Viewing Thread:
"Not again?"

3 tube station closed because of "incidents"
Anybody know what's going on, or is it just precaution?

Yeah, sorry about that mate. Like I say; that's the last one in this thread from me. I'll be starting up a new one if he's gonna pursue it.

God, I hope so...

Here we again, an on-topic thread starts to careen wildly into "But you said" "No I didn't " "Yes you did" "Not" "Did" quotepost marathons
*sigh*

Forest Fan wrote:

>
> Obviously, and they shouldn't have shot him. It wasn't a split second
> decision from what I gather, they had no reason to shoot him and the
> police were in the wrong in my opinion. But I agree with the general
> principle of disabling terrorists by shooting to kill.

So...they followed him from a block of flats, chased him into a tube station, ran after him, and made (to the best of my knowledge) no initial attempt to stop him prior to this chase...all in a split second?

And I note you make no attempt to address my accusation that you're taking sickening pleasure in the death of someone whom you believed to be a terrorist.

> One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to
> preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to
> terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let
> innocents die.

And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?

Leaving aside my amusement at seeing you go from "Catholicism is the work of the devil" to quoting a Catholic saint, did Aquinas say that you should take pleasure in preserving life and protecting the innocent by means of killing? St Thomas referred to the Capital Sentence when he talked of protecting the innocent, which implies a due process. Where is the due process in chasing a man down and shooting him in the head?

Have you looked at the Evangelium Vitae, which states quite clearly that;

The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral"

Or maybe The Catechism which, quoting the instruction "Donum vitae," states,

"God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"

Or, again, can I ask you to reconsider that whole wacky "Thou shalt not kill" principle that you seem to have forgotten?



> Well that's the truth, isn't it?

Yes, it is. And, as I said, I do so because you never, EVER think about what you're saying. You spout a learned-by-rote slogan that you don't even understand. And I take great enjoyment making you think, seeing as you clearly dislike doing so. Your petulant running away once your "jewish christianity" lying was dissected gave that away.

Now then; that's enough for this thread. If you want to continue this, I'll start a new thread for it.

How was it a split second decision?

Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> So you don't think you should prevent terrorists from killing
> innocent lives then?
>
> A: He wasn't a terrorist.

Obviously, and they shouldn't have shot him. It wasn't a split second decision from what I gather, they had no reason to shoot him and the police were in the wrong in my opinion. But I agree with the general principle of disabling terrorists by shooting to kill.

> B: I believe you'll find that one of the main Christian virtues is
> forgiveness; did you read something else into "turn the other
> cheek", or did I miss the chapter where Jesus emptied a clip
> into Pilate's head? Or, if you're going to attempt to use the Old
> Testament via your wacky beliefs, which part of "Thou shalt not
> kill" is causing you difficulty?

One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let innocents die.

> D: I'll pick holes in pretty much everything you say, whether I agree
> with it or not,

Well that's the truth, isn't it?

I don't have any sympahty for the officers that sat on his back and shot him in the head seven times.

They'll get away with it though and anybody that complains will be a commie-terrorist-rapist.

I think we should vote to grant Chancellor Blair more powers during this time of crisis. He will build a grand army of the Republic.

I feel sorry for everyone involved. Yeah I feel kinda sorry for the police involved in this as well.

Light:

The way I see it, everyone gets one chance. One mistake if you like. With everyone being so damn jumpy, I guess a mistake like this was inevitable. And I can accept that (it's easy to accept when it's not my brains splattered across the floor...).

But that means the police have used up their one chance. And they've done so disturbingly early on. I can see people still being supportive of police efforts even after this one incident. But after a second? Or a third? Who in their right mind* would support seemingly random shootings which create as much terror as the bombs did?


amen to that

The way I see it, everyone gets one chance. One mistake if you like. With everyone being so damn jumpy, I guess a mistake like this was inevitable. And I can accept that (it's easy to accept when it's not my brains splattered across the floor...).

But that means the police have used up their one chance. And they've done so disturbingly early on. I can see people still being supportive of police efforts even after this one incident. But after a second? Or a third? Who in their right mind* would support seemingly random shootings which create as much terror as the bombs did?


* - Yes, I am aware that the likes of Gump cannot be said to be in their right mind.