Counter Terrorism polices and why they suck..
08-19-2005, 12:33 PM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Counter Terrorism polices and why they suck..
interesting op-ed
[P]
A compact example of a failed counter-terrorism policy. (Politics)
By OzJuggler
Wed Aug 17th, 2005 at 07:54:06 PM EST
Security
This article in the Observer is an appropriate study in miniature of how the approach to counter-terrorism currently popular in the Western world is so painfully and obviously retrogressive.
Death in Stockwell: the unanswered questions
What can we learn from the UK response to the London bombings?
Popular counter-terrorism tactics that didn't work:
* Insufficient communication When there is a tradition of permission for lethality being obtained from superiors, combined with an order to prevent the suspect from entering an area where communication with superiors will not be possible, and then the suspect is allowed to enter that area anyway, how is any restraint or auditing on the use of force ever going to occur? As Bruce Schneier points out, communication benefits defenders more than attackers. If communication was important to taking lethal action then it should have been provided, and in its absence no shots should have been fired. And certainly not seven of them fired at the head at point blank range.
* Profiling doesn't work. Seriously, look at the plain facts of this man:
o Illegal immigrant
o previously had a visa application rejected by the USA
o studied electronics
o firmly religious
o not white skinned
o using a mobile phone
o using public transport.
Just try and tell me he wasn't selected for shadowing because he fit some sort of terrorist profile. It's more pathetic when you consider that only the last three of those attributes could have been known to the police on the ground at the time they decided to tail him. As Bruce Schneier has also pointed out, there are vastly many innocent people who fit the profile, and so many terrorists that don't. From that perspective, profiling is less effective than checking at random.
* Using violence against violence.By doing this we become what we fear, and we are no worse than those who are against us. By using violence so early we also increase the chances of needless and tragic collateral damage - in this case the murder of a man innocent of the suspicions against him. By playing terrorists at their own game, we give them the opportunity to become better at it.
* Tolerating or encouraging fear. Fear (on the part of the police) may also be a significant factor in this case, but that's no excuse. There has to be a rational approach to the problem. Perhaps even more importantly, there has to be a humanitarian approach. Unless you have evidence to suggest that one person's life must be lost for the sake of others, how can you conscionably take lethal action?
What has not changed in decades is that the danger to the average person from a terrorist attack is still vanishingly small. Sadly, the only people who are under greater risk now are those aligned with the wrong response to terrorism. Yet all around the world this unfounded fear has been harnessed by police to justify an expansion of their powers - even in countries that do not in reality face an increased threat of terrorism. Why fight terrorists when we're defeating ourselves?
* Hierarchical organisations can't easily fight decentralised networks. By creating an unquestionable chain of command with little creativity granted to the front line, the counter-terrorists had no way of adapting to the situation in front of them, much less of questioning the dubious order of lethally preventing the suspect boarding a train when there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he posed a threat. There is no War on Terrorism and never can be. Cops should not operate like an army. Whilst a clear threat deserves a clear response, for the police shooting to kill should be the last option not the first.
* A strong response to individual terrorists is pointless. When there is a robust terrorist network waiting in the wings to replace them, what good does eliminating one person or one cell really do? The strength of terrorism must be recast as its main weakness; A united ideology. If you defeat the ideology by both argument and demonstration then any terrorist network rallying behind that ideology is instantly deactivated.
Predictable consequences of this approach to counter-terrorism:
* Fuels the motivation for further terrorism. Look at the reaction of the the victim's entire village back in Brazil. Mourning the coffin as it lands. Redecorating the whole town in commemoration. Posting signs bemoaning the acts of terrorism perpetrated by an ostensibly "counter-terrorist" group. It's this kind of resentment (amongst other factors) that has kept the Israel/Palestine conflict boiling for so long. When erroneously stopping one suspected terrorist in this way can create two more, why would you run the risk by continuing with such a policy?
* Causes the public to fear their own Government. This is contrary to the entire purpose of governments - to provide their citizens with security. It is interesting to note that in the absence of any major international conflicts, the government and the terrorist are locked in a symbiotic relationship in which each gives the other a meaning in life and vitality that they might otherwise feel empty without. (And we are the suckers in the middle who pay for it.)
* Distracts everybody from the fundamental issue in terrorism. The real question is not why the police shot the wrong person. The real question to ask is why any person resorts to terrorism. Why are there terrorists? When you understand the terrorist you understand the threat. With the extent that terrorists are demonised by both government and media, I feel we are forbidden from understanding terrorists - just in case we discovered that some terrorists had a legitimate gripe at their core.
Prevention is better than cure, and terrorism can only be prevented by creating a society that is open, prosperous, democratic, educated, free, friendly and tolerant, such that none of the motivations for terrorism exist.
[P]
A compact example of a failed counter-terrorism policy. (Politics)
By OzJuggler
Wed Aug 17th, 2005 at 07:54:06 PM EST
Security
This article in the Observer is an appropriate study in miniature of how the approach to counter-terrorism currently popular in the Western world is so painfully and obviously retrogressive.
Death in Stockwell: the unanswered questions
What can we learn from the UK response to the London bombings?
Popular counter-terrorism tactics that didn't work:
* Insufficient communication When there is a tradition of permission for lethality being obtained from superiors, combined with an order to prevent the suspect from entering an area where communication with superiors will not be possible, and then the suspect is allowed to enter that area anyway, how is any restraint or auditing on the use of force ever going to occur? As Bruce Schneier points out, communication benefits defenders more than attackers. If communication was important to taking lethal action then it should have been provided, and in its absence no shots should have been fired. And certainly not seven of them fired at the head at point blank range.
* Profiling doesn't work. Seriously, look at the plain facts of this man:
o Illegal immigrant
o previously had a visa application rejected by the USA
o studied electronics
o firmly religious
o not white skinned
o using a mobile phone
o using public transport.
Just try and tell me he wasn't selected for shadowing because he fit some sort of terrorist profile. It's more pathetic when you consider that only the last three of those attributes could have been known to the police on the ground at the time they decided to tail him. As Bruce Schneier has also pointed out, there are vastly many innocent people who fit the profile, and so many terrorists that don't. From that perspective, profiling is less effective than checking at random.
* Using violence against violence.By doing this we become what we fear, and we are no worse than those who are against us. By using violence so early we also increase the chances of needless and tragic collateral damage - in this case the murder of a man innocent of the suspicions against him. By playing terrorists at their own game, we give them the opportunity to become better at it.
* Tolerating or encouraging fear. Fear (on the part of the police) may also be a significant factor in this case, but that's no excuse. There has to be a rational approach to the problem. Perhaps even more importantly, there has to be a humanitarian approach. Unless you have evidence to suggest that one person's life must be lost for the sake of others, how can you conscionably take lethal action?
What has not changed in decades is that the danger to the average person from a terrorist attack is still vanishingly small. Sadly, the only people who are under greater risk now are those aligned with the wrong response to terrorism. Yet all around the world this unfounded fear has been harnessed by police to justify an expansion of their powers - even in countries that do not in reality face an increased threat of terrorism. Why fight terrorists when we're defeating ourselves?
* Hierarchical organisations can't easily fight decentralised networks. By creating an unquestionable chain of command with little creativity granted to the front line, the counter-terrorists had no way of adapting to the situation in front of them, much less of questioning the dubious order of lethally preventing the suspect boarding a train when there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he posed a threat. There is no War on Terrorism and never can be. Cops should not operate like an army. Whilst a clear threat deserves a clear response, for the police shooting to kill should be the last option not the first.
* A strong response to individual terrorists is pointless. When there is a robust terrorist network waiting in the wings to replace them, what good does eliminating one person or one cell really do? The strength of terrorism must be recast as its main weakness; A united ideology. If you defeat the ideology by both argument and demonstration then any terrorist network rallying behind that ideology is instantly deactivated.
Predictable consequences of this approach to counter-terrorism:
* Fuels the motivation for further terrorism. Look at the reaction of the the victim's entire village back in Brazil. Mourning the coffin as it lands. Redecorating the whole town in commemoration. Posting signs bemoaning the acts of terrorism perpetrated by an ostensibly "counter-terrorist" group. It's this kind of resentment (amongst other factors) that has kept the Israel/Palestine conflict boiling for so long. When erroneously stopping one suspected terrorist in this way can create two more, why would you run the risk by continuing with such a policy?
* Causes the public to fear their own Government. This is contrary to the entire purpose of governments - to provide their citizens with security. It is interesting to note that in the absence of any major international conflicts, the government and the terrorist are locked in a symbiotic relationship in which each gives the other a meaning in life and vitality that they might otherwise feel empty without. (And we are the suckers in the middle who pay for it.)
* Distracts everybody from the fundamental issue in terrorism. The real question is not why the police shot the wrong person. The real question to ask is why any person resorts to terrorism. Why are there terrorists? When you understand the terrorist you understand the threat. With the extent that terrorists are demonised by both government and media, I feel we are forbidden from understanding terrorists - just in case we discovered that some terrorists had a legitimate gripe at their core.
Prevention is better than cure, and terrorism can only be prevented by creating a society that is open, prosperous, democratic, educated, free, friendly and tolerant, such that none of the motivations for terrorism exist.
08-19-2005, 02:23 PM
#2
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
I don't think a lot of these tactics are retrogressive. I think it all depends on how far society is willing to accept hard-core tactics. The bottom line is that most people cannot in free societies. Every crybaby wants the government to protect them like Steven Segal. Yet they also have this utopian idea of freedom that cannot be achieved given the circumstances. Not even close.
It reminds me of when my unit was on National QRF. It was post 9/11 and most parts of Ft. Bragg (for those of you that have been there) were still an open post. It had to be because two major highways ran through the massive post.
Major General Vines got direct word from the President to initiate the 82nd Airborne as a national QRForce should another terrorist attack happen. Whomever was on QRF was supposed to be in the air within 2 hours toward any city in the USA with a Brigade size Anti-Riot/Anti-Terror force that was well capable of crushing some skulls to maintain order. You were restricted to the company area for weeks at a time. Wives brought us dinner every night and movies.
We got a call from Brigade Staff duty that said a Ryder Truck was driving around the area suspiciously and headed our direction fast. Me and 6 guys grabbed our weapons and hopped into the nearest Humvee in the B-lane. We found the Ryder truck, cut it off and pulled the two men out of the vehicle at gun point.
Our violence of action would of had the ACLU in an outrage. Within 2 seconds both suspects were zip-tied with an M4 firmly placed in the back of their neck and stripped down to their birthday suits looking for weapons, etc. One of them was slammed down so hard we shattered all his front teeth. We threw them into the back of the Humvee head first and took them straight to the division MP's. No ***** liberal group arm-chair quarter backing the entire situation. No media coverage. Just business and highly motivated efficiency. Had their actually been bombs in the back of the truck then it would have been that much better on our part. You see, if there hadn't been bombs in the civilian world then there would be a huge double standard and outrage. You’re the prime example of this, Dre. The tactics aren’t nearly as retrogressive as a society not willing to accept them.
It reminds me of when my unit was on National QRF. It was post 9/11 and most parts of Ft. Bragg (for those of you that have been there) were still an open post. It had to be because two major highways ran through the massive post.
Major General Vines got direct word from the President to initiate the 82nd Airborne as a national QRForce should another terrorist attack happen. Whomever was on QRF was supposed to be in the air within 2 hours toward any city in the USA with a Brigade size Anti-Riot/Anti-Terror force that was well capable of crushing some skulls to maintain order. You were restricted to the company area for weeks at a time. Wives brought us dinner every night and movies.
We got a call from Brigade Staff duty that said a Ryder Truck was driving around the area suspiciously and headed our direction fast. Me and 6 guys grabbed our weapons and hopped into the nearest Humvee in the B-lane. We found the Ryder truck, cut it off and pulled the two men out of the vehicle at gun point.
Our violence of action would of had the ACLU in an outrage. Within 2 seconds both suspects were zip-tied with an M4 firmly placed in the back of their neck and stripped down to their birthday suits looking for weapons, etc. One of them was slammed down so hard we shattered all his front teeth. We threw them into the back of the Humvee head first and took them straight to the division MP's. No ***** liberal group arm-chair quarter backing the entire situation. No media coverage. Just business and highly motivated efficiency. Had their actually been bombs in the back of the truck then it would have been that much better on our part. You see, if there hadn't been bombs in the civilian world then there would be a huge double standard and outrage. You’re the prime example of this, Dre. The tactics aren’t nearly as retrogressive as a society not willing to accept them.
Last edited by Salty; 08-19-2005 at 02:26 PM.
08-19-2005, 02:29 PM
#3
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
I'm not a terrorist...but if I ever get dragged out of a truck and my teeth shatered while zip tied and held at gun point because someone thought I was, I'll become a terrorist. I promise.
08-19-2005, 04:18 PM
#4
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by MVWRX
I'm not a terrorist...but if I ever get dragged out of a truck and my teeth shatered while zip tied and held at gun point because someone thought I was, I'll become a terrorist. I promise.
Originally Posted by dre's article
If you defeat the ideology by both argument and demonstration then any terrorist network rallying behind that ideology is instantly deactivated.
Destroy the religion?
Originally Posted by blahblah
Using violence against violence.By doing this we become what we fear, and we are no worse than those who are against us. By using violence so early we also increase the chances of needless and tragic collateral damage - in this case the murder of a man innocent of the suspicions against him. By playing terrorists at their own game, we give them the opportunity to become better at it.
40+ yrs ago, Arab/Islamic terrorists went straight to violence to achieve their ends.
When did they seek negociations?
The last sentence is pure drival.
Obviously, there are errors made in the execution of any war.
Case in point: the Air war over Europe during WW2.
The war was pratically over before aerial bombing of civilian areas(which the Germans had used almost exclusively) had any positive effect for the Allied forces.
Menezes looks like an innocent victim, shot on error.
But that's life; **** happens, mistakes are made.
Yes, I'd rather sit around the campfire singing "Kum by Ya" with my Arab brothers, but the reality is that a large percentage of those that practice the religion of peace want to kill me.
So, until they stop killing us, I don't have a problem with types of mistakes being made.
Is that paranoia?
Maybe. But I'd rather be "alive and wrong" than "dead and right"
08-19-2005, 04:42 PM
#5
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Oaf
No you won't, you don't have it in you.
Originally Posted by Oaf
But I'd rather be "alive and wrong" than "dead and right"
08-19-2005, 04:43 PM
#6
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
I'm not a terrorist...but if I ever get dragged out of a truck and my teeth shatered while zip tied and held at gun point because someone thought I was, I'll become a terrorist. I promise.
x billion. As I’m sure the LAPD is responsible for LA gang activity. See this is exactly what I’m talking about. We detain the guy with lightning speed and extreme violence of action that he was frozen stiff. He never had a prayer to detonate a device if he had one. That or we certainly minimized the window where he could have detonated one.But because we weren't 110% careful and sympathetic for a possible attacker all bets are off. I'd like to see you or anyone detain a possible attacker like old people ****. Your *** would be dead soon enough and we will be back to questioning why anti-terrorism tactics don’t work. But had there been 1000lbs of ammonium nitrate in the truck you would have patted me on the back for a job well done.
It's this 50/50 coin toss with you people that's truly retrogressive. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever! You MUST be willing to crack a few eggs every time a terror situation presents itself. Even if those being cracked are innocent. Any amount if inconsistency creates the biggest exploitable hole for terrorists. That's the true problem with anti-terrorism.
Last edited by Salty; 08-19-2005 at 04:46 PM.
08-19-2005, 04:52 PM
#7
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
OK...first off, did they resist at all? Did they make any sort of movement/action that led you to believe that they were trying to blow up the van? My guess is no, since you said they were in cuffs within 2 sec or so. Once you had them in zip ties, why did you handle them so rough as to break teeth? Because you had to in order to be safe, or just because you were in assault mode.
I wasn't trying to make the argument that this type of action is why terrorism exists, but I swear if I was innocent and had my teeth broken after trying to cooperate with the 'arrest'....I'd blow them up.
Few more questions: What was the ultimate fate of these guys? Were they arrested for trespassing, or found to be guilty of some other crime, or were they just let go? And did anyone compensate the dude who got his teeth knocked out? Or was that just chaulked up to experience? Why were they there in the first place? And if it was an innocent reason, why was intel poor enough to not know that?
I wasn't trying to make the argument that this type of action is why terrorism exists, but I swear if I was innocent and had my teeth broken after trying to cooperate with the 'arrest'....I'd blow them up.
Few more questions: What was the ultimate fate of these guys? Were they arrested for trespassing, or found to be guilty of some other crime, or were they just let go? And did anyone compensate the dude who got his teeth knocked out? Or was that just chaulked up to experience? Why were they there in the first place? And if it was an innocent reason, why was intel poor enough to not know that?
Last edited by MVWRX; 08-19-2005 at 05:04 PM.
08-19-2005, 04:58 PM
#8
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
I'd like to see you or anyone detain a possible attacker like old people ****. Your *** would be dead soon enough and we will be back to questioning why anti-terrorism tactics don’t work.
If I had 7 on 2 (like you) and we all had M4s to use, I think I'd be just fine thank you. And I doubt I would have been overzealous enough to break anyones grill.
08-19-2005, 05:07 PM
#9
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by Salty
You’re the prime example of this, Dre. The tactics aren’t nearly as retrogressive as a society not willing to accept them.
wtf are you on about?
i posted an oped story that i raised some interesting questions, points, views, etc.
all of a sudden im the one who ****ing wrote it?
dude pull your head out of your *** and stop having a knee jerk reaction, i didnt write it i posted it, i never gave one inkling on if i supported it, hated it, or am using it as my new holy text.
ASSUMPTIONS CAN BE YOUR DOWN FALL (or the thing that empowers you to succeed)
in this case it is the first case..
08-19-2005, 05:12 PM
#10
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by Oaf
So, how do you defeat a terrorist network that rallies behind a religious ideology?
Destroy the religion?
Destroy the religion?
Identify the threat
Understand the threat
Contain the threat
Destroy the threat
08-19-2005, 05:16 PM
#11
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by Salty
x billion. As I’m sure the LAPD is responsible for LA gang activity. See this is exactly what I’m talking about. We detain the guy with lightning speed and extreme violence of action that he was frozen stiff. He never had a prayer to detonate a device if he had one. That or we certainly minimized the window where he could have detonated one.But because we weren't 110% careful and sympathetic for a possible attacker all bets are off. I'd like to see you or anyone detain a possible attacker like old people ****. Your *** would be dead soon enough and we will be back to questioning why anti-terrorism tactics don’t work. But had there been 1000lbs of ammonium nitrate in the truck you would have patted me on the back for a job well done.
It's this 50/50 coin toss with you people that's truly retrogressive. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever! You MUST be willing to crack a few eggs every time a terror situation presents itself. Even if those being cracked are innocent. Any amount if inconsistency creates the biggest exploitable hole for terrorists. That's the true problem with anti-terrorism.
he never had a prayer of detonating anything because he was INNOCENT..
bet your *** that if he was a bomber with a finger on the trigger the second he saw you guys POOF your all dead and there is a crater..
Dont kid your self, you know im right.. hence the shoot them in the head before they see you policy...
use of such tactics only serve to amplify the problem..
I know for damn sure if you pulled that **** with me you wouldnt be sitting where you are right now. I would have brought the full force of what ever the hell i could muster to bear on those who caused me harm. (read LAWYERS)
I understand where you are coming from, and i understand where the author of the oped is coming from. I tend to fall into the middle, there is a time for force of action, and there is a time FOR INTELLIGENCE.
Mobile side scanning xray would have come in handy before you kicked dudes face in..
08-19-2005, 05:17 PM
#12
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by Salty
I don't think a lot of these tactics are retrogressive. I think it all depends on how far society is willing to accept hard-core tactics. The bottom line is that most people cannot in free societies. Every crybaby wants the government to protect them like Steven Segal. Yet they also have this utopian idea of freedom that cannot be achieved given the circumstances. Not even close.
It reminds me of when my unit was on National QRF. It was post 9/11 and most parts of Ft. Bragg (for those of you that have been there) were still an open post. It had to be because two major highways ran through the massive post.
Major General Vines got direct word from the President to initiate the 82nd Airborne as a national QRForce should another terrorist attack happen. Whomever was on QRF was supposed to be in the air within 2 hours toward any city in the USA with a Brigade size Anti-Riot/Anti-Terror force that was well capable of crushing some skulls to maintain order. You were restricted to the company area for weeks at a time. Wives brought us dinner every night and movies.
We got a call from Brigade Staff duty that said a Ryder Truck was driving around the area suspiciously and headed our direction fast. Me and 6 guys grabbed our weapons and hopped into the nearest Humvee in the B-lane. We found the Ryder truck, cut it off and pulled the two men out of the vehicle at gun point.
Our violence of action would of had the ACLU in an outrage. Within 2 seconds both suspects were zip-tied with an M4 firmly placed in the back of their neck and stripped down to their birthday suits looking for weapons, etc. One of them was slammed down so hard we shattered all his front teeth. We threw them into the back of the Humvee head first and took them straight to the division MP's. No ***** liberal group arm-chair quarter backing the entire situation. No media coverage. Just business and highly motivated efficiency. Had their actually been bombs in the back of the truck then it would have been that much better on our part. You see, if there hadn't been bombs in the civilian world then there would be a huge double standard and outrage. You’re the prime example of this, Dre. The tactics aren’t nearly as retrogressive as a society not willing to accept them.
