In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:09:09 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

I strongly object to people using Iraq débacle to further their own
twisted objectives, because I really do not believe that those who
instigate these things give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis other than
as a justification

That is indeed the case. I'm sure they were delighted with the
invasion as it allowed them to operate where they had not been able
to operate before due to Mr Hussein's antipathy towards them. We now
know Mr Liar was told the invasion would increase terrorism and he
didn't tell the rogues in Westminster about this.

However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
measures and the like.



As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before Iraq,
Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc. Iraq is
irrelevant to Al Qaeda, where it is Sunni versus Shi'ite in a civil war that
was probably inevitable, however Saddam was removed.

Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms apply
in other cultures.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:09:09 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

I strongly object to people using Iraq débacle to further their own
twisted objectives, because I really do not believe that those who
instigate these things give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis other than
as a justification

That is indeed the case. I'm sure they were delighted with the
invasion as it allowed them to operate where they had not been able
to operate before due to Mr Hussein's antipathy towards them. We now
know Mr Liar was told the invasion would increase terrorism and he
didn't tell the rogues in Westminster about this.

However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
measures and the like.



As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before Iraq,
Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc. Iraq is
irrelevant to Al Qaeda, where it is Sunni versus Shi'ite in a civil war that
was probably inevitable, however Saddam was removed.

Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms apply
in other cultures.


Iraq is part of the general policy that results in many, particularly
Muslim, people being killed or having their livelihoods destroyed.

Nothing can be done about the fanatics, who are beyond redemption. But
on their own, they are not much of a threat. When millions of people
are so disaffected by the policies of the West that they start
listening to the fanatics, then we are in trouble.

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.

So we've got the world we created. Smug comments about what was and
wasn't before Iraq don't count for much. I now live and work in a city
where the police shoot to kill. Thanks a lot.

MIG wrote:
As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.

And?

Can you be sure it was the police?

Brimstone wrote:
MIG wrote:

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.


And?

Can you be sure it was the police?

There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont

There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.


Fair enough, but it's a phrase often used. Also, as someone recently
pointed out to me, if you carry a loaded gun, it's because you intend
to shoot it.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
wrote:


There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.

I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
there is.
Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
fight back? Not a fear that you are allowed to consider when using
"reasonable force" to deter an intruder in your house - or your
isolated farm in a well known case.
Don't often stray too far from railways in my posts, so I apologise in
advance!

Guy Gorton

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

As someone who was an armed officer for 16 of my 22 years service and
served in various specialist branches in relation to this, let me
explain.
The "new powers" being spoken about on the TV and in some papers is
nothing new. The same procedures are being employed. The reason we were
trained to shoot at the largest part of the body, the torso, (and this
includes the back as well as the front) was to make sure the target was
hit and stopped, we were always taught to fire at least twice, rapidly,
one to stop, one to avoid a reactive return shot. However, if a suspect
had a way of triggering any sort of device either remotely or strapped
to the body then there is only one way to prevent loss of life, be it
the officers or other people, is a number of head shots to disrupt the
central nervous system and prevent the trigger being activated. By
necesity this has to be done at close range when a pistol or carbine is
used. Therefore those officers yesterday, if they believed this man had
the potential to set off a bomb, were extremely brave in my view. I
suspect the person involved had "sussed" that MI5 walkers/plain clothes
officers were following and before he could be contained ran into the
station. Whatever, the inquest will be extremely thorough and I still
expect that we may yet find some armed forces personnel were involved.
Media comment about "recent advice from Israel" is total ********.
These techniques were being trained, to my knowledge, in 1981 when
Close Protection officers were receiving training from the SAS, RMP and
in my case the Royal Marines. Many remember the furore surrounding the
Gibralter shootings of known IRA members, whether it turned out there
was a bomb or not, if I had been briefed that these people had a bomb
planted in Gib, and may have had a trigger on their person, then I too
would have kept firing until I was sure they were dead. Brutally
simple, the training was succinctly put to us in this fashion as
(contrary to assertions some make) officers were not as readily
adaptable as the armed forces personnel. My instructor was plain, "Keep
squeezing rapidly until the **** stops twitching". There are no
niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men
as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at
the right time.

In message
Guy Gorton wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
wrote:


There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.

I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
the police.

The use of firearms is because the police believe there is imminent danger to
life, if you merely wound an armed man he can still shoot, a suicide bomber
can still set off his bomb, the only way to guarantee safety in these
situations is to kill. Dead men don't shoot back.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Brimstone wrote:
MIG wrote:

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.


And?

Can you be sure it was the police?


According to the BBC, the Met have released a statement confirming 1 man
dead at Stockwell. Died at the scene