assassin_696

Or two? :P Anyway where is Frome? Never heard of it but you might be closer to be than you think. http://maps.google.co.uk/ Search for it. :P I live about 20-25 miles away from Danabis and about 45-50 miles away from Phil. I probably wouldn't attempt to meet Dan, he has a bad streak in him. :wink: Phil's a good guy but I'm a terrible conversationalist, so more than likely I'd bore him to death. :P Although getting bombed out my head on alcohol sounds like fun. :lol: Edit: I also live about 10-15 miles away from Bacon2003... Hehe sorry man. :P Still haven't figured out those Googly map things, must try sometime :) Anyway i live in Leeds so i'm pretty much nowhere near Frome, although i must pass pretty close on my way to Cornwall (i go there twice a year). Thanks for the map though

pushing someone to the floor, subduing them, and than shooting them, is known as murder in the united states....but of corse England has different laws. It's a different story when your dealing with potential suicide bombers that could kill hundreds of people if they aren't immobilised immediately.

:P Wise words, cause its true, its done and over, no one is hurt (... one exception) and we dont have to worry... fo rthe time being. If the SFO officers involved were half as good shots as they are supposed to be then im pretty sure that he would have felt no pain. And Magekillr is 100% correct. With terrorists you cannot take ANY chances. The guy who was shot sounded like an amateur, which are highly unpredictable and therefore dangerous. I value life above all else but so did the officers involved and that's why they shot him, because they valued the life of the people on the train and didn't want to gamble with them.

yeah...so thats y they kill any1 who doesnt convert to their religion :roll: they are the same as the barbaric Catholics when they dominated every way of life in the mid-ages A lot of Muslim people died in the 7/7 bombings and all the bombings in the past. They use Islam as some kind of excuse to justify their actions somehow. Something to do with the Qur'an being very much open to interpretation. Just read today's article in The Times on it, apparently the officers involved were from the elite SFO unit (specialist firearms officers) and they are trained to use headshots when dealing with potential suicide bombers. And Scotland Yard's firearms unit is called SO19, not "something with a k in it" as i said earlier. :oops:

Or two? :P Anyway where is Frome? Never heard of it but you might be closer to be than you think.

BOO! :shock: Anyway, just looks like an odd shadow to me, but never seeing a ghost in my life it's kinda hard to say.

I can't really think of an order, except for the first two: So...in no particular order 1. The Shawshank Redemption (absolutely amazing film) 2. The Green Mile (it touches your soul, don't believe me? watch it) 3. LOTR: The Return of the King (i like all of them but this one was carnage) 4. Goldfinger 5. We were soldiers (VERY good) 6. Platoon (a bit depressing) 7. The deer hunter 8. Gangs of New York 9. Titanic (try and ignore the soppiness, and there lies a good film) 10. The Matrix 11. The Godfather Pt.1 12. Top Gun 13. A few good men 14. Gladiator (totally awesome) 15. Raiders of the lost ark 16. The temple of doom (cool name) 17. Star Wars 18. Schindlers List 19. Big Country 20. Maverick 21. The Parole Officer 22. The Lion King 23. The Incredibles 24. Shrek 2 25. Finding Nemo 26. The French Connection 27. Forrest Gump 28. Mrs. Doubtfire 29. Good Will Hunting 30. Men in Black 31. Independance Day... Bleh, run out of ideas, i'll add any more later.

Oh cabbage string theory...forgot about that. :( Oh well i'm not going into it, i watched a 1 hour program on it at 5:00 in the morning (don't ask) and still didn't fully understand it. Something to do with anything being theoretically but not necessarily reasonably possible. :? :? :?

If you try and consider it like this: everything that there is, that has ever existed is within the universe. This, is pretty much what the universe is, EVERYTHING. There can't be anything outside the universe because that too would be in the universe. If the universe is continually expanding at a speed faster than is physically possible to travel then technically yes it does go on forever.... ...much like my avatar 8)

