Paris terrorist attacks this evening 13/11/15

[Tim R-T-C]

Yay, now Mr Corbyn saying that if these attacks occurred in London he would not support allowing the police to 'shoot to kill'

I'm not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general, I think that is quite dangerous and can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.

Suggestions that party members are not happy with his comments being so soon after the attacks. They do seem very poorly timed and going to isolate him further from the mainstream voters.

 

[Murph]

I'm not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general, I think that is quite dangerous and can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.

"Shoot to kill" is a fictitious invention of the media. There's reasonable justification to shoot or there isn't. If the justification to shoot is there, it's always to kill, and never to disarm. Shooting to disarm or disable is basically a fiction invented by the entertainment industry.

If some lunatic or evil scum is marauding around with deadly intent and the means to act on that intent, shooting them dead is usually the correct and best response.

 

[Johnuk123]

Yay, now Mr Corbyn saying that if these attacks occurred in London he would not support allowing the police to 'shoot to kill'

I'm not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general, I think that is quite dangerous and can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.

Suggestions that party members are not happy with his comments being so soon after the attacks. They do seem very poorly timed and going to isolate him further from the mainstream voters.

The report yesterday that Corbyn won't sit with labour mp's in the tearoom but sits with the SNP instead shows how far away from most of his own party members he is.

 

[A-driver]

Yay, now Mr Corbyn saying that if these attacks occurred in London he would not support allowing the police to 'shoot to kill'

I'm not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general, I think that is quite dangerous and can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.

Suggestions that party members are not happy with his comments being so soon after the attacks. They do seem very poorly timed and going to isolate him further from the mainstream voters.

I fully agree with his statement. If you read it properly rather than read it in the way the Tories and Murdoch want you to read it you will see he's basically saying he'd prefer the terrorists never got as far as a position in which they could be shot. Ie prevention is better than cure.

 

[miami]

Yay, now Mr Corbyn saying that if these attacks occurred in London he would not support allowing the police to 'shoot to kill'

I'm not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general, I think that is quite dangerous and can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.

Suggestions that party members are not happy with his comments being so soon after the attacks. They do seem very poorly timed and going to isolate him further from the mainstream voters.

I've never voted labour in my life, I have voted Tory, Lib Dem, Green and UKIP (and not always on the same ballot paper), so please don't take me as a Corbyn supporter, however I find it rather sad the way the media continues to misrepresent people.

It's sad that to be a high profile MP nowadays you don't need to have beliefs, you have to be media saavy, and ideally have them on side. Perhaps that's why politicians are on the whole a corrupt bunch.

In the 80s the police operated a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland, including the killing innocent teenagers like Michael Tighe by corrupt police officers who destroyed evidence. This policy continued more openly in 2005 with Jean Charles de Menezes, who was gunned down without a single warning (although at least then the police were just wrong, and at least one was inept, and mildly racist, but at least they weren't corrupt)

If a suspect (even if clearly guilty) were not an immediate threat to the officers or bystanders and not able to escape, should you

1) Shout "Stop or I'll shoot"
2) Kill them without warning

The police are there to bring suspects to trial so that a jury of their peers can examine the evidence in the cold light of day. Sometimes that's not possible, and deadly force has to be used, but the general policy should be to apprehend them and let the justice system work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I fully agree with his statement. If you read it properly rather than read it in the way the Tories and Murdoch want you to read it you will see he's basically saying he'd prefer the terrorists never got as far as a position in which they could be shot. Ie prevention is better than cure.

It was a BBC interview, and the BBC are spinning it in that direction.

Here's what he said:

I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive.

"I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know.

"But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing."

Anyone disagree with that statement?

 

[richw]

Shoot to kill is effectively police being judge and jury as well. Mistaken identities etc at risk

 

[A-driver]

As I say, I don't think for a second he is seriously suggesting the police should stand by and not shoot armed terrorists carrying out the kind of thing they did in Paris but his point quite clearly is that we should be concentrating on preventing these attacks even starting. Very similar to how his bin laden comments were misquoted.

 

[Oswyntail]

There are three lines quoted above.
The first assumes there is , or will be, a "shoot to kill policy". Clever boy! He is planting that in the minds of the audience as the context.
This is reinforced by his third line, conjuring up the picture of "war on the streets". Over-dramatising what has been said, to make his point appear more reasonable.
And his "point" is?

I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know.

Which says nothing, other than that "firing off weapons" is not nice. No alternative strategy, no policy, no evidence of having thought about the difficulties of the situation. Much as his utterances on the economy, welfare, transport, nuclear deterrence.....

 

[Tim R-T-C]

It just seems a rather pointless statement then, I don't think anyone out there thinks the police shouldn't bother to try and prevent these attacks and should just wait until they start shooting.

I know the media are playing these comments up, but he needs to be careful what he says, things are so easily being misinterpreted and unlike Boris Johnson who people view as a bumbling toff, Corbyn doesn't have mainstream support to start with and won't earn any with scarily left wing candour.

 

[miami]

I know the media are playing these comments up, but he needs to be careful what he says, things are so easily being misinterpreted and unlike Boris Johnson who people view as a bumbling toff, Corbyn doesn't have mainstream support to start with and won't earn any with scarily left wing candour.

This is the problem. Corbyn says what he thinks, and sadly honesty doesn't work if you're an MP.

Either that or he's a sleeper agent placed by the right wing.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is the problem. Corbyn says what he thinks, and sadly honesty doesn't work if you're an MP.

Either that or he's a sleeper agent placed by the right wing.

The Conservative Central Office must be absolutely enthralled that the Labour Party keep coming up with party leaders of the recent type....:roll:

 

[Hornet]

This is the problem. Corbyn says what he thinks, and sadly honesty doesn't work if you're an MP.

Either that or he's a sleeper agent placed by the right wing.

He didn't say much about his mates 'shoot to kill' policies in the 70's an 80's as I recall. He was quite welcoming to the leaders of a proscribed terrorist organisation.

 

[miami]

He didn't say much about his mates 'shoot to kill' policies in the 70's an 80's as I recall. He was quite welcoming to the leaders of a proscribed terrorist organisation.

True but he wasn't the only one.

The world is not full of "good people" and "bad people". Corbyn has lots of bad attributes, why I wouldn't vote for him (also I don't live in London thus can't vote for him), but the more he is attacked for things he didn't say, the more sympathy he gets.

As for Trident, and to try to steer back to France, how did those nukes help defend France? Have they blown up Damascus yet? Or Mosul? Or Dabiq?

When will France use nukes? When it's 1000 dead? 10,000? How about when children at primary school start being beheaded on live youtube streams?

The problem is that most of the attackers on Friday, like the attackers on July 7th, like the Charlie Hebbo attacks, were actually FROM FRANCE. How can you use nukes to fight back against yourself?

 

[Murph]

How can you use nukes to fight back against yourself?

The idea of having them is so that you never have to use them. It's the MAD doctrine (Mutually Assured Destruction). They safeguard against a rogue state or group with some form of weapon of mass destruction. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and can never be put back into the bottle. The probability of a rogue state or group appearing and being in possession of a nuke isn't particularly high, but it's non zero and real. Similarly, the probability of a rogue entity with a large scale biological or chemical weapon is non zero. There is also the problem of getting all of the "good" nuclear states to simultaneously disarm in a 100% verifiable way, and none of them want to end up disarming to discover that one or more of the other states pulled a fast one and didn't disarm.

Like it or not, nuclear weapons are now absolutely necessary, and basically can't be removed from the world. None of the attacks over the last 20 or so years have come anywhere close to giving justification for their use.

N.B. If the world is ever falling apart, citizens of the UK need to ensure that BBC Radio 4 puts out the Today programme on schedule, as it's one of the final safeguards in our nuclear deterrent. If command and control goes offline AND the Today programme also goes off air, launch authority defaults back to the subs (and the sealed letters of last resort).

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the problem. Corbyn says what he thinks, and sadly honesty doesn't work if you're an MP.

As with John Smith, a previous very honest Labour leader who sadly died before he could contest a general election, he has a very high chance of getting my vote for being honest.

It is a trait for which I have a great deal of respect.

 

[Johnuk123]

The idea of having them is so that you never have to use them. It's the MAD doctrine (Mutually Assured Destruction). They safeguard against a rogue state or group with some form of weapon of mass destruction. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and can never be put back into the bottle. The probability of a rogue state or group appearing and being in possession of a nuke isn't particularly high, but it's non zero and real. Similarly, the probability of a rogue entity with a large scale biological or chemical weapon is non zero. There is also the problem of getting all of the "good" nuclear states to simultaneously disarm in a 100% verifiable way, and none of them want to end up disarming to discover that one or more of the other states pulled a fast one and didn't disarm.

Like it or not, nuclear weapons are now absolutely necessary, and basically can't be removed from the world. None of the attacks over the last 20 or so years have come anywhere close to giving justification for their use.

N.B. If the world is ever falling apart, citizens of the UK need to ensure that BBC Radio 4 puts out the Today programme on schedule, as it's one of the final safeguards in our nuclear deterrent. If command and control goes offline AND the Today programme also goes off air, launch authority defaults back to the subs (and the sealed letters of last resort).

There have been many reports about ISIS desperately trying to buy nuclear material with the vast amount of cash they have, I wonder how many countries will think now is a good time to get rid of nuclear weapons.

 

[Oswyntail]

As with John Smith, a previous very honest Labour leader who sadly died before he could contest a general election, he has a very high chance of getting my vote for being honest.

It is a trait for which I have a great deal of respect.

Honesty is all very well. But when, as in the current case, he is honestly saying he really has no idea what to do, it is not, to me, a great vote-winner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Honesty is all very well. But when, as in the current case, he is honestly saying he really has no idea what to do, it is not, to me, a great vote-winner.

Better to say you don't at this stage know the correct approach than to go barrelling in with the wrong approach. "Watchful waiting" is a valid technique in medical circles, and may also be one in political circles.

"Something must be done" is not necessarily always true. Sometimes it's better to do nothing for a bit while a proper plan is formulated.

 

[Johnuk123]

Better to say you don't at this stage know the correct approach than to go barrelling in with the wrong approach. "Watchful waiting" is a valid technique in medical circles, and may also be one in political circles.

"Something must be done" is not necessarily always true. Sometimes it's better to do nothing for a bit while a proper plan is formulated.

When a suicide bomber is walking about watchful waiting isn't really an option.

 

[WelshBluebird]

As I suspected, the whole issue of the attackers having Syrian passports turns out to be a lot more complicated.

As I have said before, it makes perfect sense that the Syrian passport found could well have just been a plant from ISIS to make us blame migrants and turn against them and other Muslims. Why else would they have a passport on them when they are going to blow themselves up? To provoke us. Sadly based on what I have seen on social media, they have managed to do so .

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...with-syrian-passport-matching-paris-attackers

 

[richw]

As I suspected, the whole issue of the attackers having Syrian passports turns out to be a lot more complicated.

As I have said before, it makes perfect sense that the Syrian passport found could well have just been a plant from ISIS to make us blame migrants and turn against them and other Muslims. Why else would they have a passport on them when they are going to blow themselves up? To provoke us. Sadly based on what I have seen on social media, they have managed to do so .

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...with-syrian-passport-matching-paris-attackers

Indeed, the passport owner died months ago, and they have found other migrants carrying the same passport with just a different photo. The person carrying it is believed to be a Belgian.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think we can assume to a high degree of certainty that they're going to be citizens of EU nations and I would also place a wage on most of them (if not all) having been born in the EU just like the Charlie Hebdo attackers and just like three of the four July 7 bombers (and the fourth was born in Jamaica and had lived in the UK from age five).

So far the vast majority of perpetrators of crimes like this that have been following the creed of Islamic extremism have been home grown. They were either born here or came to live here at young age (obviously there are some exceptions to this such as one of the perpetrators of the Glasgow Airport attack in 2007 who was Indian by birth and grew up in Saudi Arabia the other was a British citizen by birth).

So the question we should be asking ourselves is how can people grow up in a first world country like France or Britain and end up deciding that they need to kill people and/or blow themselves up and how can we stop other people reaching that conclusion?

The issue, for me, with the migrants is purely volume. Can Europe cope with potentially millions of migrants arriving in a very short space of time? Can we find housing for them, school places, can the medical services cope? How will we manage to integrate people who come from a very different culture to our own? Will they have the skills to enable to find work? Failing to resolve those issues will almost certainly cause huge social strife but that won't likely happen for many years from now. Even when it does I wouldn't be surprised if, again, it is the children of those that are now arriving either who were born here or grew up here that are the ones perpetrating the crimes. Which leads me back to the earlier question. Why and what can we do to address that?

It might be easy to blame the migrants for what has happened but I can't help but feel that that would be intellectually dishonest considering what we've seen over the past ten or fifteen years.

 

[Tetchytyke]

ISIS, like any cult, feed on the vulnerable. The people in charge are not religious, they're not interested in death, they're interested in power. How they grab power depends on the situation, but they use vulnerable young people as the heavies to get it. They use the angry, the bitter, the excluded, the bored and get them to do unspeakable things in their name. It's the same in this country as it is anywhere else.

ISIS grew out of the remnants of the Ba'ath party in Iraq (which we went to war to eradicate) and al Qaeda in Iraq (which we went to war to eradicate). And the destruction caused by the power vacuum in Iraq gave them their strength. Wading in with the drones and the bombs might make us feel better in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist atrocity, but the evidence throughout history is that it doesn't work. You cannot beat guerrillas with a conventional army. Napoleon Bonaparte learned this the hard way in 1810, yet two hundred years later we're trying to do the same thing again. There's a name for people who keep doing the same thing expecting a different outcome.

The truth is that you only beat terrorists by giving them something to lose. That's how the situation in Northern Ireland was resolved; it was the same in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia. As it stands, I firmly believe that wading in without thinking is only going to store up more problems for us down the line. I thought that in 2004 too and I was proven right; bombing the hell out of "evil" Saddam Hussein just gave us ISIS. I bet most people would rather have Saddam back.

 

[Johnuk123]

German match against Holland stopped an hour and a half before kick-off due to "concrete bomb threat" truck bomb disguised as an ambulance is the rumour.
Music concert in Hannover also stopped due to credible bomb threat.

Hannover Chief of Police: "there were concrete plans to use explosives in the football stadium"

Merkel in a crisis meeting so it looks like Germany is the next country to feel the wrath of disturbed Islamist's.

 

[Murph]

It might be easy to blame the migrants for what has happened but I can't help but feel that that would be intellectually dishonest considering what we've seen over the past ten or fifteen years.

You are quite correct that it's both too easy and wrong to blame the migrants. There is, however, a valid concern that there could very well be terrorists or just plain evil criminals taking advantage of the large numbers of migrants to basically hide in the crowd as a means of entering the EU. To me, it's impossible that there's not very bad people who need to be found somewhere in the midst of the vast majority of basically good people who are simply trying to escape to a better part of the world.

I don't have any specific suggestions of how that can be addressed, only a belief that there's a real risk that the current crisis may have opened a path for such things.

 

[Johnuk123]

You are quite correct that it's both too easy and wrong to blame the migrants. There is, however, a valid concern that there could very well be terrorists or just plain evil criminals taking advantage of the large numbers of migrants to basically hide in the crowd as a means of entering the EU. To me, it's impossible that there's not very bad people who need to be found somewhere in the midst of the vast majority of basically good people who are simply trying to escape to a better part of the world.

I don't have any specific suggestions of how that can be addressed, only a belief that there's a real risk that the current crisis may have opened a path for such things.

It simply doesn't make sense at this period in time to admit literally millions of fit young men from areas of terrorism and war.
Considering that so many are already in Europe if they stopped the whole lot tommorow it would make little difference the damage is done.
Saying that I fully accept that the great majority will be genuine and if I was in Syria I would leave as well, it's a terrible situation to be in, one that most people can only imagine.

 

[richw]

Now been confirmed an "ambulance" full of explosives was found by police near to the Hannover stadium this evening.

 

[miami]

When a suicide bomber is walking about watchful waiting isn't really an option.

Fortunately the PM is never in a position to order a police officer to shoot, and if they did issue such an order it would be meaningless in court.

The authority to shoot for a UK policeman isn't a James Bond "license to kill", it's the same as anyone else, at least in law.

The only person who is legally responsible for pulling the trigger is the police officer holding the gun.

That officer must be able to justify under the law that their action amounted to reasonable force to protect themselves or others.

That means no chief constable, let alone a minister, would be ever able to tell an armed officer how to respond to the specific scene before them.

So if the officer could show the only way to stop a bomber was to shoot them in the head, then he or she would be legally entitled to do so.

In practice of course innocent Brazilian plumbers are fair game, but that wasn't Tony Blair, or even Cressida Dick making the call.

 

[DarloRich]

exactly! The officer on the ground is both responsible and accountable for opening fire. Corbyn would have no direct control over armed police.

Members of the armed forces would be a different proposition.

 

[Johnuk123]

exactly! The officer on the ground is both responsible and accountable for opening fire. Corbyn would have no direct control over armed police.

Members of the armed forces would be a different proposition.

I don't think anybody on here has said Corbyn would have that responsibility.