Forums Forums National News France : Terrorist Attack : 13/11/15

I thought you of all people would know what a shoot to kill policy is - its the ability to shoot on suspicion without knowing the Kalashnikov and/or suicide belt is present.

Remember the Jean Charles de Menezes, Harry Stanley, Abdul Kahar, James Ashley, James Brady or Cherry Groce cases? And probably many more.

@pinz - of course its morally wrong to imprison someone, its even more morally wrong that we find ourselves in a position that we find the need to do this. Are we supposed to cage animals because they are dangerous? Of course not - but society does need protecting.

I would like more people to express their opinions of what is right and wrong, what should be permitted outside the law, how the law should be changed etc etc

Very few express their opinions, just their reactions to other peoples comments, I often ask questions and rarely get replies.

I'm not a pacifist and never have I said that, I have not said I am against imprisonment - if anyone wishes to disagree with what I say, please do, but if you want to criticise me then make sure you are criticising what I said and not what you think I am implying.

Pinz, Chris. Read DD's whole sentence in its given context again. Hes not actually saying what you think, hes just doing a bit of moral philosophizing .Not actually sure its an appropriate time, but still.

Now such an ugly atrocity has happened is it the time to change much of our laws administered by Brussels and the EU ?
Note tonight that the blame game has started due to opinions that some of these terrorists from Belgium have listened to the fanatics in Britain.

If I remember correctly, it took years to get rid of that horrible man with one eye and one hand......because the laws from Belgium and EU said it was against human rights. What a battle that was.

How many foreigners are in UK prisons ?

We do cage dangerous animals in a civilised society, and a criminal act is a voluntary act. The criminal knows if they get caught they will be punished in one form or another. That is the choice they make and how else is it possible to protect society...our children, from such deranged animals, other than locking them up or should the vigilanites beat the hell out of them and leave them in a gutter ?

Sure prison can create more problems than they sometimes solve, at the same time the offenders have already caused more problems than the ordinary man in the street should have to deal with.

What other answer is there to protection. Armed police on every corner or maybe the army thus putting everyone at risk ? Police state, is that what we could end up with ?

So far as Corbyn is concerned, he seems to think negotiations are the best way forward. .....in the meantime Mr Corbyn like the next 20 years, you'll be dead and so will everyone else.

So far as Paris being strong and not letting this stop their way of life, isn't that what happened in Syria and Iraq until the point arises when they can't carry on that way any longer ?

Personally, I don't think London will be the target in this country, probably more like Manchester.

Agree.


About 11,000, and there are less than 1100 UK citizens in foreign jails which is roughly equal to the number of Polish prisoners in our jails.


Agree


Are you saying that negotiations are a bad thing? The final outcome will be negotiations. Beating the hell out of each other first is not necessarily the best way forward and indeed should be a last resort.


Yes!


The "prestige" and show of strength through hitting the capital is probably more important to them, anywhere else will be seen as a degree of weakness.

A lot of other countries see the "allies" as aggressors. There are only 22 countries in the world that the UK hasn't attacked or to put it another way, the UK has attacked very nearly 90% of all countries.

My point about Corbyn thinking negotiations are the way forward , was followed by saying it could take 20 years and we will all be dead.
We don't have time to start negotiating and fumbling about, when you see the amount of time that has transpired in trying to resolve this migrant issue. That is dealing with our own EU countries, so I don't hold out much hope for good results in negotiations any time soon, with either Assad or IS. Particularly not IS as no one can get near them and who would want to, knowing full well they may not even see the light of day ever again ? Assad is not likely to give up anything without force. Therefore negotiations would have to be forceful, and is not what the word 'negotiate' implies.
Therefore, in my opinion that idea is simply not an option at this point in time.

There maybe 90% of countries that the UK have attacked. What period of time would that be and how do we compare with other countries and what were the reasons for attacks ? All of that is to be taken into consideration, and so far we have managed to keep this country safe on most levels. So was it wrong ?

Even if we eradicate every living thing in Syria, ants and all - it still wouldn't end, there would be a plethora of independent networks and how are you going to negotiate then?

The longest period of peace in British history is only 14 years long (1922 - 1936), we are a bloomin' aggressive nation military wise.

Japan an island nation had an impressive 223 years of peace.

New Zealand, another island nation achieved 63 years.

I see Cameron is strengthening our air defences, he's suddenly realised how vulnerable we are. Relying purely on intelligence to defend our homeland while wasting our military funds on offshore forays could well be our eventual downfall.

We try to fight way above our weight militarily, diplomatically and economically and its only a matter of time before the rest of the world get fed up with our antics. We are merely a country, we are no longer an empire. Look at all the other countries that were empires, they have backed down, we haven't got used to the idea yet.

Look at China, a country 40 times bigger than us, a population 22 times greater than us a GDP of 4 times ours, yet they only have the same number amount of nuclear warheads as us, they haven't been involved in any foreign battles in the last 36 years.

We have hardly stopped fighting during the same 36 years:- Oman, Dhofar, Falklands, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Libya and possibly a few more bits and pieces.

We have had military conflicts with or in about 16 other nations in my lifetime (less than 60 years) - frightening.

Well I will say it again, the only way to defeat this type of terrorism that affects us directly is to deal with it at source, in London, Manchester, Bradford or wherever else they hide, the home grown terrorist is the biggest threat, we have people here associated with terrorism walking the streets certain mosques have been identified as hotbeds of activity and schools yet we pussyfoot around trying not to upset anyone, we cant have security with one hand tied behind our backs, the smirking swaggering thugs we have seen here that hide behind the law make me sick, if the French can change the rules to take away their citizenships and deport them then so can we, if we jail them they get stronger in prison and infect others through intimidation, some join them to get better facilities.

Syria will be desolate at some point, already written in the great book, but it doesn't end there either. Simply had to inform you, as you once said there is no point in people coming out with stuff after the event. Well, just for the record this is prior to THE event.

Japan might have had 223 years of peace, but when the little f....s did come out to play, they weren't even human.

Maybe China hasn't had any foreign wars in the last 36 years because no one would want to pick a fight with them. After all they have nuclear defence !

The remainder of your points I can't answer as I haven't researched them as you have, but I could be back.

@Casper ..and we should be changing the rules now. Big time.

It would appear that most of the media don't understand what a shoot to kill policy is.

Hilary Benns statement is not a shoot to kill policy, that is normal legal policy for police and civilians alike (noting the word reasonable, not compulsory)



There is a conjoiner missing from the sentence: "where the terrorist is causing an immediate threat to life" but I'm sure that was the intent of the statement because otherwise the implications are absurd.

A shoot to kill policy allows executions based on assumptions whether there is adequate supporting evidence or not. Eg, everybody in the building is a terrorist, shoot them all, without knowing exactly who is in the building. This type of scenario has happened even without a shoot to kill policy in place as in some of the examples I gave above.

Some quotes from Steve Killelea (unfortunate name?), the President of the Institute of Economics and Peace.

It was written before the Paris attacks.

Sorry DD I hadnt noticed your 4.17pm post so deleted my last one to which you have just responde as it was nothing to do with the 4.17 one. I was going to follow on later to say how unrealistic I think they are. Obviously it was written before French do, which is the point.

Suitable.

I wonder what this thread appears like to our Muslim Friends? Our mixed race friends on here. #shame

I know for a fact that that there are people on here who are #non-christian #non-white.

So what! - (these people are not considered) In my opinion.


Horrid, you lot at times!!!

What about Adwan Rebellion of 1923, Ikhwan Revolt of 1927-1930