Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
EnderbyFox

Terrorist Attacks

By EnderbyFox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Darkon84

Darkon84

Posted
Posted

There didn't really seem any point to shouting that to be fair. It didn't add any value to the exercise, they could have easily achieved the same goal without any religion being represented. Rightly or wrongly people are bound to comment on things like that in this day and age. The police only need to put a bit of thought into keeping things neutral.

 

Considering the drill was set up to imitate an IS/ISIS/Daesh attack, you'd want it to be as realistic as possible. If you're going to do it, do it properly.

Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

After seeing that it was meant to represent an ISIS attack then it had to be realistic. I was assuming, as it was not clear, that it was a  demo to cover all terrorist attacks. Maybe the shouting of the words was over the top but they were not to know the film would be seen by some of the general public.

I was not defending the protesters BTW. I just thought the reaction was a little hasty given the information at hand. I have often quite rightly been brought to task for reacting to stories too quick.

 I wonder if they would have still complained if the English translation had been used or even made up words? There is often knee jerk reaction from all sides in this kind of situation which devalues some of the better things about 'political correctness'  a phrase I think may be overused sometimes for a definition.

Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Dodgy Bob

Dodgy Bob

Posted
Posted

Considering the drill was set up to imitate an IS/ISIS/Daesh attack, you'd want it to be as realistic as possible. If you're going to do it, do it properly.

They wouldn't respond differently to a suicide bomber depending on whether they are from IS or any other organisation though, would they? Why not just set up the drill as a generic suicide bomber. Everybody would know what was being represented, but they wouldn't risk making people feel marginalised. This is the police we're talking about, they do have social responsibilities.

Bettsj2

Bettsj2

Posted
Posted

I find it so sad that in 2016, when we are all very aware of the very real threat of terrorism, whether in the UK, mainland Europe, the US, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc. that the police can be criticised for the use of a phrase that, unfortunately, is associated with Islamic terrorism and will continue to be for the forseeable future. It's incredible to think that people can even claim offence at this, though that is probably more a reflection of our society now, where no matter what someone says/does/thinks, somebody else somewhere will claim offence. I think the police are damned if they do, damned if they don't. God forbid there is another terrorist attack in this country, and god forbid if it came to light that the police hadn't carried out a mock attack. They would be crucified, yet here they are carrying out a procedure to ensure our safety and being criticised for a phrase shouted by a mock suicide bomber! It angers me that our security forces do so much behind the scenes that we're not aware of to keep us safe (and realistically they'll never be able to maintain 100 per cent), yet people will find the most insignificant thing to criticise them over. I consider myself liberal in my thinking, but this reaction by some so-called "liberals" is ridiculous.

The thing is, people are very quick to make this a present day issue when the fact is, people who hold religion dear have claimed to be offended by the smallest thing for as far back as I can remember be it muslims, jews, christians.

You only have to look at the recent goings on in the Labour party. If you dont get your language and context 100% right when talking about anything concerning the jewish faith, you're an anti semite. On Question Time a few months bacj, an audience member actually said on national television in the year 2016, that same sex marriage offended her christian faith.

Now to me, all of the above is a little OTT and people should be a bit more laid back about this stuff but my point is, we know that people are not ok with it. So with that in mind, do a terrorist drill run through without the religious content but furthermore, whether you include it or not, dont make the footage available to the public anyway.

Put whether you think the offence caused is relevant to one side for a moment and ask yourself, was it actually necessary to use the phrase? I've heard people say it was a re-creation for authenticity etc, but it was a police drill using actors and volunteers. Everybody involved knew the purpose so what was the point. If a guy with a bomb vest strapped to himself appeared next to me in a shopping mall, what comes out of his mouth is pretty irrelevant to me at that point and also if someone starts shooting at me with an AK-47, his distorted religious beliefs would again be secondary in my mind. How the police and authorities deal with the bomb and the shooting is the important thing not the words they utter before hand.

But again, the thing I find most ridiculous about this is making public footage of our counter terrorist measures. They can just tell us they do the drills, we dont need to see how it works. The only people that actually benefits are the terrorists themselves.

Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

The thing is, people are very quick to make this a present day issue when the fact is, people who hold religion dear have claimed to be offended by the smallest thing for as far back as I can remember be it muslims, jews, christians.

You only have to look at the recent goings on in the Labour party. If you dont get your language and context 100% right when talking about anything concerning the jewish faith, you're an anti semite. On Question Time a few months bacj, an audience member actually said on national television in the year 2016, that same sex marriage offended her christian faith.

Now to me, all of the above is a little OTT and people should be a bit more laid back about this stuff but my point is, we know that people are not ok with it. So with that in mind, do a terrorist drill run through without the religious content but furthermore, whether you include it or not, dont make the footage available to the public anyway.

Put whether you think the offence caused is relevant to one side for a moment and ask yourself, was it actually necessary to use the phrase? I've heard people say it was a re-creation for authenticity etc, but it was a police drill using actors and volunteers. Everybody involved knew the purpose so what was the point. If a guy with a bomb vest strapped to himself appeared next to me in a shopping mall, what comes out of his mouth is pretty irrelevant to me at that point and also if someone starts shooting at me with an AK-47, his distorted religious beliefs would again be secondary in my mind. How the police and authorities deal with the bomb and the shooting is the important thing not the words they utter before hand.

But again, the thing I find most ridiculous about this is making public footage of our counter terrorist measures. They can just tell us they do the drills, we dont need to see how it works. The only people that actually benefits are the terrorists themselves.

It was a bit worse than not getting your language 100% correct.

 

As for offending religion they are  entitled to be offended by something that is the opposite of what they believe and in a democracy they're entitled to expect politicians to hear their concerns. What they don't have is a veto on what others say and believe. They can't expect policy to be tailored to their specific world view.

  • Like 1
Darkon84

Darkon84

Posted
Posted

They wouldn't respond differently to a suicide bomber depending on whether they are from IS or any other organisation though, would they? Why not just set up the drill as a generic suicide bomber. Everybody would know what was being represented, but they wouldn't risk making people feel marginalised. This is the police we're talking about, they do have social responsibilities.

 

I think we may have to agree to disagree. I feel that the responsibility of the police first and foremost, is our protection, not to worry about if someone might get offended. On something as serious as the drill which they were performing, it's incredibly important to get as close to the real life situation as possible. We don't know if people may react differently or not. Someone could possibly freeze in the moment if they hear someone shouting allahu akhbar as it dawns what they will have to deal with and so it's best to train as close to the scenario as possible. I see your point, but I still think they were perfectly justified in doing what they did.

  • Like 1
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

TBH I would not know or care what the words were. They could be shouting abracadabra for all I know. 

 

It was a bit worse than not getting your language 100% correct.

 

As for offending religion they are  entitled to be offended by something that is the opposite of what they believe and in a democracy they're entitled to expect politicians to hear their concerns. What they don't have is a veto on what others say and believe. They can't expect policy to be tailored to their specific world view.

Is this the reason they were against the video? There is fault on both sides the way I see it. The police were right to make the film but should have given more thought to how it was done as well as not allowing it out into the public domain where there was a possibility of upsetting a small number of people and also the film may be seen by the very people that should not see it.

Also those that claim to be upset should take a step back and ask themselves who side they are on.

DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted

Mind explaining further what your first sentence is supposed to mean, exactly? Are you suggesting that the entire police force is racist?

In fairness to Ken, the police force have history in this area which has no doubt led to a doubt in this area;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11655358/Met-chief-accepts-force-may-be-institutionally-racist.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/metropolitan-police-still-institutionally-racist-20-years-after-stephen-lawrence-murder-black-police-8581873.html

Darkon84

Darkon84

Posted
Posted

 

There is no doubt that there will be individuals or groups within the force, as with many other walks of life, where (unfortunately), racism is still prevalent. To label the entire force as racist, I feel, oversteps the mark. Labelling it institutionally as such is wide of the mark too. To use those words would also imply that to be a part of it, is to be racist, and I simply cannot agree with that. It could easily (though a simple argument) be said that having a black police officers association as a separate entity is in itself racist. Anyway, that's a completely different argument for another day and we'll leave it there lol I still appreciated the links though, they refreshed my memory on some of the aspects.

Bettsj2

Bettsj2

Posted
Posted

TBH I would not know or care what the words were. They could be shouting abracadabra for all I know.

Is this the reason they were against the video? There is fault on both sides the way I see it. The police were right to make the film but should have given more thought to how it was done as well as not allowing it out into the public domain where there was a possibility of upsetting a small number of people and also the film may be seen by the very people that should not see it.

Also those that claim to be upset should take a step back and ask themselves who side they are on.

This is the thing. Being offended or upset by the use of your call to prayer in a terrorist simulation, doesnt in any way make you sympathetic to the terrorist cause. It just means you hate your religion being used as any kind of vehicle other than its religious content.

  • Like 1
Dodgy Bob

Dodgy Bob

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think we may have to agree to disagree. I feel that the responsibility of the police first and foremost, is our protection, not to worry about if someone might get offended. On something as serious as the drill which they were performing, it's incredibly important to get as close to the real life situation as possible. We don't know if people may react differently or not. Someone could possibly freeze in the moment if they hear someone shouting allahu akhbar as it dawns what they will have to deal with and so it's best to train as close to the scenario as possible. I see your point, but I still think they were perfectly justified in doing what they did.

Yeah maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't think there was any need to represent the religion. Like if they were doing crowd control drills in the run up to mardi gras, they wouldn't need the mock crowd to be made up of transvestites dressed as flamboyant peacocks shouting 'come and touch my bum officer' or whatever, would they? They would just have a generic crowd.

Edited by Dodgy Bob
Darkon84

Darkon84

Posted
Posted

Yeah maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't think there was any need to represent the religion. Like if they were doing crowd control drills in the run up to mardi gras, they wouldn't need the mock crowd to be made up of transvestites dressed as flamboyant peacocks shouting 'come and touch my bum officer' or whatever, would they? They would just have a generic crowd.

 

Haha yea it looks like we will have to, but there's nothing wrong with that, it's healthy to have differing opinions and discuss them properly. For what it's worth, if they did a mock Mardi Gras drill, I wouldn't have a problem with them using people like that in the crowd lol

Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

Maybe if they were mimicking a terrorist attack by ISIS they should have had some Muslim advisors/officers/observers to give a balance. There are many Muslim people outraged that the terrorists are using the religion to support violence.

For the record I  do not care for any religion. All holy books are subject to interpretation IMO so I would rather see the back of them and everyone just adhere to  a Secular moral code.There could be two families of the same faith yet  have two completely different outlook on life because their parents and grandparents believed the same. Crazy world.

Darkon84

Darkon84

Posted
Posted (edited)

These sick fvcks just can't help themselves can they. ISIS troops armed with AK47s storm the Baghdad branch of the Real Madrid supporters club, during a meeting of around 50, killing 14, injuring around 30.

 

WARNING: Photos containing large amounts of blood in the article below.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-kill-14-real-madrid-7962654

Edited by Darkon84
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted

So now we can add 'supporting a football team' to the list of stuff God apparently disapproves of.

 

Machine gunning innocents is still hunky-dory, though.

DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted

Considering the drill was set up to imitate an IS/ISIS/Daesh attack, you'd want it to be as realistic as possible. If you're going to do it, do it properly.

They should remember to remove all the props after they've finished though!

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
ST20

ST20

Posted
Posted

The guy shouted allahu Akbar before hitting people with an axe, and yet his motives are "too soon to tell". Who are we kidding?

Jattdogg

Jattdogg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ST20 said:

The guy shouted allahu Akbar before hitting people with an axe, and yet his motives are "too soon to tell". Who are we kidding?

Well i was just being somewhat careful  with words while at the same time post8ng it in a terrorist thread. Sheesh. 

 

A freaking axe though  wtf

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...