Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Isn't being civilised a sign that we are different to them?

And that, is apathy. It does nothing to stop or at least reduce future terrorist attacks or protect against them.

When you strike a psycho with one of these weapons you are either using a bomb (that's precision right there) or a missile. I don't think using them in your own country is advisable, you can't just brush off casualties as collateral damage like you can in other countries.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Our police aren't Judge Dredd

Noone is asking them too. But if you spot a guy, clearly slaughtering someone like this terrorist, then you should shoot to kill for the sake of public safety.

That is exactly what you are asking for. That they be judge, jury and executioner.

So how exactly have we been soft? He broke the law and will be brought to justice for it.

Because it was allowed to happen when it could have been stopped and the fact that he was protected in the first place.

The Covenant of Security was a policy designed in the Bosnia conflict to firstly fight a proxy war, and secondly to protect Britain by having them inside the tent weeing out. It was a stupid policy and the French rightly criticise us for it, but it wasn't being soft on terrorists, it was using them to further our own goals.

Wow...think the americans need to back out this thread and let the brits go at it

 Jihadin wrote:
Wow...think the americans need to back out this thread and let the brits go at it

There's always a first time!

 Jihadin wrote:
Wow...think the americans need to back out this thread and let the brits go at it

Yup.

Getting my popcorn out:


ps: thanks for explaining that uniform thing.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I'm curious about how you propose identifying, tracking and stopping a lone psycho with an agenda?

Surveillance, especially on the internet with known radicalising websites.

Unmanned drones present new surveillance technology, once it reaches more widespread use with also the potential to strike confirmed psychos.

You are aware you're espousing views which are almost every bit as extreme as those who committed this act right?

Removal of freedoms, execution without due process?

It's all going to go a bit Godwin in a minute.

Due process has a place, when catching terrorists who have not carried out their act yet, caught through surveillance. Due process should be removed when the result is absolutely clear like the animal who murdered the soldier. Unless of course, they change terrorist offences into automatic life sentences when found guilty, while putting them in gulag-like conditions. That could work too.

My views are borne out of concern of the safety of my people, my friends, my family and people like me. If it takes a heavy-handed surveillance program with drone technology and internet tracking to reduce terrorist attacks, then I'm fine with that.

When you strike a psycho with one of these weapons you are either using a bomb (that's precision right there) or a missile. I don't think using them in your own country is advisable, you can't just brush off casualties as collateral damage like you can in other countries.

With current technology sure, but I'm sure technology will improve.

That is exactly what you are asking for. That they be judge, jury and executioner.

So shoot to kill is a policy that should never be used in the UK, even if it will save a life?

Leave the cops out though. If they knee capped I would have done the same. Killing them is not to be taking lightly and those calling for the cops to do so have no clue on what they're willing to let the cops suffer over time.

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Our police aren't Judge Dredd

Noone is asking them too. But if you spot a guy, clearly slaughtering someone like this terrorist, then you should shoot to kill for the sake of public safety.

That is exactly what you are asking for. That they be judge, jury and executioner.

So how exactly have we been soft? He broke the law and will be brought to justice for it.

Because it was allowed to happen when it could have been stopped and the fact that he was protected in the first place.

The Covenant of Security was a policy designed in the Bosnia conflict to firstly fight a proxy war, and secondly to protect Britain by having them inside the tent weeing out. It was a stupid policy and the French rightly criticise us for it, but it wasn't being soft on terrorists, it was using them to further our own goals.

I couldn't agree more, allowing police to execute people kind of ruins the whole criminal law system, who needs evidence when you can just shoot them. If the police spot someone clearly slaughtering someone they don't know the details, they are just adding one murder to another.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Isn't being civilised a sign that we are different to them?

And that, is apathy. It does nothing to stop or at least reduce future terrorist attacks or protect against them.

It's hardly apathetic to want people to be put before a jury and given a fair trial and then sentenced appropriately. Do you not understand what martyrdom is? By murdering suspects you play into the hands of radicals, you don't make the nation safer by acting in such a way, you make it more dangerous.

If the police spot someone clearly slaughtering someone they don't know the details

So in your words, a clear-cut case like Woolwich, they don't know the details?

Do you not understand what martyrdom is? By murdering suspects you play into the hands of radicals, you don't make the nation safer by acting in such a way, you make it more dangerous.

Your talking about a group of people who pick up the torches and pitchforks, in a national scale, the moment someone even drops the slightest bit of humour about Mohammed in conversation. Martyrdom is the least of our concerns as it will happen regardless. Either/or, stopping martyrdom does little to increase the countries security.

We need to start being serious about protecting citizens.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

So shoot to kill is a policy that should never be used in the UK, even if it will save a life?

Shoot to kill is employed in situations where there is an immediate threat to life and no other option is available, such as a suicide bomber with a trigger. I am absolutely fine with that. This wasn't that, what you are asking for is an execution.

 whembly wrote:
Yup.

Getting my popcorn out:


ps: thanks for explaining that uniform thing.

Pass some this way please

When they get to the scene they do not know the details , that's what investigations are for.

If someone is on the ground dead and someone is standing over them it could be a self defence manslaughter. Point is, at the scene you don't know the details so arbitrarily executing someone without evidence clearly is against the law. Upholding the law is what the police are about , not executing people on a hunch.

Upholding the law is what the police are about

As is protecting the citizenry.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I'm curious about how you propose identifying, tracking and stopping a lone psycho with an agenda?

Surveillance, especially on the internet with known radicalising websites.

Unmanned drones present new surveillance technology, once it reaches more widespread use with also the potential to strike confirmed psychos.

You are aware you're espousing views which are almost every bit as extreme as those who committed this act right?

Removal of freedoms, execution without due process?

It's all going to go a bit Godwin in a minute.

Due process has a place, when catching terrorists who have not carried out their act yet, caught through surveillance. Due process should be removed when the result is absolutely clear like the animal who murdered the soldier. Unless of course, they change terrorist offences into automatic life sentences when found guilty, while putting them in gulag-like conditions. That could work too.

My views are borne out of concern of the safety of my people, my friends, my family and people like me. If it takes a heavy-handed surveillance program with drone technology and internet tracking to reduce terrorist attacks, then I'm fine with that.

When you strike a psycho with one of these weapons you are either using a bomb (that's precision right there) or a missile. I don't think using them in your own country is advisable, you can't just brush off casualties as collateral damage like you can in other countries.

With current technology sure, but I'm sure technology will improve.

That is exactly what you are asking for. That they be judge, jury and executioner.

So shoot to kill is a policy that should never be used in the UK, even if it will save a life?

STK is used if a life is in danger, but that seldom happens.

I promise you, you have absolutely no idea what you're asking for with your police state suggestions (and essentially that's what you're proposing) There is seldom, if ever, an absence of doubt, in these situations, and what would you tell the family of the first person executed in error by these miracle drones you have thought up?

Lets play what if?

What if the perpetrators yesterday were co-opted into doing what they did? Perhaps their own families were being held hostage and they were forced into those actions on pain of their execution?

If the police had gunned them down without thought, not only would the instigators got away, but two men at least would have died that perhaps shouldn't have.

Now its obvious this wasn't the case, but this situation isn't beyond possibility. So what then?

Oh, and due process does have its place, as a cornerstone of a civilised, democratic society.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Your talking about a group of people who pick up the torches and pitchforks, in a national scale, the moment someone even drops the slightest bit of humour about Mohammed in conversation. Martyrdom is the least of our concerns as it will happen regardless. Either/or, stopping martyrdom does little to increase the countries security.

We need to start being serious about protecting citizens.

Making martyrs makes more terrorists, that makes the situation worse and this country a less safe place to be. Do you really not see that?

We are very serious about protecting our citizens, just because its not some dystopic surveillance state with summary executions without evidence doesn't mean nothing is happening. Your need to see something being done is far less important than something actually being done, which of course you don't see, as its done by MI5 and Special Branch.

Besides you want them alive for intel.

What if the perpetrators yesterday were co-opted into doing what they did? Perhaps their own families were being held hostage and they were forced into those actions on pain of their execution?

If the police had gunned them down without thought, not only would the instigators got away, but two men at least would have died that perhaps shouldn't have.

Now its obvious this wasn't the case, but this situation isn't beyond possibility. So what then?

If you murder someone not in self defense, you break the law. Its clear cut no matter the reason why. Though it would be a pity letting the instigators get away.

I know exactly what I'm proposing. I'm proposing it because the current solution isn't working.

Making martyrs makes more terrorists, that makes the situation worse and this country a less safe place to be. Do you really not see that?

I see that. I also said that islamists are quite able to easily become radicalised without becoming martyrs. See the ridiculousness of the Mohammed cartoon incident.

We are very serious about protecting our citizens,

Their failure was quite evident in this case.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

What if the perpetrators yesterday were co-opted into doing what they did? Perhaps their own families were being held hostage and they were forced into those actions on pain of their execution?

If the police had gunned them down without thought, not only would the instigators got away, but two men at least would have died that perhaps shouldn't have.

Now its obvious this wasn't the case, but this situation isn't beyond possibility. So what then?

If you murder someone not in self defense, you break the law. Its clear cut no matter the reason why. Though it would be a pity letting the instigators get away.

Good Lord!

I'm leaving this thread before I get myself banned.

They say that all evil needs to thrive is for good men to do nothing, but evidently letting ignorant men think they have a right to an opinion can work out pretty crappy for all concerned as well.

Co Opting the family mostly involve money. Notice the suicide bombing tapered off in Isreal when Hussien was brought down. He was donating 10K to the family of a bomber. Same in Afghanistan except in Afghanistan seeing a clean and perfume smelling Afghan is a big clue something is not right. Its a three day "ritual" of cleansing the body, grooming, bathing and preparing to meet Allah.

These two chuckleheads did a execution for what they believe in. Played insurgents on your home turf. Which we notice is raising all kind of WTF and WTH. Since you don't expect it to happen on your "Home Turf"

 dæl wrote:
We are very serious about protecting our citizens, just because its not some dystopic surveillance state with summary executions without evidence doesn't mean nothing is happening. Your need to see something being done is far less important than something actually being done, which of course you don't see, as its done by MI5 and Special Branch.

