Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
What about dropping bombs on certain places in the UK, do you think that would be a strong response?
London Bridge Incident
- Thread starter XeNoN89
- Start date
Very good sir, very good
How is walking speed relevant here?
In 8 minutes, they'd received the call, arrived, assessed the situation and dealt with it, with three dead terrorists.
It didn't take 8 minutes for the first officers to arrive.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 11,432
It's quite typical coppers don't need to shoot people.
What I meant was, these terror attacks aren't a direct result of the situation in Iraq for example, this is an ideology spanning many countries and people born in our own country are being radicalised and killing our own innocent civilians. How can we effectively stop this? I don't see a way.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't intervened in various places in the past, but there's nothing we can do about that now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
I presume they would all have been aimed shots at the person, and simply a case of keep shooting until they drop, lets face it if you're resorting to actually firing your gun you've already had to make that decision that they need to be disabled/dead so if they're still standing after the first couple you just keep going.
Actually other than the word "Direct" I agree with virtually nothing in this post.
Yes idiot Terrorists are forced to attack our capital with knives and a white van. armed officers kill them within 8 minutes.
Lets widely distribute firearms?
So the ideology doesn't span many countries (the globe in fact) and people born in Britain aren't being radicalised? News to me.
I think it would be as idiotic a response as asking the ****** question!
Of course there were Police in the vicinity, I believe the response time being quoted is more down to how long it took to have armed officers in place who could deal with the threat.
I'm sure that as soon as calls started coming in, they put a call for every unit in the area to be there, which isn't an uncommon sight in central London.
OK, read it and nowhere does he say "The left are in bed with radical Islam" so 1/10 for effort, do try harder....to help you out, since you are struggling so much, what you said was"In bed with" which means "secretly helping someone and receiving help from them in return"
A couple of good points he does say though are
Funny that, because when we "the left" point out that there is a difference you guys call us apologists.....then you link an article trying to prove your own bigotry that says the same thing!
Co-operate with Muslims??? what sort of tree hugging butterfly loving liberal loon are you posting up here? I like him!
Thank you for finally defining what you wanted, must be hard. That's what I said about wiggling, even quoting one the left's "outstanding political theorists" saying the left are being apologists/ignoring (both are ignoring each other for mutual benefit) radical Islam, you want a direct quote of him saying "The left are in bed with radical Islam" As a sophist you define my "In bed with" as "secretly helping someone and receiving help from them in return" as I said it, it is defined the Cambridge dictionary way "to work with a person or organization, or to be involved with them" and then go on to deflect about bits you do like what he has to say, such as there is a difference (there is no picking and choosing in Islam unlike other faiths). Implying that Islam and the left are in opposition simply ignores the underlying goal of both radical Islam and the Left: to make Traditional Christian Western values extinct. One group may call the West satan, and one may call it the cis-white male patriarchy, but both agree that the values that Western society was founded upon must go. Moreover, the methods that each one uses complement each other as I said in my OP that triggered your ad hominem. But thank you for the 1/10, I can not rate sophistry more than 0/10.
The 8 minutes quoted is 999 call to a completely neutralised threat.
Not how long it took officers to arrive, not how long it took armed response to arrive.
8 minutes from 999 to three dead terrorists.
That response absolutely needs to be applauded.
A bit sad to take out of context a couple of points from your post.
If you don't see a way to help the problem frustrated as we all are, perhaps don't post a fight fire with fire garbage argument!
Technically If we fight fire with fire we'd need to get a white van and some knives!
There weren't many other points in the post.
By fight fire with fire I mean we need a much stronger approach to the situation. Obviously I don't mean tackling it using the exact same tactics, just more severe ones, as the Prime Minister herself has suggested by saying we are too tolerant of Islamist Extremism. I think you've taken my post the wrong way.
What would your solution be?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
I think it's more likely done to get them martyred rather than captured. Would also deter civies from rushing them.Anyone else think the "suicide belts" were an attempt to make the firearms officers "think twice" before shooting? Instead they ended up riddled with 16-17 shots eachCompared with the last dude who got 3 was it?
Check out the #ThingsThatLeaveBritainReeling on twitter. People using typical British humour to show we aren't scared by these attacks and will carry on as normal. I think it was a reaction to the NewYork times saying we were reeling as a result of the attacks.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ThingsThatLeaveBritainReeling?
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ThingsThatLeaveBritainReeling?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Have you checked whether all the police want to be routinely armed? The recent survey by the Metropolitan Police Federation shows that of respondents about one quarter would like to see all officers routinely armed with firearms. Around three quarters would like to see all Met officers armed with a taser however.