Surely he would've pressed it earlier then. And if the police can't de-arm the man in the time they pull him down, jump on him etc. they are bad coppers, their first and last resort was violence resulting in death. Omg -. try walking in a coppers shoes for a week before you guys judge. The policemen had to make a difficult choise : innocent lives vs a suicidebomber. Im getting tired of all the people who protects the criminals before the innocents... That guy lost all his civil rights the second he strapped a bomb on him IMO How2pk, what you are saying is you would rather put thousands of innocent peoples life at risk, and 90% that guy could have set that bomb off. He probally was seeing if the police were bluffing or not, we need to take action. Its a hella hard decision but when you take out 1 terrorist to save thousands, thats a good thing. Its known as "take one for the team". If the police waited any longer that guy could have pushed a detonator any second, and there lifes + others would be gone. Police are taking action and showing that were not bluffing anymore, now we mean the real deal. Dont put innocent peoples lifes at risk or we will take your life, thats how i see it IMO. the terriost was the one who died, fairly sure he wasn't in their team :) anyways, just for fun, i'm going to defend from how2pk's possition for a moment here. considering he's had some to drink :lol: (perhaps you would be a better arguer drunk?) so ahem... what he is trying to say is from the report, they fired up close. in the time it takes to fire a gun they could have fully imobolized him, got the detenator away from him, and take him away. They could interogize him (which could be very, very helpful) and get hints on if there will be more attacks to come. I guess I view it as, he is more of a use to us alive than dead. When he is dead, he can't tell us anything. Yes, shooting him down prevented anything from happening, but imobolizing him would do the exact same, with the added effect of getting possible info out of him. there yah go, I defeneded dann :P. just so you all know, i'm kind of torn on which side. Like I posted, I can see why he would be more useful dead than alive, but thinking about it from their perspective... if they didn't catch him in time, or imobolize fast enough, who could live with the guilt? yes yes, they'd probaly be dead, but if there is an afterlife i'm sure they would still feel the pain. anyways, I belive that both actions, wether it be shooting him down or simply imobolizing him, would be good choices. They had probaly a few seconds to think what they would do. And i'm guessing it was a good choice, considering they saved many lives. would you look at that, defending two positions at once. wow i'm strange oO From what i have heard Islamic extremeist terrorists (although i hate calling them that, it's an insult to the peaceful religion of Islam) give absolutely no information when they are caught, especially the highly trained ones. So what information we could of got out of him is probably very limited. And to fire 5 shots in quick succession from an automatic pistol takes...about 3 seconds? Disarming and disabling a bomb (or whatever) on a live struggling man would take much longer.

London has it's own branch of armed police officers, (i forget what they are called, it has a K in it somewhere) which are highly trained in the use of firearms. There aren't that many of them relitavely (only a few thousand) but after events such as 7/7 they will be very active. Quite why they were wearing plain clothes is debateable, but i presume so that they could "track down" the suicide bomber without being immediately noticed. My other theory is that the officer that shot the guy was in the SAS (special air service), Britain's equivalent of SWAT AND Delta Force (the SAS have dual roles). The SAS are the most highly trained anti-terrorist unit and military unit in the world (that we know about :wink: ), and they are trained to not mess around and kill their targets using the double tap method. This is cruicial in hostage situations for obvious reasons. The officers involved could have been SAS, they have been known to operate undercover. Oh and not trying to sidetrack the topic or anything, but bombs have reportedly killed 63 in Egypt. If it wasn't for the quick and decisisve thinking of the officers involved then that could of been London, on that very train. We have no idea how close this came to be, but you just cannot take your chances with terrorists.

Ah--yes, that's a good explanation. I still disagree about the momentum thing (See post above), but yes, that would be a good reason to shoot them more than once. Edit:I spelled "disagree" wrong. I'm a he 8) And i read your edited post. I can see your point clearly, and i'm not totally sure what i'm on about personally, looking at it again i can see it's less about momentum and more to do with being hit twice in quick succession (like being hit hard with a hammer, twice very fast i think, obviously worse). I'm sure about the double tap method though, being an avid Andy Macnab and Tom Clancy reader. :D

Umm...it's kinda complicated but it works on the same principle as the double tap, a technique perfected by the SAS. When one bullet is fired into the body it carries a lot of momentum, but isn't always completely immobilising. Two bullets fired in quick succession...HIT HIT, mean that the target is usually completely immobilised due the quick succession of the bullets hitting the body. Even after this, depending on the location of the hit, the body may have small spasms as signals from the brain shoot down the body. These spasms may or may not have caused, say the finger on the button to twitch. If the guy who shot him, fired 5 bullets into the head area, in rapid succession, death would have been so quick that these spasms would have been minimalised. But i am speculating, and only basing it on my extremely limited military and biological knowledge. Some people have also said he was shot 10 times, and some 2, so who knows. I would have thought 2 sounded more professional, but meh.

Am i allowded to speculate? If so maybe it was the SAS that chased the guy down, those guys don't mess around and are trained to shoot to kill if necessary. Oh yeah and i believe it's standard procedure that if someone is carrying some kind of detonatable explosove then you shoot them several times to stop any potential twitching that might occur after only a few shots.