Exactly, this type of incident is the kind which is incredibly hard for the security services to thwart, small groups of lone wolfs using easily available resrouces from the internet. I think the head of our security services said earlier this year a major attack has been thwarted almost every year in this country. The public doesn't know and probably for the better

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I know exactly what I'm proposing. I'm proposing it because the current solution isn't working.

How do you know how many incidents have been averted? How do you know how many would be averted under your dystopic ideal?

Making martyrs makes more terrorists, that makes the situation worse and this country a less safe place to be. Do you really not see that?

I see that. I also said that islamists are quite able to easily become radicalised without becoming martyrs. See the ridiculousness of the Mohammed cartoon incident.

So what recent action has you calling for blood? Is it someone insulting your culture? Or is it murder?

We are very serious about protecting our citizens,

Their failure was quite evident in this case.

Every loss of life is a failure, that does not mean we need to become a worse society. Islamic extremists hate the liberal, civilised western way of life, what you are asking for is to completely destroy our way of life and become totalitarian and barbaric.

The goal of terrorists isn't "kill everyone!!1" They generally have stated political goals that they're trying to draw attention to.

The way you beat them is to refuse to be terrorised. When you flail around, demanding core precepts of our society be dismantled to try to make us safer by a tiny amount, immense amounts of money be spent to stop them at any cost, you are playing into their hands. Having such an immense economic impact as people demand huge amounts of money poured into stopping them for such a small investment no doubt gets them very excited.

It would also probably help to examine the reasons they are terrorists in the first place and what drove them to these lengths. I know when I think of ways I can make change politically "terrorism" isn't at the top of the list, and what they went through before it ended up there is an important question.

They're not evil people. Nobody is "evil." People choose to do evil things. Understanding why they chose that path is important if you really want it to not happen in future.

Man. Is that twenty minute response time accurate? That's insane.

 Valion wrote:
Man. Is that twenty minute response time accurate? That's insane.

You've not encountered London traffic have you?

It can get so jammed that lights and sirens only help very slightly.

To illustrate, I live approx 4 hours away. I visited a friend to help her out when her husband was suddenly admitted to hospital, leaving her with a toddler and two cars that were both unusable at that time. The day the husband was discharged from hospital, I left for home at the same time as she left to collect him from hospital, approx 4 miles away.

I got home about 20 minutes after they did!

Probably have to take in account the first response operator was probably still wrapping their head around what they hearing before thy put the call out to LEO

 whembly wrote:
little nit pick here: Westboro folks don't butcher their opponents.

But they do act like incredible donkey-caves. And just like it'd be wrong to say 'and therefore all Christians are incredible donkey-caves', it is equally wrong to say 'and after this attack I conclude all Muslims have a problem with being murderers'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
How many members of the Westborough Baptists have gone out and murdered someone in the name of Jesus? How many "badly interpreting Islam" dicks have murdered someone in the name of Mohammed or Allah? I'll give you a hint, the answer to the first question is "zero". So, please stop making apples & oranges comparisons to justify political correctness.

No, you stop ignoring the actual, real factors that drive terrorism.

Look at where Westboro is located, it's in a wealthy, prosperous nation with a great deal of political stability. Now look at where most terrorism is conducted - Africa, the Middle East, India & Pakistan. And oh look, in those countries it's done by every creed that happens to be there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Its not capital punishment if its neutralizing a rampaging terrorist.

They did that when the police shot and subsequently arrested these two guys.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The goal of terrorists isn't "kill everyone!!1" They generally have stated political goals that they're trying to draw attention to.

The way you beat them is to refuse to be terrorised. When you flail around, demanding core precepts of our society be dismantled to try to make us safer by a tiny amount, immense amounts of money be spent to stop them at any cost, you are playing into their hands. Having such an immense economic impact as people demand huge amounts of money poured into stopping them for such a small investment no doubt gets them very excited.

It would also probably help to examine the reasons they are terrorists in the first place and what drove them to these lengths. I know when I think of ways I can make change politically "terrorism" isn't at the top of the list, and what they went through before it ended up there is an important question.

They're not evil people. Nobody is "evil." People choose to do evil things. Understanding why they chose that path is important if you really want it to not happen in future.

Quoted for truth, trying to divide the world into good and evil is an exercise in futility .

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And that, is apathy. It does nothing to stop or at least reduce future terrorist attacks or protect against them.

What? Dude, they waited for the police to show up. Islamic terrorism is frequently suicidal, suicide bombings, flying planes in to buildings, in the Mumbai terror attacks the attackers could have escaped the scene but instead stayed and attempted to take out as many police as possible over as long a period as possible.

The idea that if the police had shot these guys then future terrorists would think 'oh we'd better not do that or they'll just kill us instead of attempting arrest us and then kill us if that isn't possible' is ridiculous idea.

The 'raargh we should be as violent as possible and then we'd be safe' is a simple, direct emotion, but it's also completely irrelevant to how this stuff really works.