The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
3 tube station closed because of "incidents"
Anybody know what's going on, or is it just precaution?
Anybody know what's going on, or is it just precaution?
Page:
Looks like it's not just a few people on a mongboard that think it's not on
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4714691.stm[/URL]
"Tony Blair has said he is "desperately sorry" but urged people to support the police in "difficult circumstances" in the wake of the London bombings."
Ummm...we do Blair, nobody is complaining when they're asked to show the contents of their bags, I was asked twice on the Sunday after the 1st attacks and was only too happy too. Nobody is complaining when roads get cordoned off and delays, because we understand it needs to be done. There was universal praise for the emergency services during and after the incidents, they did a superb job and should be recognised.
However - a group of plain-clothed armed policeman jumping on an innocent Brazilian and shooting him 7 times in the head steps over the line.
And despite the gunning down of an innocent bloke, the plans for "anti-terror" laws plow full steam ahead.
Plans to use phone-taps as evidence are being considered, and the police wants to extend the amount of time somebody can be held without charge from 14 days to....anybody?...3 months.
You're going to see all manner of new laws being rushed/sneaked through under the umbrella of "anti-terror", because if you object then honest decent white christian folk will say "WHY? YOU'RE A TERRORIST SYMPATHISER THEN!!!!" and set fire to your koran.
This made me laugh, from another article on same site:
"Mr Blair again said terrorists should not be allowed to use the Iraq war as a justification for their "ideology".
Hmmmmm...now maybe I wasn't paying attention much, but...nope, I don't remember ANY terrorist attacks that weren't Irish before we invaded with less than stellar public backing, based on lies and misinformation.
But anybody that says "Hang on a minute" is going to branded a terrorist sympathiser, in much the same way that those who were opposed to the Iraq invasion were - despite being proved 100% accurate in their misgivings and reasons.
But hey, we toppled a vile dictator. Democracy was enforced in a country that, it would appear, aren't entirely happy with that (24,000 civilians dead so far and STILL hardly any basic infrastructres). So yeah, freedom won!!!! Just don't look at Zimbabwe (still being demolished as we speak), just as we didn't look at Pinochet (Belldandy's idiotic "he helped during the war" comment aside), just as a priest in Brazil who campaigned on behalf of the families allegedly murdered by police death squads was shot dead yesterday.
We've created the single best recruitment campaign for terrorism ever, we the taxpayers get to foot the bill, we the taxpayers get killed whilst going to work, Iraqi civilians die daily in bombs that don't even make the news any more. Hell, even the US approved Iraqi Police is recruiting "insurgents" [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4716531.stmp[/URL]
We're in dark days here. Politicians take us to war without asking us, despite a million people marching saying not to. Politicians start phoney wars to topple former-friendly politicians/dictators because they want the money back they lent. And we're caught in the middle, being blown up and lied to, phone-tapped and ID carded to protect us from...the guys responsible for last week's attempts (and the week before) weren't Iraqi insurgents (as the press would think all "terrorists" are), they were here leading lives the same as you and I.
A whole can of worms has been opened and spilt on the floor, and nobody has a damn clue on how to sort it out.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4714691.stm[/URL]
"Tony Blair has said he is "desperately sorry" but urged people to support the police in "difficult circumstances" in the wake of the London bombings."
Ummm...we do Blair, nobody is complaining when they're asked to show the contents of their bags, I was asked twice on the Sunday after the 1st attacks and was only too happy too. Nobody is complaining when roads get cordoned off and delays, because we understand it needs to be done. There was universal praise for the emergency services during and after the incidents, they did a superb job and should be recognised.
However - a group of plain-clothed armed policeman jumping on an innocent Brazilian and shooting him 7 times in the head steps over the line.
And despite the gunning down of an innocent bloke, the plans for "anti-terror" laws plow full steam ahead.
Plans to use phone-taps as evidence are being considered, and the police wants to extend the amount of time somebody can be held without charge from 14 days to....anybody?...3 months.
You're going to see all manner of new laws being rushed/sneaked through under the umbrella of "anti-terror", because if you object then honest decent white christian folk will say "WHY? YOU'RE A TERRORIST SYMPATHISER THEN!!!!" and set fire to your koran.
This made me laugh, from another article on same site:
"Mr Blair again said terrorists should not be allowed to use the Iraq war as a justification for their "ideology".
Hmmmmm...now maybe I wasn't paying attention much, but...nope, I don't remember ANY terrorist attacks that weren't Irish before we invaded with less than stellar public backing, based on lies and misinformation.
But anybody that says "Hang on a minute" is going to branded a terrorist sympathiser, in much the same way that those who were opposed to the Iraq invasion were - despite being proved 100% accurate in their misgivings and reasons.
But hey, we toppled a vile dictator. Democracy was enforced in a country that, it would appear, aren't entirely happy with that (24,000 civilians dead so far and STILL hardly any basic infrastructres). So yeah, freedom won!!!! Just don't look at Zimbabwe (still being demolished as we speak), just as we didn't look at Pinochet (Belldandy's idiotic "he helped during the war" comment aside), just as a priest in Brazil who campaigned on behalf of the families allegedly murdered by police death squads was shot dead yesterday.
