Police Hunt Chemical Device

[The Fish 10978]

6. Should we have a shoot to kill policy? Only if you're sure....

149434[/snapback]

 

 

Not to kick over a hornets nest, but there's one thing I have to ask in regard to this answer Renton.

 

Is it feasible to expect the person with his finger on the trigger to be entriely certain that the person in his sights is absolutely the right person?

 

Intelligence, such as it is, leaves a lot to be desired and while innocent lives should not be lost, is it actually possible to be a hundred percent certain that you've got the right guy?

 

I agree that simply popping everyone with a beard and a backpack is rediculous, but honestly, it is unimaginably difficult to get sufficient information on a target without them becoming aware and disappearing or, even worse, accelerating whatever plans they have...

 

I think you're shoot to kill but only if you're sure is un-workable in this current clime

[luckyluke 2]

What it does prove though is that Leazes doesnt read a fucking word that is written by anyone else, if it doesnt say "I agree with Leazes" at the start then he skips it,  either that or he needs a refund on the speed reading course he bought!

 

As you've already pointed out SLP has (as he always does) took the piss out of all sides throughout this and every other thread, not once put forward a left wing view yet what is LM called him? oh aye a "deluded, appeasing, left wing cunt" and to top it off uses the

 

most blatant misuse of a smilie ever tbh

149227[/snapback]

 

Suggest you look at Bridgets and PL's posts that I agreed with PP. They prove I read posts. When they talk sense, they get a sensible reply.

149259[/snapback]

 

That answer proves my point though, all you've done there is refer to to two posts where you replied sensibly to a post you agreed with, what Im saying is you appear to skim, see theyre not backing you up (regardless of what stance they are taking) and automatically spout the abuse, NOTHING in any post of SLPs has he taken a left wing stance but he got the abuse thrown his way.

149270[/snapback]

 

PP, if he calls me a "racialist" .... am I not entitled to call him back ?

 

And - he is the one who said "there is no middle ground", so he's either a "right wing racialist" or a "left wing do gooder". He implied it himself. If YOU read the post properly mate, you'll see that.

 

If I thought for a moment he was up for a proper debate, I would have replied that there is of course middle ground, there is always middle ground in any view.

149277[/snapback]

 

If its justified then yes, course you can however you would have had to had a total humour bypass to have read that post as anything other than a pisstake. For fucks sake he ends it with "all hail emperor Meenzer" or sumit.

149282[/snapback]

 

I've tried to resist biting on this, but enough. Having a medical qualification makes you no more or less qualified to comment on the subjects in this thread. However your continued insinuations that having a medical degree actually makes you more stupid are ridiculous beyond belief.

 

If this is what you believe then I can only hope that any medical attention you recieve in the future is from people as dim as you assume them to be, as you don't really deserve anything else.

[The Fish 10978]

oh don't get me wrong, you're not the only one to have dropped a level in this thread.

 

I appreciate your reply though.

[peasepud 59]

6. Should we have a shoot to kill policy? Only if you're sure....

149434[/snapback]

 

 

Not to kick over a hornets nest, but there's one thing I have to ask in regard to this answer Renton.

 

Is it feasible to expect the person with his finger on the trigger to be entriely certain that the person in his sights is absolutely the right person?

 

Intelligence, such as it is, leaves a lot to be desired and while innocent lives should not be lost, is it actually possible to be a hundred percent certain that you've got the right guy?

 

I agree that simply popping everyone with a beard and a backpack is rediculous, but honestly, it is unimaginably difficult to get sufficient information on a target without them becoming aware and disappearing or, even worse, accelerating whatever plans they have...

 

I think you're shoot to kill but only if you're sure is un-workable in this current clime

149444[/snapback]

 

Its a hard one to debate though isnt it? I agree woth Rentons view that if you're certain the persons guilty then theres no problem in shooting them, in fact Id go as far as saying its possibly the only safe answer, where we went wrong with the Brazilian bloke is that the person who identified him as being the suspect wasnt the one who pulled the trigger, those poor sods were basing their proof on some body elses "evidence" let MI5 do the whole thing, gain the evidence, follow the suspect and pull the trigger if need be, maybe that would solve it?

[peasepud 59]

well for one so clever with his fancy arsed medical degree you'd think you could quote the right person LuckyLuke

 

 

[The Fish 10978]

Its a hard one to debate though isnt it? I agree woth Rentons view that if you're certain the persons guilty then theres no problem in shooting them, in fact Id go as far as saying its possibly the only safe answer, where we went wrong with the Brazilian bloke is that the person who identified him as being the suspect wasnt the one who pulled the trigger, those poor sods were basing their proof on some body elses "evidence" let MI5 do the whole thing, gain the evidence, follow the suspect and pull the trigger if need be, maybe that would solve it?

149448[/snapback]

 

 

you're right of course, it's impossible for people outside the loop to declare what is and is not feasible.

 

what I can say that MI5 and 6 have neither the funding, man power nor inclination to take part in what they would see as police actions.

 

the scum who are blowing themselves, deluded into believing that they do this murderous act in the Name of Allah by some zealot, are small fry. They people that MI5 and 6 should be focussing on (and who I presume they are focussing upon) are the Zarkawis(sp?) and Bin Ladens of the world.

 

pains me to say it, buy Abu Hamza isn't a big fish, sure he's a religious nut who should be deported to whatever hell hole spawned him, but he's not sending misguided men to their deaths.

 

this new FBI style organisation may help catch these men before they commit their atrocities, but time will be the only marker for that.

[Renton 22064]

6. Should we have a shoot to kill policy? Only if you're sure....

149434[/snapback]

 

 

Not to kick over a hornets nest, but there's one thing I have to ask in regard to this answer Renton.

 

Is it feasible to expect the person with his finger on the trigger to be entriely certain that the person in his sights is absolutely the right person?

 

Intelligence, such as it is, leaves a lot to be desired and while innocent lives should not be lost, is it actually possible to be a hundred percent certain that you've got the right guy?

 

I agree that simply popping everyone with a beard and a backpack is rediculous, but honestly, it is unimaginably difficult to get sufficient information on a target without them becoming aware and disappearing or, even worse, accelerating whatever plans they have...

 

I think you're shoot to kill but only if you're sure is un-workable in this current clime

149444[/snapback]

 

Give me a break GF, I was merely trying to be succinct for the purposes of Peasepud's questions. I'm perfectly aware that the police or army have a difficult job - I've said so several times on this thread alone, and really can't be bothered to repeat myself constantly.

[peasepud 59]

Its a hard one to debate though isnt it? I agree woth Rentons view that if you're certain the persons guilty then theres no problem in shooting them, in fact Id go as far as saying its possibly the only safe answer, where we went wrong with the Brazilian bloke is that the person who identified him as being the suspect wasnt the one who pulled the trigger, those poor sods were basing their proof on some body elses "evidence" let MI5 do the whole thing, gain the evidence, follow the suspect and pull the trigger if need be, maybe that would solve it?

149448[/snapback]

 

 

you're right of course, it's impossible for people outside the loop to declare what is and is not feasible.

 

what I can say that MI5 and 6 have neither the funding, man power nor inclination to take part in what they would see as police actions.

 

the scum who are blowing themselves, deluded into believing that they do this murderous act in the Name of Allah by some zealot, are small fry. They people that MI5 and 6 should be focussing on (and who I presume they are focussing upon) are the Zarkawis(sp?) and Bin Ladens of the world.

 

pains me to say it, buy Abu Hamza isn't a big fish, sure he's a religious nut who should be deported to whatever hell hole spawned him, but he's not sending misguided men to their deaths.

 

this new FBI style organisation may help catch these men before they commit their atrocities, but time will be the only marker for that.

149457[/snapback]

 

I agree, I probably should have made my post clearer, what I meant was whoever it was that decided it was the target leaving the building should ideally be the one pulling the trigger (if thats possible), from what I remember of the Brazilian case, MI5 had intelligence which was passed on to become a police stake out which then led to the fatal shooting, the person who made the wrong identification was way earlier in the loop than those pulling the trigger.

[Toonpack 10063]

6. Should we have a shoot to kill policy? Only if you're sure....

149434[/snapback]

 

 

Not to kick over a hornets nest, but there's one thing I have to ask in regard to this answer Renton.

