Suspect shot in London (merged)

I may have inadvertantly got myself included in those groups at some stage, but I agree totally with what you have said. We need to have all the facts before we can make judgements. I seem to have dragged myself into situations here on this forum mainly because I feel I have to defend all things British, since they seem to come under frequent attack by those with little real knoweldge of the subject. Even though things are not perfect there, I feel like someone has to stand in their corner.
I digress a little...my main point is that it does seem that there are always black and white sides here. Republican or Democrat, Pro-gun or anti-gun etc, etc. With 2 groups pulling in completely different directions, nothing can be achieved but conflict. If everyone would objectively examine facts and give reasoned, unbiased arguements, then alot of good could be done in any given area. Or maybe I'm just a *insert label, stereotype,etc here*.
 
They seem to take the realistic position that some suspension of liberties occurs during times like the present and are willing to accept that as a necessary but temporary reality.

They are generally supportive of the government's efforts and understand that some flexibility is called for during emergency situations. They also understand that tragedies such as this shooting are anomolies, not the staus quo. They appear naive and gullible to the scolds.
Click to expand...

Temporary reality...emergency situations.

I would be less cynical if history didn't show that there's nothing so permanent as a "temporary" government measure, especially when it's "in times of crisis".

How do you determine when the temporary situation is over? When does the suspension of those civil liberties end? When will the emergency situation declared over? When there are no more Islamist extremists in the world? When we've gone one, ten, or fifty years without an attack? When OBL is dead or captured? When there are no terrorist acts committed in the world anymore at all?

If any of those serve as your yardstick for gauging when this "temporary reality" is over, you're in for a very long wait. Considering the present reality, the nature of terrorism, and the reluctance of governments to relinquish "emergency powers", those "temporarily suspended" civil liberties are gone for good.

If you can live with this trade of some freedoms for the promise of safety, then that's okay....but state the case as such, and don't try to pretend the loss of those freedoms is temporary.
 
Marko,

Your post is perfectly illustrative of my point. You expend a great deal of energy ranting about alleged historical parallels, government power grabs and diminishment of personal rights. You shake your fist in cyberspace asking rhetorical questions about the when, where, why and how...but you offer no solutions. Where is your grand strategy to deal with the issues at hand and not tread one iota over the line that you've drawn in the sand? I'm tired of hearing how badly we're screwing up. If you've got a better solution lets hear it...and no slogans or sound bites, please. Let's have some reasoned, achievable tactics, strategies and goals that can be realized without someones toes being stepped on. Perfection in an imperfect world is an unrealistic expectation.

Rich,

Does implying that my views are unbalanced make them simpler for you to ignore? Do you take that approach with other input that strikes too close to home?
 
GB-
I'm implying nothing. I'm stating, flat out, that the debating device you attempted is transparent and grade-schoolish. To wit:

You start a post portaying yourself as the Voice of Reason. On the one hand you paint a group, thoughtful and grounded in the reality of today's situation. On the other you paint an opposing group, clueless and emotional. You conclude with lament about the "polarization" of the factions, and a lecture about the people who "lecture". In fact you've pushed one agenda under the transparent ruse of "can't we all get along".

"Too close to home"? Not for me, GB. I try not to employ transparent literary device in debate. I'd prefer to tell you where I stand.
Rich
 
gb-
No one said you couldn't speak your mind. But this IS a discussion board. When you make a comment, expect response. When you attempt diversion, expect to be called on it.
Rich
 
If this was a true discussion board, you would look past your disagreement with how I phrased my post and discuss the issues raised in it. Not all of us are articulate wordsmiths like you Rich. I guess that dismissng the post a grade schoolish and transparent absolves you from having to deal with the issues raised. If those are the rules, so be it. I'll fall back into lock step now.
 
You didn't raise any issue, gburner, unless you mean the insinuation that "War" requires drastic measures. I had commented only on the quote from Sir Ian. I've taken great pains not to fault the cops or even the use of force policy as applied in days immediately following a bombing. I simply questioned a blithe statement from a Government Official opining that this would happen again because "suspected" terrorists need to be head shot.

As to your willingness to immediately bow to my "authority", there really is no need. My authority extends only to 4 simple Rules of Conduct and I never indicated, publicly or privately, that you had violated any of those. Therefore, I am simply engaged in this debate as a Member here. I took issue with your statement; I stated as much; and I stated Why. If that is enough for you to assume I'm demanding some sort of control over your posts, it's fiction of your own making.

By all means, carry on.
Rich
 
Let me step back then and attempt to right what seems to be a case of miscommunication.

My previous post was my attempt to illustrate what I viewed as a polarization between factions on this forum.
I do tend to agree with the rah-rah's more than the scolds (though blind adherance to anything is thoughtless and servile) which led to your observation about a lack of balance in my observations. In my view, the rah-rahs tend to be more flexible and practical in their poblem solving while the scolds seem to expect reality to conform to rigid guidelines of law, rights, etc.

In an attempt to generate more light than heat I will try again; if we are to prosecute the war on terror in a framework that demands that the necessity of maintaining individual civil rights outweigh the need to protect ourselves and prevail over our enemies, how do we accomodate these seemingly opposed priorities. I'm aware of what Franklin said about safety and freedom but, unless you can apply that admonition in practical terms to todays reality, you might as well put it on a bumper sticker for all its worth.

Rich, I apologize for being snotty but I really was trying to get practical feedback from folks who seem content with just carping about how badly we're doing.
mea culpa...jimbo
 
OK, we'll both step back. No foul on your part, gb.
how do we accomodate these seemingly opposed priorities.
Click to expand...
My answer is simple. Do whatever is necessary short of restricting rights that I was taught were God Given; Rights that are not for sale or lease.

Secure the borders; seek out all undocumented and illegal aliens from specific countries and jail or deport, according to the law; continue to take 50% of every dollar I earn to build your intelligence, early warning and interdiction teams.

Some will still get thru.....but they'll be attacking a Nation of Free Men.

Have we all gotten to the point that we actually WISH to be like England, France, Spain, Italy or Canada? Not me. No thanks.....I am simply not that frightened.

The "line in the sand" is the (already shrunken) Bill of Rights. It is not just a piece of paper; it's the Birthright of Free Men; it's what sets this Nation apart and made it great; and I believe in it wholeheartedly and passionately. I'll take my chances with the "safety" ramifications, thank you.
Rich
 
but it would be nice to have at least a reasonable degree of certainty that you're not blowing up somebody just because of them making poor fashion choices on a hot day.
Click to expand...

... AND emerge from an apartment house under surveillance for suspected accomplices of terrorists who killed dozens the previous week.

... AND run away when "Stop! Police!" is shouted.

... AND run for a tube station with police hot on your heels.

... AND jump the turnstile of said tube station.

... AND run onto a train full of commuters.

"Poor fashion choices" was HARDLY the only poor choice that this unfortunate fellow made that day.
 
mvpel,

Given how I've lived in this house for about 5 years without ever properly meeting my next-door neighbour on the left side (my right-hand neighbours are quite nice, though), I'd say it's a reasonable probability that the DG didn't know his building was under surveillance for terrorist activity.

Also, given my experiences with the UK constabulary, I'd say it's more likely that the plainclothesmen just shouted "Oi! You!" or something similar, rather than "Halt! Armed police!". See previous page. The most likely explanation for his behavior is just seeing normally-clad men waving guns and shouting.

I don't think anybody will be running from normally-clothed people with guns in the future. I'm sure this will make for some very successful muggings in the Manchester, London and Liverpool areas, too. How smashing.

How absolutely smashing.

To be honest, putting this on the Dead Guy is really rank. He didn't commit suicide by cop, because this is the first time in decades that anything like this has happenned.

To be honest, if they were that worried about casualties, it would have made a lot more sense to have taken him down on the empty bus he was riding, down a street with few pedestrians.

This is rank incompetence at best, and while I'm not known for my tinfoil beanie habits, the conspiracy fans who're bleating that SO19 wanted to send a message may, after all, have a point. They had plenty of opportunity beforehand, and I'm constitutionally disinclined to place great faith in any "organisation" of people.
 
Yipes! This must be starting to be serious. I have observed a few semi-colons. The semi-colon, for those who might not know, is the Holy Grail of literary excellence.
 
There were uniformed police in the group pursuing him, as I understand it, and the plainclothesmen put on their police caps when the pursuit commenced. Has this turned out to be incorrect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top