Opinion 2018 Non-Crows #4: You say Potato, I say Portato (Cont in Part 5)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
No there are no avenues. Coppers and military the same, it’s pretty simple. We are trained if you feel your life or the lives of those it is your duty to protect is threatened, u neutralise the threat.
These situations must be kept simple, overanalysing makes u vulnerable.
As a previous poster mentioned...it’s not a movie.
I haven’t really been arguing with this point for the last couple of pages.

The issue would make more sense if hypothetically the guy was screaming out publicly that he might have bombs installed in a nearby location or he was part of a ring of terrorists in the heart of Melbourne.

Would you then prefer for him to be shot and remaining alive? (for further interrogation)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I haven’t really been arguing with this point for the last couple of pages.

The issue would make more sense if hypothetically the guy was screaming out publicly that he might have bombs installed in a nearby location or he was part of a ring of terrorists in the heart of Melbourne.

Would you then prefer for him to be shot and remaining alive? (for further interrogation)
Or if he was screaming about it on a bus that had to stay above a certain speed limit, or it would blow up, wearing a mask of a US ex president and was secretly the police officers gay half brother all along.

Yes. Then, shoot for the leg, get the girl and do it all again next Summer, only BIGGER
 
Or if he was screaming about it on a bus that had to stay above a certain speed limit, or it would blow up, wearing a mask of a US ex president and was secretly the police officers gay half brother all along.

Yes. Then, shoot for the leg, get the girl and do it all again next Summer, only BIGGER
You do realise the scenario I painted could have been a real possibility?
Real, as in reality, and not from the movie Speed?
 
Has this website turned to trash over the last couple of weeks? Real jittery and freezes all the time.

It's fine on a PC, but terrible on my phone. You go to tap on a link and the page suddenly jolts up or down and you end up tapping the wrong link.
 
Or if he was screaming about it on a bus that had to stay above a certain speed limit, or it would blow up, wearing a mask of a US ex president and was secretly the police officers gay half brother all along.

Yes. Then, shoot for the leg, get the girl and do it all again next Summer, only BIGGER
I liked your story, all it was missing was some blindfolds.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Or if he was screaming about it on a bus that had to stay above a certain speed limit, or it would blow up, wearing a mask of a US ex president and was secretly the police officers gay half brother all along.

Yes. Then, shoot for the leg, get the girl and do it all again next Summer, only BIGGER

Another gobsmacking dumb post.
 
I haven’t really been arguing with this point for the last couple of pages.

The issue would make more sense if hypothetically the guy was screaming out publicly that he might have bombs installed in a nearby location or he was part of a ring of terrorists in the heart of Melbourne.

Would you then prefer for him to be shot and remaining alive? (for further interrogation)
When lives are at stake you don't stop to ponder the "what if's".
 
The Speed thing could be real
Serious potential terrorist attacks need to be discussed seriously. But I guess this isn't really the forum for that kind of discussion.
When lives are at stake you don't stop to ponder the "what if's".
Sometimes you do need to weigh up the pros and cons. A lot of people on here seem to fail to distinguish between a psychotic murderer and a murdering terrorist.
Killing a psychotic murderer would bring peace to the community. Whereas killing a murderous terrorist might hinder the process of preventing the next one from happening.

This isn’t a debate to put the blame on the officer who shot the guy. It’s about future applications and which action could bring more benefits overall.
 
Yep most security agencies reckon it's only a minority who are radical, about 15%. Mind you 15% of approximately 1 billion is a rather large minority.

I'm not a fan of any religion but I think Islam, by it's very nature, is a radical religion.
Islam misinterpreted by extremists is radical and violent.

As is Christianity.

All religions have "an eye for an eye" and killing nonbelievers somewhere in there. But the actual vast majority of their text is some simple version of do unto others, which probably anyone could ever behind.

My feeling are that there have been a LOT more killings done by radical Christians than radical Muslims in the last few years, but then I'm really just focussing on Western countries. I imagine the numbers look different if you look beyond USA/UK/Australia/Canada etc.
 
I remember when we used to laugh at Port in this thread
You can’t apply laughter when discussing a serious topic. Let’s put it this way, I’m not dumb enough to not get the points people are repeatedly making. Kirky and I are talking from another vantage point.

No more will be said from me about this. It’s become a moot point now.
 
If there was a Christian cult that was exhorting its followers to go out and kill random non-Christians by whatever means they can find, you'd have a point.

Accepting that reality isn't "Islamophobia" and it doesn't mean you have to think all / most Muslims are violent extremists.
You don't count Fox News as a white Christian cult?

The vast majority of mass shootings in recent US history involve killers who have been fed paranoid lies and misinformation. I'm not sure how the lies from those pulpits are different to the lies being spread by radical religious leaders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top