Thread: another london attack

Originally Posted by Eevo

you raise a good point.
whats the difference between me running around with a knife and the guys in london?
am i a terrorist or just a loony?

OK. You ask. Run around with a knife. Get apprehended. Let them explain it to you. It may be an enlightening experience. In the meantime, we'll all have to curtail our knife carrying, because you cannot see that terrorism is winning because of soft cock laws such as you advocate. I have a lot of respect for your views on LR issues, Eevo, but I'm not getting you here. It seems you believe that it's OK to want to take a bomb into a public place, but it's not OK to detonate it? Where is the divide?? When is it OK for the Police to intervene???

A little scenario.. You awake, in the wee hours. I am going to assume some things here, like, you are married, and maybe have a kid: I'm sorry if that is not you; anyway, you awake to find a man with a balaclava and a gun in your home, holding his gun to the head of your child. Question I would like to ask you at this point: is he a criminal? Would that question be the first thing on your mind? Or would the first thing be: "where are the police when I need them"?

It is all very well to discuss intent. I'm sure the victims of Martin Bryant would agree. I'm sure the victims of 9/11 will agree as well. I'm sorry, Eevo, but SOCIETY must have rules. If those rules are unfair, then SOCIETY will decide. Mostly Society gets it right. At the very least we no longer hang people. That way, Society gets a second chance.

whats the difference between me running around with a knife and the guys in london?
am i a terrorist or just a loony?

Who cares, In both cases you would be shot down by the Brit armed police.
Or would you prefer that they waited until you killed someone before opening fire ?
With your way of doing things people have to die before any legal action can be taken to stop you, I think I much prefer the Brit method myself

Originally Posted by trout1105

Who cares, In both cases you would be shot down by the Brit armed police.
Or would you prefer that they waited until you killed someone before opening fire ?
With your way of doing things people have to die before any legal action can be taken to stop you, I think I much prefer the Brit method myself

I have a new next door neighbour. He used to be in that very squad in the Met, and has come here to live. VicPol has taken him on. He has gone into the Police Academy here, accepted at the rank of Constable with the power of arrest etc. before he actually completes the Academy stuff. I, for one, hope that VicPol listens to him. Those were his mates that acted at the Borough, and they did the right thing. No question. We need that sort of response here. There should be no leniency for acts of terrorism. Sorry, Eevo, you are so, so wrong.

Originally Posted by johntins

OK. You ask. Run around with a knife. Get apprehended. Let them explain it to you. It may be an enlightening experience. In the meantime, we'll all have to curtail our knife carrying, because you cannot see that terrorism is winning because of soft cock laws such as you advocate. I have a lot of respect for your views on LR issues, Eevo, but I'm not getting you here. It seems you believe that it's OK to want to take a bomb into a public place, but it's not OK to detonate it? Where is the divide?? When is it OK for the Police to intervene???

A little scenario.. You awake, in the wee hours. I am going to assume some things here, like, you are married, and maybe have a kid: I'm sorry if that is not you; anyway, you awake to find a man with a balaclava and a gun in your home, holding his gun to the head of your child. Question I would like to ask you at this point: is he a criminal? Would that question be the first thing on your mind? Or would the first thing be: "where are the police when I need them"?

It is all very well to discuss intent. I'm sure the victims of Martin Bryant would agree. I'm sure the victims of 9/11 will agree as well. I'm sorry, Eevo, but SOCIETY must have rules. If those rules are unfair, then SOCIETY will decide. Mostly Society gets it right. At the very least we no longer hang people. That way, Society gets a second chance.

quite the opposite. the terrorist is winning cause we're changing our way or life and laws because of them.


if he's got a balaclava on, how do you know its a he? breaking and entering, kidnapping, illegal weapon yes. murder, no.
as a volunteer firefigher, one question im often asking is "where the hell are police when I need them"?
but when i'm at home, no. police are useless. i wouldnt bother reporting a robbery to them unless the insurance company asked me to.

we've gone from planning to murder to taking a bomb out in public. those are two different things.

society does need rules. i dont recall saying it doesnt. society or politicians? big difference.
rules also shouldnt be made in a knee jurk response to emotional events

Originally Posted by trout1105

Who cares, In both cases you would be shot down by the Brit armed police.
Or would you prefer that they waited until you killed someone before opening fire ?
With your way of doing things people have to die before any legal action can be taken to stop you, I think I much prefer the Brit method myself

i think you missed my point.
it wouldn't be called terrorism cause i'm white.

was it back in 2005 that british police killed an innocent cause they suspected him of having a bomb..they were wrong. how does his family feel? shoot first and ask questions later is a poor idea.

Originally Posted by johntins

There should be no leniency for acts of terrorism. Sorry, Eevo, you are so, so wrong.

cool story but its irrelevant
and leniency is also irrelevant to this conversation. i dont think anyone is suggesting we should go lenient on criminals. (not that the punishment system we have is working, need rehabilitation)

Jean Charles de Menezes is the guy who was killed

i think you missed my point.
it wouldn't be called terrorism cause i'm white.

Terrorists come in all different shapes and colours, including "Whites".
What a racist statement