No, no. Not terrorists! I mean these people:
The people sitting safely at home or in their offices, wringing their hands over murdering scum.
It's more than 'OK', it's what we need to do. And we need to see it.
And conspiraloons are a whole other branch of crazy...
And finally:
Yup! That's the State broadcaster making no distinction between perpetrator and innocent victims.
15 comments:
Was there any NEED to shoot? Well, No, actually.
Was it a good thing to do? Of course.
I am usually among the first to question the necessity to shoot a prostrate, disarmed man. If I were armed and close at hand to this particular maniac, I would not hesitate to shoot him because there were reasonable grounds to suspect he was carrying explosives.
There was definitely a need to shoot, and to shoot to kill. This follower of a 6th century death cult fully intended to kill as many "unbelievers" as possible. In the past, these murderous scum have used explosives, either planting them and trying to get away, or by wearing suicide vests. This particular cretin wore what looked like a suicide vest. Under the circumstances, as the Police did not know the suicide vest was fake, they did what Police are supposed to do, and protected life and property. Two bullets, at least, to the brain should prevent any action, intended or reflexive, to explode the suicide vest.
Unless these critics of Tue Police action have faced a life or death situation requiring a split second decision, they should shut their ignorant mouths.
Penseivat
Surprised and disappointed that the BBC didn't report "Man wins 72 virgins".
At the pub yesterday when it was kicking off and when I mentioned "not another terrorist attack", a colleague upbraided me, claiming "who says it's a terrorist attack?".
I really should have wagered him £100 on it.
@ Anonymong
Was there a need? YES. The terrorist was wearing a suicide vest.
The fact that it was found to be a hoax is irrelevant. For the officers on the scene it was a viable threat and they acted correctly by shooting and negating the threat.
Twat.
Yes there was a need to shoot. He was wearing what appeared to be a suicide vest.Had it been real,and it had been detonated,most of the bystanders could have been killed or seriously injured.
I have no doubt MTG will be along to give us the benefit of his vast experience of dealing with these people.
"I have no doubt MTG will be along to give us the benefit of his vast experience of dealing with these people."
I am willing to bet heavily that 'john2008' has no more experience of dealing with armed terrorists/maniacs than WC Jaded, Penise or myself.
In these troubled times of daylight moped muggers, terrorists and nutters, I have...as every good citizen should...visualised particular situations in preparation for my own fight or flight when thrown into such scenarios. I will certainly panic and run from a gunman who has already fired shots but I am fit enough to 'have a go' in other situations. I can only do my best with whatever is at hand in the circumstances and that is what I intend to do, my dear 'john2008'.
New suggestions that police invented the 'fake suicide vest' are very disturbing.
Any repetition of the constant stream of police lies which immediately followed the killing of the Brazilian electrician, would be appalling. Wasn't he wearing a suicide vest, as plod claimed? Oh, no...turns out he wasn't and the jurors verdict on his unlawful killing included their condemnation of a whole series of police lies and fabricated statements. And it's not the first time that happened, is it?
Surely plod have 'learned lessons' about repeatedly lying to the public to justify executions? Or maybe not.
I am less concerned about the shooting of Usman Khan than I am about dishonest plod statements and conspiracy. In most cases, the public do not witnesses the shooting of criminals or innocent citizens. If we cannot totally rely upon plod truthfulness in accounting for their actions, we must fear the worst and expect cover-up lies or deceitful exaggerations.
MTG, yes,actually I do.
@john2008,
As a long time target of Manic Melv, I now refuse to rise to the bait of his insults as this is how he gets his rocks off. He deliberately antagonises others so he can sit in his squalid, greasy, little room, masturbating at the responses he gets.
If you will accept my advice, do not respond to him as he will continue to come back at you.
Regards,
Penseivat
This is the place where 'johnd2008' HEROISM can be published unconditionally. So cease your dithering and be specific, old chap. The readers here are fairly gullible and it's a good week for liars.
Breaking news: Tinfoil shortage in the Huddersfield area.
Jaded
I have signed and am bound by the Official Secret Acts so have no intention of going into any details. Keep up the insults MTG. Whatever it is you are suffering from I hope you recover one day.
Well, I am fairly credulous, 'johnd2008'.
But for future reference, try to improve YOUR credibility by getting the basics of your anecdotes, correct. It's the Official Secrets Act...notice that glaring plural? Anyone specifically asked to sign a declaration (you don't have to do so to be bound by it) becomes aware of the four-part nature of this legislation. This relates to unauthorised leaks which were considered damaging to the State. Thus, anyone so bound would also recognise a range of free speech bestowed by the latter concession.
Turning an urban myth into something plausible requires a modicum of intelligence, 'sunshine'.
"If I were armed and close at hand to this particular maniac, I would not hesitate to shoot him because there were reasonable grounds to suspect he was carrying explosives."
/applause
"...they should shut their ignorant mouths."
Sadly, it seems to only embolden them to flap their gums even more!
"...a colleague upbraided me, claiming "who says it's a terrorist attack?".
I really should have wagered him £100 on it."
You should! Though Peter Hitchens in the 'Mail' today blames....cannabis! No, really!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7768245/PETER-HITCHENS-Terror-stalking-streets-ISIS.html
"I have no doubt MTG will be along to give us the benefit of his vast experience..."
Is 'experience' necessary to know what to do?
Post a Comment