And so, it ends....

Chess club has officially been handed over. New Exco has been selected.

Ah well. =(

Hopefully, the secretary choice was the right one. He was definately the surprise pick, as around 5 out of the 6 has been chosen more or less by the first day. A little tinkering was needed, and everything was cool.

Seriously, I have absolutely no regrets on giving up ARC (or shooting, as they call themselves) for Chess Club. The day when I entered the chess club room, I could feel the energy inside that was vibrating, something which was different from the ARC then. The seniors didn't even talk to the juniors last time, although I think it's a different case now. However, the Chess Club seniors, especially people such as Chun and Eddie made me pick Chess Club over ARC and SC (although the reason for dropping SC was for a different reason).

As tradition went, the new president will be totally speechless and unprepared for his "opening speech". Jason's one last year was short and precise: "Hi, my name is Jason Chan". XD. At that time, I was "Who the **** is Jason". I had seen him around before, especially the SP competition, but we are not exactly close.

A little less then one year has passed, and I have made a few close friends (I think...LoL) in the Chess Club, particually the Exco, all the things we went through, although it isn't exactly much compared to some other stuff like SC or whatever, was significant and fun. I definately enjoyed the presence of the Exco, and the entire Chess Club in particular. The seniors, the Juniors....basically everyone.

Our last few hours in the room was just pretty much messing around, and playing Asshole Dai Dee. All in all, it was a pretty fun day for many people. Except, probably for those who did not managed to get into the Exco. 6 slots, but so many possible candiates, it pretty much came down to see whose interview was better. Many were disappointed me, but there were a few which simply shined.

All the best, Chess Club!
--

Recently, British Police accidently murdered someone innocent, because they thought he was carrying a bomb. In the light of the London Attacks, and a second failed attempt, you can't really blame them for shooting the wrong guy.

Or, can you?

This isn't war time. You don't have a "Shoot on sight" orders given out. Yes, they are asked to shoot to "disable" people who are suspected of carrying explosives, but are the police a little too eager to show what they can do to their citizens? I mean, within hours, suspects are arrested, and video footage shown to the world. Of course, no one can exactly be sure who they are. After all, they are considered "suicide bombers", and hence they seldom leave much traces behind. The public will definately ask questions if something isn't done almost immediately, but is such a rash action, such as killing the innocent man really needed?

Yes, to a certain extent. If that guy decided to blow up the explosives hidden in his underwear, taking a few hundred with him, people will be asking as to why the police didn't kill the person outright. Given the choices, the police officers don't exactly have a choice. They can't exactly search him, because he could blow himself up while being searched, nor can they tell him to stop. IIRC, he did run away from the cops, at least that's what reported. (Media is always controlled, remember that...). If that guy stops, he could be preparing to kill others.

So, the officers do not exactly have a choice, but to "disable" that guy.

However, is it really worth it, especially after it's known that he's innocent? That would certainly cause a much bigger backlash. Kind of like a twin-edged sword, where if you don't take him out, he might blow you up, but if you take him out, and he's innocent, you are screwed.

IIRC, the police had held him down. Yes, it's the usual practise, but to shoot a guy in the back? That's a definate no. Since he's already pinned, he could be searched before shot or something. How about the usage of stun guns instead? Don't those disable rather quickly, but do not cause death to the subjects? Currently, these are kinda expensive, and not all officers are issued it. London, after such Devastating attacks, will defiately will pu their officers on a much higer alert then before.

But it's lives we are talking about, damnit. It isn't something which can be replaced. Like a broken vase or whatever. Officers MUST exercise caution, or else, more innocents are murdered. It's just ironic that the officers are killing people they are supposed to protect from.

On the otehr hand, why do terrorists want to bomb some place, especially where there are plenty of innocents around? Bomb a military stuff, and then maybe, just maybe, I understand. But a place where people of their own race and religion walk? It just does not make sense? Are they trying to create enemies everywhere? I mean, Egypt actually condamned the attacks, as did many major islamic countries.

Idiots.

Virgins in heaven? C'mon, how stupid can you get?

In any case, why are Islamic people the main target? I mean, the footage released showed four Middle Eastern people, supposedly the bombers. Why isn't it Indian, Chinese, European or whatever? Why is it everytime someone goes boom, countries point their fingers at Middle Eastern people? I'm not being racist here (although I am), it's just interesting to see that everytime some countries get bombed, everyone looks in the direction of the Middle East first.

Why? It's simply because their credibility is so low. I mean, if Jonny had stolen before, the next time someone's stuff goes missing, Jonny will be the first one to be suspected. It's just sad, because it could be someone else, but due to the countries being rather myopic sometimes, they are always picked on first. Not that they are wrong, I mean, in the end, those who are reponsible are from the middle east, especially in quite a number of western bombings.

No wonder some countries always view a few of the middle eastern countries with a little hatered.

Who wouldn't?