Eric Arthur Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Not entirely true. When it goes wrong it really goes wrong. Your ilk of course just see this type of death as collateral...see, he looks a bit "Muslimy"? Your single exception sort of proves that there isn't a major problem about shoot to kill unless you happen to be the single exception running away from armed police who are asking you to stop running away because they think that you might be a terrorist heading into the underground the day after a failed bombing and two weeks after 7/7. Sometimes *** happens. See? Have you got something to say that's more convincing? ---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 13:00 ---------- If Jeremy corbyn really wants to stop the war he needs to go out and try and talk to Isis Wise words indeed. Corbyn's full of bright ideas about what other people should do with terrorists but he's not so hot on doing it himself for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Seems a woman has blown herself up with a suicide belt,why don't we ever see their leaders blow themselves up?Because they know that the dogma that they drill into their followers is nonsense? I do wonder if Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Pope or Dalai Lama would pass a polygraph on their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Your single exception sort of proves that there isn't a major problem No, the point is you were wrong, as usual. When someone is gunned down there is always a problem, especially if the person being gunned down is innocent as well as looking a bit 'Muslimy' you bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 No, the point is you were wrong, as usual. When someone is gunned down there is always a problem, especially if the person being gunned down is innocent as well as looking a bit 'Muslimy' you bigot. Do you know what the word bigot means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) Do you know what the word bigot means? Cassity seems to have a general problem with the meaning of words, especially when they are strung together to make sentences. I imagine it's like that episode in Father Ted where Dougal has problems with the difference between reality and dreams. Edited November 18, 2015 by Eric Arthur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Do you know what the word bigot means? Yes. .................... ---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 13:51 ---------- Cassity seems to have a general problem with the meaning of words, especially when they are strung together to make sentences. Why, because you made a statement and were proven incorrect then proceeded to bleat justify with "exception". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Why, because you made a statement and were proven incorrect then proceeded to bleat justify with "exception". Rubbish. If armed police tell you to do something and you do the opposite, all bets are off. Off you pop to try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Rubbish. If armed police tell you to do something They didn't. and you do the opposite, He didn't. You're just an apologist, a lying one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Shoot to kill isn't new, so is there some problem that needs addressing? Are people who look a bit muslimy being gunned down, killed or wounded, at all or ever? No they aren't. Debate away but use something real instead of a problem that you dreamed up. We don't have shoot to kill in this country as a default position. In fact it's the last possible usage of force allowable. That should not change. Of course the police should be allowed to shoot to kill, if in their opinion that is the right course of action. If they turn up a scene with a clearly identified suicide bomber (real or pretend doesn't matter if the police believe he is real-same as with toy guns) and this man is going towards a group of people then clearly shoot him. No debate needed. But the world is not so black and white. That's all. Noone is saying, at least I hope not, that we should never have anyone shot and killed because that's ludicrous, but equally it SHOULD NEVER be the go to stance either. I really hope we can find some middle ground because this is tiresome. I don't disagree with you quite as much as you think I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Yes. .................... ---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 13:51 ---------- Why, because you made a statement and were proven incorrect then proceeded to bleat justify with "exception". Well why did you use it incorrectly in reference to Eric? Explain how he has been a bigot in this thread please? You are using a silly edge case and presenting it as the norm and therefore something society should base policy on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts