|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
On May 23 2013 07:41 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:38 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either. So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing? ''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.'' What does this mean? What kind of intel you really think you'll get out of them? It's not so much of an excuse if your life or anyone else's life is in jeopardy for that matter. You take out the threat it's as simple as that any means necessary. I'd rather just go through their history to try and connect the dots because they sound like crazy mofos. I doubt you'd get shit of them. I'm not familiar with the U.K. police policies, so I guess it's pretty different from here. In nonamericaland policemen are not paid to play Dredd. Which is a good thing. High respect for these bobbies and every other policeman that does his work properly.
Police aren't paid to go Dredd in America either his view is not a mainstream one in the USA on how police should act.
|
You judge a tree by the fruit that it bears.
"No, no, please distinguish between the fruit and the tree."
And why? Are not actions often preceded by ideas? One births the other.
In any case, what matters is not the religion, but the backwards culture, which is tolerated and excused in the name of enlightened multiculturalism.
|
On May 23 2013 07:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:41 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 07:38 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either. So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing? ''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.'' What does this mean? What kind of intel you really think you'll get out of them? It's not so much of an excuse if your life or anyone else's life is in jeopardy for that matter. You take out the threat it's as simple as that any means necessary. I'd rather just go through their history to try and connect the dots because they sound like crazy mofos. I doubt you'd get shit of them. I'm not familiar with the U.K. police policies, so I guess it's pretty different from here. In nonamericaland policemen are not paid to play Dredd. Which is a good thing. High respect for these bobbies and every other policeman that does his work properly. Police aren't paid to go Dredd in America either his view is not a mainstream one in the USA on how police should act.
I know. But you know, i kinda react to vocal minorities with equally bad habits. My bad.
|
On May 23 2013 07:38 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either. So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing? ''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.'' What does this mean? What kind of intel you really think you'll get out of them? It's not so much of an excuse if your life or anyone else's life is in jeopardy for that matter. You take out the threat it's as simple as that any means necessary. I'd rather just go through their history to try and connect the dots because they sound like crazy mofos. I doubt you'd get shit of them. I'm not familiar with the U.K. police policies, so I guess it's pretty different from here. I'm trying to recall the last policeman shooting down a criminal in Toronto. The last one I think was the Union Station fiasco which was 2004 I think? I think it was a hostage taking and a swat team member shot the guy right in the forehead.
I really hope the question ''How much intel can you get out of them?'' is never a consideration when police decide to shoot someone.
|
People have said that they seemed like "they were on something". Nothing bothers me more than people who immediately accuse all Muslims of things like this - and scrolling through this thread, seeing comments like "why can't they move to an Islamic country" only serves to emphasise the incredible ignorance that plagues Western society and contributes to culture divides that lead to crimes like this.
Ignorance breeds hate.
The EDL, hilariously, have responded by... vandalising buildings and attacking police, while complaining about the attack on someone meant to "protect" us. Fantastic.
|
Diversity is our strength -----> Diversity is our strength?
Edit: At least they did the right thing and killed them, I figured the brits to be too cowardly to use actual force.
User was banned for this post.
|
I'm wondering why it took 35 minutes for police to respond. For a country that created policing you expect more from them.
|
|
|
On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible.
No! imprisoned for life. That is a way, way harder punishment. Besides this is in Europe. Thankfully our government does not execute people.
|
On May 23 2013 07:44 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:38 Thor.Rush wrote:
Let me guess. They were Muslims?
edit: confirmed. They could've just as well been Mexican drug lords, Russian mobsters, African warlords or some other type of deranged nut job.
In this reality, odds are not
|
Kudos. I'm not sure, that i would or could do that.
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 23 2013 07:53 Thor.Rush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:44 FliedLice wrote:On May 23 2013 07:38 Thor.Rush wrote:
Let me guess. They were Muslims?
edit: confirmed. They could've just as well been Mexican drug lords, Russian mobsters, African warlords or some other type of deranged nut job. In this reality, odds are not
Historically British troops in the UK are killed by the Irish. This is the first incident like this I've heard of.
|
On May 23 2013 07:45 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:38 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either. So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing? ''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.'' What does this mean? What kind of intel you really think you'll get out of them? It's not so much of an excuse if your life or anyone else's life is in jeopardy for that matter. You take out the threat it's as simple as that any means necessary. I'd rather just go through their history to try and connect the dots because they sound like crazy mofos. I doubt you'd get shit of them. I'm not familiar with the U.K. police policies, so I guess it's pretty different from here. I'm trying to recall the last policeman shooting down a criminal in Toronto. The last one I think was the Union Station fiasco which was 2004 I think? I think it was a hostage taking and a swat team member shot the guy right in the forehead. I really hope the question ''How much intel can you get out of them?'' is never a consideration when police decide to shoot someone.