When they set out to brutally murder innocent law abiding citizens, thus forsaking the innocents right to life. Who is to decide what he "set out to do"? Should anyone suspected to be a terrorist be shot? When you hand out punnishments without a trial you risk just as many innocent lives as the terrorists do, you just justify it with "Homeland security". Orwell would spin in his grave. There is a massive difference between being forced to shot someone in defense of self/others and dismissing an individuals right to live due to a suspicion. The first is a necesary evil and the second is disgusting. I'm not implying in anyway that we should randomly shoot people who we suspect of terrorism, but none of us here were the policemen invlolved, so none of us know the full circumstances. Policemen in England are increasingly being tied down by massive amounts of "political red tape", and so for plain clothed policemen to shoot someone during a chase the situation must have been absolutely critical. Therefore i am ASSUMING that the person they were chasing was some kind of terrorist, or someone that intended to cause death and destruction. IF he was, and the likelihood is that he was otherwise the policemen wouldn't have shot him, then IMO he had forsaken all his civil liberties and human rights in attempting to cause death. Lethal force in this country is very rarely used, (particularly since firearms are not mandatory issue) so it is unlikely that it was some accidental shooting. Also when you run away from armed police officers carrying a suspicious rucksack onto a crowded tube what do you think his intention was? I would presume bad. It is quite possible that we know very little of what actually happened, and it is quite possible that he should have been shot. I even said that myself a few pages back in this post. However, that is quite difference from saying that a suspected terrorist has no rights, which is why I replied as I did. No one must ever be considered a convicted criminal without a trial, even less be killed for it. That is no less terrorism than bombing a bus. I do agree with you that shooting is sometimes necesary, but I do not agree that any unconvicted person loses his/her rights. I'm completely with you on the whole "an unconvicted person does not deserve to lose his rights", but i do think that if someone intends to kill other innocent people then they should be stopped with lethal force if necessary, but only if necessary. Sorry about the confusion in the first post of these quotes.

When they set out to brutally murder innocent law abiding citizens, thus forsaking the innocents right to life. Who is to decide what he "set out to do"? Should anyone suspected to be a terrorist be shot? When you hand out punnishments without a trial you risk just as many innocent lives as the terrorists do, you just justify it with "Homeland security". Orwell would spin in his grave. There is a massive difference between being forced to shot someone in defense of self/others and dismissing an individuals right to live due to a suspicion. The first is a necesary evil and the second is disgusting. I'm not implying in anyway that we should randomly shoot people who we suspect of terrorism, but none of us here were the policemen invlolved, so none of us know the full circumstances. Policemen in England are increasingly being tied down by massive amounts of "political red tape", and so for plain clothed policemen to shoot someone during a chase the situation must have been absolutely critical. Therefore i am ASSUMING that the person they were chasing was some kind of terrorist, or someone that intended to cause death and destruction. IF he was, and the likelihood is that he was otherwise the policemen wouldn't have shot him, then IMO he had forsaken all his civil liberties and human rights in attempting to cause death. Lethal force in this country is very rarely used, (particularly since firearms are not mandatory issue) so it is unlikely that it was some accidental shooting. Also when you run away from armed police officers carrying a suspicious rucksack onto a crowded tube what do you think his intention was? I would presume bad. And when i said "set out" i think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the people that have been arrested deserve to die, because they are held under suspicion. Personally i am against the death penalty. If they have been arrested and are locked up they pose less of a threat, so what is the point in killing them? But when someone goes out with the deliberate and undeniable (in their mind) intention of killing innocent people then they should be stopped with lethal force IF NECESSARY. But only if necessary, and IMO today's shooting was necessary. Of course that is not to say that i think that if he could have been neutralised in a non violent manner then that would obviously have been the much better option, however since none of know the full circumstances then i don't think any of us can honestly say what was necessary. It seemed to me like he posed a threat, and he no longer does, and yes it is sad that it had to end in violence but if it saved innocent lives then it WAS necessary.

Double post :oops: :oops: :oops:

Really good to see photos like that, i knew there had to be some out there, but you certainly won't see those in your daily news. I love that photo of the apache in the wingmirror :P

My sisters 15 week old black labrador puppy is called Milly :D

Hmm...tricky Red Hot Chili Peppers: Californication Red Hot Chili Peppers: Scar (silly censor, any fan will know which one i mean) Tissue Red Hot Chili Peppers: Road Trippin' Greenday: Boulevard of broken dreams Forever Faithless: Insomnia The Who: Teenage Wasteland The Who: Won't get fooled again The Caesars: Spirit Nirvana: Smells like Teen Spirit Nirvana: You know you're right Coldplay: Square One Coldplay: Speed of sound Coldplay: The ending from Politik, the rest of the song aint so great.

Do you get many birds flying into it up there :P

When they intend to brutally murder innocent law abiding citizens, thus forsaking the innocents right to life. But only if lethal force is necessary.

From the sounds of it no-one except the police officers involved knew the entire story, so no-one knows just what the bomb actually was, could of been chemical, biological, whatever. Also there are multiple ways of detonating a bomb other than just "pressing a button". I think we can all be thankful though that the "terrorist" no longer poses a direct threat to us. It's also an important step in showing them that we will not stand for their actions and defend our country and people with lethal force.

Yeah my utter respect for the policemen there. They made a split second decision that could have saved many innocent lives without thinking about all the resulting "paperwork" and "following the handbook" etc. Good on them, there's no way that that guy deserved to live if he was going to try and murder innocents.

All of them except magic :D