Woolwich soldier killed (was "Did cops just shoot 2 dead in woolwich?")

[J Ed]

Yes, I agree.

The choice of the word machete tends to imply terrorism.
The choice of the word muslim as a description tends to imply terrorism.

Everyone seems to be drawn to the concept of anything evil is terrorism.


Terrorism seems to be the cool thing right now.

Thanks for that deconstruction of an Islamist terrorist attack, really helpful.

 

[cdg]

I thought armed police was shoot to incapacitate when possible e.g no firearm involved.

 

[spring-peeper]

Other way in UK IIRC, only shoot if you have to (needs killing) otherwise don't is the ideal.

<shrugs> maybe things are a-changing.




and please don't start on some conspiracy thing that the cops knew in advance and were given orders not to kill.

 

[JimW]

I thought armed police was shoot to incapacitate when possible e.g no firearm involved.

Just reading about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#.22Shoot_to_kill.22_policy

The national media has criticised the so-called "shoot to kill" policy adopted by police forces. Police firearms training actually teaches the use and discharge of firearms to "remove the threat" rather than to kill. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks new guidelines were developed for identifying, confronting, and dealing forcefully with terrorist suspects. These guidelines were given the code name "Operation Kratos".

 

[Libertad]

Yes, I agree.

The choice of the word machete tends to imply terrorism.
The choice of the word muslim as a description tends to imply terrorism.

Everyone seems to be drawn to the concept of anything evil is terrorism.


Terrorism seems to be the cool thing right now.

What the fuck are you wittering on about now?

 

[JHE]

The choice of the word machete tends to imply terrorism.

That's an odd thing to say.

 

[spring-peeper]

Thanks for that deconstruction of an Islamist terrorist attack, really helpful.

It wasn't a frigging terrorist attack.
It was two twits who thought they could get famous.


Don't most terrorist attacks involve multiple deaths of innocents? Why not attack the on-lookers instead of posing for their pictures to be taken?

 

[Spymaster]

I thought armed police was shoot to incapacitate when possible e.g no firearm involved.

I'd expect armed police, when faced with a mad fucker with a meat cleaver, to shoot the cunt until he stopped moving.

I think we can put the fact that neither of them are dead down to their good fortune rather than plods benevolence.

 

[stuff_it]

I thought armed police was shoot to incapacitate when possible e.g no firearm involved.

It's 'remove the threat', so if someone was likely to have a gun or a bomb then a shoot to kill policy would be justified. Someone with a knife perhaps less so but even the best marksman could easily kill someone with a stopping shot - there is no 'safe' way to shoot someone, this isn't the movies.

 

[JHE]

It wasn't a frigging terrorist attack.

It was ideologically motivated and spectacular murder. Isn't that what is usually meant by terrorism?

 

[spring-peeper]

What the fuck are you wittering on about now?

I don't think that it was a terrorist attack.
I think y'all are grasping at straws trying to prove it was a terrorist attack.

meh - I'm going to go cook my dinner, reread the thread and maybe pick up on some signs that y'all think this NOT a terrorist attack.

 

[cdg]

It wasn't a frigging terrorist attack.
It was two twits who thought they could get famous.


Don't most terrorist attacks involve multiple deaths of innocents? Why not attack the on-lookers instead of posing for their pictures to be taken?

The fact he said ''remove your government'' would indicate it was terrorism.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Just saw some pictures of this and it looks like pretty grim stuff.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Don't most terrorist attacks involve multiple deaths of innocents? Why not attack the on-lookers instead of posing for their pictures to be taken?

Not necessarily. Look at the IRA's record

 

[TruXta]

It's 'remove the threat', so if someone was likely to have a gun or a bomb then a shoot to kill policy would be justified. Someone with a knife perhaps less so but even the best marksman could easily kill someone with a stopping shot - there is no 'safe' way to shoot someone, this isn't the movies.

The safe way is to kill them.

 

[Corax]

The definition of terrorism appears to have evolved since I was a kind and there were no bins in London. It now seems to be applied to anyone committing violence in the name of a 'cause', no matter whether they act entirely in isolation or not.