 

Is it feasible to expect the person with his finger on the trigger to be entriely certain that the person in his sights is absolutely the right person?

 

Intelligence, such as it is, leaves a lot to be desired and while innocent lives should not be lost, is it actually possible to be a hundred percent certain that you've got the right guy?

 

I agree that simply popping everyone with a beard and a backpack is rediculous, but honestly, it is unimaginably difficult to get sufficient information on a target without them becoming aware and disappearing or, even worse, accelerating whatever plans they have...

 

I think you're shoot to kill but only if you're sure is un-workable in this current clime

149444[/snapback]

 

Too right, the Ramblers Association would be outraged

[peasepud 59]

I agree that simply popping everyone with a beard and a backpack is rediculous, but honestly, it is unimaginably difficult to get sufficient information on a target without them becoming aware and disappearing or, even worse, accelerating whatever plans they have...

 

I think you're shoot to kill but only if you're sure is un-workable in this current clime

149444[/snapback]

 

Too right, the Ramblers Association would be outraged

149487[/snapback]

 

suddenly it seems a good idea again

[sweetleftpeg 0]

[Guest alex]

I think he was taking the piss, however 'racialist' is a word. It means the same as racist.

149213[/snapback]

 

Thers also the fact that its always used as a jokey kind of word in an Alan Partridge style as when he called that bloke a "Bloody Mentalist". And the rest of SLP's post makes it blatantly clear he's having a luagh!

 

I didn't know racialist was a proper accepted term meaning the same as racist though, so after 25 pages this thread has finally come up with a bit of almost useful information

149222[/snapback]

 

to make a distinction. I would say that "racist" is a theoretical word used by theorists, who believe that race determines characteristics, whereas a "racialist" is someone who believes in race supremacy. Whatever. Racist is the most commonly used expression, Whereas someone who uses the word "racialist" instead, reminds me of when Chris Waddle used to come on TV and talk about someone getting a "pelanty". And the stupid mackem idiot thought he was being clever. So I place SLP's use of the word "racialist" in the bracket of a stupid mackem, or a stupid child, getting the expression incorrect, and he thought he was being clever. Either that or his use of language is poor, and he's just thick. Or maybe just not clever, like Renton.

 

Not that I'm bothered like.

 

EDIT. I see Alex hasn't bothered to answer Pilchard Chops yet either. What a surprise.

149257[/snapback]

You blatantly just looked that up as you clearly didn't even know it was a word when you had a pop at SLP

Oh and I'm not responding to Pilchard Chops as I feel my attack on him was unfair and I have no desire to escalate our minor disagreement (unlike yourself, unsurprisingly).

[Renton 22064]

I think he was taking the piss, however 'racialist' is a word. It means the same as racist.

149213[/snapback]

 

Thers also the fact that its always used as a jokey kind of word in an Alan Partridge style as when he called that bloke a "Bloody Mentalist". And the rest of SLP's post makes it blatantly clear he's having a luagh!

 

I didn't know racialist was a proper accepted term meaning the same as racist though, so after 25 pages this thread has finally come up with a bit of almost useful information

149222[/snapback]

 

to make a distinction. I would say that "racist" is a theoretical word used by theorists, who believe that race determines characteristics, whereas a "racialist" is someone who believes in race supremacy. Whatever. Racist is the most commonly used expression, Whereas someone who uses the word "racialist" instead, reminds me of when Chris Waddle used to come on TV and talk about someone getting a "pelanty". And the stupid mackem idiot thought he was being clever. So I place SLP's use of the word "racialist" in the bracket of a stupid mackem, or a stupid child, getting the expression incorrect, and he thought he was being clever. Either that or his use of language is poor, and he's just thick. Or maybe just not clever, like Renton.

 

Not that I'm bothered like.

 

EDIT. I see Alex hasn't bothered to answer Pilchard Chops yet either. What a surprise.

149257[/snapback]

You blatantly just looked that up as you clearly didn't even know it was a word when you had a pop at SLP

Oh and I'm not responding to Pilchard Chops as I feel my attack on him was unfair and I have no desire to escalate our minor disagreement (unlike yourself, unsurprisingly).

149497[/snapback]

 

I see LM is still obsessing about me then. That's quite an inferiority complex he's got there.

[LeazesMag 0]

I think he was taking the piss, however 'racialist' is a word. It means the same as racist.

149213[/snapback]

 

Thers also the fact that its always used as a jokey kind of word in an Alan Partridge style as when he called that bloke a "Bloody Mentalist". And the rest of SLP's post makes it blatantly clear he's having a luagh!

 

I didn't know racialist was a proper accepted term meaning the same as racist though, so after 25 pages this thread has finally come up with a bit of almost useful information

149222[/snapback]

 

to make a distinction. I would say that "racist" is a theoretical word used by theorists, who believe that race determines characteristics, whereas a "racialist" is someone who believes in race supremacy. Whatever. Racist is the most commonly used expression, Whereas someone who uses the word "racialist" instead, reminds me of when Chris Waddle used to come on TV and talk about someone getting a "pelanty". And the stupid mackem idiot thought he was being clever. So I place SLP's use of the word "racialist" in the bracket of a stupid mackem, or a stupid child, getting the expression incorrect, and he thought he was being clever. Either that or his use of language is poor, and he's just thick. Or maybe just not clever, like Renton.

 

Not that I'm bothered like.

 

EDIT. I see Alex hasn't bothered to answer Pilchard Chops yet either. What a surprise.

149257[/snapback]

You blatantly just looked that up as you clearly didn't even know it was a word when you had a pop at SLP

Oh and I'm not responding to Pilchard Chops as I feel my attack on him was unfair and I have no desire to escalate our minor disagreement (unlike yourself, unsurprisingly).

149497[/snapback]

 

I looked it up did I ? Where ?

 

I have explained what I thought when I saw it. Of course I knew it was a word, just a rarely used word. You should learn to read posts properly Alex, you spend enough time on here, you must have the time ...

 

Pilchard was right when he said you are less eloquent than some of the others,

although I have seen some of you having a go at him on at least one other occasion - not that I'm going to jump to assumptions about you like

[Guest alex]

Still stirring the shit I see Leazes, I'm sure your mate will appreciate that.

[LeazesMag 0]

I think he was taking the piss, however 'racialist' is a word. It means the same as racist.

149213[/snapback]

 

Thers also the fact that its always used as a jokey kind of word in an Alan Partridge style as when he called that bloke a "Bloody Mentalist". And the rest of SLP's post makes it blatantly clear he's having a luagh!

 

I didn't know racialist was a proper accepted term meaning the same as racist though, so after 25 pages this thread has finally come up with a bit of almost useful information

149222[/snapback]

 

to make a distinction. I would say that "racist" is a theoretical word used by theorists, who believe that race determines characteristics, whereas a "racialist" is someone who believes in race supremacy. Whatever. Racist is the most commonly used expression, Whereas someone who uses the word "racialist" instead, reminds me of when Chris Waddle used to come on TV and talk about someone getting a "pelanty". And the stupid mackem idiot thought he was being clever. So I place SLP's use of the word "racialist" in the bracket of a stupid mackem, or a stupid child, getting the expression incorrect, and he thought he was being clever. Either that or his use of language is poor, and he's just thick. Or maybe just not clever, like Renton.

 

Not that I'm bothered like.

 

EDIT. I see Alex hasn't bothered to answer Pilchard Chops yet either. What a surprise.

149257[/snapback]

You blatantly just looked that up as you clearly didn't even know it was a word when you had a pop at SLP

Oh and I'm not responding to Pilchard Chops as I feel my attack on him was unfair and I have no desire to escalate our minor disagreement (unlike yourself, unsurprisingly).

149497[/snapback]

 

I see LM is still obsessing about me then. That's quite an inferiority complex he's got there.

149521[/snapback]

 

Dear me Renton....I thought you had gone. I still think you're an idiot, but aren't on here as much as others, to be obsessed.

[LeazesMag 0]

6. Should we have a shoot to kill policy? Only if you're sure....

149434[/snapback]

 

 

Not to kick over a hornets nest, but there's one thing I have to ask in regard to this answer Renton.

 

Is it feasible to expect the person with his finger on the trigger to be entriely certain that the person in his sights is absolutely the right person?

