PDA

View Full Version : Blimey we shoot a known gangster its hand wring time yet the Kenyans use rockets



vetran
26th September 2013, 08:48
The destruction of massacre mall: First images show gaping chasm after three storeys collapsed when Kenyan forces 'fired rocket-propelled grenades' during siege | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432943/The-destruction-massacre-mall-First-images-gaping-chasm-storeys-collapsed-Kenyan-forces-fired-rocket-propelled-grenades-siege.html)


The destruction of massacre mall: First images show gaping chasm after three storeys collapsed when Kenyan forces 'fired rocket-propelled grenades' during siege
Minister had claimed collapse caused when terrorists set mattresses on fire
Al Shabaab said Kenyan assault team carried out 'demolition' of the building
Comes as forensic teams start working through the rubble to identify bodies

poor Bs.

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 08:54
Good, none of this softly softly worrying about the human rights of terrorists

I'd go one further though

Anyone found alive should be put to good use, like being used as replacements for animal testing

Why not test products on terrorists rather than animals, it would be for the greater good...

Ticktock
26th September 2013, 08:57
The destruction of massacre mall: First images show gaping chasm after three storeys collapsed when Kenyan forces 'fired rocket-propelled grenades' during siege | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432943/The-destruction-massacre-mall-First-images-gaping-chasm-storeys-collapsed-Kenyan-forces-fired-rocket-propelled-grenades-siege.html)



poor Bs.

Without clicking through, it appears that the headline (collapse caused by the Kenyan forces firing an RPG) is sourced from the terrorists making a statement claiming so...
Good job Daily Mail.

vetran
26th September 2013, 09:01
Without clicking through, it appears that the headline (collapse caused by the Kenyan forces firing an RPG) is sourced from the terrorists making a statement claiming so...
Good job Daily Mail.

no


It shows a gaping hole in the mall's roof left behind after three storeys collapsed when Kenyan soldiers fired rocket-propelled grenades inside, knocking out a support column, a government official said.

The official said the soldiers fired to distract a terrorist sniper so hostages could be evacuated.

Mich the Tester
26th September 2013, 09:09
I'd suggest that the Kenyan army found themselves in a rather more serious situation than trying to arrest one supposedly 'known gangster' and felt the situation called for measures that would in other circumstances be seen as extreme. I don't know which 'known gangster' you were referring too though.

Ticktock
26th September 2013, 09:11
no

Ah, like I said, didn't click through. Simply saw the headline, then
"Minister had claimed collapse caused when terrorists set mattresses on fire"
and
"Al Shabaab said Kenyan assault team carried out 'demolition' of the building"

vetran
26th September 2013, 09:14
I'd suggest that the Kenyan army found themselves in a rather more serious situation than trying to arrest one supposedly 'known gangster' and felt the situation called for measures that would in other circumstances be seen as extreme. I don't know which 'known gangster' you were referring too though.

which inquest is taking place now?


Agree it was a more challenging situation but it is unfortunate that they didn't appear to use international forces that are highly trained and effective in such hostage situations. Not sure taking a grenade launcher into a hostage situation would be part of my plan.

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 09:17
which inquest is taking place now?


Agree it was a more challenging situation but it is unfortunate that they didn't appear to use international forces that are highly trained and effective in such hostage situations. Not sure taking a grenade launcher into a hostage situation would be part of my plan.

A grenade launcher isn't ideal but probably all they had to hand

The Russians seem to have it right, pump gas into the building send in specialist forces wearing gas masks and shoot all the terrorists

Some hostages always die, but probably not as many as letting the siege carry on

Mich the Tester
26th September 2013, 09:17
which inquest is taking place now?



Dunno; I don't really follow UK news all that much.

Paddy
26th September 2013, 09:18
Good, none of this softly softly worrying about the human rights of terrorists

I'd go one further though

Anyone found alive should be put to good use, like being used as replacements for animal testing

Why not test products on terrorists rather than animals, it would be for the greater good...

The problem is that Islamic terrorists don’t fear death. What they do fear is bacon hence Russian special forces stuff bacon in their mouths and bury them in pig skin and pig fat. It tends to work. It would be better to stuff a pig’s willy in their mouth and then shoot them.

doodab
26th September 2013, 09:20
Why not test products on terrorists rather than animals, it would be for the greater good...

Why not go one step further and make products out of them?

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 09:23
Why not go one step further and make products out of them?

Soylent green is people!

vetran
26th September 2013, 09:25
Dunno; I don't really follow UK news all that much.

fair enough forget you escaped the excitement:

BBC News - Mark Duggan 'among Europe's most violent criminals', inquest told (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24210480)

His shooting was blamed for starting the Riots. Apparently a very unpleasant man who was shot by police.

vetran
26th September 2013, 09:28
Why not go one step further and make products out of them?

quite happy to test life saving drugs on convicted murderers, obviously with their consent.

so if Ian Brady gets cancer then we can test an aggressive cancer drug on him.

Mich the Tester
26th September 2013, 09:31
fair enough forget you escaped the excitement:

BBC News - Mark Duggan 'among Europe's most violent criminals', inquest told (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24210480)

His shooting was blamed for starting the Riots. Apparently a very unpleasant man who was shot by police.

Yep, but what is the connection with the Kenyan army's tactics in the siege? Two entirely unrelated incidents surely?

IronySon999
26th September 2013, 09:32
Yeah at least there are some people who know extreme violence usually solves most problems.
Namby pampy whining liberals.

vetran
26th September 2013, 09:43
Yep, but what is the connection with the Kenyan army's tactics in the siege? Two entirely unrelated incidents surely?

We are currently having an inquest about whether shooting a known felon with a history of gun violence and the left are jumping up & down about heavy handed police whilst the Kenyans use a grenade launcher. Similar hand wringing behaviour was seen when they arrested the two after the machete attack on Lee Rigby.

It was the two extremes that interested me.

Mich the Tester
26th September 2013, 09:48
We are currently having an inquest about whether shooting a known felon with a history of gun violence and the left are jumping up & down about heavy handed police whilst the Kenyans use a grenade launcher. Similar hand wringing behaviour was seen when they arrested the two after the machete attack on Lee Rigby.

It was the two extremes that interested me.

Surely it's absolutely right to hold an inquest on the use of guns in a case where a suspect has died? And what's this about 'the left'? Are you implying that anyone who wants to find out the truth of these cases is somehow from 'the left'?

Again, I'd suggest these were very different situations that are difficult to compare, and the comparison doesn't really inform debate very much.

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 10:04
Surely it's absolutely right to hold an inquest on the use of guns in a case where a suspect has died? And what's this about 'the left'? Are you implying that anyone who wants to find out the truth of these cases is somehow from 'the left'?

Again, I'd suggest these were very different situations that are difficult to compare, and the comparison doesn't really inform debate very much.

But the point is we live in a society where criminals have more rights than victims, hence I think he was just trying to outline the contrast

sasguru
26th September 2013, 10:15
But the point is we live in a society where criminals have more rights than victims, hence I think he was just trying to outline the contrast

Do we? How so?

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 10:23
Do we? How so?

Because the establisment wants us to live in fear

sasguru
26th September 2013, 13:32
Because the establisment wants us to live in fear

No the question was why do you think criminals have more rights than victims.?
Got any specifics you can tell me or are you JAC?:rolleyes:

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 13:45
No the question was why do you think criminals have more rights than victims.?
Got any specifics you can tell me or are you JAC?:rolleyes:

The human rights act, which strictly also gives rights to corporations as well

GBTNS ;)

Mich the Tester
26th September 2013, 13:47
The human rights act

Which articles give more rights to criminals than victims?

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 13:56
Which articles give more rights to criminals than victims?

It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

Citation required for when they don't

sasguru
26th September 2013, 13:57
It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

Citation required for when they don't

No you're the one making the claim, you have to prove it.
Can't be hard to give some examples if your claim is true.
Unless you're JAC.

Mich the Tester
26th September 2013, 13:58
It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

Citation required for when they don't

Well yes, you can argue about the interpretations just as you can argue over the interpretations of most laws, but why not tell us which particular articles you find objectionable first, before throwing a question back?

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 14:01
No you're the one making the claim, you have to prove it.
Can't be hard to give some examples if your claim is true.
Unless you're JAC.

Which bit don't you understand ?

Mich the Tester
26th September 2013, 14:03
Which bit don't you understand ?

I'm just guessing as to what he doesn't understand; the bit where you say the human rights act gives more rights to criminals than victims, and at least two of us were hoping you could show us the exact parts of the act that do that.

amcdonald
26th September 2013, 14:11
Well yes, you can argue about the interpretations just as you can argue over the interpretations of most laws, but why not tell us which particular articles you find objectionable first, before throwing a question back?

Ok look at this case (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/04/immigration.immigrationpolicy) ,explain why you think this balances the rights of the victims with the criminals ?

sasguru
26th September 2013, 14:12
Ok fair dos.
Although having read that, it doesn't support your claim that the victims are considered less than the criminals.
It's a more complex case than that. These guys were fleeing a murderous regime, they apologised for the fear they caused and their intention (which I maintain is important) was not to cause harm.

Mich the Tester
26th September 2013, 14:19
Ok look at this case (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/04/immigration.immigrationpolicy) ,explain why you think this balances the rights of the victims with the criminals ?


In the written ruling, Lord Justice Brooke said: "We commend the judge [Mr Justice Sullivan] for an impeccable judgment.
"The history of this case through the criminal courts ... has attracted a degree of opprobrium. Judges and adjudicators have to apply the law as they find it, and not as they might wish it to be."
"So far as the powers of the home secretary are concerned, the challenges created by the respondents' presence in this country have been apparent ever since they landed here over six years ago.
"There has been ample time for the home secretary to obtain appropriate Parliamentary authority, if he wished to be clothed with the powers he gave to himself without parliamentary sanction in the August 2005 asylum policy instructions."


In other words, the home secretary tried to use powers that he didn't have while he could have gained those powers by going through parliament and getting them on the statute book. The judgment balances the rights of everybody in that it clearly shows that a minister must not rule by decree, but by law.

So the (perhaps unfortunate) result of the case is either a consequence of the Home Secretary's incompetence or his disregard for parliament, or both, and not a consequence of the human rights act itself.

sasguru
26th September 2013, 14:22
In other words, the home secretary tried to use powers that he didn't have while he could have gained those powers by going through parliament and getting them on the statute book. The judgment balances the rights of everybody in that it clearly shows that a minister must not rule by decree, but by law.

So the (perhaps unfortunate) result of the case is either a consequence of the Home Secretary's incompetence or his disregard for parliament, or both, and not a consequence of the human rights act itself.

True. And I'd rather have an independent judiciary (even if that caused some criminals to go free) than have (like the vast majority of the world) a judiciary controlled by government for its own purposes.