him to stop. By the way, what was he thinking? Some sort of gang was after him with guns? Yeah right.... considering the events that the police and military had to deal with that same day, I doubt that was going through his mind. He then heads for the underground? Why? Poor choice considering once again that the underground was attacked for the second time.

So lets see, wears the wrong clothing, runs from undercover police, heads for the underground where bombings occurred several times within a few weeks, heads for the underground where police and military forces are watching, doesn't pay, but actually hops over the barriers, (gee that doesn't look too suspecting to me now does it?) and tries to catch a train to out run the police? That is straight out of a Hollywood movie. If he was on a suicide mission, then he succeeded.

After the first bombings and the second, there is no doubt in my mind that the general public knew that a shoot to kill policy could happen if you tried the above stunt.

My question that still hasn't been answered by anyone, is what if this person was allowed into the underground and killed 200 people? What if the police could have stopped him but didn't and he ended up killing 200 people? That is the flip side to this incident. Not only would 200 people have died, but then we would be arguing about why the UK Police didn't stop this man, why was he allowed to enter the underground etc... It was a tough call by the police, but the victim brought it on to himself for acting in such a way during a second attack on London.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Colin Powel is not a neocon that is why he is out of there.
> Bush definatly is.
> Infact if you go to the Project for a new American Century web page these are the people who signed the statement of principals.
> 
> ...


Excuse me, where was George W. Bush's name on there? It wasn't. Jeb Bush is not George W. Bush, just like W. is not his father. Donald Rumsfeld is most certainly not a neoconservative ideologue. Dick Cheney is hardly one either. And Cheney and Rumsfeld are no more George W. Bush than Truman was FDR.

Get this: BUSH IS NOT A NEOCON.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Furthermore, I will criticize Bush when I feel it is due. My criticism is about the use of the word neocon in this sloppy manner.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Excuse me, where was George W. Bush's name on there? It wasn't. Jeb Bush is not George W. Bush, just like W. is not his father. Donald Rumsfeld is most certainly not a neoconservative ideologue. Dick Cheney is hardly one either. And Cheney and Rumsfeld are no more George W. Bush than Truman was FDR.
> 
> Get this: BUSH IS NOT A NEOCON.


this is just silly. I quoted the statement of principals from the Project for a New Amercan Century. THE NEOCON WEBSITE.
those who signed it are all Neocons, that is why they signed it. Notice how many ended up working in GW's administration?
Say what you want the Neocons speak for themselves.
They signed the statement so we would know who they are and GW hired them to run his administration. I'll trust them to say who they are before I listen to you.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Furthermore, I will criticize Bush when I feel it is due. My criticism is about the use of the word neocon in this sloppy manner.


You are the one who is using this word wrong. See above.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> You are the one who is using this word wrong. See above.



Really, you have no concept of the school of thought that neoconservatism is. There is no convincing you. The Project for the New American Century has many prominent neoconservatives there, but it is not neoconservative per se. It's just plain conservative, in the American political sense. In America's dual party setup, that makes sense that many would go work in the Bush Administration. It proves nada.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> Really?
> The point is, this person decided to go out in public on a hot day, wear clothing that was inappropriate not only for the weather, but also for the time considering London was just attacked for the second time.


{sarcasm}That's right because people who wear heavy coats on warm days are just asking for it.{/sarcasm}
I'm sorry but what a scarry load. People who wear coats are NOT "asking for it".


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Really, you have no concept of the school of thought that neoconservatism is. There is no convincing you. The Project for the New American Century has many prominent neoconservatives there, but it is not neoconservative per se. It's just plain conservative, in the American political sense. In America's dual party setup, that makes sense that many would go work in the Bush Administration. It proves nada.


You keep telling yourself that.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Really, you have no concept of the school of thought that neoconservatism is. There is no convincing you. The Project for the New American Century has many prominent neoconservatives there, but it is not neoconservative per se. It's just plain conservative, in the American political sense. In America's dual party setup, that makes sense that many would go work in the Bush Administration. It proves nada.


Conservative in the American sense is non interventionist. Not regime change. Stop calling me ignorant. People in glass houses....


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> You keep telling yourself that.