It reminds me of when my unit was on National QRF. It was post 9/11 and most parts of Ft. Bragg (for those of you that have been there) were still an open post. It had to be because two major highways ran through the massive post.
Major General Vines got direct word from the President to initiate the 82nd Airborne as a national QRForce should another terrorist attack happen. Whomever was on QRF was supposed to be in the air within 2 hours toward any city in the USA with a Brigade size Anti-Riot/Anti-Terror force that was well capable of crushing some skulls to maintain order. You were restricted to the company area for weeks at a time. Wives brought us dinner every night and movies.
We got a call from Brigade Staff duty that said a Ryder Truck was driving around the area suspiciously and headed our direction fast. Me and 6 guys grabbed our weapons and hopped into the nearest Humvee in the B-lane. We found the Ryder truck, cut it off and pulled the two men out of the vehicle at gun point.
Our violence of action would of had the ACLU in an outrage. Within 2 seconds both suspects were zip-tied with an M4 firmly placed in the back of their neck and stripped down to their birthday suits looking for weapons, etc. One of them was slammed down so hard we shattered all his front teeth. We threw them into the back of the Humvee head first and took them straight to the division MP's. No ***** liberal group arm-chair quarter backing the entire situation. No media coverage. Just business and highly motivated efficiency. Had their actually been bombs in the back of the truck then it would have been that much better on our part. You see, if there hadn't been bombs in the civilian world then there would be a huge double standard and outrage. You’re the prime example of this, Dre. The tactics aren’t nearly as retrogressive as a society not willing to accept them.
08-19-2005, 05:18 PM
#13
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
OK...first off, did they resist at all? Did they make any sort of movement/action that led you to believe that they were trying to blow up the van? My guess is no, since you said they were ultimatly innocent.
Two older men were driving lost in a Ryder truck at a high rate of speed on a military installation. And you fail to understand what I mean by violence of action. If you enter a building like a ***** you will die in the fatal funnel. You must come through the door like a 400lb monster. We had them out of the truck before our Humvee even came to a complete stop. They were petrified.
Your flaw is that you'd consider them to be innocent before guilty. Even if they were acting extremely suspect on a military post - one of the many government installations terrorists vowed to hit. You have to think the exact opposite way with regard to anti-terrorism. This is the point i'm trying to make here.
Originally Posted by MVWRX
Once you had them in zip ties, why did you handle them so rough as to break teeth? Because you had to in order to be safe, or just because you were in assault mode.
Do you even have an imagination to picture how this event could possibly unfold? Do you think we casually stepped into the cab of the ryder truck and gently placed the zipties on them? No, we pulled them out of the car, the driver lost his footing and ate pavement. Then we ziptied him, searched them an eventually threw him and his friend’s fatass into the back of the Humvee.
08-19-2005, 05:21 PM
#14
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
Dont kid your self, you know im right.. hence the shoot them in the head before they see you policy...
use of such tactics only serve to amplify the problem..
I know for damn sure if you pulled that **** with me you wouldnt be sitting where you are right now. I would have brought the full force of what ever the hell i could muster to bear on those who caused me harm. (read LAWYERS)
use of such tactics only serve to amplify the problem..
I know for damn sure if you pulled that **** with me you wouldnt be sitting where you are right now. I would have brought the full force of what ever the hell i could muster to bear on those who caused me harm. (read LAWYERS)
Last edited by Salty; 08-19-2005 at 05:42 PM.
08-19-2005, 06:05 PM
#15
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
You still didn't tell me the ultimate fate of the guys....
If that's a flaw, then I am flawed...but I would've sworn that was one of the tenats of our law and law enforcement system...
That's not what I meant at all. I hadn't even brought up partisan politics. In fact, Oaf is the only one who said anything about any partys or political leaning.
I just don't want to live in a place where I could get my teeth knocked out because I was lost...I'll definatly avoid driving on military bases in rented trucks while lost from now on though...
Originally Posted by Salty
Your flaw is that you'd consider them to be innocent before guilty.
Originally Posted by Salty
Typical. Because only a tool of Bush's government would stomp someones teeth out History “X” style.
I just don't want to live in a place where I could get my teeth knocked out because I was lost...I'll definatly avoid driving on military bases in rented trucks while lost from now on though...