 

Intelligence, such as it is, leaves a lot to be desired and while innocent lives should not be lost, is it actually possible to be a hundred percent certain that you've got the right guy?

 

I agree that simply popping everyone with a beard and a backpack is rediculous, but honestly, it is unimaginably difficult to get sufficient information on a target without them becoming aware and disappearing or, even worse, accelerating whatever plans they have...

 

I think you're shoot to kill but only if you're sure is un-workable in this current clime

149444[/snapback]

 

Give me a break GF, I was merely trying to be succinct for the purposes of Peasepud's questions. I'm perfectly aware that the police or army have a difficult job - I've said so several times on this thread alone, and really can't be bothered to repeat myself constantly.

149467[/snapback]

 

yet your answer still insinuates you think they should be shot at first, to be absolutely sure. Ridiculously naive.

[peasepud 59]

ahem, we seem to be one reply short

[LeazesMag 0]

What it does prove though is that Leazes doesnt read a fucking word that is written by anyone else, if it doesnt say "I agree with Leazes" at the start then he skips it,  either that or he needs a refund on the speed reading course he bought!

 

As you've already pointed out SLP has (as he always does) took the piss out of all sides throughout this and every other thread, not once put forward a left wing view yet what is LM called him? oh aye a "deluded, appeasing, left wing cunt" and to top it off uses the

 

most blatant misuse of a smilie ever tbh

149227[/snapback]

 

Suggest you look at Bridgets and PL's posts that I agreed with PP. They prove I read posts. When they talk sense, they get a sensible reply.

149259[/snapback]

 

That answer proves my point though, all you've done there is refer to to two posts where you replied sensibly to a post you agreed with, what Im saying is you appear to skim, see theyre not backing you up (regardless of what stance they are taking) and automatically spout the abuse, NOTHING in any post of SLPs has he taken a left wing stance but he got the abuse thrown his way.

149270[/snapback]

 

PP, if he calls me a "racialist" .... am I not entitled to call him back ?

 

And - he is the one who said "there is no middle ground", so he's either a "right wing racialist" or a "left wing do gooder". He implied it himself. If YOU read the post properly mate, you'll see that.

 

If I thought for a moment he was up for a proper debate, I would have replied that there is of course middle ground, there is always middle ground in any view.

149277[/snapback]

 

If its justified then yes, course you can however you would have had to had a total humour bypass to have read that post as anything other than a pisstake. For fucks sake he ends it with "all hail emperor Meenzer" or sumit.

149282[/snapback]

 

I've tried to resist biting on this, but enough. Having a medical qualification makes you no more or less qualified to comment on the subjects in this thread. However your continued insinuations that having a medical degree actually makes you more stupid are ridiculous beyond belief.

 

If this is what you believe then I can only hope that any medical attention you recieve in the future is from people as dim as you assume them to be, as you don't really deserve anything else.

149445[/snapback]

 

As I've said before, how do you know anything about me ?

 

You shouldn't make assumptions.

 

I would say that someone who has an understanding of a subject, lets say defence and security, has as much understanding of medical matters as someone who has an understanding of medical matters has of defence and security.

 

So - why does Renton insist he knows all about defence and security ?

 

Have I, for instance, insisted I know about medical matters ? I wouldn't do that, because I don't.

 

Is that a difficult concept ?

[peasepud 59]

right Leazes lets get sumit straight, this threads gone to shit, I tried to sort it by asking a few simple questions to both you and Renton, he answered them you appear to be ignoring them, either answer the questions or Im locking the thread and people will make of that what they will, my own view will be that you didnt have the bollocks to give some honest answers.

[LeazesMag 0]

ahem, we seem to be one reply short

149528[/snapback]

 

Later. I haven't got time. One thing I will say though, is I think it's a bit daft judging someone on what they say on a message board. Why do you take it so seriously ? Why are you so prejudiced against someone who doesn't share your views ? In Rentons case he insinuates he "doesn't like them". Don't you think

this is narrow minded ? I have to say, whether I agree with someone or not, it doesn't mean I "wouldn't like them"....how come someone so learned makes such judgements ?

 

Not that I'm bothered. It's just banter....

 

Standing by for a glib reply from Alex

[luckyluke 2]

What it does prove though is that Leazes doesnt read a fucking word that is written by anyone else, if it doesnt say "I agree with Leazes" at the start then he skips it,  either that or he needs a refund on the speed reading course he bought!

 

As you've already pointed out SLP has (as he always does) took the piss out of all sides throughout this and every other thread, not once put forward a left wing view yet what is LM called him? oh aye a "deluded, appeasing, left wing cunt" and to top it off uses the

 

most blatant misuse of a smilie ever tbh

149227[/snapback]

 

Suggest you look at Bridgets and PL's posts that I agreed with PP. They prove I read posts. When they talk sense, they get a sensible reply.

149259[/snapback]

 

That answer proves my point though, all you've done there is refer to to two posts where you replied sensibly to a post you agreed with, what Im saying is you appear to skim, see theyre not backing you up (regardless of what stance they are taking) and automatically spout the abuse, NOTHING in any post of SLPs has he taken a left wing stance but he got the abuse thrown his way.

149270[/snapback]

 

PP, if he calls me a "racialist" .... am I not entitled to call him back ?

 

And - he is the one who said "there is no middle ground", so he's either a "right wing racialist" or a "left wing do gooder". He implied it himself. If YOU read the post properly mate, you'll see that.

 

If I thought for a moment he was up for a proper debate, I would have replied that there is of course middle ground, there is always middle ground in any view.

149277[/snapback]

 

If its justified then yes, course you can however you would have had to had a total humour bypass to have read that post as anything other than a pisstake. For fucks sake he ends it with "all hail emperor Meenzer" or sumit.

149282[/snapback]

 

I've tried to resist biting on this, but enough. Having a medical qualification makes you no more or less qualified to comment on the subjects in this thread. However your continued insinuations that having a medical degree actually makes you more stupid are ridiculous beyond belief.

 

If this is what you believe then I can only hope that any medical attention you recieve in the future is from people as dim as you assume them to be, as you don't really deserve anything else.

149445[/snapback]

 

As I've said before, how do you know anything about me ?

 

You shouldn't make assumptions.

 

I would say that someone who has an understanding of a subject, lets say defence and security, has as much understanding of medical matters as someone who has an understanding of medical matters has of defence and security.

 

So - why does Renton insist he knows all about defence and security ?

 

Have I, for instance, insisted I know about medical matters ? I wouldn't do that, because I don't.

 

Is that a difficult concept ?

149531[/snapback]

 

I explained that I understood that concept in my post. It's higlighted in bold. What I took issue with was your consistent insinuations that not only did a medical qualification not help you understand defence issues, but possessing one actually inhibited your ability to come to grips with it. Which is bollocks.

[LeazesMag 0]

right Leazes lets get sumit straight, this threads gone to shit, I tried to sort it by asking a few simple questions to both you and Renton, he answered them you appear to be ignoring them, either answer the questions or Im locking the thread and people will make of that what they will, my own view will be that you didnt have the bollocks to give some honest answers.

149536[/snapback]

 

What you really want is an answer to question 1 [for Rentons sake]. I replied. As I am told I should learn to read, I think most of you lot should learn to read. If I have to spell it out, the answer has two letters in it. I am busy, I will hopefully come back to the rest when I have time.

[peasepud 59]

right Leazes lets get sumit straight, this threads gone to shit, I tried to sort it by asking a few simple questions to both you and Renton, he answered them you appear to be ignoring them, either answer the questions or Im locking the thread and people will make of that what they will, my own view will be that you didnt have the bollocks to give some honest answers.

149536[/snapback]

 

What you really want is an answer to question 1 [for Rentons sake]. I replied. As I am told I should learn to read, I think most of you lot should learn to read. If I have to spell it out, the answer has two letters in it. I am busy, I will hopefully come back to the rest when I have time.

149545[/snapback]

 

AY? YE?

 

I want an answer to them all, that way all the shite thats gone before from both sides can be put to rest.

[Guest alex]

Leazes mate, if you think my replies have become 'glib' in this thread, that's probably because I gave up trying to debate this point with you some time ago. Quite frankly, I'm amazed others are still trying to do so given the abuse you hurl at anyone who disagrees with you (or even people who have attempted to make light of the subject) and your general pig-headedness.