| |
|
Stop putting things in scarequotes. It's a policy. It is evidence. They are events. You're a writer, remember?
What I think. What I think is that somebody has been shot dead. What I think is also that you are being swept away by the excitement and are speculating wildly. Yes, yes, I know, you're not called paranoidwriter for nothing, but this kind of ill-informed paranoia is just pointless. Better to spend the time finding out what is actually going on. Read and understand what other people are saying and, if you can't do that, shut up and learn how to. For example:
but do you SERIOUSLY think that I was deliberately insultin Islam (etc)?
When did I SERIOUSLY suggest anything of the sort? I suggested that you had mistakenly represented Muslims as an ethnic minority. The fact that you think that's an insult, rather than a simple factual error, is a bit disturbing. Also, what the Hell does "etc" do there? I can't respond to things if you are too lazy to think out and type them.
Now, I realise that people who don't agree with you are "annoying". But when you say things that are simply wrong, and then get snotty with people who correct you, you make it pretty clear that the most important thing in your opinion about this whole thing is you, and the terribly important things you have to say. Things like:
I'd rule out a shoot to kill policy for one, and make sure Civil Liberties weren't eroded for anybody by anybody no matter how bad the situation. Also, please note this is classic example of the Art of Distraction: i.e. do armed police stop terrorism? They haven't managed it so far. So if not, what will stop terrorism? Hmm.... A change in international policy?
Now, what is this all about? The idea of shoooting not to kill seems to have been pretty comprehensively debunked - you'll forgive me if I admit that I haven't taken your speculation on ballistics too seriously since the suggestion that one shoots somebody in both shoulders instead. So, presumably that means you would... what? Never allow an armed response to any situation by the Police? I'm anti the general arming of the Police myself, but having no recourse except to the Army seems to me to be a bit more dangerous qua civil liberties. Speaking of which:
and make sure Civil Liberties weren't eroded for anybody by anybody no matter how bad the situation
What does this mean, exactly? Do you have a conception of civil liberties beyond "things which are good"? This "I would make sure" stuff is pure Superman; what does it mean? What would you actually do? We already get that you've got your head screwed on qua the importance of civil liberties, but at some point practicalities are required.
I'm not at all sure what the last part is trying to say - more conspiracy theory stuff, presumably jettisoned now you are claiming that all you ever said was that the Police screwed up. That if armed police are shown not to be working, as this episode somehow has despite the possibility that they apprehended a potential suicide bomber, then the next step is to change foreign policy... how?
Now, shoot to kill. Here's the thing. The interpretation here is ambiguous. Shooting to kill in the John Stalker sense meant shooting to kill in situations where it was not strictly necessary to shoot. However, police marksmen (which these people almost certainly weren't, by the way) are trained to shoot for the quickest possible stop - this is usually a shot to the upper chest, because it is the largest target a hit on which will immediately stop a target. This is done to minimise the risk of the party shooting back, or in this case exploding. As such, once a situation is created in which it is deemed necessary to shoot, the "to kill" bit is pretty much redundant. You shoot to stop, and the most effective ways to do that invoolve a significant risk of death.
Now, Operation Kratos has told police that, in extreme circumstances, suicide bombers may be shot in the head. Because, in discussions with the security forces of other nations who deal with suicide bombers, this has been identified as the best possible way to stop a suicide bomber from living long enough to trigger an explosion without risking setting off the explosives. This is what appears to have been done here. It's a change to the previous policy in the very specific circumstances of a suicide bomber. There will be an inquest into whether the adoption of this policy was justified by circumstances, and if the findings of that inquest appear at variance with our understanding of the facts then a protest is certainly viable. A protest against Operation Kratos in general is also perfectly viable. As it happens, I don't have a huge problem with this particular bit of it, as long as it is not abused. So far, I do not know enough about whether it has been in this case.
So, when you say:
Granted, I may not have a FULL understanding of British Law (who here does?), but the suggestion that the Police are SUPPOSED to work for us is irrefutable, isn't it? Indeed, to think of the Police as a self-regulating gang and to define "shoot to kill" as procedure rather than Law, helps to justify such bastardisations of our so called democracy.
Just what are you suggesting? That after every election we decide exactly what every public servant can and cannot do, and not change that until the next election? Or that every time that the Police want to change a policy we have a general election? This sort of thing may be annoying to you, and I can certainly understand why, but ill-informed sloganeering is pretty annoying to me and, it seems from this thread, to others. |
|
|
