Well, you indeed sound like a whiny little girl and I must have hit a nerve since you keep mention it...
Why don't you go and find a law book that has irrefutable proof in it? Who gets to decide that it's irrefutable? When does it get irrefutable? Videos can be altered, witnesses make mistakes...
That's why the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt yet there are plenty of mistakes done...
anyway since terrorism and crime has obviously killed alot less people than accidents in india and everywhere else in the world, why are we keeping the police ? get rid of them.
aww it's sad... they even killed the sniffer dog
MUMBAI--The management of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai was warned it was a possible target, but increased security measures were eased shortly before the devastating militant attack, its owner said Sunday.
Tata said the attackers entered through the back of the hotel.
"They knew what they were doing, and they did not go through the front. All of our arrangements are in the front," he said.
"The first thing they did, they shot a sniffer dog and his handler," he added. "There seems to have been a lot of pre-planning."
The Taj's general manager lost his whole family in the attacks but was determined that it would re-open as a tribute to them and a sign the militants had not won, Tata said.
nope. but just pointing out what is a logical outcome if we are going along the line of argument that traffic death is alot more worst than anything else..
in life we need to have the knowledge to know that we are free to live in our area of habitat without fear of things that are beyond our control.
most of us are cautious against traffic accident. but we will fear terrorist attacks as that is something beyond our control of what we could have done otherwise.
if giving up some of our freedoms and rights mean we can control the activities of terrorists better, I am sure many people that are normal would be willing to do it.
Abolishing rights and freedoms and implementing measures as it has been done in the US is over the top considering the minor danger that terrorism poses in the grand scheme of things. You talk about crime and terrorism in the same sentence as if they were the same thing.
Most countries face more danger from daily crime than from terrorism yet we don't see a war on crime...It's much easier to blame islamist fanatic and put a face like Bin Laden as public enemy no 1.
Shall we look at deaths from terrorism versus murders in most western countries? Death from terrorism is about as likely as being struck by lightning but the media and the politicians are quick to use them for the advancements of their own cause... Case and point with Iraq which had little to do with terrorism but the climate was right and Bush used that to his own advantage.
And dear genius, road accidents are also controlled by police, laws etc...
So your logic if you want to call it that is deeply flawed and your thinking is obviously clouded by emotions...
the fact is that law in itself is not going to solve any problem if your other party has no intention to follow and obey the laws set.
a person that has been hungry for 2 days will just grab any food he can find and to hell with the law of ownership...
so if we are running a paper exercise that doesn't need to consider people's emotion on the ground facing the potential life threatening assaults.. by all means yes.
if we are on the ground with friends and team mates getting shot/killed every other day, and if geneva convention means putting yourself into higher risk because of what you need to go through to shoot a person, tell me if you want to do it when you are there.. not in the comfort of your armchair!
crime and terrorism are similar.
tell me, what is the difference between terrorism and kidnapping ? the effect and at most time, motives are the same. the only difference is one is hugely blown up by media the other is just considered a pettycrime on the local level.
i think what I have put up is a valid question.
everyone here are talking as if they themselves can make all the right decision in determining what is the right level of control, the right level of rights invasion, the right level of punishment given to any criminal/terrorist..
but in real life everything is so vague and so difficult to implement. on the ground when gun shots are exchanged.. on the streets of NY where knifes are flashed.. etc.etc..
organized control of peace and lawfulness might at the end of the day not the best thing in the world?!