Are they acting alone? Looks like it. Going back to what you said before because it sounds like you're trying spin-doctor what I said. It's not so much of an excuse as it is protecting yourself and everyone else in the perimeter. That's why under pressure/stress if the suspect doesn't co-operate and make aggressive moves. I know cops over here will fire in certain scenarios. In this case it sounds shit was escalating quickly and there were a lot of bystanders. I'd want to get control of the situation asap. So going back to these crazy guys. What do you hope to achieve in a court case against? They got the attention they wanted and I don't think you're going to get much of anything out of them. Let's just give them a life sentence?
|
People going out and attacking mosques like at least two have according to ITV are not exactly refuting the jihadi belief that the West is at war with Islam itself good job guys.
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 23 2013 07:56 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:45 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:38 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either. So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing? ''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.'' What does this mean? What kind of intel you really think you'll get out of them? It's not so much of an excuse if your life or anyone else's life is in jeopardy for that matter. You take out the threat it's as simple as that any means necessary. I'd rather just go through their history to try and connect the dots because they sound like crazy mofos. I doubt you'd get shit of them. I'm not familiar with the U.K. police policies, so I guess it's pretty different from here. I'm trying to recall the last policeman shooting down a criminal in Toronto. The last one I think was the Union Station fiasco which was 2004 I think? I think it was a hostage taking and a swat team member shot the guy right in the forehead. I really hope the question ''How much intel can you get out of them?'' is never a consideration when police decide to shoot someone. Are they acting alone? Looks like it. Going back to what you said before because it sounds like you're trying spin-doctor what I said. It's not so much of an excuse as it is protecting yourself and everyone else in the perimeter. That's why under pressure/stress if the suspect doesn't co-operate and make aggressive moves. I know cops over here will fire in certain scenarios. In this case it sounds shit was escalating quickly and there were a lot of bystanders. I'd want to get control of the situation asap. So going back to these crazy guys. What do you hope to achieve in a court case against? They got the attention they wanted and I don't think you're going to get much of anything out of them. Let's just give them a life sentence?
You hope to achieve justice from a court case. Without a court case there is no justice. That is how the system works. That is why we have the right to imprison them idefinitely and they don't have the right to behead a dude.
|
On May 23 2013 07:52 Rokit5 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. No! imprisoned for life. That is a way, way harder punishment.
But is it, really? Think about it, they get free food and housing for the rest of their lives supported by the taxpayers of the very community that their crimes damaged. Is that really worse than dying? Especially if we consider the option that they weren't in fact religious extremists, but insane lunatics who may or may not feel any remorse whatsoever?
It's tricky. There's a realistic standpoint to this notion, not just a purely moral-based one, and both should be considered and weighed.
|
On May 23 2013 07:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:
People going out and attacking mosques like at least two have according to ITV are not exactly refuting the jihadi belief that the West is at war with Islam itself good job guys.
I guess those jihadi's will just have to learn that you can't judge the entire West by the actions of a minority.
lol...
|
On May 23 2013 08:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:52 Rokit5 wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. No! imprisoned for life. That is a way, way harder punishment. But is it, really? Think about it, they get free food and housing for the rest of their lives supported by the taxpayers of the very community that their crimes damaged. Is that really worse than dying? Especially if we consider the option that they weren't in fact religious extremists, but insane lunatics who may or may not feel any remorse whatsoever? It's tricky. There's a realistic standpoint to this notion, not just a purely moral-based one, and both should be considered and weighed.
Considering that they believe there are a couple dozen virgins waiting for them when they die, i'd assume yes. It's worse. Never discard the effect that imprisonment can have. Especially isolated imprisonment, which they would need to be put in.
|
On May 23 2013 07:56 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:45 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:38 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either. So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing? ''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.'' What does this mean? What kind of intel you really think you'll get out of them? It's not so much of an excuse if your life or anyone else's life is in jeopardy for that matter. You take out the threat it's as simple as that any means necessary. I'd rather just go through their history to try and connect the dots because they sound like crazy mofos. I doubt you'd get shit of them. I'm not familiar with the U.K. police policies, so I guess it's pretty different from here. I'm trying to recall the last policeman shooting down a criminal in Toronto. The last one I think was the Union Station fiasco which was 2004 I think? I think it was a hostage taking and a swat team member shot the guy right in the forehead. I really hope the question ''How much intel can you get out of them?'' is never a consideration when police decide to shoot someone. Are they acting alone? Looks like it. Going back to what you said before because it sounds like you're trying spin-doctor what I said. It's not so much of an excuse as it is protecting yourself and everyone else in the perimeter. That's why under pressure/stress if the suspect doesn't co-operate and make aggressive moves. I know cops over here will fire in certain scenarios. In this case it sounds shit was escalating quickly and there were a lot of bystanders. I'd want to get control of the situation asap. So going back to these crazy guys. What do you hope to achieve in a court case against? They got the attention they wanted and I don't think you're going to get much of anything out of them. Let's just give them a life sentence?
This just made more confused. This is just incoherent rambling to me, I really do not get your point.
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 23 2013 07:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:
People going out and attacking mosques like at least two have according to ITV are not exactly refuting the jihadi belief that the West is at war with Islam itself good job guys.
Given that the guys in question were complaining about the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and they chose a military target I doubt the massively overhyped backlash against Muslims which isn't actually happening is going to be an important factor. Now if we were to invade Iran that'd probably count, a random nutjob failing to do anything to a mosque in Braintree, not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4629
3206
1190
EPT
