Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

I have to say this has shocked and disturbed me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

and the balance of views of people submitted to BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4711189.stm

[brother]

For us in the u.k at the moment we are stuck between suicide bombers and shoot to kill trigger happy police men, beyond that N.F and extreme racists have already torched 4 mosques attacked and savagely beaten at least 300 innocent muslims and various other arson attacks on muslim house holds, the future does not look bright in U.K at the moment.

[Main_Source]

The governments fault for being too over the top with 'freedom of speech'. If you let groups supposedly representing Muslims, stand in a crowd and tell passers by that the whole country will fall to Islam, THEN put them on national TV...well your going to cause some kind of conflict.

I think this country has bent over backwards to please Muslims from the Indian subcontintent and been to leanient on some of these people. Obviously there is a probelm with some people within this community, like preaching hate to naive kids who go on to bomb London.

As for the NF and general racists bombing mosques...well I think the London bombings were just an excuse for them to commit such an act.

[erolz]

The governments fault for being too over the top with 'freedom of speech'.

Just so you know the thread is (supposed) to be about the killing of a totaly innocent man by armed plain clothes police under the policy of 'shoot to kill in order to protect'. It's not (supposed) to be about terrorism in the UK in general or muslims and how the UK may or may not have ecouraged or allowed such terrorist by their approach to the rights on minorites in the UK. Still topics will drift I guess.

[BigDutch]

Would it have been ok if they guy had been a suicide bomber not an innocent ?

[erolz]

Would it have been ok if they guy had been a suicide bomber not an innocent ?

I do not know about 'ok' but for me it would be a lot easier to argue a case that it was necessary to shoot and kill an imobolised man that had a bomb attached to their person than one that did not.

Do not get me wrong. In many ways I have much sympathy for the police in siutatons as indivduals. They do a job that I myself would not be prepared to do, yet if I or my family or friends were threatend by others with guns and bombs or the like, I would want and expect them to intervene. Having said that the sympathy I feel for the police as indivduals in such an invidious and difficult role is 'mitigated' by the fact that a totaly innocent man has been killed by armed officers for doing no more wrong than running from mens wielding guns and shouting and that the Cheif of Police is sating this must be expected and more innocents may have to die under this shoot to kill policy in order to protect. I find this disturbing and a most 'unbritish' response. It's just 'not cricket' to pump 5 shots into an imobolised and innocent man on the off chance that he might be a suicide bomber (imho)

[Svetlana]

I think most Nations take extreme measures when they feel under threat - and innocents suffer. For example, there was massive internment of those of Chinese descent, in the US after Pearl Harbour. In the UK, a similar fate befell those of Italian and German.

During the siege of Leningrad, Russian officers fired on their own soldiers, if they retreated following charges on the German lines.

During WW2, allied planes dropped bombs on targets close to POW camps, knowing their would be 'friendly fire' casualities

It's a tough call but I feel, on balance, the policy is right and one that is virtually forced on the Authorities.

Lana

[DigenisAkritas]

For us in the u.k at the moment we are stuck between suicide bombers and shoot to kill trigger happy police men, beyond that N.F and extreme racists have already torched 4 mosques attacked and savagely beaten at least 300 innocent muslims and various other arson attacks on muslim house holds, the future does not look bright in U.K at the moment.

Well, it's not like Islam doesn't promote violence as well, I'm not justifying what the NF do, they are scum, but the NF and Mohammed's teachings are as bad as each other.

[brother]

Well, it's not like Islam doesn't promote violence as well, I'm not justifying what the NF do, they are scum, but the NF and Mohammed's teachings are as bad as each other.

The kuran does not preach violence as terrorist bombers to kill the innocent, unfortunately we have lunatics around the globe who preach absurd ideas that the kuran says this and that to justify to the weak minded the idea of bombing civilians which is absolute rubbish.

[Main_Source]

Main_Source wrote:
The governments fault for being too over the top with 'freedom of speech'.


Just so you know the thread is (supposed) to be about the killing of a totaly innocent man by armed plain clothes police under the policy of 'shoot to kill in order to protect'. It's not (supposed) to be about terrorism in the UK in general or muslims and how the UK may or may not have ecouraged or allowed such terrorist by their approach to the rights on minorites in the UK. Still topics will drift I guess.

I'm sorry...but Brother wrote

beyond that N.F and extreme racists have already torched 4 mosques attacked and savagely beaten at least 300 innocent muslims and various other arson attacks on muslim house holds, the future does not look bright in U.K at the moment.

so I would have thought that had you wanted to stop the thread goingo ff track...you would have nipped it in the bud there....

OH I FORGOT, Brother is TC and Erolz would never pull up any TC on what they write lol.