I guess scum of any country will be scum. Don't really need an excuse.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
November 2015 Paris Attacks
- Thread starter OverGore
- Start date
I guess scum of any country will be scum. Don't really need an excuse.
Depends on the bullet, the gun, the wound sustained and a host of other things which is why when an officer uses his/her fire arm its to put the target down and that requires shooting at the central mass until the target drops. No one "shoots to kill" or "shoots to wound" they shoot to stop the target becoming a threat.
If you use a firearm you are using lethal force.
Of course they wanted to kill him, I know this may come as a shock but its a nasty world and certain nasty people need removing from it he was one. Leaders of parties have to make such calls and Corbyn is not up to it in my opinion.
Russia has spoken
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
I work in military/government surveillance I'm very aware of the nasty world we live in. I just don't believe in killing if there are 'other options' Bin Laden should of spent his entire life in prison with the most basic level of human right if that were possible. An old man in prison is a symbol but nowhere near as great as a dead martyr slain by the infidels.
I accept not everyone shares that viewpoint.
- - - Updated - - -
I know, it's why I didn't use those terms.
Wrong phrasing from myself I have an issue sometimes with training of when to fire and not to fire (I guess encouraging the use of). Obviously a military situation is far more different than a civilian one and I do think we have very much the right balance in this country from a civilian aspect and the military one is more of decision of where and when to deploy which I think we have very backwards a lot of time (attacking Iraq, not attacking ISIS, after plans etc etc, we've pretty much got everything wrong since Kosovo). I worry more about the US on this front than ourselves.
And thats what has wound me up about Corbyn, the whole shoot to kill thing is a complete red herring used by the BBC and other well meaning but basically stupid people.
If he had a clue about anything, which he obviously doesnt he would know there is no such thing as shoot to kill, its just a headliner grabber for all the clowns that think we can all sit round and solve this with a nice double shot Latte.
Attacks happened on Friday 13th. For the Illuminati the numbers 11 and 13 are extremely important - attacks happened on 13/11/2015 - coincidence?
Sounds like the beeb put the words in his mouth
"Mr Corbyn was asked by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's streets.
Mr Corbyn said: "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counter productive."
However it's a poor choice but Corbyn's relentless pacifism is actually one of the reasons I can't support him. I find the guy admirable in his position but reality doesn't work that way. Honestly military use & surveillance is one few things I tend to stray on the side of the Tories rather than my own party (Lib Dems).
"Mr Corbyn was asked by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's streets.
Mr Corbyn said: "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counter productive."
However it's a poor choice but Corbyn's relentless pacifism is actually one of the reasons I can't support him. I find the guy admirable in his position but reality doesn't work that way. Honestly military use & surveillance is one few things I tend to stray on the side of the Tories rather than my own party (Lib Dems).
+1, we have already seen what happens when you get a weak, appeasing type in the Whitehouse with Russia being far more aggressive than they were even in the cold war.
100% this.
You shoot until they no longer present a threat. If that involves them dying while reaching for a gun/switch, so be it. If that's them copping one in the knee cap while running at you with a knife, so be it.
It's just an awkward situation. I wouldn't want snipers aiming for a headshot on a potential target, but would want squaddies/policemen aiming to put down a potential threat.
I don't support Corbyn/labour, but I do think he is the best of a bad bunch (or at least infinitely better than anything the Tories can put foward).
I definitely don't like the idea of Thatcher (was only alive for 13 months of her reign) but it's no doubt we were a more formidable state with her in charge than since then. I don't think Blair/Brown/Cameron would have authorised the storming of the Iranian embassy.
Maybe I'm just a massive hypocrite
Last edited:
Hollywood again, head shots in real situations are a no no because its easier to miss and that means a bullets flying about that could hit someone else or bounce off a wall etc. In a civil situation its the body mass everytime and in a war situation head shots are only attempted by snipers at less than 100 yards and most wouldnt be stupid enough to attempt it.
Oh and would love to see you hit someone in the knee cap while they are running...
Last edited:
Not according to what i've heard. Co-worker of mine used to work for the special force division of Buenos Aires police . His division specialized in hostage situations. He claimed the way you approach a target is not the same if he has vital information about the hostages than if he does not. The type of weapon, the type of bullet, the deployment and even the way you aim were different according to him (if you knew in advance, course).
He admitted they were very fast paced situations and the margin of error was not small and that the #1 priority is always the safety of the one shooting, but that the rationale and implementation of both situations (if executed correctly) were different.
If you wish to capture someone who might have information then shooting them is a very risky and not very practical way of doing it. example if you shoot someone in the leg as per Hollywood you have a very good chance of severing an archery, missing and hitting someone else, hitting them in the wrong place such as the kidney, hitting them and the bullet deflecting up and going somewhere more vital.
In a situation like you had in Paris at the weekend you need to put the bad guy down, hard and fast and not worry what some beardy Guardian reader thinks about it.
That's not the situation that's being discussed, though.
It's more the Jean Charles de Menezes situation, where he was shot dead for jumping a barrier/running from unidentified, plain clothed, armed men.
I can empathise with the police thinking he was a terrorist suspect and was reaching for a trigger, but they 100% shot to kill (seven times in the head), and an innocent man died.
It was an impossible situation for the officers to be put in, and I do back them in that case, but all Corbyn et al. is saying is that these people SHOULD face a trial, in theory.
Corbyn did say, in the same interview, that Jihadi John deserved to die (or words to that effect) - it's just that EVERYONE, no matter what level of crime should face trial.
When its practical, Jihadi John was a very evil individual who did some very evil things. Not only was he beheading people on utube and selling young girls into slavery he was also (like most of the ISIS leadership) planning attacks on western targets. He had to be stopped so what do you do? arrest him and put him on trial? well no because you thats not practial so do you let him carry on until we can arrest him or do you blow him up in a drone strike? Drone strike obviously.
Its ok to have good intentions but this is where Mr Corbyn will have to at some point face the reality of the situation. Would we in an ideal world like to put every bad guy on trial? well yes I suppose thats what you want in a liberal country like ours but the reality is we cannot? So we still have to stop them, if some nutter is walking down round the Marble arch screaming kill infidals and firing off rounds the most practial way of stopping him is shooting him until he stops.
Get the point about the Menezes though not sure what was going on there.
He did.
If you read his actual comments, and not just what the Tory press reported, you'd see he said:
"It appears Mohammed Emwazi has been held to account for his callous and brutal crimes.
However, it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law."
i.e. No one's sad the **** is dead, it'd just be a bit better if we could try him first.
You're dealing with suicide bombers, not regular gunmen, they're not trying to get taken alive and go to trial, shooting one in the leg doesn't prevent him from being a threat. There's no choice but to take them out (which is what happened to one of the bombers at Bataclan).
Look he said and Im happy to be corrected "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive." Correct?
Right first thing there is no such thing as Shoot to Kill, like I have said earlier its a red herring. You shoot someone who is a threat until the threat is stopped.
Second thing, he should really trust the police and security forces to the job and not try gain points among the liberal elite telling us that he doesnt like the idea of people being shot.
Third thing, he is doing a fantastic job of giving the Tories a free pass to the next election.
**** knows what will happen at the next election: As much as people say Corbyn is turning people away from Labour, people are finally wising up to how utterly incompetent/vile/lying/repulsive/loathsome/******* this tory bunch are.
Tories are always like that, so are Labour but they just pretend they arnt...
