Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[amateur51]

Hmm. Those responsible for turning police into soldiers are senior police and politicians. It was their decisions and policies that caused it. No doubt it was understandable - and 'correct' - given the emergence of terrorists and other armed criminals with access to fairly sophisticated weapons and backup.

But when we blame changes such as these on something other than the immediate cause, we increase the latitude we allow the authorities in the case of (say) terrorism. They can't do anything else, can they? - they're only responding to a threat, after all. And we accept it. This is not, in general, a 'good thing'. Our political servants should act with the greatest circumspection; we have a 'free' society (now there's a topic :erm:) and we should hold them to account for every action that threatens our freedom.

Bravo! Well said, Pabs :ela::ok:

[amateur51]

And as far as the level of threat goes, if you have access to the current intelligence situation relating to ongoing terror activity, then feel free to share it with us.

And you're throwing around the charge of complacency, Mr Pee? :erm:

[Mr Pee]

And you're throwing around the charge of complacency, Mr Pee? :erm:

Sorry, don't quite get your drift.

[amateur51]

Sorry, don't quite get your drift.

Do you recall how the Met responded initially to the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes by one of its officers at Stockwell tube station?

They told us that de Menezes had failed to stop when challenged - he wasn't challenged. He leapt over the ticket barrier - he didn't. He was wearing inappropriately thick clothing for the time of year - he wasn't etc etc.

They even kept Sir Ian Blair, Met Chief Commissioner out of the loop for 24 hours. Their priority was clearly convering their backs.

To say that they know best strikes me as complacency.

[Mr Pee]

To say that they know best strikes me as complacency.

OK, well that's your prerogative. I rather think that whatever the cock-ups over the Menezes affair, the police service have our best interests at heart and know a hell of a lot more about what's going on out there than we do.

[amateur51]

OK, well that's your prerogative. I rather think that whatever the cock-ups over the Menezes affair, the police service have our best interests at heart and know a hell of a lot more about what's going on out there than we do.

com·pla·cen·cy
[kuhm-pley-suhn-see] Show IPA
noun, plural com·pla·cen·cies.
1.
a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.

Yup that just about covers it :ok:

[Mr Pee]

com·pla·cen·cy
[kuhm-pley-suhn-see] Show IPA
noun, plural com·pla·cen·cies.
1.
a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.

Yup that just about covers it :ok:

It certainly perfectly covers a lot of the posts on here, which seem to think that just because we haven't been bombed in the UK for a while, there is no longer a threat worth worrying about and that the levels of security decided as appropriate by those in the know is therefore little more than scare-mongering by the Government.

Thanks for illustrating my point so well. :ok:

[amateur51]

It certainly perfectly covers a lot of the posts on here, which seem to think that just because we haven't been bombed in the UK for a while, there is no longer a threat worth worrying about and that the levels of security decided as appropriate by those in the know is therefore little more than scare-mongering by the Government.

Thanks for illustrating my point so well. :ok:

Yeah, right :laugh:

[scottycelt]

Hmm. Those responsible for turning police into soldiers are senior police and politicians. It was their decisions and policies that caused it. No doubt it was understandable - and 'correct' - given the emergence of terrorists and other armed criminals with access to fairly sophisticated weapons and backup.

But when we blame changes such as these on something other than the immediate cause, we increase the latitude we allow the authorities in the case of (say) terrorism. They can't do anything else, can they? - they're only responding to a threat, after all. And we accept it. This is not, in general, a 'good thing'. Our political servants should act with the greatest circumspection; we have a 'free' society (now there's a topic :erm:) and we should hold them to account for every action that threatens our freedom.

So what you are basically saying is that the authorities suddenly woke up one morning and said .. 'hey, what a super idea it might be to provide our police with armoured cars and machine guns, and we can just use terrorism as an excuse' ... and with all the cost that entails?

The simple fact is that urban terrorism has changed the goalposts as far as public security is concerned. A bobby on the beat armed with a truncheon is no longer adequate protection faced with murderers possessing guns and bombs, and hi-jacked planes full of passengers being deliberately plunged into buildings. What freedom does any law-abiding citizen lose by the presence of a police officer with a gun at vulnerable bomb-planting spots like rail stations and airports? It may not be 'a good thing' but it might well be 'a necessary thing'.

It is the terrorists/armed criminals who are wholly responsible for the need to increasingly arm the police in democratic countries all over the free world. Nobody or nothing else. So blame them, not the police or politicians, who are merely responding (as is their duty) to a dreadful new reality.

[Flosshilde]

What freedom does any law-abiding citizen lose by the presence of a police officer with a gun at vulnerable bomb-planting spots like rail stations and airports?

Their life?

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/29/ukcrime1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516

[Pabmusic]

So what you are basically saying is that the authorities suddenly woke up one morning and said .. 'hey, what a super idea it might be to provide our police with armoured cars and machine guns, and we can just use terrorism as an excuse' ... and with all the cost that entails? ...It is the terrorists/armed criminals who are wholly responsible for the need to increasingly arm the police in democratic countries all over the free world. Nobody or nothing else. So blame them, not the police or politicians, who are merely responding (as is their duty) to a dreadful new reality.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post, Scotty. I'm not saying the actions were unjustified (actually, I implied they were justified) but I pointed out the fact that, although you respond legitimately to a threat, what you actually do is down to you, not to the cause of the threat.

There were many options open to the authorities and they chose one of them. They might have interned all people who looked suspicious; they might have prohibited all movement in and out of the country; they might have restricted all availability of the internet. And a lot more besides (they might have simply killed all foreign-looking young men, for instance). Could we then say that it'd all been the terrorists' fault? To shift the burden of responsibility on people who did not make the decisions (albeit that they provided the stimulus) is to allow a very wide licence to those in authority.

[Mr Pee]

So what you are basically saying is that the authorities suddenly woke up one morning and said .. 'hey, what a super idea it might be to provide our police with armoured cars and machine guns, and we can just use terrorism as an excuse' ... and with all the cost that entails?

The simple fact is that urban terrorism has changed the goalposts as far as public security is concerned. A bobby on the beat armed with a truncheon is no longer adequate protection faced with murderers possessing guns and bombs, and hi-jacked planes full of passengers being deliberately plunged into buildings. What freedom does any law-abiding citizen lose by the presence of a police officer with a gun at vulnerable bomb-planting spots like rail stations and airports? It may not be 'a good thing' but it might well be 'a necessary thing'.

It is the terrorists/armed criminals who are wholly responsible for the need to increasingly arm the police in democratic countries all over the free world. Nobody or nothing else. So blame them, not the police or politicians, who are merely responding (as is their duty) to a dreadful new reality.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/ha...y-emoticon.gif

Spot on Scotty.

[Mr Pee]

Their life?

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/29/ukcrime1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516

From the first article, Menezes:-

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public.

"This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility."

For once Ken is talking sense. Didn't you read that far Flossie?

From the second article:-

Two Metropolitan police officers fired the shots after mistakenly being informed that Mr Stanley had a sawn-off shotgun.

So once again, they thought there was an imminent threat to life. Or should they wait until they get shot, just to be sure?

From the third:-

BBC News understands firearms officers discharged their weapons in the belief there was a threat to human life.

And Mark Duggan was a known criminal, who was brandishing an illegal firearm.

It is all too easy, with the benefit of hindsight, a hot cappuccino, soothing music in the background, and the luxury of hours to study every little piece of evidence, and every cirumstance, to say that police officers acted wrongly or unlawfully. But for the officers on the scene, who might have a split second to decide, it is not so easy. Make a wrong decision one way, and they or their colleagues could be killed. Make a wrong decision the other, and the massed ranks of Guardian readers will be down on them like a ton of bricks.

On second thoughts, maybe the first option isn't so bad after all......:erm:

[Pabmusic]

....

Spot on Scotty.

And here's the problem. Scotty says "It is the terrorists/armed criminals who are wholly responsible for the need to increasingly arm the police in democratic countries all over the free world. Nobody or nothing else. So blame them, not the police or politicians, who are merely responding (as is their duty) to a dreadful new reality". So presumably by this very clear-cut view, all actions of the police in response to terrorism/armed criminals must be justified, whatever it is. The cause justifies the means, always. However good or bad the intelligence is, however clear or muddled the strategy is, the authorities are right because it's all the fault of the criminals. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, so we must stop him.

It is muddled thinking and it creates a justification for anything.

[scottycelt]

Their life?

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/29/ukcrime1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516

So presumably you are also against motor vehicles because some people die in road accidents, would like to halt air travel because some people lose their lives in rare and unfortunate plane crashes, and would disband the NHS because of the odd mass-murdering employee like Harold Shipman .. ? :erm: