I'll give you a freebie - the North Hollywood shoot out. It certainly isn't the only one. "Overwhelming mass" by itself didn't really work out well there. Far fewer people would have been injured if the police had been armed then as they are now.
Cem Özdemir, the head of the Green party and a leading German politician of Turkish descent, told Spiegel Online it would be 'irresponsible' for German spies not to target Turkey given its location as a transit country for Islamic State militants from Europe."
My, my, that is interesting on so many levels.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I see from the comments here that the governmental mission of character assassination of this fellow is largely complete and successful. Do you know Assange personally?
Maybe you should spend some time going through the old news articles about Assange before you make wild charges. If you do you'll see that even Assanges friends refer to him as difficult, and he does himself few favors by the way he treats people. Some of his harsh critics are former friends or associates that he has jerked around. Not every jerk has a government conspiracy out to get them, and Assange needs little help there.
You seem a little ignorant of recent history.
It's a common vice.
Have you heard of America's rendition program?
Yes, people suspected of being terrorists, associates of al Qaida, right? Assange doesn't make that cut as a "journalist." Or are you claiming that Assange is a terrorist?
What sex crimes? I'm unaware of any government anywhere that has charged him with any sex crimes.
And despite the fact that it has been repeatedly discussed you are also unaware that the Swedish legal system requires that he be interviewed again before they can charge him. Many people here exploit that difference in the legal system (one shared by a number of European countries) to try to depict Assange as innocent, or that there are no serious allegations against him, or that he doesn't face the prospect of charges. That is false.
I assume we can agree that US politicians aren't going to try to catch Ebola to kill their constitutents?
I haven't heard Sweden state that they will categorically not extradite him to the US, though.
The Swedish government has also not denied that they plan make him crown prince with a 1.000.000.000.000 SEK stipend, or that they will stick a rocket in his butt and shoot him into space to suffocate. The probability of all three isn't terribly different.
It's mostly been stopped now but I'm sure they would make an exception for someone like Assange.
One thing - how is it exactly that you think the US would get hold of Assage while he is either under the protection of Ecuador and Britain and Sweden are waiting to take him into custody? Why do you think those major European nations would agree to it for such a high profile person when ordinary legal means are available? Rendition was used for people believed to be involved in terrorism, are you claiming that Assange is a terrorist instead of a "journalist"?
As is your custom you are "sure" about highly unlikely things
It isn't an isolated problem.
An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns -- though they seem to be in complete denial about it.
The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually -- yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual."
Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."
Most likely just the typical bullshit you get in a 3rd world country. Low education, coupled by poverty, corrupt government and when you get a health epidemic, people panic and do stupid shit
Terrorism is pretty common "bullshit" in some 3rd world countries. The culture of some groups that engage in terrorism celebrates self-sacrifice when engaging in terrorism. Indeed, there is essentially a death cult there when they state "we love death more than you love life." Terrible diseases like Ebola induce terror while killing many people. Modern air travel has reduced the what had been the travel of months to a few hours. Hmmm. Hmmm.
Maybe you haven't heard, but most Iraqis say they want peace and democracy. The Al Qaida inspired Islamist extremists are a small percentage of society, but they are willing to bomb and kill to get their way. They formed their own terrorist army to try to overthrow the peaceful democracy in Iraq. Why are you opposed to bombing the terrorist army trying to overthrow that peaceful democracy?
You might have a point though, that whole "democracy" thing does seem to have failed badly in Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Weapons aren't part of the M113, and many different types of weapons can be mounted on an M113 besides the M2
We do indeed. They were created because Republicans (and in particular, Nixon) needed a new thing to harp on for the election, and they went for "tough on crime".
Not even close. You could just as well have answered "khrushchev" with no loss of accuracy.
Beginning in the 1960’s, local police were confronted by increasingly well-armed individuals and groups who were willing to engage in armed confrontations with the police. The traditional method of response by uniformed patrol officers placed both officers and innocent bystanders at increased risk.
In many nations of the world, such situations would likely be handled by national police forces. However, the American people have historically been very wary of deployment of federal forces within local boundaries.
It became clear that a new method of response to such complex, high-risk and often high-energy situations was needed. Such a response required expertise and weaponry beyond the normal capability of local law enforcement agencies. Thus, the concept of SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) was developed by the Los Angeles Police Department.
Originally, the SWAT concept was for counter-sniper and other high-risk situations that in the past would have provoked an inordinate number of shots being fired, often with injuries to innocent persons. Over the years, SWAT has evolved into the management of barricaded suspect situations, the service of high-risk warrants, dignitary protection, and the actual rescue of hostages.
Under the SWAT model, verbal techniques and physical tactics would combine for seamless management of volatile situations confronting local police. The primary purpose behind this concept was to reduce risk to the police forces involved, to the suspects, and to the community at large.
Most of these situations are resolved with verbal tactics utilized by trained hostage negotiators who are frequently an integral component of SWAT teams. Seldom are physical tactics necessary, and even then the actual firing of shots rarely occurs.
And what are those "originally intended functions"?
I think that is answered above.
... there's no justification for having every police department, even those on university campuses
Whoever heard of shootings at schools or college campuses?
I'll leave it up to you to track down statistics on the practices of European gendarmes.