Which makes me wonder if we can now pigeon-hole all violence into either terrorism, crime of passion, or insanity.

 

[butchersapron]

It wasn't a frigging terrorist attack.
It was two twits who thought they could get famous.


Don't most terrorist attacks involve multiple deaths of innocents? Why not attack the on-lookers instead of posing for their pictures to be taken?

Terrorism - in the mainstream use - is an act designed to cause terror among the general public and forcefully impose a course of action on them/the state. After beheading someone the beheader here said:

You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

More to the point, wtf are you on about?

 

[Corax]

I don't think that it was a terrorist attack.

I think we need a definition of terrorist/terrorism. And before anyone quotes it, I don't believe the dictionary definition does the job in current usage.

 

[friedaweed]

I thought armed police was shoot to incapacitate when possible e.g no firearm involved.

Likelihood is they used their Glock sidearm quite swiftly on arrival. Probably no time to open the safe in the boot and get a batton round out or their rifles.Can't see them tazering someone who's already chopped a dudes head off either.

There's no 'aim to wound policy' afaik as that doesn't actually work in reality and is just for the movies. The target area is the largest area available which in most cases is the torso. Then they get the kit out of the boot (As seen) and try to save your life once they know you ain't fit for fighting back.

It's so dam British it's almost nice.

 

[5t3IIa]

I don't think that it was a terrorist attack.
I think y'all are grasping at straws trying to prove it was a terrorist attack.

meh - I'm going to go cook my dinner, reread the thread and maybe pick up on some signs that y'all think this NOT a terrorist attack.

We had the IRA first!

 

[JimW]

Any targeted killings of soldiers, cops etc. or political figures by armed groups during the Troubles were called acts of terrorism too. No need for it to be a big bomb.

 

[cdg]

Just reading about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#.22Shoot_to_kill.22_policy

So does that policy deal specifically with terrorism? Maybe it wasn't apparent that this was a terrorist attack and hence only one of them(I assume the gunman) being seriously injured by the police.

 

[butchersapron]

I think we need a definition of terrorist/terrorism. And before anyone quotes it, I don't believe the dictionary definition does the job in current usage.

What if a) other people do and b) it is the sense in which it being used by the media/politicians and public here?

It seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[cdg]

Any targeted killings of soldiers, cops etc. or political figures by armed groups during the Troubles were called acts of terrorism too. No need for it to be a big bomb.

Not forgetting the shankhill butchers who carried out crimes very similar to this.

 

[Mr Moose]

It wasn't a frigging terrorist attack.
It was two twits who thought they could get famous.


Don't most terrorist attacks involve multiple deaths of innocents? Why not attack the on-lookers instead of posing for their pictures to be taken?

Because if the point of terrorism is to cause terror then chopping someone's head off and spouting political/religious words has probably ticked the box.

Had they chased bystanders around people might have been reassured by their regular nuttiness. Standing around posing like they did is much more frightening. It suggests purpose.

 

[Ted Striker]

That footage is just...unbelievable.

 

[Part 2]

Eyewitness on ch4 news saying the attackers said only women could go near the body.

 

[Dillinger4]

Any targeted killings of soldiers, cops etc. or political figures by armed groups during the Troubles were called acts of terrorism too. No need for it to be a big bomb.

Targeting people is itself a kind of terrorism.

The definition of terror itself is the anticipation and fear of a terrible event, as opposed to horror which is what is felt after it has happened.

 

[JimW]

So does that policy deal specifically with terrorism? Maybe it wasn't apparent that this was a terrorist attack and hence only one of them(I assume the gunman) being seriously injured by the police.

I'm talking out my arse mainly tbh; first thought was maybe if the gun had blown up and only knives left they did shoot to wound but as i say, thought policy was drop them if need be or don't fire (Wiki seems to be saying pointing gun is considered use, which seems fair enough - as in don't if you don't intend to fire)

 

[butchersapron]

To deny this is terrorism and to reserves the right to stuff like colombine is to turn things upside down.The latter is not terrorism.