Attack in London Today

goodfielder wrote:

There are a couple of points in that op-ed I can agree with. The general thrust of it though - no.

But let me put another (I suppose the writer might say "spin" on it) view. While this is a terrible tragedy I'm glad I'm not reading an op-ed piece that condemns the police for not taking decisive action to stop a suicide bomber who was able, despite being under surveillance by police and being pursued, to get onto a tube train, detonate his bomb and kill scores of people.

I cannot agree with this at all. Firing weapons in a crowded place is extremely dangerous with the best trained people, and failure to have actually killed a suicide bomber would not have prevented the bombing--and i say this in the context of the revelation that he was tailed, having boarded a crosstown bus. If the reasons for supposing him to be a bomber were so compelling that the police think they can justify shooting him in a crowded subway station, why the hell weren't those reasons just as compelling when he cued to get on a bus?

This whole thing stinks, and despite your professional contacts, in fact, because of them, you should see that. This incident was mismanaged from start to finish.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

There are about 20,000 young disaffected Muslim men and boys in the UK who's ideas might cause them to be dangerous.

fortunately via the 2000 census, we know more or less who they are and where they live. We need to further identify this group and require them to make a declaration in the name of Islam and everything that is dear to them, that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that putting bombs on a tube train is un Islamic, the consequences of which is a reserved place in hell not heaven.

And if they wont give that declaration, intern them.

Something from the 1930's comes to mind here

Then again, WW2 was "much more serious" still, you know.

Steve wrote

Quote:

Just to dismiss Muslim anger as an expression of their desire to take over the world is fatuous.

We are at war with a very dangerous and insidious enemy who think they are doing Gods will by killing us.

But the REASON why they think this way is prompted by 60 years or more of Western meddling and interference in Middle Eastern countries over OIL and American support for ISRAEL.

To me that is a lot of crap. The problem is that they emigrate to the western nations for a better life for themselves and families however they do not assimilate. They are citizens in name only and owe their allegiance to a foreign nation and remain strangers in strange land.

Setanta wrote:

goodfielder wrote:

There are a couple of points in that op-ed I can agree with. The general thrust of it though - no.

But let me put another (I suppose the writer might say "spin" on it) view. While this is a terrible tragedy I'm glad I'm not reading an op-ed piece that condemns the police for not taking decisive action to stop a suicide bomber who was able, despite being under surveillance by police and being pursued, to get onto a tube train, detonate his bomb and kill scores of people.

I cannot agree with this at all. Firing weapons in a crowded place is extremely dangerous with the best trained people, and failure to have actually killed a suicide bomber would not have prevented the bombing--and i say this in the context of the revelation that he was tailed, having boarded a crosstown bus. If the reasons for supposing him to be a bomber were so compelling that the police think they can justify shooting him in a crowded subway station, why the hell weren't those reasons just as compelling when he cued to get on a bus?

This whole thing stinks, and despite your professional contacts, in fact, because of them, you should see that. This incident was mismanaged from start to finish.

The difficulty of course is that we're relying on media reports to get the picture and all of us are making our own judgements based on what we hear and how we interpet it. But we will do that, it's natural. Some questions to think of here. Why did they let him get on the bus? I don't know. I can only speculate. What information did they have about the occupants of the building in which he had come from? I don't know. Why didn't they grab him when he came out of the building? I don't know.
When did they decide to stop him and why? I don't know. Why did he run from the police? I don't know. Did they announce their office and tell him to stop? I don't know.

I do know he ran from the police. I do know he jumped over the barrier gate. At this point I would have been thinking he's aware we're onto him and he's doing a runner and he's heading for the tube and not down the street. At that point I would be thinking "he's not running away from us, he's trying to carry out the operation". If he'd legged it away from the station and down the street there is no way I would have pulled my gun, it would have been just another foot pursuit. But he headed for the tube train. As I said, at that point I would have been convinced he was on the way to detonate his bomb. He ran onto the platform and onto the train. The police were still chasing him. Remember that at that point - I'm speculating - it would seem that all other explanations for his behaviour were crossed off the list. In the seconds available to them to work out what was happening those police officers were convinced that he was going to detonate the bomb. That's just my speculation of course but think about it as objectively as possible. Given all those circumstances were the police justified in killing him, believing he was a potential bomber? Well a jury might get to make that decision and they'll have a great deal more information that we have at the moment.

This wasn't a case of police chasing him and shooting at him, which is the impression I get from your post. They shot him in the head, close range, five times, the way they were trained to do to stop a bomber detonating his bomb.

It is far too simplistic to say the attacks are religiously motivated.

Bin Laden may use the rhetoric of religion, but his objectives are very much of this world, not the next.

My position is this

Most muslims (in the UK at least) abhor terrorist attacks and are disgusted its done in the name of their religion and god. I feel sorry for them. But just because I feel sorry for them does not mean I like Islam. I believe it to be backward looking, oppressive to women, abusive of children and has a streak of intolerance and associated violence that goes back to its origins.

Having said that, I think the violence we see around us is first and foremost a reaction to our activities in muslim countries. Without understanding that basic source of grievance and feeling of humiliation, we are losing and will continue to lose the war on terrorism, because we do not understand our enemy.