UK =Israel?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Letterwritingman, Jul 26, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. yes

  2. no

  3. in certain circumstances

  4. dont know

  1. Now that it is generally accepted and found acceptable that the Met Pol operates a 'shoot to kill' policy do British Liberals still retain the moral highground with regard to the way Israeli Security Forces Police their particular 'War on Terror' or is there a difference?

  2. I'm not sure the Liberals are against a "shoot to kill" policy in the context of suicide bombers. I think they have more issues with Israel's percieved land grab, illegal settlements, bulldozing houses etc. etc. It would take a really left liberal to complain about an Israeli cop shooting a suicide bomber.
  3. I'd suggest that those who are rabidly libertarian will campaign against the British decision and continue to lobby against Israel. Those 'trendies' who were happy to campaign against Israel all the time that they were safe will no doubt seek comfort from the new directive and amongst this group there will be those who wind their necks in and those who, safe in the knowledge that their ranting will be ignored, will continue to criticise the Israeli policy and the new British one. Hypocrites!
  4. To be fair - we arent exactly at the point of slotting kids on the streets for throwing stones at the police/SF

    although, thinking about it......
  5. Agreed, the large majority are critical of the overall policy of Israel toward the Palestinians, however there are as ever the 'extreme' liberals who argue that the suicide bombers in Israel are freedom fighters attempting to reclaim their territory so are supportive of them seeing that the end justifies the means. These liberals have no such argument against the British policy, so I expect to see arguments about language difficulties / freedom of movement / the deaf rolled out.
  6. Yes, in context. The police only operate a shoot to kill policy for bombers. And last weeks events are unfortunate, but the bloke did fit all the criteria to be taken out. IE: Living in a flat being monitored, acting suspiciously, failing to stop when challenged by police, running into the tube station, jumping over barriers and diving onto a tube train which had just recently been bombed. If thats not suspicious behaviour, what is.

    i've said it before, its unfortunate he died, but when you act like that, what do you expect. He obviously had a guilty consience!

  7. I don't think you can compare the situation in UK with that of Israel. The only similarity is the suicide bombers. The aims of the terrorists are different. They have vastly different support networks and indeed support of their own populations. The Israelis haven't exactly been whiter than white but they are also under very different pressures than us and, hence, have employed methods that are questionable to anyone not faced with the daily risks that they face.
  8. Being a strong supporter of Israel, I'm currently sitting here wearing an IDF T-Shirt that I bought from my last visit there, I have never had a problem with Israeli policies.

    British Liberals have no right to adopt the moral high ground above any person, Liberals are nothing more than idealistic dreamers with no grip on reality. Liberals will always complain about any policy we adopt in order to control and neutralise terrorism, I wonder how liberal they will be when one of their family members has to be scraped up and put in a small plastic bag, one would expect they would soon take a realistic view on the current terrorist situation.

  9. Your point?

    either they operate a shoot to kill or they dont......... we now acknowledge that Met Pol do so; given that Terrorism is Terrorism no matter what, can Liberals still condemn Israel for its policies however questionable while our Police have the tacit agreement of the highest and lowest in using the ultimate sanction?
  10. Maybe these extreme liberals will justify our home grown suicide bombers on the basis of all the nasty things the West has done to Islam! Luckily, I don't think anyone will pay them any attention. Arguments about language and the deaf are valid but it will just be a problem that the police will have to consider and, if not overcome, then make a judgement on case by case. I would imagine that deaf people will be relatively easy to recognise as they will just carry on walking as if nothing is happening!
  11. Perhaps they should be called murder bombers, suicide suggests something alot less vicous.
    The similarity lies in the method of delivering the terror.
    There is a difference with these bombers from those in Israel, the London bombers are British nationals, brought up as citizens, etc, etc. These bombers live among the people that they want to target, without crossing borders or security checkpoints.
  12. My point was that the "shoot to kill policy" is only one of many extreme measures employed by the Israelis. For examle: if the UK find Mr Big we are not allowed to assasinate him unless he is about to carry out an attack. Where as the Israelis are happy to lob a rocket at a house or car containing a terrorist leader and accept any potential collateral damage, because they don't know when they will get the opportunity to kill him again.
  13. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    ......nor have we tasked Flash and his mates to take out Abu Hamza from an Apache at 500 feet......

    Israel's thirty year policy of extra judicial assassination is a long way from an adrenalised copper putting EIGHT rounds into someone's head from 3 feet away.

    ( LWM: we've agreed to disagree on this in the past.....CLOMP! )

    Le Chevre
  14. I doubt most thinking people would have a problem with the police shooting and killing suicide bombers.

    Putting eight rounds into an innocent man is an entirely different matter and there has been a cataclysmic error caused by gross incompetence somewhere in the process, and not at the level of the officers who fired the shots.

    Shoot-to-kill has a limited shelf life as a countermeasure, because terrorists will develop release-switch triggers that detonate when the grip is released. The poor sod will be the police officer who puts down a bomber only to trigger the bomb.

    In the long run, more effective techniques are needed. I hope research is being carried out into methods to neutralise the circutry of electonically triggered devices. Even when that aim is attained, there are many other methods of detonation - mixing chemicals or using some kind of manual incendiary device. In these cases, shoot-to-kill would be appropriate and the cycle of measures and countermeasures would continue merrily onwards.
  15. I know I'm being a pedant but...

    Given that Apache isn't exactly designed to carry any passengers, that could be a mite difficult.