Explosion On The Tube

[rumoursabound]

Good Afternoon.
Not surprising.

It would be quite unusual for a Suicide Bomber to flee.He/she would make the best of a bad job,set Himself/herself off and hope that He/she was lucky.

All non-whites could be in a little trouble.

 

[Honest Tom]

Not only is he not connected, he's Brazilian rather than Asian. Is it the case, as someone on the bf forum stated, that the police who were chasing him were in plain clothes. If that's the case who can blame him for running. How was he supposed to know they were police.

 

[LUKE]

I remember the Gibralter slayings with great affection. As for shooting to kill, i totally disagree with it, if only because it robs the authorities of the chance of using their torture equipment.

The Gibraltar killings set off a chain of events that resulted in two men getting a particularly vicious death in west Belfast.

 

[BrianH]

It was a shameful policy that Mrs Thatcher approved and then denied that she had done so

 

[Euronymous]

But weren`t the terrorists executed in Gibralter exactly that? If so, what is the problem...it`s what the SAS are there for. Well, that and pre-novel research.

 

[Harbinger]

If so, what is the problem

Aye, it's a good thing the death penalty was never done away with. And who needs judges and juries?

 

[Euronymous]

Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Jul 23 2005, 09:58 PM

If so, what is the problem

Aye, it's a good thing the death penalty was never done away with. And who needs judges and juries?

Well, i`m not actually in favour of the death penalty, but given that we were at war with the IRA, normal judicial rules dont apply.

 

[BrianH]

I trust you don't really believe that and are just posting it for effect.

 

[Euronymous]

No, i believe that. With the exception of the odd hurt in my pocket post on the racing forum i stand by every comment i make. Were we not at war with the provos? And if so, what was wrong with the executions in Gibralter?

 

[BrianH]

(1) No, we were not at war. That was said by every government during the 60s, 70s and 80s.

(2) If your policy of summary execution were to be adopted, who would decides on the targets? Would it be those who managed to find "evidence" against the Maguire family, the Birmingham six and the Guildford four? Or perhaps those who think that because Brazilians are dark skinned they must be fanatical Muslim bombers?

(3) I'll tell you exactly what was wrong with the shootings in Gibraltar - and you are right to call them executions although the government insisted that they were not, continuing with the pretence that the forces thought that those shot were armed and had bombs in their car. What is wrong is that the rule of law is discarded, which makes those people supposed to be acting on behalf of society - which includes me - as bad as those fromwhom they are supposed to be protecting us. A racing forum is not the place on which to go into detail about where that has always led in the past, but you might recognise those who have decided that they can abandon justice, morality and accountability in some sort of pragmatic version of defence of the realm can be found in a list to which I'd have no wish to be added.

 

[icebreaker]

It appears that a tragic misunderstanding/accident has occurred here. The Brazilian gentleman would seem to be another innocent victim of current events.

But, I sincerely hope that that there is not an hysterical reaction by civil libertarians about this, or a drawn-out and complex public inquiry into the actions of the police. What is NOT needed at this time is any deflection from the focus on bringing the terrorists to justice.

I don't like the term "shoot to kill" ........... "shoot to protect the public" is what I believe those policemen were engaged in.

 

[Euronymous]

Originally posted by BrianH@Jul 23 2005, 10:44 PM
(1) No, we were not at war. That was said by every government during the 60s, 70s and 80s.

(2) If your policy of summary execution were to be adopted, who would decides on the targets? Would it be those who managed to find "evidence" against the Maguire family, the Birmingham six and the Guildford four? Or perhaps those who think that because Brazilians are dark skinned they must be fanatical Muslim bombers?

(3) I'll tell you exactly what was wrong with the shootings in Gibraltar - and you are right to call them executions although the government insisted that they were not, continuing with the pretence that the forces thought that those shot were armed and had bombs in their car. What is wrong is that the rule of law is discarded, which makes those people supposed to be acting on behalf of society - which includes me - as bad as those fromwhom they are supposed to be protecting us. A racing forum is not the place on which to go into detail about where that has always led in the past, but you might recognise those who have decided that they can abandon justice, morality and accountability in some sort of pragmatic version of defence of the realm can be found in a list to which I'd have no wish to be added.

1) I was always under the impression we were at war with the IRA, and if we were not...why not?

2) The executed in Gibralter were terrorists and they were dealt with by the SAS. The Guildford four and the Birmingham six were dealt with by the common or garden thicko plod...big difference.

3) All your points there are correct. But i cannot get my head around the fact that we were trying to neutralise or at least contain the provos without being at war with them...this to me is ludicrous, it`s like trying to fight someone with a hand tied behind your back.

 

[BrianH]

The reason that we were not at were is that you cannot be at war with an idea eg George Bush's "war on terrorism" nor with small groups of people. Wars are fought between nation states and, strange as it may seem to you, are fought under certain conventions - one of which is that you do not shoot unarmed prisoners.

And:-

"The executed in Gibralter were terrorists and they were dealt with by the SAS"

Oh, it's all right if they decisde who should be killed, is it?

 

[BrianH]

Originally posted by icebreaker@Jul 23 2005, 10:46 PM
I don't like the term "shoot to kill" ........... "shoot to protect the public" is what I believe those policemen were engaged in.

Er, from whom?

 

[Harbinger]

The PIRA's justification for their actions was always that they were fighting a war. British government policy was always never to legitimise those actions by admitting to that war.

 

[BrianH]

Yes - and you can only have a war between nation states. So called "civil wars" are not wars as defined by international law.

 

[Euronymous]

Originally posted by BrianH@Jul 23 2005, 10:58 PM


And:-

"The executed in Gibralter were terrorists and they were dealt with by the SAS"

Oh, it's all right if they decisde who should be killed, is it?

Honestly, yes. We were dealing with terrorists and they got some of them.

 

[Harbinger]

By that logic, the IRA were perfectly justified in killing every soldier they did.

 

[Euronymous]

Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Jul 23 2005, 11:12 PM
By that logic, the IRA were perfectly justified in killing every soldier they did.

So what would you fight fire with?

 

[BrianH]

There can be no excuse for killing unarmed people. That is why civilised countries have legal systems. If you can't see that and can't agree with the rule of law then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

 

[Euronymous]

No i really cant see that, this is the real world and yes "live by the sword, die by the sword" is an over-used cliche, but it`s one i happen to believe in.

 

[icebreaker]

Originally posted by BrianH@Jul 23 2005, 10:03 PM
Yes - and you can only have a war between nation states.

If not a war, what term would you use to describe an military response by a government against an armed insurgency within the jurisdiction of the state? I ask this not in debate but out of interest.

Wasn't the Malaysian campaign in the 50's described as, and accepted as a "war"? Chechnya and Afghanistan in 1988 are among many that spring to mind that were termed as wars both by the media and the protagonists.

 

[Harbinger]

I sincerely hope that that there is not ... a drawn-out and complex public inquiry into the actions of the police.

On the contrary, the least the victim and his family deserve is an exhaustive investigation into what happened, what went wrong, and what can be done to prevent it ever happening in the future.

 

[BrianH]

Originally posted by icebreaker@Jul 23 2005, 11:27 PM
Wasn't the Malaysian campaign in the 50's described as, and accepted as a "war"?

It certainly wasn't - it was described by the British government as a "police action".

"Chechnya and Afghanistan in 1988 are among many that spring to mind that were termed as wars both by the media and the protagonists. "

Chechnya was a war between a breakaway republic, which had declared indepedence in november 1991, and the Russian Federation, which did not accept Chechnya as an independent state.

The "war" in Afghanistan was between anti-communist Muslim Afghan guerillas, supported by aid from the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia, channeled through Pakistan, and from Iran, and forces of the Soviet Union who had been brought in initially to support a Soviet supporting government installed after Soviet forces invaded in 1979.

 

[an capall]

You would walk a long way to find a greater Provo dissenter than I. And then I remember the 4 biggest recruiting sargeants the IRA ever had.

1. Bloody Sunday
2. Internment
3. Hunger Strikes
4. Euronomous' point of view.