You can believe what you want too. Regardless, you aren't changing the world by shouting neocon at everyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> You can believe what you want too. Regardless, you aren't changing the world by shouting neocon at everyone who disagrees with you.


That is just stupid. You are the only one I called Neocon. I know you have a big ego but surely even you don't think you are everybody.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Conservative in the American sense is non interventionist. Not regime change. Stop calling me ignorant. People in glass houses....



That is a fallacy that American conservatism = non-interventionism. There was always a strain of interventionism, what do you think Thomas Jefferson's blockade of the Bay of Tripoli was??


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> That is a fallacy that American conservatism = non-interventionism. There was always a strain of interventionism, what do you think Thomas Jefferson's blockade of the Bay of Tripoli was??


That was an awfully long time ago.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> That was an awfully long time ago.



LOL

What do you think American conservatism is all about then??


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> LOL
> 
> What do you think American conservatism is all about then??


At the moment there is no one "American Conservatism".
We at present see the big government interventionists like the Neocons. We see also the older style who believe in little gov't and lower taxes.

Most Conservaties like to pretend they believe in lower spending but it is always the conservatives who rack up the debt.

It seems to me the big unifying factor amongst conservatives is their disslike of social programs and their inability to admit that they are the big spenders, not the liberals.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> Police and military were out in full force all over London. This means that you don't go around *acting* or *looking like* a suspect *for kicks or games or to be some sort of hero* no matter what race you are. The second time it happened the stakes just got higher in securing London. Any normal human being living in London knew not to *pull any stunt* or *game* with the local police and military or they would have been caught, arrested or in this case shot at and possibly killed.


You are insinuating that this guy was playing a prank or something. Do you have something to back that ridiculous claim up? Your choice of language is totally inappropriate here. This wasn't some juvenille pretending to be a bomber. This was a man who was gunned down for being a suspect. We don't know how well he understood English. We don't know if he knew the plain clothed officers were cops. We do know that he was running from strangers with guns who were shouting at him.



MacGYVER said:


> The point is, this person decided to go out in public on a hot day, wear *clothing that was inappropriate not only for the weather, but also for the time* considering London was just attacked for the second time.


Lot's of people from Southern climates wear heavier clothes when they are in the North... even in the dead of summer. Hell in India, people die of exposure in the night during winter in temperatures that would have me in my shorts. It is not illegal to wear warm or heavy clothes. And to someone who is cold, or not used to the climate, it is not inappropriate. It is not even innappropriate to wear heavy clothing in a place where people wearing *backpacks* blew up trains. Nor is it inappropriate to wear backpacks even after such an incident. The crimes of a few who look or dress a certain way DO NOT make all people who look or dress similar criminals... or even potential suspects.

If a driver blows up a van at a crosswalk... are all vans that stop at sidewalks now suspected of criminal intention.

Even though none of us are even close to knowing the facts, I think your language is sloppy and ignorant of what we do know so far.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> At the moment there is no one "American Conservatism".
> We at present see the big government interventionists like the Neocons. We see also the older style who believe in little gov't and lower taxes.
> 
> Most Conservaties like to pretend they believe in lower spending but it is always the conservatives who rack up the debt.
> ...



OK good, we agree there is no one "American conservatism", but the neoconservatives are not the only ones who advocate some degree of interventionism. The only conservatives who would possibly advocate NO foreign interventions EVER are cranks like Pat Buchanan, and even then, I don't think he would even say that.

Though of course I agree with them on occasion, I think the weakest thing about the neoconservatives is that they are too optimistic about the efficacy of interventions in foreign places, and domestically too unconcerned about spending. But that doesn't mean I always oppose them, and that in turn does not mean I am a neocon.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> You are insinuating that this guy was playing a prank or something. Do you have something to back that ridiculous claim up? Your choice of language is totally inappropriate here. This wasn't some juvenille pretending to be a bomber. This was a man who was gunned down for being a suspect. We don't know how well he understood English. We don't know if he knew the plain clothed officers were cops. We do know that he was running from strangers with guns who were shouting at him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> In saying this, you begin by admitting that the policy of supporting ruthless dictatorships goes back further than even Nixon. In fact, supporting Saudi Arabia started with Franklin Roosevelt. But so now, how does this support that any of this is a neoconservative policy?


Again you misunderstand what I have clearly stated. I will lay it out for you:

neo-conservatism != policy of supporting ruthless dictatorships
If it did, the majority of the new left could have also been called neo-cons.

neo-conservatism = policy of supporting ruthless dictatorships to defeat communism.

Since there is no more communism (except for Cuba), the neo-cons have found a new enemy to justify their old policies.

neo-neo-conservatism = policy of supporting ruthless dictatorships to defeat terrorism.

Yes, the policy of supporting despots is very old in the US. Yes, the US has had a close relationship with Saudi Arabia for a long, long time. What is new is the justification and enhancement of this relationship to combat terrorism. I have no doubt that many neo-cons would prefer it to be on the list of targets rather than the list of allies, but the fact remains that the US partnered with them in both Gulf Wars and the war in Afghanistan. The fact that neo-cons may disagree on whether Saudi Arabia should be an ally is no more relevant than the fact that many have believed China shouldn't have been an ally. But close economic relations remain nonetheless.

It is interesting that Cuba and North Korea remain on the "enemies list" of the neo-cons. They've moved from being sources of communist expansion to sources of terrorist activities.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGYVER said:


> The first time it happened the country was on high alert. Police and military were out in full force all over London. This means that you don't go around acting or looking like a suspect for kicks or games or to be some sort of hero no matter what race you are. The second time it happened the stakes just got higher in securing London. Any normal human being living in London knew not to pull any stunt or game with the local police and military or they would have been caught, arrested or in this case shot at and possibly killed.
> 
> That is a known fact for even here in Canada should anything like that ever happen. The Canadian military has a shoot to kill policy as well, or should I say the Canadian Airforce now that they are working closely with the US in keeping the skies clear.


There is no such thing as a shoot-to-kill policy for an airforce. If you shoot at an aircraft you are dooming the occupants regardless. You cannot shoot-to-wound a plane. And do not make it sound as if the CFAF's relationship with the US is something new, and NORAD is decades old.

And the CF does not conduct operations against the citizens of Canada, only in theatres of operation abroad. Canada has several policing agencies with different juristictions for that.



MacGYVER said:


> The point is, this person decided to go out in public on a hot day, wear clothing that was inappropriate not only for the weather, but also for the time considering London was just attacked for the second time.


If the terrorists are smart, they take a vacation until the winter, thereby foiling your expert investigative tactics. What will you suggest then?



MacGYVER said:


> He didn't stop after 5 undercover officers told him to stop. By the way, what was he thinking? Some sort of gang was after him with guns?


I can't read his mind and neither can you. If you can commune with the dead it might straighten this out. Otherwise, this kind of rhetorical question is a waste of time.
By the way, the administration of good government doesn't require any mystical powers.



MacGYVER said:


> So lets see, wears the wrong clothing, runs from undercover police, heads for the underground where bombings occurred several times within a few weeks, heads for the underground where police and military forces are watching, doesn't pay, but actually hops over the barriers, (gee that doesn't look too suspecting to me now does it?) and tries to catch a train to out run the police? That is straight out of a Hollywood movie. If he was on a suicide mission, then he succeeded.


If I were a suicide bomber and was stopped in a public place by 10 plainclothes police officers with plenty of witnesses around - I would detonate right there and then. 10 cops and many bystanders with one device seems like a successful mission to me. If he was on a suicide mission, then he would have succeeded.



MacGYVER said:


> After the first bombings and the second, there is no doubt in my mind that the general public knew that a shoot to kill policy could happen if you tried the above stunt.


Amazing mind reading skills you have there, Professor X. And the "public knew that a shoot to kill policy could happen?" I know the Brits are smart, but I didn't think every one of them could see into the future!



MacGYVER said:


> My question that still hasn't been answered by anyone, is what if this person was allowed into the underground and killed 200 people? What if the police could have stopped him but didn't and he ended up killing 200 people? That is the flip side to this incident. Not only would 200 people have died, but then we would be arguing about why the UK Police didn't stop this man, why was he allowed to enter the underground etc... It was a tough call by the police, but the victim brought it on to himself for acting in such a way during a second attack on London.


I would not be asking why the cops didn't kill him, so stop trying to tell me that you can read the future and stop putting words in my mouth.

Let me ask you this: would you support the killing of a rapist in the act? Would you support the killing of a paedophile in the act? Would you support the killing of a hitman in the act? Of course you would. If the police encountered assailants in the act we would expect them to stop it. _But how often does this really happen?_

It is exceedingly rare for criminals to be caught in the act, especially in this era of electronic surviellance. Passing a law allowing the police to use deadly force in a circumstance that are so unlikely is a recipe for disaster.

I am afraid to say it, but I have doubts that the police could identify a bombing in process. It would be like crashing into another ship in the depths of outer space; the chances are that remote.

I'll say it again: I am against this policy of executing suspects to combat terrorism because it will lead to little more than innocence blood, tormented cops, degeneration of our liberty, and no deterence of terroristm.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I cannot agree with your definition of neoconservatives. There are relatively few neoconservatives in the American conservative movement, but even fewer isolationists like the fascist-admiring Pat Buchanan. What you call neoconservative is, in fact, a general feature of American political conservatives. But it brings up something that is related to my point: what the hell is a neocon? The word is being used in such a way on this message board that is really becoming meaningless. I don't like the custom of relying on things like wikipedia, but even they admit that, "Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed."



lpkmckenna said:


> The fact that neo-cons may disagree on whether Saudi Arabia should be an ally is no more relevant than the fact that many have believed China shouldn't have been an ally. But close economic relations remain nonetheless.


It is quite absurd that you don't find it relevant that most neoconservatives are in fact critical of relations, including economic relations, with these countries. In fact, one of the raps the neoconservatives have with Colin Powell is that he is too cozy with the Saudis! 



lpkmckenna said:


> neo-neo-conservatism = policy of supporting ruthless dictatorships to defeat terrorism.


That's quite loaded, brother. You know that is not going to stand as an adequate definition. You were using neocon as an explanation for this policy despite evidence to the contrary. The neoconservatives are a small group of intellectuals and journalists and they have been only partially successful in infuencing U.S. policy. They cannot change the entire foreign policy, since they are not in control.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

"That's quite loaded, brother. You know that is not going to stand as an adequate definition." 

Please, stop telling me what I know! If I didn't think was adequate I wouldn't have stated it.

I utterly hate the tendency to support arguments with phrases like "all reasonable people know that" or "you know, that point isn't very strong" or "I think we can agree on" and so on.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> "That's quite loaded, brother. You know that is not going to stand as an adequate definition."
> 
> Please, stop telling me what I know! If I didn't think was adequate I wouldn't have stated it.
> 
> I utterly hate the tendency to support arguments with phrases like "all reasonable people know that" or "you know, that point isn't very strong" or "I think we can agree on" and so on.


Well, there are two ways to go about addressing someone's points. The first, used most commonly on this board, is to treat your opponent like they are stupid and/or ignorant and/or naive. I reject that. I use the second way, which is making the assumption that you are neither naive nor stupid nor ignorant. That means I assume you know what I know.

As far as supporting arguments with those phrases, I will try to avoid them for you.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Well, there are two ways to go about addressing someone's points. The first, used most commonly on this board, is to treat your opponent like they are stupid and/or ignorant and/or naive. I reject that. I use the second way, which is making the assumption that you are neither naive nor stupid nor ignorant. That means I assume you know what I know.
> 
> As far as supporting arguments with those phrases, I will try to avoid them for you.


Great. But I have a different policy, which I learned in grade seven.

"Talk to your reader as if he were a highly intelligent but ignorant 11 year old. Define your terms, explain your reasons, be careful of his tender feelings, and show him not just what you think, but how you think."

"Intelligent but ignorant" is quite different from "you know what I know." And the truth is that often times your reader does know what you know, but he thinks you're wrong! When you make implications about controversial subjects you create distrust in your reader's mind.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Great. But I have a different policy, which I learned in grade seven.
> 
> "Talk to your reader as if he were a highly intelligent but ignorant 11 year old. Define your terms, explain your reasons, be careful of his tender feelings, and show him not just what you think, but how you think."
> 
> "Intelligent but ignorant" is quite different from "you know what I know." And the truth is that often times your reader does know what you know, but he thinks you're wrong! When you make implications about controversial subjects you create distrust in your reader's mind.



Fair enough. But I still do not agree with this definition of neoconservatism.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

This story is nearer to a conclusion, as Jean-Charles de Menezes was laid to rest in his home town today. Over 10,000 people went to see him.

But many, many more are saying "stupid kid, shouldn't have run."

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/29/Brazil-funeral-050729.html?ref=rss


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

An unusual development. Quick quiz, kiddies! Is this a violation of religious freedom or a reasoned response to terrorism?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/29/pakistan-050729.html?ref=rss


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

NeoCon def.

a) good topic but

b) not for this thread - start another thread

c) colloquial NeoCon in use here not formal poli sci paper version

- in other words defining NeoCon by what's not 
....... NOT a small c middle of the political spectrum conservative. 
ie Fink Nottle is NOT a NeoCon ( we are pretty sure anyways  )

••••

Pakistan is sovereign and has to deal with the issue on their own terms.
They have to balance international forces against internal pressures.
No easy balancing act give Pakistan's current gov.

The level of interference in "religious affairs" for a secular might also be an interesting discussion.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

You missed the party on neocons. That was over 2 days ago. But thanks for comin' out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well it looked like it was rising from the ashes and I'd rather not derail this thread again.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

It appears this thread is dead.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No it appears everyone is on vacation. 
Is it my imagination or is there far more engagement with the Muslim community leaders in this instance.

That corrective action is being addressed at the root level at least as far as recruitment goes.

Brazil sure is wound up about this.



> By noon today, police estimated that more than 10,000 people had filed past the coffin since it arrived in Gonzaga on Thursday afternoon. The town's population had swelled by more than 2,000 people who came from surrounding communities, and many decided to pass by the coffin twice or more, said police Capt. Murilo Castro.
> Homes and small businesses were festooned with streamers and balloons painted green, white and yellow — the colours of the Brazilian flag.
> Although no protests were planned, signs on buildings showed that residents are outraged that British police pumped eight bullets into Menezes as he boarded a subway train on his way to work. His relatives dispute accounts that Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket and ran from police.
> "We Want Justice," said one sign. Another read: "Jean, Martyr of British Terrorism."


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...37&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Yes, it seems clear the Muslim community is very interesting in avoiding this happening in Canada. Or perhaps in the past the moderates simply don't get enough press coverage.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/29/Martin-Imams-050729.html?ref=rss


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I think this speaks for itself.

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/08/03/racism050803.html?ref=rss

Hate crimes against U.K. Muslims soar
Last Updated Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:33:12 EDT
CBC News
The number of hate crimes primarily affecting Muslims in the United Kingdom soared 600 per cent in the weeks after the London bombings on July 7, police say.

INDEPTH: London Bombing
Crime statistics show there were 269 hate-motivated attacks in the three weeks following the bombings that killed 56 people. Similar crimes during the same period last year totalled 40.

Most cases were verbal or minor physical assaults targeting the Muslim community, although there was property damage and attacks on mosques, said Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur.

"It can lead to these communities completely retreating and not engaging at a time when we want their engagement and support," Ghaffur said.

Britain's Home Office on Tuesday began meetings across the country with local leaders and Muslim communities to try to improve relations and address concerns of security, education and extremism.

FROM AUG. 2, 2005: U.K. police told not to use racial profiling
There are an estimated 1.6 million Muslims in Britain.

A new shoot-to-kill police policy against would-be bombers that claimed the life of a Brazilian electrician in error has raised fears that racial profiling permeates police ranks.

Racism among a minority of white youths, whether tied to soccer hooliganism or race riots in dance clubs, has a history in Britain.

Three of the suicide bombers had family roots in Pakistan, while the fourth moved to Britain from Jamaica as a youngster. Several of the suspects in the botched July 21 attacks hailed from east Africa.

There's a concern in some quarters that violence against the Muslim community could see more of its members, especially young people, to embrace extremism.

A former mayor of Oldham, a northern industrial town near Manchester that was the site of race riots four years ago, said that moderate people must take the lead in reaching out to youth.

"We want to work together to get rid of this evil among us," said Riaz Ahmed, after meeting with Hazil Blears, a minister in the Home Office.

Another community activist supported the concept. "The right Muslims with the right thinking and the right mind need to get to the youngsters before the extremists do," Mohammed Miah said.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/natio...t_seated_on_subway_train20050816.html?ref=rss

This is starting to look like a third-world death-squad execution.

And the surveillance cameras indicate that he DID NOT run from the police or jump over a turnstyle, and was seated when he was killed.

Once again, I hope the press screwed up in its reporting, not that the police lied.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

This thread has officially risen from the ashes.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The padded winter jacket he was suspiciously wearing has since transmogrified into a denim jacket as reported a few weeks ago but with a photograph here. Where are the defenders of this precipitous mistake now?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I just watched *Bus 174* on the Doc channel and a Brazilian city dweller view of cops is markedly different than most first worlders could comprehend.

A cautionary article in the Economist on Blair's over reaction.












> *Dealing with traitors*
> Aug 11th 2005
> 
> The British government's anti-terrorism proposals are wrong, both in principle and in practice
> ...


Indeed........:clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This should add fuel to the fire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm


----------



## Gravity Grave (Jul 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> This should add fuel to the fire
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm



Here is another article regarding this issue:

Mistakes led to tube shooting 

Reprehensible doesn't begin to describe this. At what point, in the face of evidence, do we drop the rationalizations that it was 'unfortunate, but necessary'?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

"Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body."

In other words, they killed a suspect without reason, without believing that he was executing a terrorist mission. They simply believed he was a terrorist.

Judge. Jury. Executioner. A look at that photo of him lying in his own blood on the floor of the subway car brings the grim truth home - hard.

The right to a fair trial means something. In this case, it meant this man's life.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

This really is a disgusting episode. The truth is slowly filtering out. But why all the stupid disinformation in the first place? What was going through the tiny minds of the story-tellers, with their fictitious details of the event?

What made it worse, in my view was the tough-guy, 'served-him-right' stance taken by so many amost immeditely after it had happened. There is a lesson here for us IF we are inclined to, and/or capable of, learning. Stop, think, wait and don't rush to judgement if you didn't actually witness the incident, and weren't in on the detaills of the operation.

I found it nauseating to have to witness the alacrity with which many, on these forums and elsewhere, parroted the litany of lies. "He ran, was wearing a heavy jacket on a hot day(cue: He must have a bomb) and leapt the turnstiles (cue: guilty!) and grabbed another passenger when he boarded the tube train (cue: hostage!)". 

Let's hear it for the ad-mass! They'll swallow anything they're fed, "take ownership" of it and then take exception to anyone who attempts to dispute the issue. How easy it is to manipulate the ad-mass!

The only comfort I draw from this filthy business, is that someone has had the decency to try and let us know what happened.

As for the howling mob ('served him right'), there is no excuse. Shame on each and every one of them.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

used to be jwoodget said:


> The padded winter jacket he was suspiciously wearing has since transmogrified into a denim jacket as reported a few weeks ago but with a photograph here. Where are the defenders of this precipitous mistake now?


Up until this point, nobody knew the entire story and commented on the information at hand. I guess better to err on the side of caution when posting? Or is it better to jump to conclusions... the fact that you have to question those of a differing opinions over a tragedy such as this is sad.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Where's the emoticon for "I told you so"? 


M


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Whatever.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Up until this point, nobody knew the entire story and commented on the information at hand. I guess better to err on the side of caution when posting? Or is it better to jump to conclusions... the fact that you have to question those of a differing opinions over a tragedy such as this is sad.


What is sad is that so many jumped to conclusions and appararently were not willing to even consider that the inconsistencies were relevant or that this one, dead person was a victim. What is tragic is that a young man lost his life for nothing. Next time you run for a train, you should not have to worry about being shot!


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> This really is a disgusting episode. ...
> ...
> ...
> ...As for the howling mob ('served him right'), there is no excuse. Shame on each and every one of them.


How do we know this is new 'evidence' is the truth? Let's wait for the investigation to finish before shaming anyone.


EDIT: To make MacDoc happy.  (BTW, give me a break, it was before 6am!)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

While I think you are correct in principle ( BTW quoting the entire post is big of a waste of reading space ) a senior Scotland Yard officer flying to Brazil to offer compensation and serious calls for Ian Blair to resign do not paint a "balanced" picture.

I think now it's a question of HOW badly the police screwed up...........not a question of "mistakes on both sides".


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Mugatu, my friend,



> Let's wait for the investigation to finish before shaming anyone.


No, Sir! Too many people showed their fangs too quickly. They didn't even wait for the investigation to begin, let alone finish! The ones who latched onto the 'served him right' meme should be having second thoughts. Are they? Even teensy-weensy second (or even maybe almost-nearly-but-not-quite-first-equal) thoughts?

My quibble is with the lynch-mob mentality. In the highly charged, highly emotional atmosphere surrounding these events, the calmer voices were drowned out by poorly directed commentary. I say "shame" on those who claim to be our leaders and guardians for not 'taking a lead' and declaring the early macabre gossip for just that - macabre gossip, and for being responsible for a bungled surveillance operation. The stakes are clearly very high and so if you f**k up and start killing people in error, you should go down hard yourself.

I don't accept that it's good enough to kill an innocent man and then just say, in so many words, "well tough, oh, and it might happen again".

I wonder how all the 'served-him-right'-ers would have felt if one of their own relatives had been slaughtered instead of the Brazilian?



> How do we know this is new 'evidence' is the truth?


We don't. How did the 'served-him-right'-ers know the original (hearsay) evidence had any credence?


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

So. He wasn't running from the police. He wasn't in Britain illegally. What a bloody tragedy.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Showed their fangs? Here we go, now...


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey, Wolfshead, my man!


> So. He wasn't running from the police. He wasn't in Britain illegally. What a bloody tragedy.


No, he wasn't running from the police, apparently. But let's all say he was, eh? Makes it all very sexy. Chase. Bang, bang!
Yes he was in Britain illegally. (That's worth 7 or 8 in the head by anyone's reckoning, eh? Bit pricey, but what can you say? Worth every one!)
Yes, a bloody tradegy.

Nice.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Snapple Quaffer: Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding me - not sure which. Maybe you should read my previous contributions to this thread and I'll re-read yours.

Didn't Jack Straw say that this guy was in Britain legally? Did he receive other information after that? In any event, last time I checked the penalty for being in Britain illegally was not death. Apparently now it is.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Snapple Quaffer: My apologies. My comments regarding this incident were made in another, similar thread. For the record, I think it IS a bloody tragedy that this man was gunned down.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Wolfshead, the waters were muddied very nicely over Mr de Menezes' residency status.

Our Man of Straw: "I haven't got any precise information on his immigration status, my understanding is he was here lawfully," Mr Straw said.

Superb use of the English language there. Our Jack, of course, is a lawyer by trade.

Then there's this

The stuff of cheap paperback thrillers.

Sadly, the penalty for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is death.

All of this is reminiscent of the naughty little boy caught red-handed in some act of mischief. Tell lots of stories and see if you can get away with it. Feign innocence or lack of understanding of the questions.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Wolfshead, I get your drift.

No need for you to apologise at all.


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

I like the idea of " He got what he deserved". 
The policeman who killed 8 times the innocent man who kind of looked suspicious should be sent for muder trial in Brazil. If he knows he was right, he has nothing to fear. Otherwise, it will be his turn to get what he deserves.
I wonder if this trigger-happy master of photographic memory is still patrolling the streets and tunnels of London?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

DP004 said:


> The policeman who killed 8 times the innocent man who kind of looked suspicious should be sent for muder trial in Brazil. If he knows he was right, he has nothing to fear. Otherwise, it will be his turn to get what he deserves.
> I wonder if this trigger-happy master of photographic memory is still patrolling the streets and tunnels of London?


I've said it before: the police officers who did the shooting were doing what they were told to do. But should they have been ordered to kill suspects?

The issue here is not whether the police at the scene were "trigger-happy," but whether the policy of killing suspected terrorists is right.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Yes, but then you have to look at who is a suspected terrorist. I see many people who look "suspicious" on a daily basis. Do they only look suspicious to me? Wouldn't a real terrorist look perfectly innocent? 

Recently I overhead a couple of women talking in a restaurant. One of them was recounting her recent experience at an international airport in the States (don't know which one). She was complaining about the security check and saying, "They thought I could be a terrorist! How could I be a terrorist - I'm blond for god's sake - do I look middle eastern?" etc., etc., I guess a terrorist organisation would never use a blond. Too dumb anyway. They only use young, dark complexioned men - preferably with facial hair.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> By DOUG SAUNDERS
> Thursday, August 18, 2005 Updated at 4:40 AM EDT
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> ...


Should there be criminal prosecution? Seems to me that the entire command chain was at fault. The only "innocent" party was the victim.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

An inquiry needs to find out all the answers before one can lead to criminal prosecutions.

I mean we only know what the media is telling us.. who knows the truth?

We make harsh conclusions and decisions based off of one story first we must find all the facts before we make harsh decisions..

In this case only time will tell us the truth


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> London: Last Police Lie Blown Off
> by Sanjay Suri
> 
> LONDON - Just about the last defense of the police who killed Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes in London July 21 was that they had seen him running. New evidence suggests he was not running, but sitting on the train when he was grabbed and shot.
> ...


The amount of lies comming from the London cops is simply unacceptable.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I fear that the officer who did the shooting will suffer all the punishment, and the higher-ups in Scotland Yard will get off "Scot-free."


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

has anyone noticed the differences in the way the photograph of mr menezes lying in the carriage have been presented?

on the itv website they show him from the shoulders down, clearly wearing a denim jacket. the photograph is quite clear and in focus.

on the bbc website, the photo has been cropped so that he is shown from the waist down, with just a hint of a denim jacket showing. the photograph is very grainy so that the details are obscured somewhat.

i wonder why the difference?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Here is a photo of the victim so you ccan see just what type of jacket he was wearing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Menezes-death.jpg


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Jacklar said:


> We make harsh conclusions and decisions based off of one story first we must find all the facts before we make harsh decisions..


Agreed Jacklar, but do you not find your statement hugely ironic? The police made the harshest decision possible based on trivial evidence. Due process must be followed in the investigation of what when wrong so that a repeat does not occur. The facts are criticial (the leaked documents and photograph are a lot more credible than the initial information that was never questioned). If due process had been followed by the officers, then he'd be alive and well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This really sounds like a case of "tunnel vision" which is a hazard for police officers.
There was a fixation established that this guy was a terrorist - they were in personal danger , adrenaline through the roof, they were running and all pumped up and it was in their minds this guy was a threat to them and everyone else.

Once that fixation sets in how stoppable is it?? as it will reinforce within the group.

In high speed car chases another officer sometimes has to talk the pursuing officer back down to normal to get the chemistry and fixation broken lose.

This was a monumental SNAFU that ended in death and the "lies" surrounding what happened in my mind are the worst of it as far as culpability is concerned.

It's one thing in the heat of the moment to err drastically - that's human 
- another to cover it up in the cold light of retrospect - that's criminal.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Exactly!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

And our No.1 Plod at the Met, Sir Ian Blair, is still defiant. I listened to him on the the 6 o'clock news bulletin this evening (Radio 4) in which he started off by agonising over the deaths from the bombings, the hundreds injured etc. This is a measly oratorical device which is meant to shut up anyone who has the temerity to be anything other than acquiescent - the man starts by hiding behind the casualty figures. Those poor victims of the bombings deserve not to be used as in this tawdry fashion.

You can hear the great man here, under "Latest News", then "Listen to the latest news bulletin".


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

This article from the Sunday Hearald has even more information on what happened:
Innocent man shot dead on subway...cover up? 


> AN INNOCENT MAN SHOT DEAD ON THE LONDON TUBE BY POLICE ... since then everything we’ve been told has been wrong.
> 
> 
> A COVER-UP? AND IF SO … WHY?
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> The IPCC report offers a degree of clarity absent in the “eyewitness” accounts which suggested the suspect had been wearing a padded jacket and had vaulted a ticket barrier.
> 
> These accounts are governed not by rational recall but by panic. They reflect public terror and fear. But despite Sir Ian Blair’s insistence that “there was no evidence” that the Met had made up or leaked stories suggesting that the victim was running from the police and had been wearing a bulky jacket and had jumped over a barrier, the initial post-mortem report into de Menezes’s death states the young Brazilian had “vaulted over the ticket barrier”.
> 
> ...


Just when you think this can't possibley look any worse...


----------

