Spanish Police Response To The Terrorist Attacks In Spain
Discussion
Sa Calobra said:
If you read history you'll see justification at the time why the Atomic bombs were used. If Germany had been stronger and it had been stalemate would the US have used atomic bombs on Germany? Who knows
And if the Japanese had had atomic bombs does anybody here doubt they would have used them the very minute they were operational?
croyde said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
Any police officers watching this. That's how you deal with moped gangs.
Faced with a similar situation over here you could argue it'd be justified, but depending on the outcome it could result in years of grief, as Derek alludes to.
The Spanish police have a lot more free reign when it comes to using force, accounting for the force used and a much smaller police investigation infrastructure. It's always amusing when the same idiots on here spout off about police complaints and discipline and the IPCC (plus other legal avenues) when they have no idea about how other countries do it.
The less you scrutinise people who have to make judgements in risk, the less risk averse they are.
King Herald said:
And if the Japanese had had atomic bombs does anybody here doubt they would have used them the very minute they were operational?
Of course. Germany would have. It was a world war. All round my house are buildings/areas destroyed/rebuilt where civilians died. The was was all around and total war. We can't apply our current thinking to then. Tom Logan said:
croyde said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
Any police officers watching this. That's how you deal with moped gangs.
ts like this. A shame the fine upstanding British equivalent don't do the same.Derek Smith said:
Tom Logan said:
Definitely, the Spanish police don't play around with tts like this. A shame the fine upstanding British equivalent don't do the same.
Perhaps the Spanish police officer who drove his car into the motorcyclist knew he would not be disciplined afterwards. Maybe being suspended for years and then taken to court to face, perhaps, a murder or manslaughter charge was not on the cards. ts like this. A shame the fine upstanding British equivalent don't do the same.Perhaps, too, there aren't the number of keyboard warriors who criticise their force on a daily basis.
Same with cctv, everybody proclaims their hatred of it, but as soon as anything bad happens their first cry is "where is the bloody cctv footage, someone must have it on cctv"
King Herald said:
I too have friends who take every opportunity they can to slam the police, but you can rest assured if every they are robbed, assaulted,their , bike or car stolen etc, we all know exactly who they will ring first.
Same with cctv, everybody proclaims their hatred of it, but as soon as anything bad happens their first cry is "where is the bloody cctv footage, someone must have it on cctv"
I have had all those happen to me but long since learned that it was no point bothering the police. And I'm not talking about now, this is going back to the 70s. Same with cctv, everybody proclaims their hatred of it, but as soon as anything bad happens their first cry is "where is the bloody cctv footage, someone must have it on cctv"
dro said:
said:dandarez said:
Wasn't it only a couple of months back that police in London did encounter and fire over 50 rounds to shoot dead 3 terrorists who had 'fake' vests on? The officers got praise. Deservedly so. I doubt anyone would not think so.
Except do-gooders of course.
And the "do-gooders" in these types of situation are actually the do-badders, the type of people that think terrorists should have the same human rights as the rest of us.Except do-gooders of course.
A very warped mindset.
Once boxed up and buried I'd expect some level of scrutiny to occur to ensure the level of threat I presented when shot was a damn site more than Jean Charles Menezes or Harry Stanley. If it wasn't then I'd expect my killer to end up where I would if I f
ked up at work, made a mess or a risk assessment and method statement resulting in the death of a site worker and that would be in the pokey.If I was running about with a club in one hand, an axe in an other and a dagger between my teeth looking to kill anyone in my vicinity then fair play to the man that slots me.
Tannedbaldhead said:
I'd consider myself a "do gooder". As such, I feel terrorists should have identical rights to myself. If I present an imminent and mortal threat to either the lives of police officers or members of the public I should be rendered safe. Should that require my death at the hands of armed police officers then so be it.
Once boxed up and buried I'd expect some level of scrutiny to occur to ensure the level of threat I presented when shot was a damn site more than Jean Charles Menezes or Harry Stanley. If it wasn't then I'd expect my killer to end up where I would if I fked up at work, made a mess or a risk assessment and method statement resulting in the death of a site worker and that would be in the pokey.
If I was running about with a club in one hand, an axe in an other and a dagger between my teeth looking to kill anyone in my vicinity then fair play to the man that slots me.
^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^Once boxed up and buried I'd expect some level of scrutiny to occur to ensure the level of threat I presented when shot was a damn site more than Jean Charles Menezes or Harry Stanley. If it wasn't then I'd expect my killer to end up where I would if I f
ked up at work, made a mess or a risk assessment and method statement resulting in the death of a site worker and that would be in the pokey.If I was running about with a club in one hand, an axe in an other and a dagger between my teeth looking to kill anyone in my vicinity then fair play to the man that slots me.
Live by the sword, die by the sword, it applies on both sides of the situation.
If you want to be a terrorist, be prepared to die.
If you want to be an armed police officer, SWAT etc, then do your damnedest to make sure you are on top of your game and you are prepared to answer for your actions.
Tannedbaldhead said:
I'd expect some level of scrutiny to occur to ensure the level of threat I presented when shot was a damn site more than Jean Charles Menezes or Harry Stanley.
What further scrutiny would you suggest? To take the latter first, there was a High Court decision, and they don’t come much higher. The police officers were arrested and the case went to the CPS and it was found that there wasn’t sufficient to prosecute. Then there was an IPCC investigation. Menezes went even further with the Commissioner being found ‘guilty’ but again the officer were found to be innocent. What more would you like with this case?
Both cases were tragedies but that does not mean someone else innocent should be sacrificed for some imaginary balance.
Telegraph said:
A concert in Rotterdam by an American rock group named after Allah has been cancelled because of a terror threat, police have said.
The concert was cancelled after a tip-off from Spanish authorities, who have been on high alert following the Barcelona terror attack last week that left 14 people dead.
Dutch authorities later said a bus with Spanish licence plates and containing gas bottles was found near the concert arena.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/23/allah-las/amp/The concert was cancelled after a tip-off from Spanish authorities, who have been on high alert following the Barcelona terror attack last week that left 14 people dead.
Dutch authorities later said a bus with Spanish licence plates and containing gas bottles was found near the concert arena.
Edited by BlackLabel on Wednesday 23 August 22:09
stitched said:
Not wishing to sound like a sympathiser but that definition covers the Dresden bombings, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and most certainly Hiroshima and Nagosaki.
Apologies for picking a section of your quote, stitched. There is another and very important distinction with these examples of WWII - an official declaration or war was announced between the nations involved prior to these actions, after all other routes to peace were unsuccessful. I think a 'terrorist' is not acting on behalf of a recognised nation state, and no such official declaration of war has been made - ie. IRA/ISIS/Basque Separatists, etc. The French Resistance, if acting after the official surrender of France, could fall into the 'terrorist' category, in that case. That's how I see it, anyway.MikeT66 said:
Apologies for picking a section of your quote, stitched. There is another and very important distinction with these examples of WWII - an official declaration or war was announced between the nations involved prior to these actions, after all other routes to peace were unsuccessful. I think a 'terrorist' is not acting on behalf of a recognised nation state, and no such official declaration of war has been made - ie. IRA/ISIS/Basque Separatists, etc. The French Resistance, if acting after the official surrender of France, could fall into the 'terrorist' category, in that case. That's how I see it, anyway.
Terrorists may be acting on behalf of a nation state - US attacks on Nicaragua come to mind.AW111 said:
MikeT66 said:
Apologies for picking a section of your quote, stitched. There is another and very important distinction with these examples of WWII - an official declaration or war was announced between the nations involved prior to these actions, after all other routes to peace were unsuccessful. I think a 'terrorist' is not acting on behalf of a recognised nation state, and no such official declaration of war has been made - ie. IRA/ISIS/Basque Separatists, etc. The French Resistance, if acting after the official surrender of France, could fall into the 'terrorist' category, in that case. That's how I see it, anyway.
Terrorists may be acting on behalf of a nation state - US attacks on Nicaragua come to mind.audidoody said:
NorfolkInClue1 said:
Hopefully not you.
You want a definition of a terrorist? Easy.Someone who commits an act of premeditated extreme violence against non-combatants in pursuit of a political or idealogical aim
At which point their human-f
king-rights cease to exist.I read your post and assumed, based on the way these topics quickly become infested with the usual whining liberal cancer, that you were about to launch in to some tragic liberal garbage about the "real victims" of political decisions and there was no such thing as a terrorist, how we should talk to them and apologise for making them resort to violence etc etc.
Turns out I was massively wrong, fully agree with you and your definition.
Internet pint on its way to you........
[quote=MikeT66]
Yes - sort of my point. It becomes terrorism once actions against a population are carried out without any official declaration of hostilities - USA never, to my mind, made any such declaration against Nicaragua, so subsequent actions remain terrorism - state-backed or not. The WWII examples were carried out under official hostilities - whether right or wrong is not easy to judge in hindsight, and I'm glad I've never faced such appalling choices.
[/quote
I'm curious who decided what the rules of play were? Who decided that a country can decide to declare war on another, bomb the snot out of it, and that is okay? Or not even declare war. Just bomb the snot out of it.
Who said so?
USA did just that with Iraq, and Libya, and several others over the last half century. Does dropping a bomb from a plane on a train full of civilians give a different result than leaving a bomb inside a train?
Yes - sort of my point. It becomes terrorism once actions against a population are carried out without any official declaration of hostilities - USA never, to my mind, made any such declaration against Nicaragua, so subsequent actions remain terrorism - state-backed or not. The WWII examples were carried out under official hostilities - whether right or wrong is not easy to judge in hindsight, and I'm glad I've never faced such appalling choices.
[/quote
I'm curious who decided what the rules of play were? Who decided that a country can decide to declare war on another, bomb the snot out of it, and that is okay? Or not even declare war. Just bomb the snot out of it.
Who said so?
USA did just that with Iraq, and Libya, and several others over the last half century. Does dropping a bomb from a plane on a train full of civilians give a different result than leaving a bomb inside a train?
Reports out of Spain stating that the imam who police say was a key figure behind the Barcelona attack used to be on the payroll of the Spanish intelligence agencies - something went very badly wrong there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/spain-...
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/barcelona-attack-imam-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/spain-...
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/barcelona-attack-imam-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff