You’re right. My bad.

The application of stun guns/tazers or whatnot is quite different when dealing with an armed insurgency vs. hunting down individual suspects.

The Military has Non-Lethal munitions available (Sting ball grenades, Rubber bullets, Foam Baton grenades), but the use is limited to crowd/riot control. When faced with significant numbers of armed men (Iraq or Afghanistan), put yourself in the shoes of troops,would you go in with non-lethals?

Police action is more conducive to Non-Lethals. In counter insurgency operations, you options are very limited.

Voila, the Brits are using stun guns after the de Menezes debacle:

Omar is being held at Paddington Green high security police station in Central London, where he was taken after being shot with a stun gun by anti-terrorist officers in Birmingham yesterday during a dawn raid.

Why is it that some people have trouble condemning a person if they fit the right profile of ‘the oppressed?’ It’s as if they could never commit a crime just because they are brown, or whatever. “Oh, woe is me. I am sad, and brown, and oppressed. Feel for me as I behead you!”

Ok, I can’t do this as well as others, so I’ll just stop.

Manish,

From what I’m reading on some of the military blogs the stun guns are not quite ready for prime time in terms of stopping suicide bombers: if they were I bet our military would be using them in Iraq or Afghanistan (or maybe they are? Not to my knowledge, which is admittedly thin). If I get time, I’ll send you a link. Anyway, this does look like a mistake (well, obviously) and it would be entirely correct and just if there were an inquiry truly interested in getting at the truth, without a pre-judgement for the officers or against. The number of shots don’t bother me – these things happen in a matter of seconds, but why was he singled out in the first place? Why was this sequence initiated? What do we still not know about why he was suspected? That is the real question here and I think this is a very tough situation. You want a complete inquiry because an innocent died, but you also want the police to know they will be supported in doing a tough job and not set out to dry for actions of superiors or for political reasons. Very, very sad.

Boy, lots of commenting from me these days. You guys are doing a great job. The posts and subsequent comments are really something today….

It’s not just the Guardian undermining this objective, a lot of websites ‘viewspapers’ and the like are bent on trying to excuse bombers.

However, on the subject of British press, the only paper I really trust is the Indy. The Times has a topnotch cricket section, but it’s painfully right wing at times. I don’t even need to get started on things like the Mail or the Telegraph.

I am with you bro! The Guardian has degenerated into something quite spineless – apologists for what is as you say a fascist ideology – and that whole Dilpazier Aslam case leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. But it sums so much up about them and that way of thinking.

In a thread above ANNA has written a post about one of these extreme right wing ideologues who was planning to be instrumental in terrorist attacks against Americans and possibly Britain. Read her post, she does not say anything wrong. But someone called Jez got really upset with her ‘tone’ and says,

i think it is important to have a complex, sociological view on why people go in this direction in order to really get at solutions. anna’s vitriol in this post is unhelpful to figuring that out. especially since he didnt actually do anything to harm anyone. whats his story beyond the 70k? who is his family? what motivated him to get involved with al qaeda? it doesn’t help to essentialize people for something they say at one point in their lives…how many times have you said something mean/evil that you regret? besides, if he was so evil, why did he help the british with their investigation?

It’s beyond satire isnt it? He is offended by her tone! Amazing! And he says that ANNA is full of ‘vitriol’, but we have to understand this man, who we should not be nasty to, because he is a little fluffy bunny rabbit who ‘didnt actually do anything to harm anyone’

Some people instincts is to stick their head in the sand and deny what is sitting there in front of their face – if it is the BNP or NF or RSS or some Khalistani or whatever – if it looks like a fascist and smells like a fascist then call it a fascist – for heavens sake – crying because you were mean in your condemnation of a terrorist! You cant make it up can you? Its hilarious!

I have a friend who occasionally writes for the Guardian. We were recently talking about the sacking of Dilpazier Aslam (here’s the article he wrote) and widened out into a discussion about the Guardian itself. It’s a toughie, I used to like the Guardian, but as of late it’s really annoyed me. My friend was defending it by saying:

“It is typical of reactionaries to blame centre-left idealists for terrorism. America has no outspoken media like the Guardian yet it still suffered terrorist attacks. India is also full of loonies, yet does not have any paper with the balls that the Guardian has.”

in response to someone from India (maybe it was one here) saying the freedom fanatics enjoy in the UK is thanks to Labour, loonies and lefties. I said the Guardian is all 3.

The Number 24 bus route is always phukked, the C2 route – you may as well have rickshaw drivers instead of buses its so slow – and Ken is worrying about the Gaza Strip – foooking eeejut

I reckon we are singing from the same hymn sheet on this. Too much understanding offered to what is basically an extreme right wing ideology that has corrupted some half-wits and become a menace to everyone – they should be treated with the same contempt we reserve for the NF and BNP – not apologised for as some people on the Left and Guardian reading class seem to be doing.