We've created the single best recruitment campaign for terrorism ever, we the taxpayers get to foot the bill, we the taxpayers get killed whilst going to work, Iraqi civilians die daily in bombs that don't even make the news any more. Hell, even the US approved Iraqi Police is recruiting "insurgents" [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4716531.stmp[/URL]
We're in dark days here. Politicians take us to war without asking us, despite a million people marching saying not to. Politicians start phoney wars to topple former-friendly politicians/dictators because they want the money back they lent. And we're caught in the middle, being blown up and lied to, phone-tapped and ID carded to protect us from...the guys responsible for last week's attempts (and the week before) weren't Iraqi insurgents (as the press would think all "terrorists" are), they were here leading lives the same as you and I.
A whole can of worms has been opened and spilt on the floor, and nobody has a damn clue on how to sort it out.
"You're twice as brave"
8 shots from a group of people seems to suggest that one sat on the poor bloke whilst the others took turns, possibly the tip of their tongue poking out the corner of their mouth as they did so.
"No fair, you got two goes"
"No fair, you got two goes"
monkey_man wrote:
> 4 people, each getting 2 (almost) headshots on a moving target? Even
> held down, they'd have had to take turns, like shift work.
True, but the way it's been talked about on here, people seem to think one bloke unleashed 8 shots into the bloke.
My argument is that 8 shots sounds a lot, but if it's coming from more than one person, it isn't really as bad as it sounds.
Plus the fact, let's be honest, whether it's two or eight, the bloke is still dead.
> 4 people, each getting 2 (almost) headshots on a moving target? Even
> held down, they'd have had to take turns, like shift work.
True, but the way it's been talked about on here, people seem to think one bloke unleashed 8 shots into the bloke.
My argument is that 8 shots sounds a lot, but if it's coming from more than one person, it isn't really as bad as it sounds.
Plus the fact, let's be honest, whether it's two or eight, the bloke is still dead.
Your Honour wrote:
> They've each got a gun, they each should shoot. Simple as that.
4 people, each getting 2 (almost) headshots on a moving target? Even held down, they'd have had to take turns, like shift work.
I agree that it's a good thing the authorities are prepared to shoot people, but you've got to question the intelligence. There are still a few details that haven't been released yet, so the whole "But hez brailznean!1" argument will have to wait.
> They've each got a gun, they each should shoot. Simple as that.
4 people, each getting 2 (almost) headshots on a moving target? Even held down, they'd have had to take turns, like shift work.
I agree that it's a good thing the authorities are prepared to shoot people, but you've got to question the intelligence. There are still a few details that haven't been released yet, so the whole "But hez brailznean!1" argument will have to wait.
Forest Fan wrote:
> So you don't think you should prevent terrorists from killing
> innocent lives then?
A: He wasn't a terrorist.
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?
C: The amount of glee and satisfaction you clearly take at the ending of a life, anyones life makes you as much of a fundamentalist idiot as the headwrongs who blow themselves up. And at least they've got the courage to do it themselves, rather than sitting by the sidelines with a semi-on at the thought of someone being killed.
D: I'll pick holes in pretty much everything you say, whether I agree with it or not, just for the fun of dredging your blinkered, self-absorbed little mind out of it's fixed-pattern doldrums. Think yourself lucky I haven't started a new thread asking you to explain your Jewish Christianity again...
> So you don't think you should prevent terrorists from killing
> innocent lives then?
A: He wasn't a terrorist.
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?
C: The amount of glee and satisfaction you clearly take at the ending of a life, anyones life makes you as much of a fundamentalist idiot as the headwrongs who blow themselves up. And at least they've got the courage to do it themselves, rather than sitting by the sidelines with a semi-on at the thought of someone being killed.
D: I'll pick holes in pretty much everything you say, whether I agree with it or not, just for the fun of dredging your blinkered, self-absorbed little mind out of it's fixed-pattern doldrums. Think yourself lucky I haven't started a new thread asking you to explain your Jewish Christianity again...
Light wrote:
> It's back, and it's showing as much "Christian" forgiveness
> as ever...
So you don't think you should prevent terrorists from killing innocent lives then?
> It's back, and it's showing as much "Christian" forgiveness
> as ever...
So you don't think you should prevent terrorists from killing innocent lives then?
Sibs wrote:
> Whatever their suspiscions, there was absolutely no need
> for eight shots to be fired at someone from point blank range. These
> are supposed to be trained professionals for chrissakes...
But there was more than one bloke with a gun. Perhaps there were 4, which is two shots each.
What do you want them to do? Stand around discussing who's going to do it?
They've each got a gun, they each should shoot. Simple as that.
> Whatever their suspiscions, there was absolutely no need
> for eight shots to be fired at someone from point blank range. These
> are supposed to be trained professionals for chrissakes...
But there was more than one bloke with a gun. Perhaps there were 4, which is two shots each.
What do you want them to do? Stand around discussing who's going to do it?
They've each got a gun, they each should shoot. Simple as that.
And don't forget the eighth shot to his shoulder... Just for good luck.
And remember when they announced the guy was dead and said every effort was made to revive him...? I'm suprised they could find the poor sods mouth in that mess...
Anyway, while five shots (to a non-specific area) was pretty questionable, seven shots to the head (and eight overall) is just overkill. Whatever their suspiscions, there was absolutely no need for eight shots to be fired at someone from point blank range. These are supposed to be trained professionals for chrissakes...
And remember when they announced the guy was dead and said every effort was made to revive him...? I'm suprised they could find the poor sods mouth in that mess...
Anyway, while five shots (to a non-specific area) was pretty questionable, seven shots to the head (and eight overall) is just overkill. Whatever their suspiscions, there was absolutely no need for eight shots to be fired at someone from point blank range. These are supposed to be trained professionals for chrissakes...
Seven times in th...wtf?! He must have been pretty still to accomplish that. It was an execution.
Page: