Please dont call me a child Cause that is what im not.
yet you accompany your post with a smiley face?
Get a grip, I'd suggest you take this to Metropol but I don't want to see the place stained with idiots like you, it would ruin the *fabulous* karma
So only children are alowed to smile? I dont like metropol thanks, and your seem to like to contribute to metrolpol alot so i take it you are one of those stained idiots!
Right, before the thread is closed, i'd like to give my opinions on this particular issue.
Granted, I am 17 years of age, my political and current affairs knowledge is limited to a degree because of the exposure i've had to certain news stories within my life time.
The serious nature of terrorism is still a very new, and highly radical prospect that remains a hidden threat within the minds of most Europeans and indeed, all the Earth's habbitants. 4 years ago, we saw September 11th, and how over 3000 people were killed within 2 hours, we can now physically stop a potential suicide bomber from carrying out a future attact on any commercial jet, however for those who wish to blow themselves up on the London underground or Bus network, are free to do so, without any secruity checks.
It is the exact nature of this freedom that makes the idea so appealing to extremists. The Met Police and intellligence service have made choices in the last 2 weeks, regarding the vulnerability of London's transport system, anyone who is seen to pose any threat at all, must be dealt with in the interest to protect a captial city at large.
The Police acted within the guidelines last Friday, yes they have regrets, and I do agree that saying sorry isn't enough when essentially the Police have commited murder.
If the Brazillian would have blown himself up on that Tube train at Stockwell, how many people would be saying "Why wasn't he stopped/shot" It's a gamble many people would find hard to take, but surely the choices that were made last Friday were a sign that the UK is fighting terrorism, even if it the way we sometimes conduct our descisions isn't always 100% correct.
Thanks for reading, i'll be happy to hear arguments
Right, before the thread is closed, i'd like to give my opinions on this particular issue.
Granted, I am 17 years of age, my political and current affairs knowledge is limited to a degree because of the exposure i've had to certain news stories within my life time.
The serious nature of terrorism is still a very new, and highly radical prospect that remains a hidden threat within the minds of most Europeans and indeed, all the Earth's habbitants. 4 years ago, we saw September 11th, and how over 3000 people were killed within 2 hours, we can now physically stop a potential suicide bomber from carrying out a future attact on any commercial jet, however for those who wish to blow themselves up on the London underground or Bus network, are free to do so, without any secruity checks.
It is the exact nature of this freedom that makes the idea so appealing to extremists. The Met Police and intellligence service have made choices in the last 2 weeks, regarding the vulnerability of London's transport system, anyone who is seen to pose any threat at all, must be dealt with in the interest to protect a captial city at large.
The Police acted within the guidelines last Friday, yes they have regrets, and I do agree that saying sorry isn't enough when essentially the Police have commited murder.
If the Brazillian would have blown himself up on that Tube train at Stockwell, how many people would be saying "Why wasn't he stopped/shot" It's a gamble many people would find hard to take, but surely the choices that were made last Friday were a sign that the UK is fighting terrorism, even if it the way we sometimes conduct our descisions isn't always 100% correct.
Thanks for reading, i'll be happy to hear arguments
I totally agree, though in this unfortunate situation, the police couldn't take any chances.
But, you have to ask yourself this when it comes to "shoot-to-kill" policies.
What if 10 more innocent people are shot over the next 12 months, for argument's sake? What if it's 50? Or 100? Or 500?
At what point does it become too much? When would you say enough is enough - too many dark-skinned innocent guys have been shot?
Also, is it that much of a step from shooting suspected terrorists who are running away from the Police to shooting other suspects, not believed to be connected with terrorism?
All very, very tough questions, which is why I tend to lean away from the "shoot now, ask questions later" approach.
If it's one thing that's annoyed me about the coverage this last week, it's the debate on "shoot-to-kill".
Armed police have always been trained to "shoot-to-kill"- if a person is committing an act where you have to shoot them for the protection of others, you never "shoot-to-injure".
The only difference between previous incidents and this latest unfortunate event, is the slight change in protocol- from shooting the chest (aiming for the largest portion to avoid injury to others) to aiming for the head (because shooting the chest of a suicide bomber could do their job for them). This is learnt from the experience of the Israeli security services.
But it's always been shoot-to-kill, even decades ago.
Of course it's an unfortunate incident, but when you're asked by the police to stop on numerous occasions, but instead run.....and then in the current climate you run into an underground station, vault the ticket barrier and run onto a packed commuter train whilst wearing a highly padded bomber jacket on an extremely hot day.....I don't think you can blame the police for their actions at all.
I've heard unofficial rumours that the man who was shot had an expired visa, and this is why he ran from police- but honestly if the police ask you to stop (uniformed or not), you do just stop. Such incidents could happen with "innocent" people again, but I believe it's fairly unlikely to be honest- it just requires far too much irrational thought from the victim to effectively 'get themselves shot'.
